A Deep and Shallow Sustainability Intervention Framework: A Taoist-Inspired Approach to Systemic Sustainability Transitions

Abstract

Addressing the escalating complexity of global sustainability challenges requires interventions that are not only technically effective but also cognitively and philosophically grounded. While the leverage points perspective has provided a useful framework for understanding systemic change, it can be enhanced through more operational coherence and cultural pluralism. This paper introduces the Deep and Shallow Sustainability Intervention (DSSI) framework, a novel conceptual model that integrates Taoist philosophical insights with contemporary systems thinking and the leverage points literature. Structured across five interconnected Taoist-inspired domains and ten leverage points, the framework extends and enriches Meadows’ leverage point theory by integrating pre-paradigmatic meta-cognitions, systemic momentum, and context-sensitive action. It emphasizes that sustainable transitions require the dynamic interplay between foundational source-code shifts and operational implementation. This framework contributes to the growing field of transformative sustainability science by (1) embedding non-Western epistemologies into systems transformation theory, (2) offering a structured yet flexible model for multi-level intervention design, and (3) enabling transdisciplinary dialogue between philosophy, paradigmatic shift, meta-systemic logic, governance, and practice. Preliminary applications in European rural transition contexts suggest its potential to enhance context-sensitive action and value-aligned systems innovation. The DSSI framework thus offers a timely and integrative approach for guiding long-term, systemic, and culturally responsive sustainability transitions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Urgency of Sustainability Transitions

The escalating crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and widening social inequalities (e.g., refs. [1,2,3,4]) have underscored the unsustainable trajectory of contemporary global society [5,6,7,8]. The central question posed by Kates [9]—how can society most effectively guide human–environment systems toward sustainability transitions?—remains pressing and unresolved.

While significant progress has been made in sustainability science, particularly in fostering interdisciplinary dialogue and linking knowledge to action [10,11], the responses thus far have remained fragmented, technocratic, and often insufficient [9,12,13,14]. Mainstream approaches to sustainability transitions often prioritize short-term, measurable outcomes—such as policy reforms or technological innovations—while approaches that integrate with the underlying worldviews, underlying ethical logics and epistemologies that fundamentally shape system behavior and synergistic effectiveness have received insufficient attention [15,16,17]. The United Nations has warned that the magnitude of the required transitions requires “unprecedented systemic responses” [18]. Global sustainability issues, by their nature, are complex and interdependent, involving non-linear feedback loops, delayed effects, and long-term uncertainties [19,20,21,22]. As such, they demand more than just technological fixes or incremental policy changes; they call for profound transformations in the underlying values, worldviews, and institutional logics that govern human–environment interactions.

Existing theories and frameworks lack a holistic view that integrates cognitive, ethical, and operational domains of change—what Meadows [23,24] gestured toward but not fully elaborated. Most sustainability discourse and transition methods are embedded in Western rationalist paradigms and rely heavily on Western scientific rationalism, while Non-Western philosophical traditions remain largely absent from the discourse. This omission represents a missed opportunity, as many non-Western traditions offer philosophical grounding and metaphysical reflection which are essential for reimagining humanity’s relationship with nature and the Earth system; its holistic, relational, and practice-oriented approaches have the potential to inform complexity, transformation, and adaptive governance. For instance, Taoist philosophy, in particular, emphasizes harmony, dynamic balance, and the alignment of human action with systemic flows—principles that may hold valuable insights for sustainability transitions [25].

To foster deep, systemic change, sustainability frameworks must transcend purely technical solutions and incorporate value-based, epistemological and ethical transformations that foster a more holistic approach to intervention, creating integrative, transdisciplinary knowledge systems capable of guiding deep structural transitions and comprehensive systemic change [26,27,28]. Discussion of ontology and epistemology in sustainability transitions research has grown significantly, reflecting a shift from dominant Western frameworks toward more inclusive, pluralistic approaches. Recent studies increasingly critique foundational assumptions, calling for greater epistemic diversity and the integration of non-Western and indigenous knowledge systems to better support transformative change. In this context, the identification and application of sustainability leverage points emerge as crucial. These leverage points serve as deliberate actions aimed at improving sustainability within specific systems [29], which can catalyze significant change within complex systems [23,24]. In response, a growing body of literature has emphasized the importance of deep leverage points—interventions aimed at altering the foundational goals, paradigms, or cognitive frames of socio-ecological systems [5,17,29,30,31].

However, despite this theoretical awareness and extensive work on leverage points [17,22], conceptual and applied limitations remain (see Section 2.1 for details); for example, those approaches built upon leverage points theory have yet to adequately address these foundational shifts, particularly in balancing systemic depth with operational usability [29]. Chan et al. [5] argue that existing typologies, such as that proposed by Meadows [23], may not sufficiently address the complexity and contested nature of global sustainability problems. There is still no widely agreed-upon methodology for translating deep leverage insights into actions. This reveals a persistent gap: the absence of a transdisciplinary, epistemologically diverse framework that integrates (1) the conceptual depth of cognitive and ethical transformation, (2) pragmatic governance with the operational clarity of multi-level system interventions to create synergies across intervention levels, and (3) the cultural diversity necessary for truly global sustainability transitions.

1.2. Research Question and Conceptual Approach

This paper seeks to address the gaps identified above by exploring the following research question: “How can a transdisciplinary, philosophically grounded, and culturally plural framework be constructed to guide multi-level sustainability interventions that integrate cognitive transformation, ethical reorientation, and operational action?” We hypothesize that such a framework that integrates non-Western philosophical worldviews, such as Taoism, can enhance depth, cultural adaptability, and practical coherence to support systemic sustainability transitions across diverse contexts.

To this end, this paper introduces the Deep and Shallow Sustainability Intervention (DSSI) framework, a novel conceptual model that synthesizes insights from Taoist philosophy, specifically the Dào-Fǎ-Shù-Qì-Shì conceptual collection, and complex systems theory, notably Donella Meadows’ leverage points framework [23,24]. The DSSI framework is designed to offer a flexible, adaptive, and context-sensitive structure capable of guiding systemic sustainability transitions across multiple intervention levels and cultural contexts, addressing the lack of integration between ethical–cognitive foundations and operational leverage points in prior approaches. It extends Meadows’ influential leverage point model by introducing a culturally grounded, dual-realm system inspired by Taoist philosophy, thus offering an expanded ontological and normative basis for sustainability interventions.

The DSSI framework is grounded in a Taoist-inspired model of Dào-Fǎ-Shù-Qì-Shì, which brings together a selection of Taoist-informed concepts that have historically guided social governance, ecological management, and long-term strategic thinking in various combinations (see Section 2.2 for details). The model begins with the essence domain of transition, which reflects a deep, pre-paradigmatic understanding of a system’s sustainability transition essence (Dào), that is, its underlying drivers, intrinsic patterns, and alignment with planetary boundaries. From this foundation emerges the principle domain (Fǎ), encompassing the transition’s normative principles, governance logics, and ethical and institutional frameworks—such as justice, equity, and ecological balance—derived from Dào domain. These values are operationalized through the practice domain (Shù), which offers adaptive transition strategies and methods tailored to specific contexts. The tool domain (Qì) provides the transition tools, resources, and technological creations and infrastructures that materialize these strategies, linking intention with implementation. The interaction of these domains gives rise to the holistic energy domain (Shì), which involves the dynamic transition momentum and systemic coherence that reflect a system’s evolving transition trajectory. Together, these five interwoven domains form a flexible, non-linear structure that integrates metaphysical insight with practical transition interventions, enabling responsive and ethically grounded engagement with complex systems (see Section 4.2 for details).

These five domains are mapped onto two complementary intervention realms of the DSSI framework, detailed as follows. (1) The deep intervention realm: this realm engages with pre-paradigmatic roots, cognitive transformation (essence domain), and holistic dynamics (holistic energy domain) and includes leverage points (LPs) 1–5, corresponding to Meadows’ higher-level leverage points (e.g., the power to transcend paradigms). (2) The shallow intervention realm: this realm translates deep insights into action through instrumental governance (principle domain), operational methods (practice domain), and resources and tool (tool domain) aspects of change and includes LPs 6–10, mirroring Meadows’ lower-level leverage points (e.g., system parameters). The interplay between these realms shapes the effectiveness and sustainability of transitions, as shallow interventions operationalize deep shifts, reinforcing broader systemic transformation. This dual-layered structure, rooted in Taoist insights, offers an integrative approach that balances philosophical inquiry with pragmatic usability, positioning the DSSI framework as a novel model for understanding and guiding sustainability transitions across diverse contexts (the detailed introduction is elaborated upon in Section 4).

The DSSI framework offers several key contributions to the field of sustainability transitions. First, it introduces a novel conceptual model that synthesizes Eastern philosophical traditions—i.e., Taoist insights, with complex systems theory—and leverage points theory, creating a transdisciplinary approach that addresses both the cognitive and operational dimensions of sustainability. Second, it provides a methodological bridge by integrating ontological and epistemological depth with actionable, context-sensitive interventions. The framework’s dual structure—comprising the deep and shallow intervention realms—addresses the critical gap in existing sustainability transition models by offering both a metaphysical foundation and practical operational tools. Lastly, the DSSI framework is designed to be adaptable and applicable across diverse cultural contexts, ensuring that it can guide sustainability transitions in a variety of social and ecological settings.

This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews foundational scholarship on leverage points and introduces the Taoist-inspired Dào–Fǎ–Shù–Qì–Shì model as the theoretical foundation for the DSSI framework. Section 3 outlines the research design and methodology used to construct the framework. Section 4 presents the DSSI framework in detail, examining the ten leverage points within the dual intervention realms and analyzing their focus, Taoist connections, transformative roles, synergy, and complementarity with Meadows’ leverage points typology. Section 5 presents the discussion, and Section 6 concludes with reflections on the framework’s implications and suggests directions for future research. While the primary contribution of this paper is theoretical, detailed empirical implementation lies beyond its scope and length constraints. Practical applications of the DSSI framework are currently being developed and tested through pilot projects, including an EU-funded initiative on rural transitions in Southern Europe. Preliminary findings indicate the framework’s potential to facilitate systemic, long-term sustainability transitions. Full empirical results will be presented in follow-up publications. In addition, two companion manuscripts currently under review provide a comparative analysis of the DSSI framework alongside established transition approaches—such as Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), Technological Innovation Systems (TISs), Strategic Niche Management (SNM), and Transition Management (TM)—as well as a validation study across eight global case studies.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Foundations

2.1. Literature Review on Leverage Point Perspective

The concept of leverage points offers a powerful lens for understanding how to enable fundamental systems change in the pursuit of sustainability. Drawing from systems theory, it identifies specific variables or “places to intervene” within a system that can yield disproportionately large effects on the system as a whole [23,24]. These include levers, interventions, leverage points, points of transformation, etc., providing a common boundary object to facilitate cross-disciplinary dialogue and theoretical integration [22]. Importantly, the leverage points perspective is not merely a technical or operational method within system theory. Rather, it reflects underlying worldviews and value systems. The ways in which leverage points are identified, prioritized, and operationalized are inherently philosophical; they mirror how we conceive of the world and the kinds of change we deem legitimate or desirable.

In 1999, Donella Meadows introduced the concept of ‘Leverage Points’ in her seminal paper [23]. Meadows argued that the transformative potential of interventions depends on system characteristics, with small shifts at key points capable of triggering significant systemic change, and identified a hierarchy of “places to intervene” in complex systems [23,24]—twelve leverage points, ranked by their effectiveness in influencing system change. This notion mirrors key concepts in Eastern philosophy, particularly the idea that ‘small but profound shifts’ are highly compatible with the Taoist thought of “(producing) maximum effect by minimum effort [32], emphasizing subtle yet profound systemic change through shifts in perception, intention, and alignment with natural patterns”. Meadows’ typology highlighted a crucial insight: interventions targeting deep system characteristics (e.g., paradigms, system goals, and the power to transcend paradigms) tend to yield more transformative change than those focused on surface-level parameters or material flows. Meadows argues for a shift in focus from highly tangible but ultimately weaker leverage points—interventions that are easy to make but have limited potential for transformative change—to exploring less visible yet potentially more powerful realms of intervention for systemic change [24].

