Ethical considerations of using system dynamics in participatory settings: a social-ecological-systems perspective

NOTES AND INSIGHTS Ethical considerations of using system dynamics in participatory settings: a social-ecological-systems perspective Henry Amorocho-Daza, a,b *Pieter van der Zaag a,b and Janez Suˇ snik a Abstract The social-ecological systems (SES) approach elicits a broad understanding of some of the most pressing socionatural challenges (e.g. resource scarcity, biodiversity loss, and climate change) and the responsibility that humans have in addressing them. System dynamics has proven a powerful paradigm for dealing with complex SES-related issues. Here we discuss some ethical considerations of using system dynamics (SD) to model SES, something that is often either overlooked or discussed as an isolated issue. Sustainable development and human rights are used as ethical standpoints across the modelling cycle, opening the discussion around guiding principles that need to be considered when modelling SES. Based on these, a set of guiding ethical questions are identified and classified across a participatory SD modelling cycle. This structured approach is a simple yet potentially useful tool for SD practitioners to examine the ethical implications of their modelling endeavours in the context of grand societal challenges. Copyright © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 40, e1755 (2024) Introduction Questions of sustainability have been central to system dynamics (SD) practice throughout the history of the field. World Dynamics (Forrester, 1971)and Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972) were key in illustrating the impossibility of pursuing infinite economic growth and consumption on a finite planet (Meadows and Meadows, 2007; Randers, 2000), both of which used SD as the modelling paradigm. More than 50 years later, the sustainable development paradigm is now at the centre of the global political agenda (UN General Assembly, 2015), aiming to balance social, economic, and environmental dimensions by taking an intergenerational perspective (Sachs, 2012;United Nations, 1987). System dynamics continues to be relevant in addressing today’s global sustainability challenges (Hjorth and Bagheri, 2006; Moallemi et al., 2021; Randers, 2000). For instance, a recent review identifies SD applications across all 17 U.N. sustainable development goals (Moallemi et al., 2021). a Land and Water Management Department, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, 3015, 2601DA, Delft, The Netherlands b Water Management Department, Delft University of Technology, 5, 2600 AA, Delft, The Netherlands * Correspondence to: Henry Amorocho-Daza, Land and Water Management Department, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, PO Box 3015, 2601DA Delft, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] Accepted by Luis Felipe Luna-Reyes, Received 15 March 2023; Revised 11 August 2023 and 24 October 2023; Accepted 7 November 2023 System Dynamics Review System Dynamics Review vol 40, No 2 (April/June 2024): e1755 Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/sdr.1755 1of22 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This reflects SD’s strength to deal with a broad spectrum of “big issues”or “grand societal challenges”(Kwakkel and Pruyt, 2013; Lane, 2010), as varied as climate change, fisheries, biodiversity conservation, forest fires, water planning, air quality, and waste management, among many others (Collins et al., 2013; Dudley, 2008; Fiddaman, 2002;Ford,2010;Stave,2010). Efforts towards sustainable development should recognise the deeply intertwined nature of human and natural systems (Folke et al., 2016). This idea has been articulated in the concept of social-ecological systems (SES), understood as “interdependent and linked systems of people and nature” (Fischer et al., 2015, p. 145). SES are complex systems nested across multiple interacting scales (e.g. landscape, regional, and global scales) embedded in the biosphere (Fischer et al., 2015; Folke et al., 2021; Preiser et al., 2018). A sustainable development approach aligned with an SES perspective considers that “economic activities are part of the social domain, and both economic and social actions are constrained by the environment”(Wu, 2013, p. 1003). A SES approach is helpful to understand some of the most pressing current sustainability challenges, including climate change, environmental deterioration, and biodiversity loss, (Díaz et al., 2019; Folke et al., 2021; Nelson et al., 2006; Rockström et al., 2009). Designing and implementing policies that deal with such systems is a nontrivial and complex task (de Gooyert et al., 2016; Kelly et al., 2013). The long-term and holistic focus of SD is helpful in addressing SES-related issues (Elsawah et al., 2017; Kelly et al., 2013). SES interventions often rely on simplistic and short-term perspectives leading to policy choices that are ineffective in reaching their intended objectives, e.g. due to policy resistance, or may even have serious unintended consequences (Collins et al., 2013; Pahl-Wostl, 2007; Sterman, 2006; Sterner et al., 2006). These issues stem from the human-bounded rationality to understand the feedback structures that drive complex systems’behaviour (Sterman, 2002). System dynamics simulation tools offer an alternative to these practices by aiming to capture the systemic structure of an SES problem to subsequently explore its long-term pathways under diverse policy actions (Ford, 2010; DixsonDeclève et al., 2022; Sterman, 2000). Despite the aforementioned capabilities, here we argue that using SD in the context of complex global socioenvironmental challenges has implications in terms of participation and ethics. In this article, we use an SES lens to explore these implications. The social element of SES calls for participation, and a participatory process opens up ethical concerns and dilemmas. Despite our analysis focusing on the interface between human and environmental systems, our insights remain relevant for SD applications in the context of wider issues (e.g. health, education, migration, climate change, etc.). Therefore, this article’s approach of integrating participatory and ethical dimensions does not limit it to SES but can be extended to a wider set of grand societal challenges (e.g. achieving the SDGs). 