A systems approach to the sustainability–peace nexus

Abstract

This paper uses a systems approach to model the coherence and linkages between peace and sustainability. These two interconnected dynamic states emerge from the interaction of multiple systems and subsystems and unfold in a landscape of specific context and scale. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all unified and optimized static state of peace, the same way as there are no individual united and optimized stationary states of sustainability or sustainability–peace coherence. Each has “to be read as a plural.” Studies have shown that these states are difficult to conceptualize for different scales and contexts, let alone quantity. The paper first reviews several definitions of sustainability and peace, and explores their linkages at the community scale. Guidelines for a systems approach to address sustainability, peace, and their nexus are suggested. A generic system dynamics model is proposed as an aid to capture, albeit with a high level of abstraction, the complex dynamics between sustainability and peace.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Issues_and_Advocacy/Our_Initiatives/Sustainability/Content_Pieces/envision-credit-list.pdf.

  2. 2.

    Values of country GPIs can be found at http://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index/.

  3. 3.

    https://exchange.iseesystems.com/public/bernardamadei/dynamicppidomains/

References

  1. Amadei B (2014) Engineering for Sustainable Human Development. ASCE Press, Reston, VA

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amadei B (2019b) A systems approach to modeling the water-energy-land-food nexus: System dynamics modeling and dynamic scenario planning. Momentum Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amadei B (2019a) Engineering for peace and diplomacy, Sustainability, 11(20). https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5646

  4. Amadei B (2020) Revisiting positive peace using systems tools. J. of Technology Forecasting and Social Change. 2020, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120149

  5. Amadei B (2021) An integrated approach to peace and resource security. Accepted for publication in Int. J. of System Dynamics Applications, 11(3).

  6. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2013) The role of the civil engineer in sustainable development. http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Government_Relations/State_Government_Relations/Sustainability%20State%20Issue%20Brief.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb. 2014.

  7. Arcade, J. Godet, M. Meunier, F. and Roubelat F. (2014) Structural analysis with the MICMAC method and the Actor’s strategy with the MACTOR method. In Introduction to the futures methods research series. Futures research methodology, v3.0, The Millennium Project, Washington, DC.

  8. Backer DA, Huth PK (2016) The Peace and Conflict Instability Ledger: Ranking States on Future Risks. In: Backer D, Bhavnani R, Huth P (eds) Peace and Conflict 2016. Routledge, New York, pp 128–131

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ben-Eli M (2018) Sustainability: definition and five core principles: a systems perspective. Sustain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0564-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Benson T, Marlin S (2017) The habit-forming guide to becoming a systems thinker. The Waters Foundation Systems Thinking Group Publ, Pittsburgh, PA

    Google Scholar 

  11. Boutros-Ghali B (1992) An agenda for peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, and peacekeeping. International Relations 11(3):201–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bush, K. (1998) A measure of peace: peace and conflict impact assessment (PCIA) of development projects in conflict zones. In Peacebuilding and Reconstruction Program Initiative, International Development Research Center – Canada. Ottawa and Johannesburg. http://conflictsensitivity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Measure_of_Peace.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan. 2020.

  13. Castellani, B. (2013) Map of the Complexity Sciences. Art and Science Factory. Accessed December 5.1:928–940. Vienna: The Austrian Institute of Technology Press. http://scimaps.org/mapdetail/map_of_complexity_sc_154 Accessed 1 June 2020.

  14. Checkland P, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action: Soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers, and students. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dews, F. (2013) UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson: No peace without development, no development without peace. Brookings, October 17. Retrieved from: www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2013/10/17/un-deputy-secretary-general-jan-eliasson-no-peace-without-development-no-development-without-peace Accessed 15 March 2019.

  16. Dietrich W (2012) Interpretations of Peace in History and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fischer, D. (2007) Peace as a self-regulating process. In Handbook of peace and conflict studies (C. Webel and J. Galtung, Eds), Chapter 13, Routledge, NY.

  18. Ford A (2010) Modeling the environment. Press, Washington, DC, Island

    Google Scholar 

  19. Forrester, J. W. (1971) World dynamics. (second edition in 1973). Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

  20. Frej, W. and Ramalingam, B. (2011) Foreign policy and complex adaptive systems: Exploring new paradigms for analysis and action. Santa Fe Institute paper 2011–06–022, 2011.

  21. Galtung J (1964) An editorial. Journal of Peace Research 1(1):1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Galtung J (1990) Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research 27(3):291–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Grewal BJ (2003) Johan Galtung: Positive and negative peace. Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, School of Social Science

    Google Scholar 

  24. Groff, L. (2008) Contributions of different cultural-religious traditions to different aspects of peace – Leading to a holistic, integrative view of peace for a 21st century independent world. FUTUREtakes, Vol. 7 No. 1.

  25. Hjorth P, Bagheri A (2006) Navigating towards sustainable development: A system dynamics approach. Future 38:74–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hughes BB (2016) International Futures (IFs) and integrated, long-term forecasting of global transformations. Futures 81:98–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Humpleby SA, Dent EB (1999) The origins and purposes of several traditions in systems theory and cybernetics. Int J Cybernetics and Systems 30:79–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. IEP (Institute for Economics & Peace) (2017) Positive peace report 2017: Tracking peace transitions through a systems thinking approach. Report number 54, IEP: Sydney, Australia.