Building on Meadows’ insights, while there is no unified definition of what counts as a leverage point, and terms like “levers”, “interventions”, and “drivers” are used inconsistently [33], dialogues on leverage points perspective have expanded rapidly. Abson et al. [17] grouped the twelve points into four system characteristics (parameters, feedback, design, and intent), highlighting a structure from shallow to deep interventions (see Figure 1). They argue that deeper system characteristics constrain the types of interventions that are possible at shallower realms of leverage, and suggest reconnecting people to nature, restructuring institutions, and rethinking knowledge creation and utilisation for more impactful and transformative sustainability interventions, which emphasize the importance of understanding deeper systemic structures and relationships that influence the visible outcomes. Fischer and Riechers [22] assessed the conceptual versatility of leverage points across disciplines, while Birney [34] and Ives et al. [35] explored how specific interventions influence system change. Gaziulusoy et al. [36] merged leverage points with weak signals analysis [37] to frame a design-oriented sustainability agenda and [38] combined leverage points with systems ecology and bionics to propose a new paradigm for transformative sustainability. The implications of adopting a leverage points perspective have also been considered, including how such a framework can help identify system boundaries, actors, connections, and potential interventions (e.g., refs. [38,39,40,41]). Chan et al. [5] propose a framework based on a social–ecological systems lens and argue that Meadows’ typology does not fully address the complexity of global social-ecological systems.

Despite this progress, leverage points research still faces several challenges, detailed as follows. (1) Limited treatment of leverage points: Most leverage point frameworks remain underdeveloped in their philosophical grounding and alternative ontologies. For instance, many studies continue to focus on operational or policy-level levers, leaving deep leverage points—such as fundamental values, goals, and philosophical assumptions—underexplored or inadequately addressed [17,22]. Short goal-oriented interventions can be insufficient or misdirected, potentially harming other leverage points [5,42,43]. (2) Lack of integration: The relationships between leverage points remain underexplored, and practical frameworks that integrate both deep and shallow leverage points in a coherent way are still rare [29]. Without addressing these, opportunities for synergies may be missed. (3) Insufficient practical application: While the leverage points perspective provides conceptual depth, its practical application often falls short, particularly regarding the operationalization of deep leverage points [22]. Most leverage point frameworks offer limited practical guidance for integrating system interventions, either emphasising practical action without sufficient cognitive depth or focus on paradigm shifts without clear operational pathways.

While Meadows’ leverage points and its derivatives have made important strides in sustainability theory, they remain philosophically underdetermined. Most existing models lack an explicit account of how values, cosmologies, and cognitive systems influence sustainability transitions [5,44]. This omission limits their ability to guide interventions that transcend existing paradigms and engage with systemic root causes. Simultaneously, few frameworks have successfully integrated deep and shallow interventions in a way that is both theoretically coherent and practically usable. As Dorninger et al. [29] and Chan et al. [5] emphasize, many goal-oriented interventions risk being misaligned with deeper system goals, leading to fragmented or counterproductive outcomes. These limitations reveal a critical theoretical opportunity: the need for epistemologically grounded frameworks that can generate synergies and guide systemic sustainability transitions in both deep and shallow intervention realms. Section 2.2 introduces the Taoist-inspired multi-layered structure as a possible approach to this gap.

2.2. Theoretical Foundation: A Taoist-Inspired Philosophical Dào–Fǎ–Shù–Qì–Shì Structure

Taoist philosophy, with its longstanding tradition of practical wisdom and systemic thinking, offers a historically grounded yet underexplored lens for addressing systemic sustainability transitions. Emphasizing harmony, flexibility, and adaptability, Taoism provides a highly compatible worldview for navigating complexity. Rather than proposing static rules or linear processes, it advocates for alignment with dynamic flows, balance, and the co-evolution of beings and environments. Liang and Segalàs [25] argue that Taoist principles—such as “interconnectedness and symbiosis”, “the equality, balance, and justice of all things”, and “following Zìrán (self-so) and Wúwéi (effortless action, non-coercive action)”—offer normative guidance and instrumental potential for designing and implementing sustainability interventions in a more systemic and integrated manner. Moreover, Taoist philosophy does not separate thought from action, nor abstract reasoning from embodied practice. Instead, it treats knowledge and action as intertwined, emphasizing wisdom lived in life and embodied in everyday actions—an approach that resonates deeply with the pragmatism required for systemic change.

Over a span of two millennia, a multi-layered, integrative Taoist-inspired conceptual structure gradually took shape, encompassing interrelated elements such as Dào (following Pinyin, Chinese: 道), Fǎ (Chinese: 法), Shù (Chinese: 术), Qì (Chinese: 器), and Shì (Chinese: 势), among others. Although classical texts did not explicitly define this structure, these elements appear routinely throughout the texts (e.g., Dao De Jing, Zhuangzi) and were organically consolidated through their application in governance, strategy, management, personal cultivation, and daily life across both dynastic and modern periods. Despite variations in which concepts were incorporated and differences in their interpretation and sequencing, the enduring practicality of these elements ensured their widespread adoption across generations. In this paper, we designate this conceptual structure as model of “the essence domain (Dào)–the principle domain (Fǎ)–the practice domain (Shù)–the tool domain (Qì)–the holistic energy domain (Shì)”, i.e., the Dào-Fǎ-Shù-Qì-Shì model, a system logic distilled from Daoism’s meta-pragmatic orientation, i.e., how we might act effectively by aligning with the nature of things. Specifically, “Dào” (Essence) refers to the formless origin and natural order of the universe; “Fǎ” (Principle) is the abstracted principle and institutional design derived from Dao; “Shù” (Practice) refers to methods of enacting those principles; “Qì” (Tool) refers to the concrete instruments and resources used to implement in practice; and “Shi” (Holistic energy) refers to the dynamic alignment of contextual forces and endogenous energy, that is, holistic trajectories (timing, position, and tendencies), potential, and energy flow.

We selected the five core concepts (Dào, Fǎ, Shù, Qì, and Shì) based on three key criteria: comprehensiveness, interdependence, and empirical grounding. First, comprehensiveness means the framework spans from the metaphysical origins of the cosmos to practical aspects like strategy and instruments. This creates a continuous cognitive–practical system linking Daoist cosmology with real-world application, from deep philosophical understanding (ontology) to practical action (praxis). Second, the five elements are structurally interdependent. Rather than functioning as discrete or modular units, they are generatively nested, exhibiting a recursive logic of emergence and feedback. This dynamic structure reflects the Daoist cosmogonic sequence—“Dao produces One, One produces Two, Two produces Three, and Three produces the ten thousand things” (Dao De Jing)—and forms both a microcosm of natural order and a practical logic by which human action becomes effective within it. This internal coherence precludes the fragmented, additive structure often seen in synthetic or eclectic models. Third, the structure is empirically grounded. These layers are not abstract theoretical constructs but have been repeatedly tested, refined, and transmitted across centuries of Daoist practice. From internal alchemy and military strategy to governance and spiritual cultivation, their enduring relevance demonstrates both their generative potency and adaptive resilience across diverse historical and practical contexts. Crucially, this is not a subjective synthesis or an externally imposed schema. Rather, it reflects an emergent structure distilled from sustained Daoist inquiry into the dynamics of natural order and the modalities through which human action can align with it—“observing the Dao in Universe to respond in human affairs” (Chinese: 觀天道以應人事). Its coherence, philosophical depth, and pragmatic efficacy attest to its structural validity. While numerous other Daoist concepts—such as yin–yang, qi, wu, and jing–shen—remain central to the tradition, they typically function as internal logics, energetic mechanisms, or ontological content within this broader architecture. In contrast, Dào-Fǎ-Shù-Qì-Shì operates at the level of form: a generative grammar that organizes and animates the deployment of such content in lived practice.

The value of designating this model lies in its ability to transcend both stereotypical and Westernized paradigms. Instead, it revitalizes classical wisdom, creatively transforming traditional Taoist texts to meet the challenges of industrial and informational civilizations (see Section 4.2 for details).

This paper proposes this Dào-Fǎ-Shù-Qì-Shì model as a theoretical foundation to address two critical gaps, given that existing leverage point theory often lacks a sufficiently articulated philosophical foundation and that complex system transformation demands deep cognitive and value-based intervention mechanisms.

First, it provides a missing philosophical basis for deep leverage thinking. Inheriting the principle of harmony and balance between Dào (the essence order) and Xíng (aligned action), the Dào–Fǎ–Shù–Qì–Shì model reflects a practice-oriented systems thinking that spans from metaphysical deep-rooted transformation to concrete governance principles, strategy, and embodied practices. This Taoist-informed logic enables a “systemic choreography” of interventions across deep and shallow intervention realms, fostering a responsive and co-evolutionary relationship between human actions and systemic forces, rather than imposing rigid structures, binary oppositions, or fixed causal chains. Notably, its emphasis on “acting without overacting” (Wúwéi) [25] resonates with the leverage point idea of triggering disproportionate change through minimal yet strategically placed interventions. Second, it establishes a multi-level intervention logic: a flexible, culturally grounded, and layered structure linking meta-systemic momentum and ethical foundation to operational methods and actions. By engaging all five domains, the structure fosters a holistic perspective that can bridge cultural differences and provides both cognitive framing and practical instruments for navigating sustainability transitions.

Additionally, this Taoist-inspired structure does not seek to replace scientific or technical methods but rather to complement them by embedding technical interventions within a value-conscious, adaptive, and relational system, reflecting Capra and Luisi’s systemic conception of life as a complex network of relationships characterized by self-organization and emergence [45]. It enables practitioners to fluidly navigate between conceptual insight and situated action, promoting sustainability interventions that are context-sensitive, philosophically informed, and strategically integrated. Building upon the Dào–Fǎ–Shù–Qì–Shì model as a conceptual foundation, the next step is to operationalize its insights into a coherent approach for sustainability transitions: the Deep and Shallow Sustainability Intervention (DSSI) framework (a theoretical innovation that translates Taoist systemic wisdom into an actionable intervention architecture).

2.3. Research Gaps and Theoretical Opportunity

The ontological and epistemological foundations of research critically shape how sustainability transitions are conceptualized and the types of solutions that emerge. Assumptions about what constitutes reality (ontology) and valid knowledge (epistemology) influence the framing of transition pathways, the selection of methodologies, and the valuation of certain knowledge systems over others [44,46,47,48,49]. These foundational choices embed normative, cultural, and political biases into transition research, often privileging dominant worldviews while marginalizing alternative, localized, or pluralistic approaches, ultimately constraining the scope and inclusivity of transformative change [44,50,51,52]. While the leverage points perspective has significantly enhanced the conceptualization of sustainability transitions, it still lacks a fully developed philosophical foundation and an integrated operational logic, as well as cultural and epistemological diversity necessary for globally relevant transition strategies.

Taoist philosophy offers a powerful philosophical foundation for sustainability transitions by encouraging a multi-faceted, holistic understanding of reality and challenging dominant ontological and epistemological assumptions, opening space for inclusive, culturally sensitive, and regenerative solutions essential to lasting transformation [25]. While the DSSI framework is rooted in Taoist philosophical insights, it is not bound by them. Instead, it uses Taoism as a lens to question reductionist paradigms and initiate a broader dialogue among worldviews. The framework emphasizes principles such as balance, relationality, and humility toward natural systems—values that resonate with many other wisdom traditions globally, including Indigenous cosmologies, Ubuntu philosophy, and holistic medical systems like Ayurveda. Its flexible structure allows the DSSI framework to function as a meta-framework—one that can integrate diverse cultural knowledge systems rather than subsume them. This philosophical openness supports contextual adaptability, making the framework suitable for application in non-Eastern settings while preserving its core commitment to systemic transformation (operationalizing this inclusivity in non-Eastern contexts is further developed in companion papers). The framework’s design invites local reinterpretation and co-creation, creating space for multiple ontologies and epistemologies to inform sustainability strategies on equal terms. This dialogical and integrative orientation ensures that the DSSI framework does not replace one dominant worldview with another but enables a pluralistic and inclusive approach to transformative change. It integrates metaphysical insight, normative design, strategic agility, technological deployment, and systemic alignment into a coherent system of action, thereby echoing Capra and Luisi’s systemic conception of life [45], which bridges scientific knowledge with philosophical reflections on life, consciousness, and society, embracing a holistic vision that sees living systems as dynamic, interconnected wholes vital for addressing today’s global challenges.

Specifically, the DSSI framework responds to multiple research gaps, detailed as follows. (1) Philosophical grounding: By embedding transition logic within Taoist cosmology and systemic ethics, the DSSI framework provides an epistemic foundation for intervention design. (2) Integrated hierarchy: It bridges meta-systemic, pre-paradigmatic conceptual, normative, and technical levels of intervention through a fluid, non-linear hierarchy, allowing dynamic feedback and iteration between deep and shallow domains. (3) Operational synergy: It maps not only individual intervention points but also the inter-relational dynamics among them (e.g., how “Fǎ” informs “Shù”, or how “Dào” conditions “Shì”)—a dimension often absent in the conventional leverage point literature. (4) Cross-cultural translation: Rather than applying Western models globally, the DSSI model allows for the creative adaptation of indigenous and classical wisdom traditions in crafting future-oriented transition strategies.