2of22 System Dynamics Review © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. DOI: 10.1002/sdr 10991727, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdr.1755 by Spanish Cochrane National Provision (Ministerio de Sanidad), Wiley Online Library on [16/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License The social dimension of SES highlights the importance of developing SD models in a participatory manner. Engaging stakeholders is imperative as they are either interested or affected parties in addressing an SES problem (Kir aly and Miskolczi, 2019;Stave,2002). System dynamics participatory approaches, like group model building, have a long tradition in organisational contexts and may offer important insights in the context of SES (Hovmand, 2014; Luna-Reyes et al., 2006;Rouwetteet al., 2002). Yet, SD participatory approaches in socioenvironmental issues remain relatively sparse (Stave, 2002,2010;Videiraet al., 2009;Videiraet al., 2012). For instance, a recent review shows that 70 percent of peer-reviewed SD applications in the context of sustainable development do not report any form of participation (Moallemi et al., 2021). System dynamics practitioners should address the issue of stakeholder participation as a general calling to socioenvironmental modelling approaches (Voinov and Bousquet, 2010; Voinov et al., 2016). This sparseness reiterates our ambition of making the principles in this article with its focus on SES applicable to other modelling foci. Second, modelling people and the environment goes beyond technicalities and has ethical implications. The SD modelling cycle often gathers modellers and stakeholders with the task of translating “real-world”issues into conceptual and quantitative models to use them to support policy choices or discussions (Freebairn et al., 2019). This process is a complex social construction that is far from objective (Vennix, 2000). It involves activities of judgement, prioritisation, pondering, negotiation, and simplification. Hence, SD models incorporate the values and worldviews of the persons that take an active role in their development (Palmer, 2017). This raises ethical implications that should be explicitly considered and discussed (Nabavi et al., 2017; Pruyt and Kwakkel, 2007). Ethically transparent SD modelling approaches are therefore necessary in the context of SES and beyond. This article, though using SES as a lens, aims to be useful as an entry point for SD modellers to consider participation and ethics in the context of grand societal challenges. More specifically, we focus on the often-disregarded ethical dimension of SD modelling, illustrated through a socioenvironmental lens. We argue that a structured ethical reflection can take place in the context of any general SD participatory modelling process. We propose two ethical standpoints for SD applications in SES, namely sustainable development and human rights. These standpoints rely on important principles that are helpful to guide SD practice and can be operationalised in the form of ethical questions. In short, the practice of translating relevant guiding principles as a collection of ethical questions should be considered across any SD participatory process to explore the ethical implications of modelling the complex socioenvironmental challenges of our time. H. Amorocho-Daza, P. van der Zaag and J. Suˇ snik:Ethical considerations of using SD in participatory settings 3of22 © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. DOI: 10.1002/sdr 10991727, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdr.1755 by Spanish Cochrane National Provision (Ministerio de Sanidad), Wiley Online Library on [16/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License An ethical lens to modelling SES Ethics and system dynamics Ethics is a branch of philosophy that reflects on morals (Kirchschlaeger, 2021), being concerned with what is morally good and bad, right and wrong (Singer, 2022). In simpler words, ethics is “a general concept referring to the way we think about normative issues”(Ormerod and Ulrich, 2013,p.293). Ethics questions what ought to be (i.e. to what end, on what grounds, and why) “in a rational, logically coherent, methodological-reflective, and systematic way”(Kirchschlaeger, 2021,p.31).Therefore,anethicalstancecanbeusedto systematically scrutinise the values underlying human actions as well as their consequences (Ormerod and Ulrich, 2013; Rachels and Rachels, 2019). An applied ethics perspective is fundamental to discern the practical implications of current (and future) human endeavours and to question and help to shape them (Kirchschlaeger, 2021). Applied ethics has been used in multiple problems and disciplines (Chadwick, 2012), yet few works have taken such perspective in SD and related fields (e.g. operational research) (Ormerod and Ulrich, 2013; Pruyt and Kwakkel, 2007; Rauschmayer et al., 2009). The present article takes an applied ethics perspective by looking at the practice of SD modelling from an ethical lens. Ethics is pervasive across the SD practice. This is evident explicitly and implicitly in various ways: in SD theory and practice (e.g. due to SD pragmatic focus on what an issue “ought”to be (Nabavi et al., 2017)); in SD models (e.g. as constructs embedding values of their crafters (Palmer, 2017)); in the professional conduct of SD practitioners (e.g. System Dynamics Society Code of Conduct (System Dynamics Society, 2019)); and in SD institutions (e.g. System Dynamics Society’s mission and vision (System Dynamics Society, 2023)). However, the discussion around the ethical considerations of SD remains limited and implicit. Few authors have raised concerns about this, and a more open discussion about the ethical dimension within SD is needed (Palmer, 2017; Pruyt and Kwakkel, 2007). Perhaps one of the most important realisations to start deliberating about the ethical implications of SD models is to understand them as “engineered” artefacts (Olaya, 2014). As such, models are built with a purpose (Olaya, 2016) and are not neutral (Katz, 2011). They rather are ethically charged entities (Palmer, 2017), embedding the values and worldviews of their crafters. In this line, Palmer (2017) asserts that the moral value of an SD model is evident through the consequences of its practical use (e.g. policy design and implementation). Nevertheless, it is important to realise that the ethical implications of an SD model would depend on the extension of the system boundary that it represents. A system boundary can define a fairly simple system that does not raise important ethical concerns, but as a boundary extends to consider socioenvironmental elements, ethical 4of22 System Dynamics Review © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. DOI: 10.1002/sdr 10991727, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdr.1755 by