Introduction

Forest management faces multiple challenges centered around long-time sustainability issues, such as forest degradation, decreasing natural resiliency, and divergent or conflicting stakeholder objectives (Lundmark et al. 2021; Mederski et al. 2021; Tang et al. 2023; Walters et al. 2021). Along with advancements in science and technology to improve forest management and better communicate these conflicts, transdisciplinary approaches, which involve stakeholder communities from the first stages of planning to the decision-making process, are increasingly recognized as essential for ensuring solutions are sustainable (Huang et al. 2021; Kask et al. 2018; Krätzig et al. 2021; Azadani 2022; Nasr-Azadani 2022; Nasr-Azadani et al. 2022, 2023). Co-designing management solutions with stakeholders allows for integrating multiple forms of knowledge and values (Jo and Nabatchi 2021; Talley et al. 2016; Wutich et al. 2020). However, despite the importance of sustainable forest management generally, scant attention has been paid to sustainable forest management within the context of tribal knowledge and local communities’ values (Dockry and Langston 2019; Gobster et al. 2021).

A stakeholder is considered any individual or group affected by, or who can potentially affect, the aims and outcomes of a project or decision and can range from the general public and communities to scientists, experts, and decision-makers (Freeman and McVea 2005; Jo and Nabatchi 2021; Nasr-Azadani 2022; Raum et al. 2021). Among all interested parties, local communities and Indigenous people play a significant role in preserving the natural environment, moving towards more sustainable ecosystems, and co-producing knowledge for sustainability planning based on traditional ecological knowledge (Mohd Salim et al. 2023; O'Donoghue et al. 2019; Whyte 2013b). As a result, the inclusion of Indigenous communities in forest conservation and management planning has attracted a rising level of interest from forest managers, academics, and tribal communities as a central part of sustainability efforts (Degai and Petrov 2021; Dockry 2020). For thousands of years, Indigenous communities stewarded landscape before colonization, and their economies, and resources have been supported by forest ecosystems. In the U.S. alone, about 18 million acres of forested land are under the management of 302 Indigenous tribes (Dockry 2012). Moreover, the most challenging social, economic, and ecological concerns faced by natural resource management appear to find solutions in tribal forestry (Dockry 2020; Lawler and Bullock 2017). There are numerous examples of employing Indigenous forest management practices and sustainable management techniques—including harvesting, prescribed fire, and precommercial treatments—to balance multifaceted goals for community well-being and economic development and build resilience to unexpected environmental ruptures (Aryal et al. 2023; Chukwuone et al. 2020; Dockry and Hoagland 2017; Fernandes et al. 2022; Hessburg et al. 2021; Lawler and Bullock 2017).

Perspectives of sustainable forestry differ significantly between Indigenous tribes and Western perspectives. Sustainability science is framed by multiple concepts, including social and environmental systems, integrative and multidisciplinary analyses, and practical applications connecting knowledge to action (Arora-Jonsson 2023; Dockry et al. 2016; Maison 2023). Indigenous knowledge strongly affirms and emphasizes these human and environmental connections and works toward maintaining this link (Krätzig et al. 2021; Virtanen et al. 2015). Moreover, accountability, morality, common law, ownership, and sovereignty are core principles ingrained in Indigenous cultures and languages, offering countless lessons on behaviors and innovations that extend past a Western scientific worldview and that have an inter-generational component. Therefore, Indigenous sustainable development places greater emphasis on equitable and responsible management of shared resources, sustainable Indigenous governance, resilient livelihoods, Indigenous rights, sustainable knowledge systems, and concern for future generations. Indigenous and sustainability sciences can both, separately and collectively, help to identify strategies to maintain resilient and sustainable systems (Johnson et al. 2016; Nasr-Azadani 2022; Nasr-Azadani et al. 2022, 2023). However, one fundamental problem is that the knowledge generated around Indigenous conceptualizations, theories, and epistemologies of sustainability is rarely fully involved in formulating existing sustainable development goals and metrics in the entire scientific community (Bwambale 2023; Degai and Petrov 2021; McGregor 2004). And in turn, although many Indigenous people seek meaningful and culturally suitable methods to comprehend, measure, educate, and practice sustainable development and natural resource management (Corntassel 2008; McGregor 2004; Weaver 2023; Whyte 2013a), the overall lack of Indigenous cultural values, concerns, worldviews, or teachings in mainstream sustainability science poses a challenge for many Indigenous communities.