Thus, the DSSI framework is not merely a philosophical reflection or management model; it serves as a metaphilosophical infrastructure that redefines the nature of intervention, engagement with systems, and the understanding of transformation processes. It opens a theoretical space for rearticulating leverage points as both ontological insights and actionable strategies through a culturally grounded lens, thereby enhancing both theoretical richness and practical flexibility.

3. Methodology: A Philosophical–Systems Approach to Framework Construction

3.1. Research Design

This study adopts a framework-building approach rooted in philosophical inquiry and conceptual synthesis rather than hypothesis testing or empirical modeling. The objective is to construct the Deep and Shallow Sustainability Intervention (DSSI) framework—a novel theoretical model that integrates traditional Taoist philosophical concepts into contemporary sustainability science, particularly within the field of sustainability transitions. This approach responds to calls for deeper ontological and epistemological integration and aligns with transdisciplinary traditions that emphasize the generative potential of trans-paradigmatic synthesis [5,44,47].

Methodologically, the study blends philosophical hermeneutics [53], systems theory, and integrative framework synthesis [54], enabling a structured yet interpretive process that bridges abstract philosophy and applied systems thinking. As Gadamer emphasized, philosophical hermeneutics offers a way to translate culturally embedded meaning systems into shared conceptual structures—a critical need when engaging non-Western philosophies like Taoism in global sustainability discourse. Meanwhile, conceptual synthesis supports the integration of disparate theoretical traditions into a coherent analytical model.

The research unfolds in five interrelated steps (see Figure 2): (1) Foundational integration–literature synthesis, which bridges leverage points theory with a philosophical interpretation of the Dào–Fǎ–Shù–Qì–Shì model, identifying key resonances and divergences between systems theory and Taoist-informed perspectives; (2) interpretive reframing–philosophical hermeneutics and cross-cultural translation, which involves applying philosophical hermeneutics [53] to reinterpret foundational Taoist concepts, translating them into the language of sustainability transitions. This step reconstructs a layered conceptual model that forms the philosophical foundation of the DSSI framework; (3) structural synthesis–systemic mapping and framework construction, which involves employing conceptual synthesis [54] and systemic mapping to articulate the structural logic of the DSSI framework and integrate its multi-level leverage point system; (4) theoretical coherence–comparative analysis with meadows’ leverage points, which refers to aligning the DSSI framework with Meadows’ leverage point typology to establish theoretical coherence and situate the model within established sustainability transition discourse; and (5) scope framing–conceptual boundaries and future applications, which means clarifying the framework’s conceptual boundaries and identifying pathways for empirical exploration, implementation, and further adaptation across diverse contexts. This five-step process integrates multiple knowledge systems, combining cultural pluralism with systems logic. By aligning Taoist philosophy with established leverage points theory, the DSSI framework offers a novel, cross-cultural approach to governance, systemic transformation, and sustainability transitions.

3.2. Framework Development Process

This conceptual framework synthesis fills theoretical gaps in the leverage points literature while demonstrating the potential of intercultural theoretical innovation in sustainability transitions. The development of the DSSI framework involved three key methodological approaches:

(1)

Philosophical hermeneutics and cross-cultural translation: A key methodological approach was the application of philosophical hermeneutics, interpreting and translating Taoist concepts into a contemporary sustainability context. This cross-cultural translation reframed Taoist concepts such as Dào (道), Shì (势), and Fǎ (法) through the lens of systems theory and sustainability. This interpretative process ensures the ancient wisdom remains relevant and resonates with current sustainability challenges, applying Taoist principles of interconnectedness, balance, and harmony to sustainability transitions. Through this recontextualization, a layered Dào(essence)–Fǎ(principle)–Shù(practice)–Qì(tool)–Shì(holistic energy) model of systemic engagement was generated, forming the philosophical backbone of the DSSI framework and ensuring accessibility to global audiences (a detailed interpretation of each of the Taoist concepts in this reconstructed model and their potential roles in the context of sustainability transitions is provided in Section 4.2).

(2)

Systemic mapping and conceptual layer mapping: Systemic mapping visualized the conceptual domains of the DSSI framework, organizing elements across deep and shallow intervention realms and exploring how these domains and key leverage points intersect with sustainability transitions. This approach identifies interconnections and feedback loops between the philosophical, systemic, and practical components, providing insight into how different elements function and influence one another. Conceptual layer mapping structures these concepts across multiple layers of analysis, from foundational philosophical understanding to operational mechanisms, ensuring the framework reflects the complexity of sustainability transitions (visual and theoretical mappings are elaborated upon in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2).

(3)

Integrative framework synthesis: Theoretical insights from Taoist philosophy and the leverage points perspective of systems theory were synthesized into a cohesive conceptual framework. This included developing the dual-realm intervention framework prototype, which categorizes the core concepts, metaphors, and roles into two macro-realms: the deep intervention realm (the Dào—essence and Shì—holistic energy domains) and the shallow intervention realm (the Fǎ—principle, Shù—practice, and Qì—tool domains). These realms correspond to different leverage depths and transformative roles, providing a meta-structure for sustainability intervention design. This meta-structure acts as an interpretive lens, guiding actors to think relationally and adaptively across levels of intervention, offering a coherent system for working with both realms. A preliminary set of “conceptual prototypes” and “evaluation criteria” were also developed to guide future empirical applications and ensure methodological rigor with operational viability. These criteria are intended to inspire adaptation, reflexive evaluation, and ongoing refinement, offering a basis for identifying and applying each intervention point in practice, filling the gap between theoretical development and practical implementation (detailed “conceptual prototype” and “evaluation criteria” are presented in Section 4.3 and Section 4.4).

3.3. Comparative Analysis Strategy

After constructing the DSSI framework, a comparative analysis was conducted with Meadows’ leverage point typology. The aim was to assess structural coherence, innovation, and applicability, highlighting how Taoist-informed interventions complement or extend Meadows’ leverage points within sustainability science (a detailed analysis is presented in Section 4.5).

3.4. Limitations and Scope

This study acknowledges its primary focus on conceptual development rather than empirical validation. While the DSSI framework has been preliminarily tested in a multi-year EU-funded project on rural transitions in Southern Europe, detailed empirical implementation and case studies are beyond the scope and length constraints of this conceptual work. Full empirical testing and documentation are being developed in companion papers that focus on pilot projects and real-world applications. Limitations include the challenges inherent in cross-cultural conceptual translation, potential biases introduced during interpretive synthesis, and the complexity of operationalizing deep paradigmatic insights. Nevertheless, the DSSI framework is designed as an adaptable conceptual foundation capable of guiding future empirical applications and strategic interventions.

4. Framework Construction: The Deep and Shallow Sustainability Intervention Framework

4.1. Introduction to the DSSI Framework

The Deep and Shallow Sustainability Intervention (DSSI) framework (see Figure 3) conceptualizes sustainability transformation as a dynamic, iterative process spanning two interdependent realms: the deep intervention realm and the shallow intervention realm. Drawing on Meadows’ leverage points theory (Section 2.1) and Taoist-inspired Dào–Fǎ–Shù–Qì–Shì structure (Section 2.2), the DSSI framework introduces a dual-realm approach that bridges cognitive paradigmatic change with operational practice to support systemic, adaptive, and ethically grounded transformation.

By explicitly distinguishing between deep and shallow intervention realms, the DSSI framework serves as a heuristic tool for providing novel opportunities for adaptive, flexible interventions that can drive long-term, systemic change. As Fischer and Riechers [22] highlight, one of the key benefits of leveraging the distinction between shallow and deep interventions is the potential to advance both sustainability research and practice. This dual-realm approach responds to the pressing need for frameworks that span from abstract cognitive paradigms to practical actions, bridging the ‘intervention gap’ between philosophical transformation and its real-world implementation. It reflects the need—echoed across sustainability literature—to align short-term interventions with deeper shifts in worldviews, values, and paradigms ([17,22,24].

The deep intervention realm encompasses the Shì (holistic energy; LP1–2) and Dào (essence; LP3–5) domains (Figure 3). By engaging LP1-LP5—perceiving holistic energy dynamics and systemic dynamics (LP1–2), deep ethical insights, pre-paradigm metacognition in order to re-imagine human–nature relationships, and re-constructing underlying assumptions and collective futures (LP3–5)—it aims to bring about long-term structural and foundational source-code shifts, that is, deep meta-cognitive changes in how we perceive, think, and relate to the world. Research shows that our ways of knowing and perceiving shape the solutions we create. This realm challenges mechanistic, anthropocentric paradigms and cultivates an awareness of humanity’s embeddedness in a wider ecological and spiritual order. It aligns with calls for pluralistic, values-based, and culturally grounded approaches to sustainability. Empirical and philosophical research on spiritual nature connection [30,55,56,57,58], compassionate ethics [59], and love-driven responsibility [60,61] demonstrates that deep reconnection with nature is essential for lasting behavioral and systemic transformation [57,62].

The shallow intervention realm spans the Fǎ (principles; LP6–8), Shù (practices; LP9), and Qì (tools; LP10) domains (Figure 3). This realm translates deep insights into concrete governance architectures, methodologies, and technologies. It operationalizes ethical norms, adaptive strategies, and institutional frameworks within day-to-day systems. Rooted in Taoist principles of flexibility, adaptability, and responsiveness, this realm ensures that paradigmatic shifts manifest as actionable pathways that retain coherence with deeper transformations. Its relevance spans policy innovation [27], transition design [63], systemic experimentation [19], biomimicry [64], social innovation design [65], and low-carbon infrastructure [66,67,68]. These interventions are most likely to achieve meaningful impact when anchored in the ethical momentum generated by the deep realm.

Importantly, the two realms are not hierarchical, but rather mutually constitutive. Deep interventions help shape the ethical and cognitive foundations of shallow interventions, while shallow interventions provide the practical expressions that test and refine these deeper paradigms. As Meadows [24] and Fischer et al. [69] emphasize, interventions at one level can either reinforce or undermine those at another. The DSSI framework formalizes this feedback loop, enabling alignment between intent and implementation.

Taoist metaphilosophy underpins this structure, highlighting the balance between essence and action and abstract idealism and practical application [25]. This philosophical foundation resists both technocratic reductionism and disconnected idealism [70]. By ensuring that technical interventions are informed by ethical intentionality—such as compassion, humility, and ecological awareness—the framework avoids reducing interventions to merely instrumental or depoliticized solutions. At the same time, it allows for metaphysical insights to be translated into scalable, context-sensitive interventions that evolve alongside emerging challenges. In sum, the DSSI framework provides both a reflective guide and a strategic tool for sustainability transitions, enabling interventions that are not only structurally effective but also ethically coherent. It fosters a process in which paradigmatic transformation and operational practice can continuously inform and reshape one another, contributing to systemic, adaptive, and ethical sustainability outcomes.

In the following we will explore the definitions, Taoist connection, and transformative role of each domain within the Dào–Fǎ–Shù–Qì–Shì model as well as each leverage point (LP) of the ten LPs categorized, offering a comprehensive view of how the DSSI framework functions both as a philosophical and pragmatic system of interventions.

4.2. Philosophical Hermeneutics and Cross-Cultural Translation: Mapping Dào-Fǎ-Shù-Qì-Shì to a Sustainability Context

This section lays the philosophical and conceptual groundwork for the DSSI framework and its leverage points (see

Table 1. Structure interpretation of the DSSI framework.