Spanish Cochrane National Provision (Ministerio de Sanidad), Wiley Online Library on [16/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License considerations become more critical (Nabavi et al., 2017). The above raises important implications for any participatory approach, with both modellers and stakeholders taking an active and deliberative role during the modelbuilding process. Ethical motivations for sustainable development and SES There are various implicit or explicit motivations for taking a sustainable development perspective to manage SES. A first example can be understood as an ethic of survival. Early SD practitioners illustrate such concepts by suggesting that unsustainable resources exploitation might cause future population overshoot and collapse (Forrester, 1971; Meadows et al., 1972). More recently, leading earth scientists have raised similar arguments suggesting that large human-driven environmental changes are surpassing lifesupporting “planetary boundaries,”posing an existential threat to human civilization (Folke et al., 2021; Rockström et al., 2009). Extreme scenarios such as these challenge both human and other life forms and raise ethical concerns regarding the responsibility and care that humans should have towards the preservation of life from an intergenerational perspective (Berti, 2014). Beyond survival, various authors have highlighted that justice and human dignity need to be considered in the context of sustainable development. Leach et al.( 2018) argue that a SES perspective demonstrates the intertwined nature of equity and sustainability. Along a similar line, Gupta et al. (2023) propose that planetary boundaries should consider justice and aim to reduce harm, increase basic resources access, and challenge inequalities from an intergenerational perspective. To do so, human rights should protect human dignity by setting a minimum level of access to critical resources for people now and in the future (Gupta et al., 2023; Kirchschlaeger, 2020). Nevertheless, ethical implications arising from considering the value of nonhuman nature need more attention and could also be considered in a larger framework of “biosphere”responsibility (Folke et al., 2016; Jax et al., 2013). From the above follows that SES issues are not just “environmental,”and that their “social”element has many ethical implications. Recent reports recognise this issue by pointing out that the deep drivers for environmental change lie in people’s values and behaviours (Díaz et al., 2019). Donella Meadows already argued in a similar way by pointing out that deep levers to intervene in a system lie in the dimensions of design (i.e. social structures and institutions) and intent (i.e. values, goals, and worldviews) (Abson et al., 2017; Meadows, 1999). Therefore, as Chan et al.) summarised: “transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling-up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems”(2020, p. 694). H. Amorocho-Daza, P. van der Zaag and J. Suˇ snik:Ethical considerations of using SD in participatory settings 5of22 © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. DOI: 10.1002/sdr 10991727, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdr.1755 by Spanish Cochrane National Provision (Ministerio de Sanidad), Wiley Online Library on [16/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Reflexive SD practice should engage more explicitly with such ethical motivations and deep drivers of change (i.e. values and behaviours) in the context of contemporary grand social challenges. Simulation models can become spaces where abstract ethical concepts (i.e. justice) are considered in a more tangible way. For example, considering the issue of intergenerational justice with respect to access to resources, an SD model can be an entry point to discuss questions such as how to avoid potential long-term policy maladaptation? or how to define “minimum levels of resources”for different groups and across generations? In that way, models can be used as deliberation spaces of desirable futures. Two ethical standpoints in SD modelling of SES In dealing with social-environmental challenges, a sustainable development paradigm is not value neutral (Holden et al., 2017). First, it relies on principles such as intra/intergenerational justice and the precautionary principle (Paterson, 2007; Spijkers, 2018). Hence, designing sustainability policies requires an open deliberation about these principles in order to operationalise them (Karlsson, 2007; McDermott et al., 2013). Second, as humans are at the centre of sustainable development, human rights need to be considered in the context of sustainability (Kirchschlaeger, 2021). This is evident since the UN General Assembly (2022) recently recognised the human right to “a clean, healthy and sustainable environment,”implying that every human being is not only a right holder but also a duty bearer towards a sustainable environment. Thus, an ethical lens is necessary to guide sustainability practice (Holden et al., 2017; Leach et al., 2018;de Vries, 2019). Here we propose sustainable development and human rights as general ethical standpoints for coping with SES, and particularly for using SD to model SES. Sustainable development Sustainable development has its ethical roots in various principles, most evident of which is arguably the principle of intraand intergenerational justice which strive for equality or equal treatment of humans within and across generations (Kirchschlaeger, 2021). Intergenerational justice demands that each generation should consider succeeding generations “to satisfy their needs, to avoid serious harm and to have the opportunity to enjoy things of value” (Thompson, 2010, p. 6). Reaching intergenerational justice implies addressing the issue of justice in the present generation (i.e. intragenerational justice) (Sen, 2011;deVries,2019) while focusing on today’s children as a generational bridge with future generations (Berti, 2014; Thompson, 2010). This continuum is necessary to achieve transformational pathways of “equitable sustainability” 6of22 System Dynamics Review © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. DOI: 10.1002/sdr 10991727, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdr.1755 by Spanish Cochrane National Provision (Ministerio de Sanidad), Wiley Online Library on [16/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License (Leach et al., 2018). It is noteworthy that various authors have used the concept of equity, both intraand intergenerational, as strongly related to justice in the context of sustainability (Leach et al., 