  29. IEP (Institute for Economics & Peace) (2018) Global Peace Index 2018: Measuring peace in a complex world. Available online: http://visionofhumanity.org/reports (accessed October 1 2018).

  30. IEP (Institute for Economics & Peace) (2019) Global Peace Index 2019: Measuring peace in a complex world. http://visionofhumanity.org/reports. Accessed 1 Oct 2018.

  31. IEP (Institute for Economics & Peace) (2020a) Global Peace Index 2020: Measuring peace in a complex world. http://visionofhumanity.org/reports Accessed 14 June 2020.

  32. IEP (Institute for Economics & Peace) (2020b) COVID-19 and Peace. Available online: http://visionofhumanity.org/reports . Accessed 14 June 2020.

  33. ISI (Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure) (2020) Envision. Sustainable Infrastructure Report. Version 3.0. https://v3.sustainableinfrastructure.org/uploads/user-materials/6e23716858c46844adfc57f13026a826.pdf.

  34. Kotob, F. (2011). What is sustainability? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282184670_What_Is_Sustainability. Accessed 1 Oct. 2020.

  35. Lu, J. (2020) What Will COVID-19 do to the Sustainable Development Goals? https://www.undispatch.com/what-will-covid-19-do-to-the-sustainable-development-goals/ Accessed 1 June 2020.

  36. Meadows D (2008) Thinking in systems. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT

    Google Scholar 

  37. Muscat, M.J. (2014) Peace and conflict: Engineering responsibilities and opportunities. Proceedings of the ASEE North-Midwest Section Conference, Iowa City, IA, 16–17 October.

  38. NAE (National Academy of Engineering) (2018) NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering. Available online: www.engineeringchallenges.org. Accessed 20 Sept 2018.

  39. OECD Water and violent conflict. Issues Brief. Available online: http://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/deza/en/documents/themen/fragile-kontexte/92767-water-violent-conflict_EN.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2019.

  40. Rahmandad, H. and Sterman, J. (n.d.) System dynamics or agent-based models? Wrong question! Seek the right level of aggregation. https://www.systemdynamics.org/assets/docs/sdorabm.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2020.

  41. Richmond B (2004) An introduction to systems thinking. STELLA software. isee Systems Inc, Lebanon, NH

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ricigliano R (2012) Making peace last: A toolbox for sustainable peacebuilding. Paradigm Publishers, Boulder CO

    Google Scholar 

  43. Riley, D. (2008) Engineering and social justice. Morgan & Claypool Publ.: San Diego, CA.

  44. Ritchie-Dunham, J. L. (1997) Initiating management dialog using a summary presentation that integrates the findings from multiple system dynamics analytical tools. Proc. Int. System Dynamics Conference, Istanbul, Ref#087.

  45. Rotmans J, deVries B (eds) (1997) Perspectives on global change: The TARGETS approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G. (2019) Sustainable Development Report 2019. New York: Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN).

  47. Simon, H. A. (1972) Theories of bounded rationality. In Decision and Organization (pp. 161–176), C. B. McGuire and R. Radner, eds., North-Holland Pub., Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

  48. Sohofi, S. A. et al. (2016) System archetypes in the conceptualization phase of water-energy-food-nexus modeling. 34th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society: Black Swans and Black Lies: System Dynamics in the Context of Randomness and Political Power-play, Delft, Netherlands, Volume 34.

  49. Stearns PN (2014) Peace in world history. Routledge, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sterman J (2000) Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin, McGraw Hill, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  51. Sumner A, Hoy C, Ortiz-Juarez E (2020) Sumner, Estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on global poverty. United Nations University, WIDER, April

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) (2020) Indicators and a monitoring framework: Launching a data revolution for the sustainable development goals. https://indicators.report. Accessed 3 Feb 2020.

  53. The Sustainability Laboratory (2014). Martina Bustos: A sustainability blueprint for community development. https://www.colorado.edu/center/mortenson/sites/default/files/attached-files/gsf_mb_master_5.pdf. Accessed on 15 October 2020.

  54. United Nations (UN) (2015) A/RES/70/1. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E . Accessed 7 June 2020.

  55. United Nations (UN) (2019) Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The Future is Now – Science for Achieving Sustainable Development, United Nations, New York. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/globalsdreport/2019. Accessed 8 June 2020.

  56. United Nations (UN) (2020) Shared responsibility, global security: Responding to the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19. https://unsdg.un.org/resources/shared-responsibility-global-solidarity-responding-socio-economic-impacts-covid-19. Accessed 2 June 2020.

  57. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (1992) Agenda 21. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2017.

  58. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2020) COVID-19 and human development: Assessing the crisis, envisioning the recovery. UNDP, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  59. Virji H, Sharifi A, Kaneko S et al (2020) The sustainability–peace nexus in the context of global change. Sustain Sci 14:1467–1468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00737-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Willis HH et al (2016) Developing the Pardee RAND Food-Energy-Water Nexus. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA

    Google Scholar 

  61. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, WCED

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernard Amadei.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Handled by Dahlia Simangan, Hiroshima University Network for Education and Research on Peace and Sustainability A601, Advanced Science of Matter, Hiroshima.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amadei, B. A systems approach to the sustainability–peace nexus. Sustain Sci (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00902-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Peace
  • Sustainability
  • Complex systems
  • System dynamics
  • Sustainability–peace nexus