Accordingly, to reintroduce Indigenous knowledge in sustainability learning and practice, we explored the development of sustainability competencies within the Menominee Nation with a focus on the dimensions of sustainability formalized through their Sustainable Development Institute. The Menominee people have managed natural resources in the area now known as northeast Wisconsin for thousands of years, notwithstanding the impact of colonization and federal attempts to terminate their sovereign status. Figure 1 shows the location of present-day Menominee Nation Reservation and representative landscapes used in this study. The Menominee had overseen sustainable timber supply since 1856 when they began what is widely considered the first sustainable forest operation in the U.S. (Dockry et al. 2016; Kern et al. 2017). Rooted in this long-term experience with land stewardship, both prior to and following colonization, the Sustainable Development Institute (SDI) at the College of Menominee Nation (CMN) articulates a holistic model of sustainable development based on the Menominee experience in the middle of the 1990s (Dockry et al. 2016). The SDI model was created to support dynamic interactions among systems components that were neglected in existing sustainability models. According to Dockry et al. (2016), the model "conceptualizes sustainable development as the process of maintaining the balance and reconciling the inherent tensions among six dimensions of sustainability: (1) land and sovereignty; (2) natural environment; (3) institutions; (4) technology; (5) economics; and (6) human perception, activity, and behavior" (p. 127). Menominee autochthony is a core cultural value and final concept of the model, occupying the center of the hexagon to represent a connection to the land that binds the other six dimensions together.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The location of present-day Menominee Nation Reservation and representative landscapes used in this study (the maps are extracted from Google Earth)

Full size image

Our study focused on the tension between two sustainability dimensions technology (number 4), and human perception, activity, and behavior (number 6). Specifically, we investigated whether virtual technology enhances or impedes the incorporation of cultural beliefs and knowledge, values, experiences, perceptions, and attitudes about sustainable forest management practices and plans (Dockry et al. 2016). To do this, we assessed whether the use of virtual landscape visualization technologies and engagement with place-based forest management scenarios would enable a deeper exploration of Indigenous perceptions, activities, and behaviors toward sustainable forest management. These virtual experiences simulate an actual place and are typically made of a series of still images, 360-degree illustrations, or videos to create an immersive environment.

Landscape visualization and the technology dimension

Many studies have investigated the effectiveness of landscape visualization and shown that these techniques significantly improve the planning process by allowing for participants’ direct involvement (e.g., designing their neighborhoods with planners) (Al-Kodmany 1999; Azadani 2022; Stempel et al. 2023). These tools conquer barriers between experts and laypeople and provide a common language for all contributors with a wide range of interests, including various groups of stakeholders, residents, politicians, experts, managers, and planners (Al-Kodmany 1999; Schroth et al. 2011; Tyrväinen et al. 2006). In other words, visualizations let participants with less knowledge gain a better understanding of a plan and contribute to the discussion, have dialogue, and participate in planning (Warren-Kretzschmar and von Haaren 2014; Nasr-Azadani et al. 2023). They also support spatial awareness and help the public picture different aspects of the landscape (Al-Kodmany 1999; Warren-Kretzschmar and von Haaren 2014). The ability to illustrate alternative futures with varying levels of uncertainty, the possibility of asking "What if?" questions in the search for preferred or acceptable solutions, and observing the consequences of these changes and plans (Huang et al. 2021; Nasr-Azadani et al. 2022; Sheppard 2005) make visualization a unique approach to participatory landscape management. Facilitating conflict resolution and constructing consensus by revealing differences, misunderstandings, and potential agreements are other advantages of these methods (Schroth et al. 2011).

Sustainability competencies and the human perception, activity, and behavior dimension

Competencies are defined in various ways (Baartman et al. 2007) but can generally be considered as the cooperation of knowledge and perspectives with specialized skills. Importantly, competencies are seen to be skills that are achievable and can be developed through experience and effort (de Haan 2006; Lozano et al. 2022; Rieckmann 2012). As Barth et al. (2007) put it, "they are learnable, not teachable" (p. 4). Sustainability competency is defined as having knowledge, skills, and attitudes that enable individuals to take specific actions or behaviors toward the environment (Anderson 2015; Baartman et al. 2007; Barth et al. 2007; Brundiers et al. 2010; Cebrián and Junyent 2015; de Haan 2006; Demssie et al. 2019; Lambrechts et al. 2013; Wiek et al. 2011a, b; Willard et al. 2010). More specifically, Wiek and colleagues (2011a, p. 204) define sustainability competency as "complexes of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that enable successful task performance and problem-solving respecting real-world sustainability problems, challenges, and opportunities." Sustainability competencies have also been variously categorized (see Delphi et al.; Rieckman 2012). Wiek et al. (2011b) summarized competencies into five key skills: Systems Thinking, Anticipatory, Normative, Strategic, and Interpersonal competencies (Fig. 2). Gains in sustainability competencies can be seen as an ambitious knowledge and skill profile as a point of reference, which enables people to be better decision-makers, problem solvers, and game-changers (Wiek et al. 2011a, b). It follows, then, that those who have gained sustainability competencies can play a vital role in moving society toward sustainability through active participation that is reflective and cooperative to the point of balancing ecological, technological, and development objectives (Rieckmann 2012). Systems Thinking, as one of the leading sustainability competencies, is the capacity to think comprehensively; while you decide based on the current situation, you consider the future consequences of your actions. While you see one aspect of an issue, you can observe and discuss other possibilities in other elements (Nasr-Azadani 2020).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Sustainability key competencies and sub-competencies offered by Wiek et al. (2011a, b)