2018). Notable applications can be found in the fields of conservation (Klein et al., 2015; Schreckenberg et al., 2016; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017), payment for ecosystemservices(McDermott et al., 2013), and resources management (van der Zaag, 2007). Connected to intergenerational justice is the precautionary principle (Raffensperger and Tickner, 1999), as implying that “we should avoid activities that we have reason to believe could do serious harm to either present or future people”(Thompson, 2010, p. 8). In the context of SES, the precautionary principle enables the adoption of preventive action to protect both humans and the environment when stakes are high in the face of uncertainty (Bourguignon, 2016; Kriebel et al., 2001). Such a broad definition makes the principle’s operationalisation a matter of intense academic and even legal debate, usually held at the national and international spheres (Garnett and Parsons, 2017; Paterson, 2007). However, a more widespread implementation of the principle should start moving towards more local and specific contexts (European Environmental Agency, 2013). Likewise, the EEA (2013) warns that addressing current and future controversies around the precautionary principle should learn from past mistakes, as there is an already extensive list of cases where preventive action failed to protect human and environmental health. The long-term focus of SD can be used to reflect on the implications of considering sustainability principles in the context of current grand societal challenges. Here the “umbrella”concept of sustainability considers many sectors and issues related with economic, social, and environmental systems (e.g. SDGs). System dynamics models can be used to assess how the policies of today may have irreversible impacts for future generations (e.g. loss of health, poverty traps, persistent pollution, species extinction). Specific simulation models (e.g. assessing the potential long-term health impacts of pollution) can add up to improve the contextual understanding of complex trade-offs of benefits and risks not only within but also across generations. Human rights Human rights set a minimum standard to protect human dignity (Kirchschlaeger, 2016,2020), relying on the principles of freedom, equality, and justice (Kirchschlaeger, 2013). It therefore has elements overlapping with those of sustainable development (i.e. justice). Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”Among its characteristics, universality is perhaps human right’s strongest attribute, as it “entails that humans are human rights holders and that their human rights H. Amorocho-Daza, P. van der Zaag and J. Suˇ snik:Ethical considerations of using SD in participatory settings 7of22 © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. DOI: 10.1002/sdr 10991727, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdr.1755 by Spanish Cochrane National Provision (Ministerio de Sanidad), Wiley Online Library on [16/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License need to be respected, protected and realized”(Kirchschlaeger, 2021, pp. 160–161). Human rights are therefore an ethical common ground for every human being and human endeavour (Kirchschlaeger, 2016). Scientific progress encompasses human rights. As an essential part of human existence, human rights protect scientific enquiry, ensuring academic freedom and serving as a fundamental point of reference for scientific practice (Kirchschlaeger, 2013). System dynamics literature is part of the wider context of scientific progress (Forrester, 1987) and therefore is subject to human rights considerations. System dynamicists are expected to protect human rights by: (1) respecting human rights; (2) contributing to the realisation of human rights; and (3) setting priorities according to human rights. These duties can take a negative or positive outlook: by doing or by omitting something in order to contribute to the realisation of human rights. System dynamics practice should consider explicitly the ethical standpoint of human rights, but this makes more sense on a case-by-case basis. System dynamics practitioners should ask themselves how their SD project can be linked to a specific human right in a positive (e.g. models that help understand how to improve the quality of education) or negative outlook (e.g. models that help understand how to prevent biodiversity loss). Considering human rights in SD also implies an invitation to move away from the role of “neutral modeller”towards an “activist modeller.”The latter role has an explicit ethical stance (e.g. based on human rights or sustainable development) regarding a particular issue and uses modelling as an analytical tool to convey a message to change the situation around the problem at hand (Voinov et al., 2014). Participatory SD modelling and ethics in SES The need of SD participatory approaches to model SES The social element of SES calls for promoting participatory modelling approaches. Participation is not a new concept in SD; on the contrary, it can be traced back to the discipline’s early stages (Lane, 2010). However, traditional SD group model building often involves a “client”group, resembling a consultancy setting (Andersen and Richardson, 1997). In such a context, Vennix) argues that participation can bring several benefits which include: (i) “to capture the required knowledge in the mental models of the client group”’; (ii) “to increase the chances of implementation of the model results”, and (iii) “to enhance the client’s learning process”(2000, p. 379). However, a broader set of perspectives in favour of participation can be considered when dealing with socioenvironmental issues (Norström et al., 2020; Voinov et al., 2014). For instance, recent research shows how participatory modelling can enrich the understanding of complex social interconnections 8of22 System Dynamics Review © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. DOI: 10.1002/sdr 10991727, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdr.1755 by Spanish Cochrane National Provision (Ministerio de Sanidad), Wiley Online Library on [16/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License in the context of local sustainability transitions (Szetey et al., 2023). Or how integrating local knowledge in formal SES assessments recognise the stakeholders’role in a socioenvironmental issue and foster reflection about the impact of their actions, priorities, and visions (Norström et al., 2020; Rodríguez et al., 2023). Current SD participatory practice promotes wider stakeholder participation in