Name	Intervention Realm	Leverage Domains	Conceptual Definition	Role in Sustainability Transitions	Leverage Points (LPs)
The Deep and Shallow Sustainability Intervention (DSSI) framework	Deep Intervention Realm	Shì domain(the holistic energy domain)	Shì domain conceptualizes systems through dynamic latent potential, momentum flows, and transformation trajectories shaped by internal/external forces and systemic interdependencies. It integrates Taoist principles (e.g., wúwéi, shùn shì ér wéi) to perceive and modulate non-linear, emergent energy patterns in sustainability challenges.	It reframes transitions by emphasizing alignment with systemic rhythms over control, fostering co-evolutionary steering that amplifies latent momentum and harmonizes human systems with ecological flows. This shifts sustainability strategies from reactive fixes to relational, non-anthropocentric interventions attuned to long-wave dynamics and cross-scale coherence.	LP 1—Situational Momentum Sensing
					LP 2—Coherence Modulation and Meta-Coordinated Alignment
		Dào domain (the essence domain)	The Dào domain is a metaphysical essence domain, representing the ineffable, generative order governing the universe’s processes of change and reconciliation. It constitutes the pre-paradigmatic ethical, spiritual, and cognitive ground shaping humanity’s values, worldviews, and alignment with natural systems.	It reframes sustainability transitions by shifting focus from technical fixes to reimagining humanity’s role through ecocentric, relational, and cosmologically attuned narratives. This domain guides systemic transformation by fostering moral imagination, epistemic humility, and ontological realignment with Earth’s living systems, serving as the foundational “source-code” for ethical and visionary coherence in sustainability efforts.	LP 3—Pre-paradigmatic Perception and Deep Awareness of the Essence, Laws, and Relational Nature of the World
					LP 4—Reconfiguration of Ethical Assumptions and Narrative Co-visions
					LP 5—Human Role and Responsibility in Systemic Alignment
	Shallow Intervention Realm	Fǎ domain (the principle domain)	The Fǎ domain is a governance domain, translating the essence, and holistic energy domains into institutional logics, policies, and adaptive regulatory mechanisms that structure societal behavior and collective action. It operates bidirectionally, codifying regenerative paradigms while evolving through reflexive feedback loops with ecological and social realities.	It enables structural societal change by embedding interdependency and regenerative principles into governance architectures, shifting systems from rigid control to adaptive, learning-oriented frameworks. By aligning legal, economic, and cultural norms with ecological flows, it institutionalizes long-term transitions toward symbiosis, ensuring policies evolve dynamically with ethical and systemic awareness.	LP 6—Meta-Principles and Societal Paradigms for Guiding Governance
					LP 7—Structural Coherence of Institutional Regimes and Governance Architectures
					LP 8—Reflexive and Recursive Governance Systems, Mechanisms, Organizations, and Executive Institutions
		Shù domain (the practice domain)	The Shù domain embodies the adaptive operationalization of sustainability transitions through practical methods and strategies. It integrates flexible implementation of Dào’s ethical vision and Shì’s systemic dynamics, emphasizing reflection on the motivations, impacts, and ethical consequences of actions.	It translates principles into context-sensitive, feasible interventions, ensuring strategies adapt to evolving challenges while staying ethically grounded. By balancing pragmatic execution with ecological and societal alignment, it bridges long-term sustainability goals with actionable, iterative solutions.	LP 9—Embodied Tactical Know-How, Contextual Methods, Adaptive Strategies, and Responsive Practical Action
		Qì domain (the tool domain)	The Qì domain focuses on tangible tools, technologies, and resources (e.g., infrastructure, digital platforms, financial capital) that operationalize sustainability transitions. It represents the material means for executing strategies but requires alignment with the essence, holistic energy, and principle domains to avoid perpetuating unsustainable paradigms.	As the material foundation for interventions, it supplies critical resources (technologies, infrastructure, capacity) necessary to implement strategies. By ensuring tools evolve reflexively through ethical scrutiny and feedback, it prevents extractive ideologies from dominating, instead anchoring technical execution in regenerative philosophies to drive coherent, systemic change.	LP 10—Resources, Platforms, Tools, and Instrumental Creations shaped through Relational Use

). Using philosophical hermeneutics - an approach that highlights interpretive multiplicity and transcends Eurocentric epistemic authority, helping to uncover the ideology behind dominant narratives and enabling a more inclusive, decolonial understanding of knowledge [53,71,72,73], it interprets Taoist-inspired concepts to reveal their internal logic and practical coherence in governance and long-term strategy [25]. The five domains—Dào, Fǎ, Shù, Qì, and Shì—correspond to levels of systemic engagement, from metaphysical foundations to situational potential, forming a non-hierarchical yet functionally layered structure that supports recursive adaptation. Taoist concepts provide a systemic grammar for navigating complexity, and when integrated with systems theory, they bridge worldview shifts with practical interventions, addressing a key gap in sustainability transitions [15]. This reinterpretation enables Taoist insights to be reconstructed into a layered, actionable framework for systemic transformation.

Each of the five domains is reinterpreted in light of sustainability science, forming a layered intervention system. This layered mapping allows the Taoist worldview to be reconstructed into a framework applicable to systemic sustainability transitions.

4.2.1. The Holistic Energy Domain, Shì

The ancient Chinese concept of “Shì (势)” refers to the dynamic tendencies, latent potential, momentum flows and directionality inherent in a given situation. In this paper, the Shì domain is framed as a holistic energy domain, offering a philosophical and operational lens for perceiving and modulating the deep energetic patterns and latent transformation trajectories of complex systems in sustainability transitions. Shì captures not just the evolving internal configuration of potential but also how it arises from the interplay between internal system forces and broader contextual dynamics, be they macro-scale, cross-temporal, or environmental. This domain helps us perceive the momentum and directionality of change, as well as the emergent systemic flows and transformation rhythms often missed by static or linear models of change.

Whereas most established transition frameworks—such as adaptive governance [74], transition management [75], and panarchy theory [76]—prioritize feedback, learning, and multi-level interactions, the Shì domain embodies a meta-systemic logic and meta-coordination perspective grounded in relational dynamism, emergent momentum, and energetic attunement across scales. This alternative leverage domain highlights the importance of sensing, aligning with, and subtly modulating systemic flows. It complements existing transition approaches by focusing on how transformation unfolds through latent momentum, long-wave dynamics, and deep interdependencies—shaped by both human and non-human forces across time and scale.

Functionally, the Shì domain operates as a cross-scale sensing and coordination layer. It promotes contextual intelligence, holistic situational awareness, and the ability to align actions with a system’s underlying energetic logic. From this perspective, sustainability challenges—like climate disruption or ecological collapse, socio-economic inequality—can be seen as long-term energy flow imbalances, coordination breakdowns, and misalignments between systems and context. Rather than driving change through control, the Shì domain supports a shift toward co-evolutionary steering. This involves re-attuning human systems to natural rhythms and relational coherence, fostering adaptive transformation, resilience-building, and cross-sector collaboration. By learning to sense emergent momentum, identify tipping points, and design context-sensitive interventions, the Shì domain helps to amplify rather than disrupt system dynamics. In doing so, it offers both a philosophical foundation and an operational logic for sustainability transitions that are adaptive, relational, and ecologically attuned. In this light, sustainability transitions are reframed as processes that are non-anthropocentric, emergent, energy-aware, and harmonized with the living systems they aim to support.

Philosophically, the Shì domain draws on key Taoist insights to support transition. Wúwéi (Chinese: 无为，effortless action) corresponds to non-linear intervention with minimal external force and cultivates resonance over resistance. It resonates with Western trajectories from ontology to technê (e.g., from Aristotle’s essence to poiesis), but Daoism places much more emphasis on conformity with the emergent order rather than the transformation of nature. Holism and interdependence resonate with systemic coupling and feedback dynamics as well, fostering coherence across domains and time scales. Shùn shì ér wéi (Chinese: 顺势而为, i.e., resilience, acting in accordance with the flow) parallels adaptive responsiveness and systemic resilience and aligns with systemic dynamics. Together, these insights emphasize non-coercive influence and attunement to emergent patterns rather than top-down control, converging with Western systems thought on emergence, relationality, and non-linearity [45] as well as with Gestalt and general systems theory in recognizing that the whole exceeds the sum of its parts [77].

Accordingly, the Shì domain corresponds to two core leverage points (LPs) in the DSSI framework: LP 1—situational momentum sensing, the lens to perceive and attune to the system’s dynamic tendencies and latent potential and LP 2—coherence modulation and meta-coordinated alignment, the ability to foster systemic coherence and adaptive alignment across levels, actors, and temporal scales.

4.2.2. The Essence Domain, Dào

The ancient Chinese concept “Dào (道)” denotes a road, path, or the way. In Taoist philosophy, it refers to an ineffable, generative order, essence and nature, embodying the fundamental law that governs the processes of life, change, and reconciliation in the universe. It transcends form, permeates all things, and supports the natural unfolding of life. In this paper, the Dào domain is presented as the essence domain of sustainability transitions. It adopts the notion of “essence domain” developed by Liang and Segalàs [25], which is the evolving cognitive and ethical ground through which humans attempt to attune themselves to the deeper, systemic logic of the universe. In a transition context, this domain refers to the invisible meta-cognitive, ethical, and metaphysical ground from which human perception, values, and worldviews emerge, concerning the implicit narratives, moral assumptions, and ontological orientations that condition how societies define problems, seek solutions, and imagine the future. In this sense, the Dào domain is not static; it is a living, evolving process of human perception, spiritual reflection, and moral imagination. It directs societies toward alignment with the natural order and life’s deeper principles. As such, the Dào domain precedes conventional paradigms, resonating with Thomas Kuhn’s notion of “pre-paradigmatic” thinking [78], but extends beyond it.

This essence domain invites a fundamental rethinking of humanity’s place within Earth’s living systems. It pushes beyond instrumental logic toward a relational, ecocentric, and cosmologically informed vision of sustainability. While often overlooked in scientific or policy discourse, this layer is essential for deep transformation. Environmentalist Gus Speth captured this well (cited in [79]):

“I used to think the top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that with 30 years of good science we could address those problems. But I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy… and to deal with those we need a spiritual and cultural transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”

His point underscores a key claim of this paper: technical solutions alone cannot address the underlying causes of ecological and social breakdown, which while beneficial, are insufficient and may inadvertently perpetuate the underlying issues of unsustainability [80]. A transformation of spirit, culture, and consciousness must come first, and it begins with the Dào domain. Intervening in this domain means cultivating the pre-paradigmatic conditions for transformation: epistemic humility, reverence for life, and a shift in values from control to co-becoming. It moves the question from “How do society most effectively engineer transitions?” to “What kind of beings must we become to live in harmony with the Earth?” This is not merely a spiritual concern; it is a design and governance imperative that opens a space of inquiry into what it means to live in harmony with the ever-changing flow of life, enabling a re-evaluation of human–nature relationships. Without this level of intervention, sustainability efforts remain stuck in old modes of thinking with new tools. The Dào domain supports the creation of cultural narratives grounded in interbeing, reciprocity, and systemic awareness. It encourages reflexive inquiry into the assumptions embedded in science, policy, and design. It also reopens the door to indigenous, cosmological, and spiritual ways of knowing that have long been marginalized in mainstream sustainability discourse.

In this light, the essence domain can be seen as the source-code layer of sustainability transitions. It precedes form, yet it gives rise to form—a space of meta-awareness, virtue, and unity. It guides the ethos, direction, and integrity of action across all other domains. In systems terms, it connects to ontological design, cosmological imagination, and value-rooted orientation, i.e., the deeper structures that shape how systems evolve and regenerate.

The Dào domain encompasses three deep leverage points within the DSSI framework: LP 3—pre-paradigmatic perception and deep awareness of the essence, laws, and relational nature of the world; LP 4—reconfiguration of ethical assumptions and narrative co-visions; and LP 5—human role and responsibility in systemic alignment, aligning with the Taoist flow of “perception and awareness → meaning-making → systemic alignment”.

4.2.3. The Principles’ Domain, Fǎ

The ancient Chinese concept Fǎ (法) means law, principle, or rule; it refers not only to formal laws but also to the underlying normative structures that guide behavior in harmony with the natural order. In this paper, the Fǎ domain encompasses governance principles, institutional logics, normative paradigms, and systemic regulatory mechanisms that shape and guide the functioning of human societies. It includes the rules, ideologies, and governance systems that structure social order—defining the frameworks within which actions take place across social, political, economic, and cultural dimensions. The Fǎ domain represents the institutional translation of deep ethical insights and pre-paradigmatic meta-cognitions (from the Dào domain) as well as holistic energetic dynamics (from the Shì domain) into social architectures that influence collective behavior and societal evolution. It provides foundational scaffolding for transformative societal change. While primarily situated in the shallow intervention realm, it maintains crucial connections to the deep intervention realm by formulating laws, codes, and organizational logics that channel collective action.

Crucially, the Fǎ domain operates bidirectionally: it projects downward the paradigmatic visions and energetic currents of the essence (Dào) and the holistic energy (Shì) domains into governance mechanisms—that is, policies, regulations, incentive structures, and institutional norms—while simultaneously harvesting feedback from society and the environment, enabling adaptation and learning over time. This reflexive loop ensures that laws and institutions remain responsive to ecological signals, social responses, and emerging ethical awareness. In other words, the Fǎ domain is not static but a learning, reflexive and recursive governance field capable of evolving and adapting its own principles as contexts shift. As philosopher Ames [81] notes, “Fixed rules and principles governing every foreseeable problem are an anthropocentric illusion.” In this sense, the Fǎ domain shapes normative structures and collective behaviors by continually questioning how governance can evolve to promote regenerative processes, rather than imposing rigid controls in a static structure.

While many policies—such as carbon pricing, emissions trading, or agroecology mandates—offer short-term leverage, the real power of the Fǎ domain lies in its ability to restructure governance for long-term transformation. When informed by the Dào (deep values) and Shì (emergent momentum) domains, this domain can build adaptive legal architectures, foster cross-sector collaboration and institutionalize the principles of ecological interdependence. As societies deepen their understanding of systemic interconnectedness, the Fǎ domain can shift from anthropocentric control models toward more relational and regenerative systems of governance. This transition is not about adding more regulations but about redesigning the principles that shape regulation itself.