Full size image

Research gap, objectives, and hypotheses

To achieve the objectives, multiple topics have been reviewed including the application of visualization in Indigenous studies, the application of visualization techniques in Systems Thinking, and the integration of Systems Thinking and Indigenous knowledge. This extensive review showed that not that many studies have comprehensively brought these topics together for collaborative sustainable forest management and practice. While sustainability competencies and Systems Thinking are recognized as important in addressing environmental challenges, there is a lack of research on how to integrate traditional ecological knowledge and values from local and Indigenous communities into these competencies. Therefore, this research addresses the need for identifying effective tools to enhance sustainability competencies, particularly the integration of traditional ecological values into competency-based practices. To fill this gap, this research introduces place-based scenarios rooted in conventional forest management and investigates the effectiveness of different visualization methods.

Here, we tested whether virtual interactive experiences can be used to enhance competency-based sustainability education and planning. In a previous review, Nasr-Azadani et al. (2023) found that landscape visualizations that are real, static, still, non-immersive, and 2D, such as realistic images and paintings, are compelling for participatory decision-making in forestry and sustainability studies. Here, we test whether more complex visualizations lead to similar or enhanced improvements in learning, as evidenced by the attainment of key sustainability competencies. We expected that through learning from an interactive 3D experience rooted in traditional values, combined with a soundtrack, participants could better identify a system, its components, and the relationship between these components (Objective 1) and better recognize and understand the system’s dynamics and circular nature, compared to 2D simple images and texts (Objective 2). We also expected that demographic attributes of the participants (age, gender, education, duration of being in the area, and familiarity with the place) would affect participants’ ability to better identify a system, its components, and the relationship between these components (Objective 3). Specifically, we hypothesized that older generations, people with higher education levels, and participants who have lived in the area longer and know the area very well would likely better recognize a system, its components, and the relationship between them, as well as the systems’ dynamic and circular nature.

Materials and methods

In this research, we tested landscape visualization through two sets of visualization interventions: (a) Real, Static, Still, Non-immersive, and 2D through a websiteFootnote 1 containing simple images, maps, and text (will be called the 2D website, hereafter), or (b) a 3D interactive web-based environments with the audio track that is Real, Dynamic, Interactive, Non-immersive, and 3D as the more complex toolFootnote 2 (will be called the 3D virtual tour, henceforth). The 2D website and 3D virtual tour had the same message content, and the 2D website was modeled on the explanatory sequence of the 3D virtual tour. The visual information shows how prescribed fire can be used as a forest management tool in various planning steps. Historically, fire – whether from lightning or Indigenous burning practices – created diverse open habitats called Pine Barrens. Pine Barrens are imperiled both globally and across Wisconsin and neighboring states. Wisconsin land managers recognize the importance of returning fire to the landscape to restore and connect fragments of this now-rare habitat (Steidle-Nix 2022; Steidle et al. 2023). We used conceptual mapping (Gray et al. 2019; Hopper 2007; Maani and Maharaj 2002; Smithwick et al. 2018) and scenario-based assessment tools (Arnold and Wade 2017; Assaraf and Orion 2005, 2010; Dorani et al. 2015; Grohs et al. 2018; Maani and Maharaj 2002) to evaluate Systems Thinking competency.

Study procedure

Participants included members of the Menominee community, including CMN students, staff, and their family members, as well as community members of Menominee Nation. Our audiences received the recruitment materials through the CMN email list and Menominee community Facebook page. A total number of 57 participants were included in the study. We randomly assigned each participant to be exposed to the same series of information using (a) a 2D website or (b) a 3D virtual tour. Following the intervention, participants were asked to respond to three sets of questions through QualtricsXM: (1) Personal information, including age, gender, educational level, familiarity with the area, and the duration of their presence in the area, before the intervention, (2) prompts to create cognitive maps, and (3) their insights on place-based scenarios (Appendix 1).