the context of social change and environmental management. This has been done by promoting democratic participation and social capital strengthening to favour transparency and deliberation in a multistakeholder debate around socioenvironmental issues (Kir aly and Miskolczi, 2019;Stave,2002). However, adopting such an approach brings up ethical considerations arising from the interaction between modellers and stakeholders, for example, in terms of power, justice, and knowledge (Jordan et al., 2018;Norströmet al., 2020). Recent community-based SD initiatives have taken a proactive approach to empower marginalised communities in dealing with complex social problems (Gallagher et al., 2020; Hovmand, 2014;Kir  aly and Miskolczi, 2019;Trani et al., 2016). Participatory SD modelling has been used in the context of transdisciplinary environmental management and policy (Stave, 2010). This article builds on the latter approach as it explicitly deals with the interaction between society and environment in the context of a public policy debate. In this context, Videira et al.( 2010) proposed a participatory modelling cycle aiming to be implemented in the context of environmental assessment and decision-making. This framework involves the following phases: (1) scoping and abstraction; (2) envisioning and goal setting; (3) model formulation and confidence-building; (4) simulation and assessment, and (5) evaluating and monitoring. This SD based framework promotes continuous stakeholder participation to learn about SES and deliberate about policy alternatives to sustainability problems. Here we build on the Videira et al. (2010) framework and use it to explore the ethical implications of modelling SES, taking human rights and sustainable development as standpoints. Ethical considerations can be identified across a participatory modelling cycle. Starting from the scoping and abstraction phase, stakeholders need to be able to meaningfully engage in the process and be able to question and define the limits of the issues at hand. They should have a voice in envisioning desired future(s) for the system. Their role can be key in validating the model’s structure and outputs. Towards the end of the modelling cycle, stakeholders should be able to use simulation outputs as a starting point for discussing policy options. The following section examines these considerations in more detail, while explicitly considering human rights and sustainable development. Asking ethical questions in SD SES participatory processes Asking ethical questions is a practical approach to integrate ethics into SD modelling practice. Ethical questions inquire about values and responsibility, H. Amorocho-Daza, P. van der Zaag and J. Suˇ snik:Ethical considerations of using SD in participatory settings 9of22 © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. DOI: 10.1002/sdr 10991727, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdr.1755 by Spanish Cochrane National Provision (Ministerio de Sanidad), Wiley Online Library on [16/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License the opinion of the European Union, and the European Union is not responsible for any use that might be made of its content. HA-D acknowledges Dr. Els van Daalen for reviewing and providing comprehensive feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript. HA-D acknowledges the “2022 Lucerne Summer University: Ethics in a Global Context LSUE,”particularly Prof. Peter Kirchschlaeger, for facilitating the ethical deliberation that is reflected in this article, and Mohammed Baqer Zaki Yahya, for his comments and discussion about the ethical dimension of simulation discussed in this article. The authors presented a summary of the article’s main insights at the 18th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology – CEST 2023. References Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Vilsmaier U, von Wehrden H, Abernethy P, Ives CD, Jager NW, Lang DJ. 2017. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46(1): 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y. Andersen DF, Richardson GP. 1997. Scripts for group model building. System Dynamics Review 13(2): 107–129. Berti E. 2014. Humanity’s responsibility towards nature. In Sustainable Humanity Sustainable Nature our Responsibility, Vol. Extra Series 41. The Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences: Vatican City; 661–665. Bourguignon D. 2016. The Precautionary Principle: Definitions, Applications and Governance. European Union: Brussels. Chadwick R. 2012.In Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, Chadwick R (ed). Academic Press: London: 2. Chan KMA, Boyd DR, Gould RK, Jetzkowitz J, Liu J, Muraca B, Naidoo R, Olmsted P, Satterfield T, Selomane O, Singh GG. 2020. Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. People and Nature 2(3): 693–717. https://doi.org/10.1002/ pan3.10124. Collins RD, de Neufville R, Claro J, Oliveira T, Pacheco AP. 2013. Forest fire management to avoid unintended consequences: A case study of Portugal using system dynamics. Journal of Environmental Management 130:1–9. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.033. de Gooyert V, Rouwette E, van Kranenburg H, Freeman E, van Breen H. 2016. Sustainability transition dynamics: Towards overcoming policy resistance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 111: 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2016.06.019. de Vries BJM. 2019. Engaging with the sustainable development goals by going beyond modernity: An ethical evaluation within a worldview framework. Global Sustainability 2:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.15. Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P, Brauman KA, Butchart SH, Chan KM, Garibaldi LA. 2019. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366 (6471): eaax3100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw3100. 16 of 22 System Dynamics Review © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. DOI: 10.1002/sdr 10991727, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdr.1755 by Spanish Cochrane National Provision (Ministerio de Sanidad), Wiley Online Library on [16/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Dixson-Declève S, Gaffney O, Ghosh J, Randers J, Rockström J, Stoknes PE. 2022. Earth for all: A Survival Guide for Humanity. New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island. Dudley, RG. 2008. A basis for understanding fishery management dynamics. System Dynamics Review 24(1): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.392 Elsawah S, Pierce SA, Hamilton SH, van Delden H, Haase D, Elmahdi A, Jakeman AJ. 2017. An overview of the system dynamics process for integrated modelling of socioecological systems: Lessons on good modelling practice from five case studies. Environmental Modelling & Software 93: 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envsoft.2017.03.001. European Environmental Agency. 