The Fǎ domain includes three key leverage points that connect philosophical insight with practical governance: LP 6—meta-principles and societal paradigms for guiding governance; LP 7—structural coherence of institutional regimes and governance architectures; and LP 8—reflexive and recursive governance systems, mechanisms, organizations, and executive institutions.

4.2.4. The Practice Domain, Shù

The Shù domain encompasses the domain of strategic practices, applied knowledge, methodologies, and implementation logics through which governance principles (Fǎ), deep ethical insights and pre-paradigmatic meta-cognitions (Dào) and holistic energetic dynamics (Shì) become actionable in complex contexts. The ancient Chinese concept “Shù (术)” means the methods, techniques, theories, strategies, etc.—not mere tactics but embodied wisdom in action—which are the adaptive plans, pathways, and improvisational capacities that transform normative intent into real-world transformation.

In sustainability transitions, the Shù domain involves designing and executing interventions that resonate with natural rhythms (yǒu wèi 有为, intentional action). It includes both formalized methodologies (e.g., scenario planning, backcasting, participatory design) and context-sensitive improvisation (e.g., sensing, prototyping, iterative reflection), valuing both technical expertise and embodied practitioner knowledge, as well as reflecting on the motivations, impacts, and consequences of the steps taken. As a locus of experimentation and learning-by-doing, Shù ensures that strategies remain flexible and responsive to emerging challenges and insights, bridging institutional vision and the lived complexity of change. Examples include corporate strategies for energy efficiency, regenerative agriculture, and urban green infrastructure, all of which align with broader sustainability objectives and the evolving ecological, social, and ethical imperatives. By iterating interventions in light of ecological signals, social feedback, and ethical imperatives, the Shù domain animates the DSSI framework’s commitment to adaptive transformation—where strategy becomes practice, and practice continually refines strategy, ultimately sustaining momentum and coherence throughout the transition process.

The practice domain (Shù) includes LP 9—embodied tactical know-how, contextual methods, adaptive strategies, and responsive practical action.

4.2.5. The Tool Domain, Qì

The Qì domain refers to the material, technical, infrastructural, and digital tools, resources, and technologies—such as platforms, materials, products, infrastructures, and financial capital—that enable the execution of sustainability transitions in tangible and measurable ways and extend human capacity to intervene, measure, model, and transform systems. The ancient Chinese concept “Qì (Chinese: 器)” means an appliance, utensil, apparatus, implement, or specific position, identity, etc. Within this intervention framework, Qì represents the instrumental domain of technologies, infrastructures, and knowledge systems, serving as the operational ground on which transitions take shape. As the material foundation for implementing interventions, the tool domain ensures the availability of essential resources, including infrastructure, technologies, and organizational capacity, to drive systemic change.

The Qì domain encompasses both physical tools (e.g., renewable energy systems, ecological infrastructure, circular economy platforms) and digital systems (e.g., AI for sustainability, monitoring dashboards, carbon accounting platforms) that materialize and support deeper transformation goals. While physical and virtual tools can dramatically enhance strategic precision and accelerate systemic transformation, they also carry the risk of reinforcing reductionist paradigms if deployed without philosophical and systemic coherence. Over-reliance on misaligned technologies can fragment integrated efforts and perpetuate unsustainable trajectories. The Qì domain thus demands reflexivity; tools must evolve through ongoing feedback, ethical scrutiny, and alignment with the domains of Dào (essence), Shì (holistic energetic dynamic), and Fǎ (governance principles). As Benyus [64] reminds us via McKibben, “our tools are always deployed in the service of some philosophy or ideology.” Ancient Taoist texts, such as the I Ching, Tao Te Ching, and Tai Ping Jing, emphasize Qì (tool) as arising naturally from the Dào, embodying natural laws in material form. That said, today’s tools increasingly serve a growth-oriented, consumerist ideology disconnected from deep ethical insights and pre-paradigmatic meta-cognitions (Dào—essence) that align with the flow of nature. Thus, the Qì domain must remain reflexive; tools must evolve with feedback, ethics, and systemic complexity in mind. As Bill McKibben observes (cited by [65]), “our tools are always deployed in the service of some philosophy or ideology.”

The tool domain (Qì) includes LP 10—resources, platforms, tools, and instrumental creations shaped through relational use.

4.3. Development of Conceptual Prototypes

This paper presents a preliminary set of conceptual prototypes for each leverage point (see

Table 2. Conceptual prototypes for the 10 leverage points of the DSSI framework.

Intervention Realm	Leverage Domains	Leverage Point (LP)	Conceptual Definition	Taoist Connection	Transformative Role
Deep Intervention Realm	Shì domain (the holistic energy domain)	LP 1—Situational Momentum Sensing	Assessing the system’s current state and energy flow within its spatiotemporal context, offering a macro-level understanding that informs transition.	In alignment with the Taoist fluid wisdom of shùn shì ér wéi (“acting in accordance with the natural flow”).	LP1 promotes a co-evolutionary logic that enables actors to sense emerging momentum, anticipate transformational thresholds, and initiate timely, subtle, and system-aligned transitions for maximal resonance.
		LP 2—Coherence Modulation and Meta-Coordinated Alignment	Holistic attuning to emergent systemic coherence and soft-modulating cross-scale dynamics to guide systemic transformation.	Grounded in a Taoist relational cosmology and systems emergence, emphasizing relational governance that follows the system’s natural flow and rhythms.	LP2 shifts focus from fragmented actions to coherent, cross-scale transitions by strengthening relational alignment and enabling systems to generate cascading, cross-scale synergies that stabilize and direct adaptive transformation.
	Dào domain (the essence domain)	LP 3—Pre-paradigmatic Perception and Deep Awareness of the Essence, Laws, and Relational Nature of the World	Awakening deep, experiential insight into the universe’s essence and generative laws, which serve as the pre-paradigmatic root shifts.	Reflects the Taoist concept of wú (emptiness), which emphasizes non-duality, ontological humility, emphasizing a shift from control to attunement with the natural flow and fostering deep perceptual and existential transformation.	LP3 cultivates the meta-cognitive ontological ground for paradigm shifts by aligning perception and ethics with the world’s deeper essence, enabling regenerative, non-dualistic transformation to emerge naturally.
		LP 4—Reconfiguration of Ethical Assumptions and Narrative Co-visions	Revealing and reframing hidden ethical narratives and imaginaries that shape collective life-worlds, promoting the reconfiguration of values, ethical understanding, and systemic goals and co-visions.	Reflects the Taoist concept of Dé (德) as the spontaneous, embodied virtue that emerges from alignment with the Dào, inviting the reawakening of hidden moral architectures within systems and supporting ethical insight through humility, reciprocity, and regenerative co-creation.	LP4 shapes the collective imagination and reconfigures normative attractors, providing a philosophical and ethical foundation for long-term transformation toward more inclusive, life-affirming human–nature relationships.
		LP 5—Human Role and Responsibility in Systemic Alignment	Reimagining the symbiotic relationship and reconfiguring humanity’s role, rights, and responsibilities within the ecological system, encouraging participatory alignment and action-based shifts for sustainability.	Drawing on the “unity of Heaven and Humanity” (Tiān rén hé yī) and alignment with Tiān Dào (the natural laws of the cosmos), highlights harmonious co-existence and ensures that actions are guided by humility, relational awareness, and congruence with the Dào.	LP5 offers an ethical and existential foundation for sustainability transitions, activating transformation by reorienting humanity’s role, relational duties, moral attentiveness, reciprocity, and ethical embeddedness.
Shallow Intervention Realm	Fǎ domain (the principle domain)	LP 6—Meta-Principles and Societal Paradigms for Guiding Governance	Constructing and periodically recalibrating overarching society’s guiding principles, ideologies, norms and paradigms that anchor governance in deep ethical and ecological insight.	Emulating Fǎ as laws emerging spontaneously organically from cosmic harmony, ensuring that societal meta-principles that guide governance logic flow from a shared recognition of interdependence and systemic coherence.	LP6 anchors collective action in evolving ethical and philosophical logics; draws from Dào/Shì to shape societal direction and intentionality, channeling deep philosophical and ethical insights into practical governance.
		LP 7—Structural Coherence of Institutional Regimes and Governance Architectures	Emphasizing structural coherence and responsiveness to evolving ethical imperatives and societal consensus, enabling real-time correction and iterative refinement.	Resonates with Taoist ideal of non-contradictory alignment, and mirrors the natural coherence where parts express a unified order, ensuring that societal frameworks remain flexible and responsive to change.	LP 7 creates the infrastructure and design architecture of multi-level governance. Structures governance through multi-scalar institutions aligned with systemic ethics; links institutions with co-vision and societal dynamics.
		LP 8—Reflexive and Recursive Governance Systems, Mechanisms, Organizations, and Executive Institutions	Exploring how the principles, ideologies, policies are operationalized, feeding forward to Shù and Qì, by embedding continuous reflexive and recursive governance into institutional mechanisms.	Mirrors the Taoist notion of the self-organizing Dào, where systems spontaneously recalibrate in response to changing conditions, guiding governance to function as living networks that self-correct and evolve.	LP8 transforms governance into a dynamic, self-adjusting system by embedding reflexivity and adaptation, enabling policies and institutions to evolve in real time and stay responsive to shifting ecological and social conditions.
	Shù domain (the practice domain)	LP 9 -Embodied Tactical Know-How, Contextual Methods, Adaptive Strategies, and Responsive Practical Action	Operating transition by adjusting strategies and methods based on evolving situations and deeper motivations, ensuring that interventions remain flexible, responsive, and effective in a variety of contexts.	Embodies the application of the Dào in real-world practice, emphasizing resilience, fluidity, flexibility, and adaptability while aligning with the natural flow, echoing the Taoist practice that through yǒu wèi (intentional action) leads to wú wèi ér zhì (effortless governance).	LP9 acts as the bridge that operationalizes ethical and systemic insights into iterative, context-sensitive interventions, enabling dynamic stewardship that evolves with ecological realities and regenerative goals, translating strategic intent into responsive, evolving practice.
	Qì domain (the tool domain)	LP 10—Resources, Platforms, Tools, and Instrumental Creations shaped through Relational Use	Designing, selecting, and scaling the material and digital tools that translate abstract principles and vision into measurable outcomes that enable the execution of sustainability interventions.	Qì embodies the materialization of the Dào in tangible form, where tools and resources are not merely instruments, but carrying its essence into practice, reflecting the need for conscious creation and usage.	LP10 serves as the vehicle that transforms ideas into tangible results, ensuring the realization of transformation goals, and as a mirror of intent, linking human consciousness with the living world.

). These prototypes serve as interpretive models that define and communicate the essence of each leverage point. Each prototype incorporates coded concepts, metaphors, and core principles drawn from Taoist philosophy and explanation in a sustainability transition context, providing an enriched understanding of the leverage points’ roles within transformation processes. These prototypes help bridge the gap between theoretical development and practical implementation by offering a conceptual narrative that illustrates the transformative potential of each point, guiding the application of leverage points by making abstract concepts more intuitive, symbolic, and relatable. Detailed implementation pathways and applications are beyond the main focus of this conceptual paper and are to be addressed in two companion empirical manuscripts. By grounding each leverage point in a prototype, the framework remains adaptable and responsive to evolving sustainability challenges. The prototype-based approach supports integration into real-world governance, policies, and transition strategies by aligning systemic insights with philosophical depth and transformative intent.

(1) LP 1: Situational Momentum Sensing.

This leverage point centers on sensing the dynamic tendencies, latent potential, and momentum flows inherent within a given situation. It emphasizes cultivating real-time, systemic awareness of emergent dynamics and the relational interplay between internal forces and external conditions. The aim is to identify windows of opportunity and subtle coherence before dominant feedback structures and fixed patterns assert themselves. Situational momentum sensing requires deep contextual intelligence, that is, the ability to perceive latent trends, attractors, tensions, and thresholds; to map macro-contextual forces and weak signals; and to read the unfolding relational flow between system components. By attuning to what the system is “ready for” or “moving toward”, actors can respond in ways that are co-creative, timely, and synergistic with emerging dynamics.

Drawing from Taoist wisdom—which views the universe as an ever-evolving, self-organizing process—LP1 reflects the fluid wisdom of shùn shì ér wéi (顺势而为), or “acting in accordance with unfolding momentum.” Transformation arises through sensing, perceiving, and attuning to the latent forces and energetic flows within a situation, aligning with their inherent directionality to foster harmony actions. This aligning resonates deeply with Taoist wisdom, particularly the principle of spontaneity (zìrán, 自然) [25].