Cognitive mapping

After the intervention (either a 2D website or a 3D virtual tour), we asked each participant to create a cognitive map of prescribed fire and pine barren restoration. A cognitive map can be defined as any visual representation of a person’s (or a group’s) mental model for a given process or concept. Analyzing these mental maps allows us to understand how visualization has helped them recognize system components and the interconnection between these components. Comparisons among the groups’ average results would determine if more complex and interactive visualization techniques provide a more complex understanding of systems dynamics. Participants were asked to use provided pen and paper to create their cognitive map based on what they had seen and/or read in the intervention. We also offered them a list of words to provide examples of what we are looking for, e.g., Pine Barren/Forest/Thinning/Prescribed Fire/Habitat/Wildlife/Culture, etc. (Appendix 1). We asked participants to select a minimum of five words (either from the provided list or not) to draw all connections these components might have with other components, the directionality of the relationship (positive or negative), and to signify circular connections among multiple components if relevant. Participants were also asked to rank the size effect of the relationship (1–100).

Place-based scenarios

Place-based scenarios are inspired by the local community, environment, culture, history, and other resources as the starting point to express a context. Participants read three scenarios in this part and were asked to reflect on each in 2–5 written sentences. The objective was not to characterize their scientific knowledge but rather their general understanding of ideas within the paragraph. To develop such scenarios and articulate local contexts, we utilized several interviews with elders of the Menominee, conducted previously by Visualizing Forest Future (ViFF) project.Footnote 3 The interviews were about how natural and prescribed fire had been used in the community and the consequences of fire suppression. The three place-based scenarios rooted in Indigenous knowledge are provided in Table 1 (see also Appendix 1).

Table 1 Scenarios in the giving insights on place-based scenarios, what we asked participants to address, and what we expected to hear
Full size table

Making systems thinking measurable

To assess whether Systems Thinking can be improved through the use of visualization, we employed the cognitive hierarchy of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Pappas et al. 2013) (Fig. 3), which has been previously applied to guide and feed assessment techniques (Palmer and Devitt 2007; Pappas et al. 2013; Zaidi et al. 2018) and Systems Thinking skills (Zaidi et al. 2018). This taxonomy involves five cognitive domains to gain, retain, and engage new information: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, and creating (Stanny 2016). Specifically, remembering and understanding include competencies necessary for thinking systemically, i.e., identifying components of a system, recognizing the interconnection between these components, understanding the dynamic and circular nature of a system, etc. (Hopper 2007; Plate and Monroe 2014). We mapped sub-competencies of Systems Thinking to the Remembering and Understanding levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, prioritizing nine distinct but connected thinking skills that flourish in systems thinkers (Table 2 and Fig. 3; Arnold and Wade 2017; Dorani et al. 2015; Evans 2019; Hopper 2007; Huang et al. 2020; López-Alcarria et al. 2019; Maani and Maharaj 2002; Plate and Monroe 2014; Redman et al. 2021; Richmond 1997). The first skill, Dynamic thinking, helps identify the issue. The following four skills, system-as-cause, forest/holistic, cause and effect, and stock and flow thinking, determine what aspects of the problem should be included and investigated in the solution. The other three—operational, closed-loop, and quantitative thinking—play essential roles in offering hypotheses and developing mental models regarding the consequences of the solution. The final skill, Scientific Thinking, helps examine the proposed approaches and models (Córdoba 2004; Peterson 2004; Richmond 1997).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Systems Thinking skills and subgroups rooted in Bloom’s taxonomy

Full size image
Table 2 Systems Thinking skills and their definitions
Full size table

Coding responses

To measure and analyze sustainability competencies related to Systems Thinking, we focused on the Remembering component of Bloom’s Taxonomy, which is built from Closed-Loop and Cause and Effect subgroups related to Systems Thinking. Specifically, we developed a rubric to weigh the cognitive maps and scenario responses based on three aspects: the number of components, the articulated relationship between components, and the circular nature of the components (Table 3). The overall Systems Thinking score is the sum of these elements. We coded each individual’s cognitive map by going through the written responses (Table 3) and coded scenario-based question responses using NVivo 1.6.1. (Table 4). To balance three elements of cognitive map coding, we normalized the number of components each individual mentioned to 10.

Table 3 Closed-loop thinking and cause and effect thinking components
Full size table
Table 4 Holistic, dynamic, system as cause, stock and flow thinking components
Full size table

To analyze the scenario-based responses, we used coding to capture a higher level of Bloom’s taxonomy, Understanding, and the associated Systems Thinking sub-group components (holistic thinking, dynamic thinking, system as cause thinking, and stock and flow thinking, Table 4). Additionally, we included two additional categories of "Acknowledging Knowledge and Science" and the sufficiency of the response in general. The overall Systems Thinking score is the sum of holistic, dynamic, system as cause, stock and flow thinking, with acknowledging knowledge and science minus the sum of irrelevant and no response codes.