2013. Late Lessons from Early Warnings: Science, Precaution, Innovation. EEA: Copenhaguen. Fiddaman TS. 2002. Exploring policy options with a behavioral climate–economy model. System Dynamics Review 18(2): 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.241 Fischer J, Gardner TA, Bennett EM, Balvanera P, Biggs R, Carpenter S, Daw T, Folke C, Hill R, Hughes TP, Luthe T. 2015. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.002. Folke C, Biggs R, Norström AV, Reyers B, Rockström J. 2016. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society 21(3): 41. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08748-210341. Folke C, Polasky S, Rockstrom J, Galaz V, Westley F, Lamont M, Scheffer M, Österblom H, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Seto KC. 2021. Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere. Ambio 50(4): 834–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280021-01544-8. Ford A. 2010. Modeling the Environment, 2nd ed. Island Press, Washington DC. Forrester JW. 1971. World Dynamics. Wright-Allen Press: Brussels. Forrester JW. 1987. Lessons from system dynamics modeling. System Dynamics Review 3(2): 136–149. Freebairn L, Atkinson JA, Osgood ND, Kelly PM, McDonnell G, Rychetnik L. 2019. Turning conceptual systems maps into dynamic simulation models: An Australian case study for diabetes in pregnancy. PLoS One 14(6): e0218875. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0218875. Gallagher L, Kopainsky B, Bassi AM, Betancourt A, Buth C, Chan P, Costanzo S, Freeman SG, Horm C, Khim S, Neang M, Rin N, Sereyrotha K, Sok K, Sovann C, Thieme M, Watkins K, Wyborn CA, Bréthaut C. 2020. Supporting stakeholders to anticipate and respond to risks in a Mekong River water-energy-food nexus. Ecology and Society 25(4): 29. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-11919-250429. Garnett K, Parsons DJ. 2017. Multi-case review of the application of the precautionary principle in European Union law and case law. Risk Analysis 37(3): 502–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12633. Gupta J, Liverman D, Prodani K, Aldunce P, Bai X, Broadgate W, Ciobanu D, Gifford L, Gordon C, Hurlbert M, Inoue CYA, Jacobson L, Kanie N, Lade SJ, Lenton TM, Obura D, Okereke C, Otto IM, Pereira L, Rockström J, Scholtens J, Rocha J, Stewart-Koster B, David Tàbara J, Rammelt C, Verburg PH. 2023. Earth system justice needed to identify and live within earth system boundaries. Nature Sustainability 6(6): 630–638. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01064-1. H. Amorocho-Daza, P. van der Zaag and J. Suˇ snik:Ethical considerations of using SD in participatory settings 17 of 22 © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. DOI: 10.1002/sdr 10991727, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdr.1755 by Spanish Cochrane National Provision (Ministerio de Sanidad), Wiley Online Library on [16/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Hjorth P, Bagheri A. 2006. Navigating towards sustainable development: A system dynamics approach. Futures 38(1): 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005. 04.005. Holden E, Linnerud K, Banister D. 2017. The imperatives of sustainable development. Sustainable Development 25(3): 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1647. Hovmand PS. 2014. Community-Based System Dynamics. Springer Science+Business Media: New York. Hovmand PS, Andersen DF, Rouwette E, Richardson GP, Rux K, Calhoun A. 2012. Group model-building ‘scripts’as a collaborative planning tool. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 29(2): 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2105. Ives CD, Freeth R, Fischer J. 2020. Inside-out sustainability: The neglect of inner worlds. Ambio 49(1): 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01187-w. Jax K, Barton DN, Chan KMA, de Groot R, Doyle U, Eser U, Görg C, G omezBaggethun E, Griewald Y, Haber W, Haines-Young R, Wichmann S. 2013. Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecological Economics 93: 260–268. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.008. Jordan R, Gray S, Zellner M, Glynn PD, Voinov A, Hedelin B, Sterling EJ, Leong K, Olabisi LS, Hubacek K, Bommel P, Prell C. 2018. Twelve questions for the participatory modeling community. Earth’s Future 6(8): 1046–1057. https://doi.org/10. 1029/2018ef000841. Karlsson M. 2007. The precautionary principle, Swedish chemicals policy and sustainable development. Journal of Risk Research 9(4): 337–360. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13669870600717269. Katz E. 2011. The Nazi engineers: Reflections on technological ethics in hell. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(3): 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948010-9229-z. Kelly RA, Jakeman AJ, Barreteau O, Borsuk ME, ElSawah S, Hamilton SH, Henriksen HJ, Kuikka S, Maier HR, Rizzoli AE, Van Delden H, Voinov AA. 2013. Selecting among five common modelling approaches for integrated environmental assessment and management. Environmental Modelling & Software 47: 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.05.005. Kir aly G, Miskolczi P. 2019. Dynamics of participation: System dynamics and participation-an empirical review. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 36(2): 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2580. Kirchschlaeger P. 2013. Human rights as an ethical basis for science. Journal of Law, Information and Science 22(2): 1–17. Kirchschlaeger P. 2016. How can we justify human rights? Int.J. Human Rights and Constitutional Studies 4(4): 313–329. Kirchschlaeger P. 2020. Human dignity and human rights: Fostering and protecting pluralism and particularity. Interdisciplinary Journal for Religion and Transformation in Contemporary Society 6(1): 90–106. https://doi.org/10.30965/2364280700601006. Kirchschlaeger P. 2021. Digital Transformation and Ethics, 1st ed. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft: Badem-Baden, Germany. Klein C, McKinnon MC, Wright BT, Possingham HP, Halpern BS. 2015. Social equity and the probability of success of biodiversity conservation. Global Environmental Change 35: 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.007. 