In terms of its transformative role, LP1 invites a logic of coevolution—one that amplifies the system’s latent potential and works with, not against, the rhythms of evolving emergence. By refining the capacity for situational momentum sensing, actors can anticipate transformational thresholds, respond with precision, and co-initiate transitions that are timely, subtle, and resonant with the deeper energetic contours of the system.

(2) LP 2: Coherence Modulation and Meta-Coordinated Alignment.

This leverage point focuses on holistic attuning to emergent systemic coherence and modulating cross-scale dynamics to guide systemic transformation. LP2 fosters relational resonance across levels, domains, and time scales, working with the system’s unfolding energetic patterns. Through synergy, timing, flow, and soft modulation of the pacing, intensity, and form of change, LP2 creates conditions for systemic transformation to emerge, enabling distributed, multi-level actions that are mutually reinforcing and harmonize with the system’s deeper dynamics. By facilitating the coordination of both cross-sectoral synergy and cross-scale integration, LP2 reframes sustainability transitions as co-evolutionary processes, where transformation emerges naturally from the system’s own relational momentum, rather than through external imposition.

Grounded in a Taoist relational cosmology and systems’ emergence, LP2 transcends traditional structural alignment. Coherence modulation and meta-coordinated alignment in this context mean subtly adjusting, amplifying, and guiding systemic forces, facilitating the self-organizing, co-evolutionary flow of transition that embraces uncertainty, emergence, and relational intelligence and emphasizing relational governance that follows the system’s natural flow and rhythms.

In terms of its transformative role, LP2 fosters a shift from fragmented interventions to a unified, co-evolutionary transition process by aligning systemic flows across scales and domains. It amplifies relational coherence, enabling adaptive networks capable of navigating complexity and emerging change. This creates the conditions for long-term, non-linear transformation, which unfolds in harmony with the system’s inherent rhythms, ensuring that sustainability transitions are grounded in the system’s deeper, self-organizing logic.

(3) LP 3—Pre-paradigmatic Perception and Deep Awareness of the Essence, Laws, and Relational Nature of the World.

This leverage point refers to the deep, evolving human perception and “juéwù” (Chinese: 觉悟, enlightenment or awakening) as well as realization of the fundamental essence and generative laws of the universe. It represents the space of the ontological and epistemic awakening that precedes paradigm formation, inviting a re-attunement of the relational fabric of existence and human perceptions of principles of interbeing, impermanence, and the hidden coherence of life. Through this leverage point, humanity comes to understand its embeddedness within the natural flow of the universe and reawakens its sensitivity to the flow, thereby fostering physical, ecological, and spiritual harmonization in transition. At its core, this leverage point cultivates ontological humility and pre-cognitive, experiential realization, which is an understanding of the fundamental essence of life that transcends superficial appearances. This understanding and realization not only reveals the resilient, interconnected, adaptive, and fluid nature of the holistic world—essences that reshape the cognitive base, worldview, and scientific thinking that underpin societal structures—but also facilitates a shift in the pre-paradigmatic roots of thought by recognizing the non-linear, cyclical, and emergent dynamics of the complex world, thus providing the existential foundation for transformative insight that aligns with the flow of nature.

Rooted in the Taoist notion of “wú” (Chinese: 无, emptiness), this leverage point operates at the deepest level of transition and reflects the space of emptiness that gives the ontological, epistemological, and ethical substratum chances to perceive truth from the undivided source beyond conditioned knowledge. It is not about what we do or how we act, but about how we perceive, value, and fundamentally relate to nature, each other, and the system itself. Rather than imposing control over systems, LP 3 calls for a perceptual shift from domination to relational attunement, recognizing that sustainability transition arises from aligning human actions with the deeper, generative logic of life itself.

Regarding its transformative role, LP3 creates the meta-cognitive and spiritual ground for pre-paradigmatic perception shifts and truly regenerative, non-dualistic futures to emerge. It serves as a foundational leverage point, enabling systemic transitions to emerge naturally from a deeper resonance with the world’s intrinsic essence and flow, preparing the cognitive and ethical soil from which transformative change can grow.

(4) LP 4—Reconfiguration of Ethical Assumptions and Narrative Co-visions.

This leverage point addresses the implicit assumptions, ethical narratives, and symbolic frameworks that shape humanity’s relationship with nature, as well as collective meaning making and co-visions of the future. Beneath systems structures lie deep moral architectures that influence what societies consider legitimate, desirable, and possible. Bateson [82] observed that the world’s major problems are due to the disparity between the holistic, ecological way the world operates and how people think it works. LP4 calls for a re-examination of these tacit frames to reconfigure how life ethics, interdependence, and responsibility are understood and embodied. In doing so, it lays the groundwork for a paradigmatic shift—one that reframes human identity, purpose, and collective imagination through the lens of relational vitality rather than control or domination.

LP4 reflects the Taoist concept of Dé (德), which is the embodied, emergent virtue that arises from living in harmony with the Dào (道). Unlike imposed morality, Dé is the spontaneous ethical coherence that flows from deep relational attunement. In this light, LP4 invites a reawakening of the hidden moral architectures embedded within systems and supports the unfolding of ethical insight through humility, reciprocity, and regenerative co-creation. It calls for a post-anthropocentric ethos rooted in interdependence and systemic harmony, offering a paradigmatic reorientation of how humanity imagines and inhabits its place within the living world.

Regarding its transformative role, LP4 serves as a philosophical and ethical foundation for long-term transformation, shaping the collective imagination and reconfiguring the normative attractors that guide societal direction. By reorienting values toward relational vitality and life-affirming futures, it offers a moral compass for more inclusive, balanced, and symbiotic human–nature relationships (e.g., refs. [54,55]).

(5) LP 5—Human Role and Responsibility in Systemic Alignment.

This leverage point focuses on reflecting on humanity’s role, rights, responsibilities and conscientiousness within Earth’s living systems. LP5 calls for a return to symbiotic relationality, where human systems are recognized as relational participants embedded in a co-evolving, interdependent whole. It invites a deep moral and existential rethinking of how human society—through governance, science, economy, and culture—understands its place within the web of life. This reflective reorientation catalyzes action-oriented shifts across humanity and its societal subsystems, fostering transitions that move in resonance with natural rhythms and support the regeneration of life systems. It challenges anthropocentric paradigms of domination and promotes the evolution of collective identity—from isolated agents toward relational contributors—ensuring that society acts not against, but within and alongside, the unfolding logic of the living world.

Rooted in the Taoist notion of Tiānrén hé yī (Chinese: 天人合一, Unity of Cosmos and Humanity) [25], this leverage point reflects the principle that human beings harmonize with the Tiān Dào (Chinese: 天道, the overarching intrinsic natural laws of the cosmos). In Taoist thought, humans are not external to nature but are emergent expressions of its deep relational order, and human flourishing arises through alignment with that order, i.e., recognizing and honoring the subtle dynamics of life. Reflecting on humanity’s positioning and moral responsibility ensures that actions are guided by humility, relational awareness, and congruence with the Dào. Transition thus arises through attunement to the invisible flows and generative rhythms of existence, framing ecological entwinement as the ethical ground for enduring transformation.

Regarding its transformative role, LP5 offers an ethical and existential foundation for sustainability transitions. It explores how insights from awakening and re-narration translate into collective and personal shifts toward aligned living, activating transformation by reorienting humanity’s role, relational duties, and moral attentiveness. This shift fosters reciprocity over control, cultivating a collective sense of co-responsibility and ethical embeddedness, and lays the ethical and ontological groundwork for regenerative change.

(6) LP 6—Meta-Principles and Societal Paradigms for Guiding Governance.

This leverage point focuses on artificially summarised or constructed principles, norms, ideologies and paradigms in response to novel insights emanating from the deep intervention realm (e.g., Taoist cosmology, indigenous ethics, systems thinking), which are formalized into normative ideologies and overarching legal–ethical frameworks that underpin governance systems. An example of this are meta-principles—such as justice, equity, and balance—that frame legislation, policy design, and institutional mandates. Due to the dynamic nature of the Fǎ domain, LP6 aims to periodically revisit and recalibrate these constructed foundational paradigms to ensure alignment with holistic, long-term sustainability goals.

In Taoist philosophy, Fǎ embodies the natural way of regulation, i.e., laws that emerge spontaneously from cosmic harmony. LP6 mirrors this organic emergence by ensuring that societal meta-principles guide governance logic flow from a shared recognition of interdependence and systemic coherence.

Regarding its transformative role, by channeling deep philosophical and ethical insights into practical governance scaffolding, LP6 serves as the bridge between visionary ideals and institutional practice, serving as a conduit through which deeper wisdom informs institutional logic and societal navigation, ensuring that all downstream rules and institutions remain aligned with those higher-order principles. Its power lies in its reflexive responsiveness, which means anchoring collective action in evolving meta-governance values, steering legislation and policy design toward regenerative goals, and constantly fine-tuning the moral compass that guides societal navigation (or erects the moral and conceptual scaffolding), the guiding vision, and ethical “attractors”.

(7) LP 7—Structural Coherence of Institutional Regimes and Governance Architectures.

This leverage point focuses on the structural coordination and ongoing adaptation of governance systems and institutional mechanisms across human societal subsystems—such as the social, political, economic, and cultural systems—to support the sustainability transition. It emphasizes the importance of structural coherence and responsiveness to evolving ethical imperatives and societal consensus, enabling real-time correction and iterative refinement. By embodying collective ethical principles and adapting to shifts in societal power dynamics and understanding of sustainability, governance architectures can act as stabilizing yet flexible scaffolds for transformation. Therefore, the structural coherence of institutional systems and governance architectures provides both stability and flexibility, serving as a key support for sustainability transformation. It ensures vertical integration across scales, horizontal coordination across sectors, and adaptation to the evolving ethical demands and changing social consensus.

From a Taoist perspective on Fǎ, coherence arises when the parts of a whole express a single underlying order. Just as natural phenomena unfold in patterned harmony, institutional architectures should reflect integrated logics, ensuring that economic, environmental, and social mandates weave together rather than engage in conflict. This “governance harmony” echoes the Taoist ideal of non-contradictory alignment among all dimensions of being.

Regarding its transformative role, LP7 plays a critical role in shaping governance systems that are both stable and flexible and builds the operational scaffolding that translates meta-principles into action. It constructs the practical scaffolding, which is an institutional architecture and coordination infrastructure, weaving policies across scales and sectors into a coherent whole so that day-to-day governance consistently reinforces, ensuring that all dimensional objectives align harmoniously. By sculpting governance architectures that embody systemic consistency, this leverage point enhances coherence, accelerates implementation, and builds adaptive capacity across complex, interdependent systems.

(8) LP 8—Reflexive and Recursive Governance Systems, Mechanisms, Organizations, and Executive Institutions.

LP8 focuses on the capacity of governance systems to learn, adapt, and evolve by integrating continuous top-down coordination with bottom-up feedback. It examines how sustainability principles are translated into operational tools and how these tools respond to ecological, social, and institutional feedback, ensuring that transitions are not just theoretical but enacted in practice. This includes legal regimes, monitoring mechanisms, and organizational frameworks that enable adaptive, context-sensitive action. By ensuring governance bodies remain agile and responsive, LP8 transforms institutions from rigid rule enforcers into dynamic stewards capable of co-evolving with the systems they guide.

This reflexivity mirrors the Taoist notion of the self-organizing Dào, where systems spontaneously recalibrate in response to changing conditions. LP8 channels this essence into Fǎ, ensuring that governance systems are not rigid artifacts but living networks that self-correct and evolve. Just as natural ecosystems adjust their parameters, effective institutions must modulate their own rules and practices to remain attuned to the unfolding rhythm of transitions, ensuring that governance remains pertinent and aligned with shifting ethical, social, and systemic contexts.

Regarding its transformative role, LP8 plays a critical role in transforming governance from a static enforcer of rules to a dynamic, self-adjusting system. Its transformative potential lies in the ability to embed reflexivity and adaptation into governance mechanisms, ensuring they evolve in real time to respond to changing ecological and social conditions. This shift toward recursive governance enhances resilience, supports sustainability transitions, and ensures that policies and institutions remain contextually relevant and effective over time.

(9) LP 9—Embodied Tactical Know-How, Contextual Methods, Adaptive Strategies, and Responsive Practical Action.

This leverage point focuses on the operational methods, flexible strategies, and practical steps essential for driving sustainability transitions. It encompasses the theoretical frameworks, intervention strategies, methods, and procedures applied throughout the transition process, whilst always being in service of deeper philosophical intentions and systemic coherence. By embedding continuous feedback on motivations and impacts, LP9 ensures that real-world actions are both purposeful and adaptive.