Statistical analysis

To compare whether an interactive 3D experience enhances Systems Thinking compared to simple images and texts and how Systems Thinking varies among participants based on visualization method, age, gender, level of education, being in the area, and familiarity with the area, we first used t tests and ANOVA to compare differences among groups. To more deeply explore the interacting drivers of overall Systems Thinking scores, we built decision trees using the partitioning regression model (predictive modelling > partition) (McClean 2003). JMP 16.2.0 was used for all statistical analyses. The research method has been summarized in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Research method summary

Full size image

Results

In all, 57 students, staff, and the Menominee community participated in our study; 52 finished the cognitive mapping section, and 50 finished scenario-based questions. Of the 57 original participants, 29 used the 3D virtual tours and spent an average of 46 min, and 28 visited the 2D website and spent an average of 34 min to gain information. 39 participants were female, 15 were male, and one was genderfluid. 54.5% of our participants had a college degree, 59.6% were between 30 and 50 years old, 38.5% were born in the area, and 70.9% were very familiar with the area (Table 5). The total number of words that 3D Tour participants typed in answer boxes was almost 4500, whereas 2D Website responders typed 3700.

Table 5 Distribution of the number of participants regarding each background information
Full size table

Objective 1: Systems Thinking competencies through remembering (system components and relationships) through cognitive mapping

An example of a cognitive map created by one of the study participants is shown in Fig. 5a. The results showed that participants who used the 3D virtual tour in comparison with those who visited the 2D website scored higher (Fig. 5b t test p value: 0.08 < 0.1, 90% confidence level). This map displays many of the elements that were assessed across all maps, including the number of components picked, the circular and linear relation between these components, and, if any, how they affect each other.

Fig. 5
figure 5

a One example of cognitive mapping; created by one of the participants after experiencing the 3D virtual tour. The scores of this participant are as follows: number of components normalized by 10: 9.4/establishing relations: 9/recognizing circular nature of the system: 9. b The total score of cognitive mapping regarding the tools. 3D virtual tour users had a higher score for the number of systems components each individual mentioned compared to 2D website users (p value: 0.03 < 0.05). Also, the average of establishing relations is higher in 3D virtual experience users by 90% confidence (p value: 0.08 < 0.1)

Full size image

Objective 2: Systems Thinking competencies through understanding (holistic, dynamics, system as cause thinking, and stock and flow thinking) through scenario-based questions

As shown in Fig. 6, the overall Systems Thinking score is significantly higher in 3D virtual tour users (11.7 vs. 7.1). Scores in the 3D virtual tour are significantly higher for holistic, dynamic, and acknowledging knowledge and science and higher but not significant for systems as cause thinking and stock and flow thinking.

Fig. 6
figure 6

The average score of Systems Thinking skills for participants of each visual tool. Virtual tour users had a higher average for dynamic thinking skill (p value: 0.02 < 0.05; 95% confidence), holistic thinking, acknowledging knowledge and science, and overall systems thinking (p value < 0.1; 90%) in scenario-based questions

Full size image

Objective 3: demographic drivers of competency outcomes

The overall score through the 2D website and 3D virtual tour interventions showed that Systems Thinking competencies for Remembering system components and interactions varied significantly with age (F ratio: 5.0103, p value: 0.0019 < 0.05; Fig. 7a), decreasing with increasing age. Specifically, the average score is considerably higher for 18–21-year-olds than those aged 29 and above. Scores were higher for females than males, but this was not statistically significant. The average overall score is higher when participants are educated. Participants who are already in college or have a college degree or teach in the college (graduate level) have higher scores in all components (for overall score F ratio: 3.475, p value: 0.0233 < 0.05; Fig. 7b). People who came to the place a long time ago showed a higher average score. Many participants reported that they were born in the place, left, and then came back. People who went to the area a long time ago had a higher score than those who were born there (p value: 0.0007 < 0.05) and those who were raised there (P value: 0.02 < 0.05; Fig. 7c). Familiarity with the area did not show any effects on the score for components of closed-loop and cause and effect thinking.