18 of 22 System Dynamics Review © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. DOI: 10.1002/sdr 10991727, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdr.1755 by Spanish Cochrane National Provision (Ministerio de Sanidad), Wiley Online Library on [16/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Kriebel D, Tickner J, Epstein P, Lemons J, Levins R, Loechler EL, Quinn M, Rudel R, Schettler T, Stoto M. 2001. The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives 109(9): 871–876. Kwakkel JH, Pruyt E. 2013. Using system dynamics for grand challenges: The ESDMA approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 32(3): 358–375. https://doi. org/10.1002/sres.2225. Lane DC. 2010. Participative modelling and big issues: Defining features of system dynamics? Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27(4): 461–465. https://doi. org/10.1002/sres.1048. Leach M, Reyers B, Bai X, Brondizio ES, Cook C, Díaz S, Espindola G, Scobie M, Stafford-Smith M, Subramanian SM. 2018. Equity and sustainability in the Anthropocene: A social–ecological systems perspective on their intertwined futures. Global Sustainability 1: e13. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.12. Luna-Reyes LF, Martinez-Moyano IJ, Pardo TA, Cresswell AM, Andersen DF, Richardson GP. 2006. Anatomy of a group model-building intervention: Building dynamic theory from case study research. System Dynamics Review 22(4): 291– 320. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.349. McDermott M, Mahanty S, Schreckenberg K. 2013. Examining equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy 33: 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.006. Meadows DH. 1999. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene a System. The Sustainability Institute, Hartland, VT. Meadows DH, Meadows D. 2007. The history and conclusions ofThe limits to growth. System Dynamics Review 23(2–3): 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.371. Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW III. 1972. The Limits to Growth. Universe Books: New York. Moallemi EA, Bertone E, Eker S, Gao L, Szetey K, Taylor N, Bryan BA. 2021. A review of systems modelling for local sustainability. Environmental Research Letters 16(11): 113004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2f62. Moallemi EA, Kwakkel J, de Haan FJ, Bryan BA. 2020. Exploratory modeling for analyzing coupled human-natural systems under uncertainty. Global Environmental Change 65: 102186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102186. Nabavi E, Daniell KA, NajafiH. 2017. Boundary matters: The potential of system dynamics to support sustainability? Journal of Cleaner Production 140: 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.032. Nelson GC, Bennett E, Berhe AA, Cassman K, DeFries R, Dietz T, Dobermann A, Dobson A, Janetos A, Levy M, Marco D, Zurek M. 2006. Anthropogenic drivers of ecosystem change: An overview. Ecology and Society 11(2): 29. Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P, Bednarek AT, Bennett EM, Biggs R, de Bremond A, Campbell BM, Österblom H. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability 3(3): 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2. Olaya C. 2014. The scientist personality of system dynamics. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. The System Dynamics Society: Delft, The Netherlands. Olaya C. 2016. Cows, agency, and the significance of operational thinking. System Dynamics Review 31(4): 183–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1547. H. Amorocho-Daza, P. van der Zaag and J. Suˇ snik:Ethical considerations of using SD in participatory settings 19 of 22 © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. DOI: 10.1002/sdr 10991727, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdr.1755 by Spanish Cochrane National Provision (Ministerio de Sanidad), Wiley Online Library on [16/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Ormerod RJ, Ulrich W. 2013. Operational research and ethics: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research 228(2): 291–307. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ejor.2012.11.048. Pahl-Wostl C. 2007. The implications of complexity for integrated resources management. Environmental Modelling & Software 22(5): 561–569. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.envsoft.2005.12.024. Palmer E. 2017. Beyond proximity: Consequentialist ethics and system dynamics. Etikk i praksis –Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 1:89–105. https://doi.org/10. 5324/eip.v11i1.1978. Paterson J. 2007. Sustainable development, sustainable decisions and the precautionary principle. Natural Hazards 42(3): 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069006-9071-4. Preiser R, Biggs R, De Vos A, Folke C. 2018. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: Organizing principles for advancing research methods and approaches. Ecology and Society 23(4): 46. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-10558230446. Pruyt E, Kwakkel J. 2007. Combining system dynamics and ethics: Towards more science. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. The System Dynamics Society: Boston. Rachels J, Rachels S. 2019. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 9th ed. McGraw-Hill Education: New York. Raffensperger C, Tickner J. 1999. Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Island Press: Washington DC. Randers J. 2000. From limits to growth to sustainable development or SD (sustainable development) in a SD (system dynamics) perspective. System Dynamics Review 16: 213–224. Rauschmayer F, Kavathatzopoulos I, Kunsch PL, Le Menestrel M. 2009. Why good practice of OR is not enough—Ethical challenges for the OR practitioner. Omega 37(6): 1089–1099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2008.12.005. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, Foley J. 2009. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2): 32. Rodríguez T, Reu B, Bolívar-Santamaría S, Cortés-Aguilar A, Buendía C. 2023. A framework for participatory scenario planning to guide transitions towards sustainability in mountain social-ecological systems: A case study from the Colombian Andes. Land Use Policy 132: 106817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023. 106817. Rouwette E n AJA, Vennix JAM, Mullekom T v. 2002. Group model building effectiveness: A review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review 18(1): 5–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.229. Sachs JD. 2012. From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. The Lancet 379(9832): 2206–2211. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(12) 60685-0. Schreckenberg K, Franks P, Martin A, Lang B. 2016. Unpacking equity for protected area conservation. Parks 22(2): 11–28. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016. PARKS-22-2KS.en. 20 of 22 System Dynamics Review © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. DOI: 10.1002/sdr 10991727, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdr.1755 by Spanish Cochrane National Provision (Ministerio de Sanidad), Wiley Online Library on [16/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Sen A. 2011. The Idea of Justice. Belknap Press: Cambridge, MA. Singer P 2022. Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethicsphilosophy. Spijkers O. 2018. Intergenerational equity and the sustainable development goals. Sustainability 10(11): 3836. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113836. Stave K. 2002. Using system dynamics to improve public participation in environmental decisions. System Dynamics Review 18(2): 139–167. https://doi.org/10. 1002/sdr.237. Stave K. 2010. Participatory system dynamics modeling for sustainable environmental management: Observations from four cases. Sustainability 2(9): 2762–2784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2092762. Sterman J. 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. McGraw-Hill: New York. Sterman J. 2002. All models are wrong: Reflections on becoming a systems scientist. System Dynamics Review 18(4): 501–531. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.261. Sterman J. 2006. Learning from evidence in a complex world. American Journal of Public Health 96(3): 505–514. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.066043. Sterner T, Troell M, Vincent J, Aniyar S, Barrett S, Brock W, Carpenter S, Chopra K, Ehrlich P, Hoel M, Levin S, Xepapadeas A. 2006. Quick fixes for the environment: Part of the solution or part of the problem? Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 48(10): 20–27. https://doi.org/10.3200/ envt.48.10.20-27. System Dynamics Society 2019. System Dynamics Society Code of Conduct. Retrieved from https://systemdynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SDSCode-of-Conduct.pdf. System Dynamics Society 2023. About. Retrieved from https://systemdynamics.org/ about/. Szetey K, Moallemi EA, Bryan BA. 2023. Knowledge Co-production reveals nuanced societal dynamics and sectoral connections in mapping sustainable human– natural systems. Earth’s Futures 11(9): e2022EF003326. https://doi.org/10.1029/ 2022ef003326. Thompson J. 2010. What is intergenerational justice? In H. Sykes (Ed.) Future Justice. Future Leaders: Sydney Retrieved from http://www.futureleaders.com.au/book_ chapters/pdf/Future_Justice/Janna_Thompson.pdf. Trani JF, Ballard E, Bakhshi P, Hovmand P. 2016. Community based system dynamic as an approach for understanding and acting on messy problems: A case study for global mental health intervention in Afghanistan. Conflict and Health 10: 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-016-0089-2. UN General Assembly 2015. A/RES/70/1 Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/ 3923923?ln=en. UN General Assembly 2022. A/76/L.75 The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3982508? ln=en. United Nations 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un. org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf. H. Amorocho-Daza, P. van der Zaag and J. Suˇ snik:Ethical considerations of using SD in participatory settings 21 of 22 © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. DOI: 10.1002/sdr 10991727, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdr.1755 by Spanish Cochrane National Provision (Ministerio de Sanidad), Wiley Online Library on [16/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License van der Zaag P. 2007. Asymmetry and equity in water resources management; critical institutional issues for southern Africa. Water Resources Management 21(12): 1993–2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9124-1. Vennix JAM. 2000. Group model-building: Tackling messy problems. System Dynamics Review 15(4): 379–401. Videira N, Antunes P, Santos R. 2009. Scoping river basin management issues with participatory modelling: The Baixo Guadiana experience. Ecological Economics 68(4): 965–978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.008. Videira N, Antunes P, Santos R, Lopes R. 2010. A participatory modelling approach to support integrated sustainability assessment processes. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27(4): 446–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.1041. Videira N, Lopes R, Antunes P, Santos R, Casanova JL. 2012. Mapping maritime sustainability issues with stakeholder groups. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 29(6): 596–619. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2141. Voinov A, Bousquet F. 2010. Modelling with stakeholders. Environmental Modelling & Software 25(11): 1268–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007. Voinov A, Kolagani N, McCall MK, Glynn PD, Kragt ME, Ostermann FO, Pierce SA, Ramu P. 2016. Modelling with stakeholders –Next generation. Environmental Modelling & Software 77: 196–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.11.016. Voinov A, Seppelt R, Reis S, Nabel JEMS, Shokravi S. 2014. Values in socioenvironmental modelling: Persuasion for action or excuse for inaction. Environmental Modelling & Software 53: 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013. 12.005. West S, Schill C. 2022. Negotiating the ethical-political dimensions of research methods: A key competency in mixed methods, interand transdisciplinary, and co-production research. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9: 294. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01297-z. Wu J. 2013. Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human wellbeing in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology 28(6): 999–1023. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9. Zafra-Calvo N, Pascual U, Brockington D, Coolsaet B, Cortes-Vazquez JA, GrossCamp N, Palomo I, Burgess ND. 2017. Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management in protected areas. Biological Conservation 211: 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.014. 22 of 22 System Dynamics Review © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society. DOI: 10.1002/sdr 10991727, 2024, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sdr.1755 by Spanish Cochrane National Provision (Ministerio de Sanidad), Wiley Online Library on [16/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License