Rooted in the wisdom of yǒu wèi (有为, intentional action) and culminating in wú wèi ér zhì (无为而治, governance through effortlessness), LP9 reflects Taoist insight that effective practice flows from alignment with the essence and holistic energy domains. Shù here is the embodiment of the natural order in human endeavors, emphasizing resilience, fluidity, and non-rigid adaptation.

Regarding its transformative role, LP9 acts as the bridge to operationalize ethical and systemic insights into iterative, context-sensitive interventions. By enabling practitioners to experiment, learn, and recalibrate in real time, it transforms governance from static rule-enforcement into dynamic stewardship, ensuring that sustainability actions evolve in harmony with ecological dynamics and long-term regenerative goals.

(10) LP 10—Resources, Platforms, Tools, and Instrumental Creations shaped through Relational Use.

This leverage point concerns the tools, resources, and technologies created during the transformation process that enable action and facilitate the transition. These tools include material tools (e.g., equipment, infrastructure), virtual tools (e.g., technological platforms, systems), and economic–cultural tools (e.g., education, media). In Taoist thought, Qì represents the tools and resources that carry the essence of the Dào. These tools are not just instruments for achieving goals but embody the philosophical and ideological underpinnings of the Dào. Therefore, in practice, it supports the design, selection, adaptation, and scaling of tools that are flexible, appropriate, and intentionally guided by holistic values.

In alignment with Taoist philosophy, the Qì domain does more than support functionality. It also reflects underlying cosmologies, ethical orientations, and systemic assumptions. When tools are disconnected from deeper insight, becoming merely instrumental, they risk serving unsustainable, growth-driven paradigms. Therefore, Qì must remain ethically guided and contextually responsive, ensuring that technological and material interventions uphold systemic coherence and regenerative potential.

Regarding its transformative role, LP 10 serves as the vehicles that transform ideas into tangible results, ensuring the achievement of transformation goals. It is not only a carrier of implementation, but also a mirror of intent—a tangible interface between human consciousness and the living world.

4.4. Development of Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Sustainability Transitions

While this manuscript primarily focuses on conceptual framework development, it strives to balance theoretical depth with practical applicability. Accordingly, Section 4.4 introduces a preliminary set of assessment criteria (see

Table 3. Assessment criteria for the 10 leverage points of the DSSI framework.

Intervention Realm	Leverage Domains	Leverage Point (LP)	Assessment Criteria	Indicative Transformative Indicators/Indicators	Narrative Systems Diagnostics/Measurement Approach	Deep Reflexive Tools/Monitoring Tool
Deep Intervention Realm	Shì domain(the holistic energy domain)	LP 1—Situational Momentum Sensing	Identification of latent energy, system dynamic flow, and energy gradients, Emergent Sense-Making Practices	- Emergent potential narratives - Presence of unrecognized systemic potential and systemic momentum level, track flow, resonance and system-level dynamics - Emergent pattern recognition: degree to which stakeholders surface weak signals and nascent trends	E.g., Participatory sense-making workshops that document new patterns attendees identify; Reflexive Journaling by practitioners capturing moments of “readiness” or systemic shift; Collaborative story-harvest sessions with pattern resonance maps	E.g., Weak signal scanning; Dynamic system indicators; Thematic content analysis; Momentum mapping canvas; Guided reflective practices
		LP 2—Coherence Modulation and Meta-Coordinated Alignment	Systemic coherence, and meta-coordinated alignment with the cross-level dynamic integration of all domains of the system	- Synergy anecdotes and resonance episodes; cross-scale resonance - Harmony reflections: coherence between micro-meso-macro action, cross-scale alignment breakthroughs - Moments of felt harmony: sensing a palpable shift from fragmentation to coherence	E.g., Cross-scale tension mapping; multi-level governance analysis; meta-coordination mapping; narrative systems diagnostics; emergence journals	E.g., Coherence Embodiment Circles: surfacing nonverbal cues of systemic resonance; Multi-level feedback analysis; Network mapping; Reflexive governance audits
	Dào domain (the essence domain)	LP 3—Pre-paradigmatic Perception and Deep Awareness of the Essence, Laws, and Relational Nature of the World	Depth of cognitive shift towards ecological interdependence, mapping perceptions, narrative and imaginary diagnostics	- Awakening anecdotes: uncover deeper insights into values, ethics, worldviews - Shifts in ontology, awareness of interbeing, epistemic humility - Depth of insight: richness and transformative quality of language used	E.g., Metaphor life-cycle maps (e.g., “the world as an organism”); Sense-making circles, Ontological perception surveys; Phenomenological interviews; Meta-cognitive indicators	E.g., Deep listening; metaphor harvest Reports; Embodied Insight retreats (immersive sessions combining nature-based exercises with journaling prompts to surface pre-cognitive realizations)
		LP 4—Reconfiguration of Ethical Assumptions and Narrative Co-visions	Emergence of spontaneous, embodied; Evolving moral assumptions, co-visions, narrative shifts	- Co-vision breakthrough stories - Narrative shift index with relational, regenerative frames - Dominance of ecocentric/relational ethics, value orientations - Ontological paradigmatic assumptions, embedded narratives	E.g., Assumption excavation dialogues; Hermeneutic text analysis; Co-visioning workshops; Value shift tracking (e.g., Schwartz Values survey)	E.g.,Ethical imagination workshops; Narrative evolution matrices; Causal layered analysis (CLA); Storytelling labs and Storyboard portfolios
		LP 5—Human Role and Responsibility in Systemic Alignment	Reflexive adaptation and capacity for self-correction; Participatory alignment	- Kinship awakening vignettes - Reciprocity ripples - Regenerative alignment evidence; - Stewardship commitment Level, degree of responsibility - Virtue-based governance indicators	E.g., Relational narrative web; Responsibility reframing surveys; Interdependence theme mapping; Ethical alignment and Resonance indicators through peer review circles	E.g., Tao-alignment frameworks; Embodied stewardship rituals and barometer indicators; Responsibility reflection logs; Regenerative metrics; Ecological role reflection tools
Shallow Intervention Realm	Fǎ domain (the principle domain)	LP 6—Meta-Principles and Societal Paradigms for Guiding Governance	Institutional ability to reframe paradigms with systemic values and ethical depth	- Coherence with Dào/Shì domain values - Paradigm flexibility over time - Integration into policy discourse	- Content and discourse analysis - Delphi expert panels - Reflexive stakeholder dialogues	- Paradigm tracking matrices - Alignment checklists
		LP 7—Structural Coherence of Institutional Regimes and Governance Architectures	Structural coherence and cross-sectoral coordination	- Degree of cross-scale and cross-sector integration - Governance complexity and clarity - Institutional alignment with sustainability	- Governance architecture mapping - Structural coherence analysis - Policy network modeling	- Governance tracking systems - Institutional dashboards - Coordination logs
		LP 8—Reflexive and Recursive Governance Systems, Mechanisms, Organizations, and Executive Institutions	Policy effectiveness, legal adaptability, and institutional responsiveness	- Implementation and enforcement rates - Policy responsiveness to new data - Legal/institutional feedback loops	- Regulatory effectiveness studies - Impact assessments - Adaptive governance audits - Compliance and enforcement analysis	- Legislative tracking systems - Real-time M&E tools
	Shù domain (the practice domain)	LP 9 -Embodied Tactical Know-How, Contextual Methods, Adaptive Strategies, and Responsive Practical Action	Effectiveness and flexibility of strategies, alignment of actions with strategic sustainability goals	- Context-specific effectiveness - Stakeholder involvement - Strategy adaptability	- Participatory action research - Statistical modeling - Impact–case comparisons - Reflexive learning sessions	- Strategy roadmap - Evolution logs - Feedback platforms
	Qì domain (the tool domain)	LP 10—Resources, Platforms, Tools, and Instrumental Creations shaped through Relational Use	Practical utility and sustainability impact of tools	- Tool alignment with sustainability values - Accessibility - Contribution to sustainability	- Tool life-cycle assessments - System-level modeling - User-centered design feedback	- Tool evaluation scorecards - Impact dashboards

) designed to differentiate and evaluate the ten leverage points within the DSSI framework. These criteria aim to guide diagnostic assessments, inform strategic intervention design, and support ongoing monitoring of sustainability transitions. Each leverage point is accompanied by a set of indicators, serving as exploratory and context-sensitive reference points for operationalization and evaluation. These indicators are intended to inspire adaptation, reflexive evaluation, and ongoing refinement.

The DSSI framework is organized across two realms: the deep intervention realm and the shallow intervention realm. The leverage points within the Shì domain (LP1–2) are subtle and dynamic, while the Dào domain (LP3–5) operates at a pre-paradigmatic and metaphysical level. This complexity means that traditional measurement approaches (e.g., linear indicators) often fall short in capturing the depth and directionality of change. Nevertheless, meaningful evaluation is possible through transdisciplinary, reflexive, and developmental approaches that prioritize patterns of change in perception, narrative, and alignment. Monitoring in this realm focuses on narrative change, depth of awareness, and quality of systemic engagement. Such evaluation thus requires non-reductionist, transdisciplinary methods blending qualitative sensing, systemic indicators, pattern tracking, and participatory observation. These include qualitative methods such as content analysis, case studies, interviews, and participatory research, which aim to surface patterns of coherence, systemic resonance, and shifts in ethical alignment, emphasizing how systems feel and flow rather than fixed outputs.

By contrast, the shallow intervention realm (LP6–LP10) focuses on measurable actions, institutional mechanisms, and implementation practices. This domain is suited to more conventional quantitative and operational methods such as performance metrics, policy tracking, impact assessments, and systems modeling. Evaluation tools here follow the classic “Indicator/Measurement/Tool” model, enabling real-time feedback, adaptive management, and practical accountability in governance structures and interventions.

Together, these two realms form a holistic assessment ecosystem; the deep realm employs indicative transformative indicators, narrative diagnostics, and reflexive tools to track shifts in values, logics, and systemic coherence, while the shallow realm utilizes quantitative indicators, monitoring instruments, and decision support tools to evaluate performance, integration, and institutional alignment. This integrated approach ensures that sustainability transformations are both value-driven and actionable, bridging philosophical depth with empirical rigor. Future research will refine and validate these criteria through real-world applications, comparative case studies, and engagement with diverse stakeholders.

4.5. Extending Meadows’ Leverage Points: Taoist Integration in the DSSI Framework

Meadows [23,24] delineated twelve leverage points in complex systems (see Figure 1), ranging from parameters and feedback loops to system goals and paradigms. She emphasized that deeper leverage points—such as the power to transcend paradigms (LP1), the altering mindset/paradigm out of which the system arises (LP2), or the goals of the system (LP3)—hold far greater transformative potential than structural or material interventions. However, these deeper points are often underutilized due to their abstract and intangible nature as well as the under-exploration of synergies with practical implementations. The DSSI framework complements and extends Meadows’ leverage hierarchy through a culturally embedded, dual-realm structure that integrates Taoist metaphysical insights which correspond to distinct layers of system intervention, from ontological awareness to operational implementation, thereby enriching Meadows’ model with metaphilosophical and normative grounding as well as synergistic integration. Comparing Donella Meadows’ 12 leverage points with the DSSI framework’s 10 Taoist-inspired leverage points reveals both conceptual alignment and distinct expansions due to the Taoist integration. What follows is a clear breakdown of the similarities, differences, and added dimensions introduced by the DSSI framework.

4.5.1. Similarities

Both frameworks share the following conceptual alignments, detailed as follows. (1). Leverage hierarchy: each rank intervention points from deep paradigmatic shifts to material action, emphasizing that deeper leverage yields more transformative change. (2). Paradigm-level insight: Meadows’ LP2 paradigm and LP1 transcending paradigms closely relate to DSSI’s LP3 (pre-paradigmatic perception) and LP4 (ethical–narrative reconfiguration). Both assert that how we perceive the world shapes systemic outcomes. Specifically, the essence domain ‘Dào’ emphasizes intuitive alignment with universal patterns and ethical–spiritual insight. Meadows’ messages, such as the invitation to “let go into Not Knowing” and “listen to the universe” [23,24,31], strongly resonate with Taoist wisdom, as in Laozi’s Tao Te Ching, which states, “He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know” (Chapter 56) [Tao Te Ching] and in Chuang-Tzu’s concept of “fasting the mind” (心齋, xīn zhāi) [Chuang-Tzu], where one empties the self to hear with the spirit, not the ears. This demands wu-wei (无为), or non-coercive action, viewing systemic transformation as arising from resonance rather than control [83]. Rather than focusing solely on conceptual paradigms, the essence domain highlights how shifts in pre-paradigmatic meta-cognition and deep ethical insights—grounded in humility and existential reflection—can reconfigure the very foundations of sustainability action. (3). Reflexivity and adaptation: Both emphasize the need for systems that learn and adapt. Meadows’ LPs 6–7 align with the DSSI’s LPs 8–9, which involve recursive governance and structural alignment. (4). Operational implementation: DSSI’s LP9 aligns with Meadows’ LP6–12 on operationalizing change through methods, strategies, and planning while encompassing tools, infrastructures, and technological artifacts. However, in DSSI, these elements are dynamically integrated with deeper domains rather than functioning as isolated layers (their one-to-one correspondence is shown in

Table 4. The DSSI framework complements and enriches Meadows’ leverage points.