Fig. 7
figure 7

a–c The average closed-loop and cause and effect thinking scores regarding age, education level, and duration of being in the area, respectively. d, e The average score of Systems Thinking in scenario-based questions regarding age and education level

Full size image

Similarly, the overall score for Systems Thinking competencies through understanding (place-based scenarios) was significantly higher in participants 18–22 years old (F ratio: 3.6822, p value: 0.0108 < 0.05; Fig. 7d). This difference was also meaningful for all Systems Thinking skills, holistic (F ratio: 5.0888, p value: 0.001 < 0.05), dynamic (F ratio: 6.8624, p-value: 0.0002 < 0.05), system as cause (F ratio: 4.4962, p value: 0.0038 < 0.05) and stock and flow thinking skills (F ratio: 3.5905, p value: 0.0123 < 0.05). No specific pattern was detected in the average of Systems Thinking skills and overall Systems Thinking regarding gender (p value: 0.598 > 0.05). There was a significant difference between Systems Thinking skills scores and overall Systems Thinking regarding the level of education (Fig. 7e). This average was significantly higher for individuals with higher education levels (F ratio: 4.4514, p value: 0.0077 < 0.05). In many cases, the average Systems Thinking skills scores and overall Systems Thinking are higher when participants are already in college (college degree) or teaching in the college (graduate level). The highest third average mainly belongs to elders with No-formal education but a high amount of familiarity with the area. Those with no formal education have higher familiarity with the area and experience, which can justify their higher score. There was no pattern in the Systems Thinking skill score and overall Systems Thinking regarding how familiar participants are with the place or the duration of their presence in the area. The only specific significance was respecting the indigenous knowledge code; this is higher among people who are very or extremely familiar with the area (p value < 0.05).

Collectively, based on the decision tree partitioning analysis, participants who have been in the area for a long time or were raised in the area have a higher overall score if they are 18–39 years old (R2: 0.3). On the other hand, participants born in the area but who left and came back recently, and participants who came to the place recently have a higher score if they are younger than 60 with at least a college-level education. Similarly, the decision tree analysis shows that the average score for 5ynamic thinking skills is higher when participants have at least a college education. The younger these educated groups are, the more dynamic thinkers they are. Among those who are less educated, females have a higher level of dynamic thinking than males. In addition, in general, younger educated people think more systematically. Apparently, for less-educated groups, the 2D website experience better illustrates the context of Systems Thinking (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8
figure 8

Decision tree on overall Systems Thinking and background information

Full size image

Discussion

We examined the effect of visualization techniques to make Systems Thinking and learning more tangible compared to simple texts. The general results of this experiment illustrate the effectiveness of landscape visualization, especially virtual tour, to elucidate Systems Thinking skills that underpin critical sustainability competencies. In addition, we identified participant attributes that appear to support Systems Thinking related to place-based practices, such as having a long duration of residence in the area. Furthermore, this research showed that education and age could affect Systems Thinking skills and components. The younger participants are, and the higher their education level is, the more systematic their thoughts are or can be.

Previous studies have shown that visual data can affect higher analysis and evaluation (Ealy 2016; Eppler and Kernbach 2016; Lindquist et al. 2016; Lovett et al. 2015; Onitsuka et al. 2018; Polys et al. 2018). We extended this analysis to see if those types of visual data are effective in systematically analyzing issues regarding sustainability issues. Eppler and Kernbach (2016) have previously shown that 3D depictions will assist with thinking more holistically and making better-informed decisions. In the work of Wilkie and Clarke (2016), spatial visualization of patterns (landscape visualization) is also discussed as a potential trigger for improving functional thinking. This level of thought includes detecting relationships among multiple representations and generalizing non-linear relationships, which we categorized under identifying systems components and their relationships. Jones et al. (2011) claim that spatial visualization can improve an individual’s cognitive abilities for reasoning about environments at different scales. Gu and Deal (2018) also discussed a two-way relationship between geo-designs (land-use modeling) and Systems Thinking. Although these studies bolster our findings, none of them investigated thinking styles in the context of sustainability and natural resource participatory management, such as we offered in this research.

Regarding cognitive mapping results, since the 1970s, several pieces of literature have declared the effectiveness of visuals in developing people’s cognitive capacity and thinking. In 1980, Arnheim argued that the way we think is linked to our visual presentations. Meaning how we draw our thoughts through a cognitive map represents a summary of our logic and reasoning. These maps can also facilitate the participatory decision-making process by allowing participants to brainstorm and quickly communicate the concept (Kolkman et al. 2005). Öllinger et al. (2015) had a more complicated discussion on causal maps as a subgroup of concept mapping. They argued that theoretical arguments of concept maps’ mechanisms and effects are not profound yet. However, causal maps can still be practical in understanding the problems and better thinking for problem-solving and decision-making. They highly recommend that inexperienced users benefit from an experienced mentor while drawing their first maps to explain what they mean and what they want to show. This practical advice helped us collect higher-quality data since some participants strongly resisted drawing cognitive maps; instead, they preferred to write their thoughts because they were not confident enough to draw their ideas.

In regard to the 3D virtual tour results, as well as higher accuracy and discipline in designing their cognitive maps, can be indicators that virtual tour has been more engaging to audiences. Interactive dynamic 3D methods (like our study stimuli) can increase initial interest in planning and spatial issues—exploring the planning proposals with dynamic displays that continuously change and interactively tracking real-time alterations can be enlightening and informative and improve participants’ understanding of the issue (Ellis and Merdian 2015; Jones et al. 2011; Salter et al. 2009). Seeing how trees are growing or burning, how animals are moving through the landscape, and how water flows could help the viewer feel connected to the landscape, and the effects of the proposed plan on the landscape become more tangible (i.e., prescribed fire in this research). Also, the interactivity offers attractive possibilities for engagement, awareness building, and reaching the viewer’s emotions (Sheppard 2005), meanwhile providing an impactful platform for learning complex Systems Thinking contexts around sustainability (Smithwick et al. 2018). Another successful employment of interactive visualized methods in forest management can be found in the works of Cristal et al. (2019), Smith et al. (2012), which agree with our findings on the efficacy of these tools. Some of the participants’ comments on how the dynamic interactive video was an engaging and enjoyable experience while helpful in learning about sustainable forestry.

"This was a good tool. Very helpful and informative and thought-provoking…", "I like the virtual tour. It was very knowledgeable…", "…very interesting and interactive.", "Cool tour. I loved the feet when I was in the air and looked down. Lots of great information…" "… I really like the simulation….", "I learned many new things today…."

The growing utilization of games in all shapes, especially computer games, for addressing essential issues is emerging in many fields. The 3D virtual tour we engaged in this research was partly developed using a video game engine or video game designing software. In a recent paper, Bengston et al. (2018) used a game called IMPACT to help forestry professionals and stakeholders think more broadly, critically, and creatively about forest futures. This game was designed to enhance holistic perspectives on natural resource management and forestry to help players broaden their thinking about alternative plans in forest management. Like what we concluded here, this game enabled players to think systemically to affect forestry in the future. Whilst our results align with what they have concluded about the effects of gaming on improving Holistic and Dynamic thinking, there is a downside to gaming which we also experienced in our study. Some participants resist games and playful thinking, especially in communities with more traditional values, as well as in older generations (Bengston et al. 2018).

In addition to visualization techniques, two other factors influenced Systems Thinking in our study: Age and Level of Education. Our study showed that people who are already engaged in higher education, either students or professors and instructors in college, have a higher level of Systems Thinking. As previously mentioned, sustainability and competency-based studies have been traditionally focused on higher education (i.e., Huang et al. 2020; Lozano et al. 2022; Membrillo-Hernández et al. 2021; Moreno-Pino et al. 2021; Solís-Espallargas and Morón-Monge 2020; Žalėnienė and Pereira 2021). Also, in many cases, literature has shown no direct relationship between the level of education and practicing sustainability. The results of our study can be an indicator that sustainability competency-based education focuses on k-12 and higher education in recent years may have improved sustainability competencies among students and at this education level but may be less effective for the general populace. In general, further research is required for a more extended period to prove these assertions more strongly.

Concerning the effect of participants’ age, we generally saw that younger individuals demonstrated more systemic thinking. Although some literature has discussed that brain capability for analytical functioning declines with age (Peng et al. 2018), our results do not mean that elders do not think systemically; rather, it can be a direct result of elders’ difficulties in engaging our 3D visual tour. Anecdotal conversations with elders prior to and after the experience showed us how knowledgeable they were about the area. Also, Systems Thinking is embedded in the community’s culture and history, which has kept the forest biodiverse and productive for a long time (Bang et al. 2007; Dockry et al. 2016; Kern et al. 2017; Pecore 2017; Tribal et al. 2019). Ensuring visualization tools and research methods are designed across a diverse set of audiences’ competencies, preferences, and comfort is thus critically important. For instance, interviews, focus groups, and storytelling may be complementary methodologies that could be coupled with visualization tools to improve decision-making and manage future consequences of our decisions (Creed et al. 2021), embracing a fuller range of sustainability competencies because elders found it more challenging to engage with the technology.

Research limitations

This study may possess certain limitations. First, due to funding and COVID-19 limitations, our interaction with audiences was restricted to a single intervention, so longer-term perspectives may not have been fully captured. Future studies would benefit by having a repetitive intervention over more extended periods (Arneson and Offerhahl 2018). Also, since the study was situated within a particular cultural, social, or geographical context and focused on a specific community with limited sample size, the generalizability of the findings to other populations or regions might be restricted. Moreover, the coding and data analysis were based on the researchers’ own perspectives and biases. However, the research team attempted to reduce these biases by incorporating input from several individuals when coding and evaluating the credibility of the analysis. In addition, our research focused on specific virtual landscape visualization technologies, which only represent part of the spectrum of available tools. In our case, the visualization was found to be challenging to engage the elders in the community, and may even have been intimidating, perhaps due to unfamiliarity resulting from limited prior exposure to such tools. Additionally, cultural and generational differences could have created barriers to technology acceptance, as traditional knowledge and practices are deeply rooted in the Menominee way of life. In some instances, there might have been language barriers, leading to confusion and frustration, and future research should consider conducting the experiment in the Menominee language. While our research did not address all these limitations, our findings offer insight into new modes of engagement with 3D technologies that may deepen learning and engagement of sustainability across knowledge systems.

Nourishing decision-making by integration of Indigenous knowledge and Systems Thinking

The Menominee Nation possesses a wealth of ecological knowledge that has been passed down through generations, encompassing a deep understanding of the environment’s interconnections. Acknowledging the importance of Indigenous knowledge and its incorporation into decision-making processes, this research made an effort to introduce and develop approaches to capture this knowledge within a Systems Thinking framework. These approaches evolve fostering partnerships and collaborations that prioritize the inclusion of Indigenous voices in decision-making for land management, conservation, and sustainability. Also, through interdisciplinary collaborations, including ecology, anthropology, Indigenous studies, and systems science, as well as participatory approaches that value the engagement of community members and promote co-learning and co-creation of knowledge, Systems Thinking can create a more inclusive framework that respects the unique insights and perspectives of the Menominee Nation. Another approach that this research recommends is to value long-term observations and intergenerational learning, to provide a nuanced understanding of ecological systems’ dynamics. Our results indicate that inclusive participatory methodologies that address a broader range of systems perspectives can more fully describe the decision space. By effectively capturing and incorporating this ecological knowledge, Systems Thinking expands its scope and acknowledges the Menominee Nation’s values and priorities to eventually nourish decision-making processes.

This research implicitly declares recognition of ecological knowledge held by the Menominee Nation can be achieved through deepened engagement and collaboration between the Menominee Nation and relevant government agencies or organizations, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of ecological systems and the promotion of sustainable practices. Inclusive policies that recognize Indigenous rights foster participatory decision-making, invest in capacity-building and knowledge exchange, and integrate Indigenous knowledge and Systems Thinking into governance structures are recommended. These can include the development of culturally sensitive resource management strategies, ensuring inclusive and participatory processes, investing in capacity-building, encouraging collaborative research, promoting adaptive management, and allocating sufficient resources and funding. We posit that these can be advanced through visualization and similar methodologies that enable inclusive and reciprocal dialogue. In so doing, it is possible to involve Indigenous communities as holistic partners in the decision-making processes, respecting their self-determination and contributing to their empowerment and well-being. By supporting the transmission of traditional ecological knowledge, policies can preserve cultural heritage and contribute to the long-term sustainability of ecosystems.

Conclusion

In this research, we proposed a framework to measure Systems Thinking and its components using landscape visualization. This research also aimed to enhance decision-making opportunities for tribal communities by providing clear routes to recognizing and acknowledging their identity concerning the land and their local, traditional, and cultural values. The strength of our research is embedded within the integration of traditional knowledge about management strategies (i.e., low-intensity, prescribed fire) with sustainability competencies and decision-making capacity that exists in local communities and potential in Tribal Colleges and Universities students as the future leaders of sustainable planning. There are many examples of how sustainability is embedded in Indigenous Nations’ decision-making processes and land management, especially Menominee, with a long history in successful sustainable forestry and planning.

Engaging Indigenous knowledge, we designed visualizations to communicate local understanding and institutional values that affect human perception, activity, and behavior, to promote the quality of natural resources and environment in search of a better economy, healthier community, and a stronger connection with the land. Since there has been little research on sustainability education at Tribal Colleges and Universities (Dockry et al. 2016), this research indicates that showing visualization may be an entry point for deeper understanding and exploration of the sustainability model (Dockry 2020). Notably, it can create a platform for the CMN students and local communities to explore systems context and how different system elements are connected, and where educational models can help reinforce connections among dynamics that are not yet fully expressed or understood. Given the affinity of younger participants to engage more fully with the visualization experience, these and similar tools may be a way to enhance intergenerational learning about sustainability (Liu et al. 2020; Wang and Cosley 2014). Also, benefiting from this advantage, the six dimensions of the Menominee Theoretical Model of Sustainability, their interactions, and how they have co-evolved through time can better be presented. Seeing the dimensions more tangibly, younger generations and students will grasp that sustainability affects all facets of life, fostering a holistic, systematic perspective that enables them to integrate their values, cultures, and local and western knowledge on sustainability (Dockry et al. 2016), which can be considered as the final goal for sustainable development model and education.