Comparative Layer	Meadows’ System Leverage Points	Taoist-Inspired DSSI’s Leverage Points	Added Innovation and Richness
Deep Ontological and Paradigmatic Layer	LP1: The power to transcend paradigms LP2: The mindset or paradigm out of which the system - its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters - arises	LP 1–Situational Momentum Sensing LP 2–Coherence Modulation and Meta-Coordinated Alignment LP 3–Pre-paradigmatic Perception and Deep Awareness of the Essence, Laws, and Relational Nature of the World LP 4–Reconfiguration of Ethical Assumptions and Narrative Co-visions	Embodied sensing of systemic flow and harmony with systemic momentum (Shì domain); ethical–narrative shaping and pre-conceptual awareness (Dào domain); emphasizing attunement to dynamic flows and relational ontology
2. Purpose and Agency Layer	LP3: The goals of the system	LP 5–Human Role and Responsibility in Systemic Alignment	Relational human agency emphasizing responsibility and alignment with system essence (Dào domain), integrating ethical reconfiguration and narrative meaning-making
3. Governance and Institutional Structures	LP4: The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure LP5: The rules of the system	LP 6–Meta-Principles and Societal Paradigms for Guiding Governance LP 7–Structural Coherence of Institutional Regimes and Governance Architectures	Multi-layered governance paradigms; culturally pluralistic frameworks; cross-scale institutional coherence (Fǎ domain), focusing on institutional coherence and re-alignment
4. Feedback and Adaptive Mechanisms	LP6: The structure of information flows LP7: The gain around driving positive feedback loops	LP 8–Reflexive and Recursive Governance Systems, Mechanisms, Organizations, and Executive Institutions LP 9–Embodied Tactical Know-How, Contextual Methods, Adaptive Strategies, and Responsive Practical Action	Reflexivity and recursive learning; context-sensitive praxis; adaptive, embodied wisdom (Shù domain), focusing more on adaptability and alignment than mechanical feedback balance
5. Material and Operational Tools	LP8-LP12: Buffer sizes, parameters, material stocks	LP 10–Resources, Platforms, Tools, and Instrumental Creations shaped through Relational Use	Relational use of tools (Qì domain); emphasis on material and energetic integration; instruments shaped by context and relationships rather than technical qualities alone

Note: Layer 1 groups all deep foundational and paradigmatic leverage points, capturing worldview, ethical, and energetic flow dimensions. Layer 2 focuses on purpose and the human role, the actor’s responsibility within systemic change. Layer 3 addresses governance and institutional design, including cultural pluralism and meta-principles. Layer 4 covers feedback loops, reflexive governance, and adaptive practical know-how, emphasizing learning and iterative processes. Layer 5 captures the most concrete and material leverage points, where tools and resources are applied and managed.

.)

4.5.2. Key Differences Introduced by the Taoist Integration (DSSI Framework)

Taoist integration reshapes systems thinking through several unique shifts. (1). Foundational Logic: DSSI starts before paradigms with pre-conceptual, situational sensing and deep relational awareness. Meadows’ deepest LP is the ability to “transcend paradigms”, but DSSI goes further into ontological awareness rooted in Taoist thought. While Meadows employs a largely Western scientific systems lens grounded in cybernetics and control theory, DSSI integrates Taoist metaphysics emphasizing harmony, flow (Shì), and situational responsiveness, also adding non-linear, emergent, and intuitive modes of change focused on systemic harmony over control. (2). Embodied Perception: DSSI’s LPs 1–3 emphasize embodied perception, awareness of essence, and attunement to natural rhythms and situational momentum (concepts absent in Meadows’ list, which is more cognitive and structural, assuming relatively static system structures). For instance, DSSI’s LPs 1–2 introduce the Taoist concept of Shì, a dynamic systemic momentum often missed in static structural models or isolated change points. (3). Narrative and Ethical Co-visioning: DSSI’s LP4 and LP5 explicitly incorporate moral visioning and systemic responsibility as distinct leverage points, including narrative shaping and ethical reconfiguration. Meadows addresses values and goals indirectly (in paradigms and goals) but not as separate leverage domains. This shift recognizes values and ethical orientations themselves as active leverage points rather than contextual factors. (4). Human Role in Systemic Alignment: DSSI emphasizes humans’ relational responsibility in systemic alignment—a moral and existential stance aligned with Taoism’s humility before nature. This active, co-creative role is only implied in Meadows’ LP1 (transcending paradigms) but not fully developed. (5). Transdisciplinary and Embodied Knowledge: DSSI honors context-sensitive, embodied tactical knowledge, integrating know-how, methods, strategies, and tools through a transdisciplinary lens that blends philosophy, governance, technology, and design in a more integrative and fluid manner than Meadows’ more segmented systems perspective. It also adds recursion, contextual reflexivity, and embeds practice in relational use, not merely material design.

4.5.3. Added Dimensions via Taoist Integration

The comparative analysis between Meadows’ leverage points framework and the DSSI model reveals not only areas of alignment but also meaningful extensions in the conceptualization of transformative change.

(1). Pre-paradigmatic Awareness and Relational Ethics: DSSI moves beyond paradigms into pre-verbal, non-dual awareness, encouraging intuitive resonance with systems rather than solely abstract, model-based understanding. It foregrounds ethical alignment and narrative meaning making (LP4), reflecting Taoist values of harmony, balance, and humility—dimensions rarely emphasized in Western systems theory. While Meadows’ LP2 addresses the dominant paradigm a system arises from, the DSSI’s Dào (essence) domain interrogates the ontological and ethical assumptions preceding paradigms. This distinction reflects Kuhn’s [71] view of paradigms as socially constructed and historically situated, suggesting that real systemic transformation may require re-engaging with the ontological roots of human–nature relations. (2). Cross-Cultural Epistemology: DSSI reconceptualizes systemic leverage using Taoist categories—Dào (essence), Fǎ (principle), Shù (methods), Qì (tools), and Shì (momentum)—enabling transcultural translation of leverage points. This is particularly valuable in global sustainability work, allowing frameworks to resonate across diverse knowledge systems and cultural traditions. (3). Holistic-Relational Thinking and Fluidity: Inspired by Taoist thought, the DSSI LPs reflect cyclical, dynamic, and non-linear processes (e.g., “modulation”, “momentum sensing”), treating leverage points not just as individual intervention nodes but as inter-relational and dynamically co-arising patterns. The overall logic shifts from control-based intervention to relational alignment and systemic resonance, offering a more organic, living-systems perspective, thus enriching Meadows’ more hierarchical structure. (4). Human Consciousness and Perception as Leverage: the DSSI framework sees human perception, presence, and ethical responsibility not merely as context but as active leverage points, which infuses a subjective dimension into systems change. The DSSI framework includes archetypal roles—incorporating embodied know-how, meta-coordinators, narrative ethics, and human intentionality as formal leverage points—thus highlighting how individuals and collectives actively shape interventions. This personalization is absent in Meadows’ model and adds a relational layer to governance and strategy. (5). Meta-framework potential: The DSSI LPs serve as a transdisciplinary bridge, integrating multiple epistemological systems: Western, Eastern, and Indigenous. Rather than simply applying an alternative worldview, the framework invites epistemological plurality, fostering inclusive sustainability transitions grounded in ethical reflection, cultural coherence, and system adaptability.

The comparison between Meadows’ and the DSSI frameworks (see Table 4) underscores a broader transition in sustainability thinking from structural systems theory toward integrative and relational paradigms. Rather than a cultural supplement, the DSSI approach shows how Taoist philosophy can deepen sustainability methodologies by anchoring leverage in perception, ethics, and ontology. This invites not only a reordering of leverage points but a rethinking of what it means to intervene in complex systems, not by imposing change, but by cultivating attunement, resonance, and co-evolution with systemic flows. By situating Meadows’ hierarchy within a structured, relational model, the DSSI framework enables practitioners to design interventions that are both ethically grounded and contextually responsive.

5. Discussion

While rooted in philosophical and transdisciplinary foundations, the adaptive architecture of the DSSI framework is designed for practical implementation in both academic research and policy design.

Three key mechanisms support the framework’s operationalization, detailed as follows. (1). Prototype Assessment Criteria: As outlined in Section 4.3 and Section 4.4, a preliminary set of prototype and assessment criteria have been developed to define and distinguish the ten leverage points across both the deep and shallow intervention realms. These criteria are structured to guide diagnostic assessment and strategic intervention design. Future research will focus on refining and empirically validating this prototype through real-world applications, comparative analysis, and transdisciplinary stakeholder engagement. (2). Cross-contextual application and pilot testing: The framework has been preliminarily applied in pilot initiatives, including EU-funded rural transition projects in three countries, where it has demonstrated adaptability across governance structures, cultural settings, and ecological conditions. While this manuscript focuses on the conceptual architecture of the DSSI framework, a separate line of work presents the empirical results and policy implications of these early applications. (3). Complementarity with Existing Models: Rather than replacing established approaches such as Meadows’ leverage points (see Section 4.5), the DSSI framework complements and extends them by incorporating often-overlooked domains (the cognitive, ethical, and metaphilosophical domains that shape systemic behavior and the meta-coordinative perspective capable of supporting adaptive, context-sensitive, and energy-aware transition strategies but remain largely absent from most operational models). A companion manuscript (under separate submission) has been developed to further explore these complementarities through comparative analysis with other sustainability transition frameworks (e.g., transition management, the multi-level perspective), providing additional insights into how DSSI applies across all five domains. Although that work is not included here, it enriches the theoretical dialogue with adjacent approaches in the field.

This manuscript’s primary objective is to articulate the conceptual logic, philosophical foundations, and systemic architecture of the DSSI framework. While it is informed by real-world sustainability challenges, this paper does not aim to present empirical validation. Rather, it positions the DSSI framework as an integrative lens—bridging dynamic momentum and root paradigms with actionable strategies and tools—and opens pathways for more reflexive, adaptive, and ethically grounded sustainability transitions. By synthesizing systems thinking with non-Western philosophical traditions, DSSI advances transition theory through a pluralistic, deeply contextual lens. It supports multi-level design, iterative governance, and learning-oriented processes—offering a flexible yet robust guide for designing interventions that are not only pragmatic but also aligned with ethical, epistemic, and ecological principles—while attending to the complex interplay among diverse levels of intervention.

6. Conclusions

This paper introduces the Deep and Shallow Sustainability Intervention (DSSI) framework, a Taoist-inspired transdisciplinary approach that integrates metaphysical Taoist-inspired insight with a systemic leverage point perspective to guide complex sustainability transitions. We developed a Methods section structured around the deep and shallow intervention realms of the DSSI framework, with detailed methodological grounding for both, and we concluded that section with a structure interpretation table. A conceptual prototypes table and assessment criteria table were developed for its 10 leverage points, which are analytical lenses aligned with each DSSI domain, from the deeply paradigmatic and energetic to the more operational and instrumental. Rooted in the Taoist principle of the unity between Dào (the essence order) and Xíng (aligned action), the framework affirms that genuine transformation must be grounded in philosophical ethical insights and deep reflection while it is expressed through practical systemic interventions.

Theoretically, the DSSI framework contributes to sustainability science and in particular to leverage point research for sustainability transformation, by drawing on Meadows’ leverage point perspective [23,24] and its subsequent developments (e.g., ref. [17]). It introduces a dual-realm structure that distinguishes but complements the underlying philosophical interconnectedness between the deep intervention realm and the shallow intervention realm, emphasizing that systemic and lasting change emerges from the synergy and balance between these realms. The deep intervention realm engages with the root essence of ethical insights and pre-paradigmatic meta-cognitions and awareness of holistic energetic dynamics that shape human–nature relations and the interaction paradigm, offering an expanded leverage space often neglected in traditional policy models. The shallow intervention realm, in turn, translates these deep insights into context-sensitive governance mechanisms, flexible strategies, and instrumental tools, thus ensuring that sustainability action remains adaptive, tangible, and scalable. It further articulates ten leverage points across five interrelated domains. Together, they form a coherent system that bridges hidden paradigms and operational mechanisms, offering a path beyond fragmented or technocratic solutions, thereby enabling interventions that are not only effective but also attuned to natural rhythms and principles of balance, interdependence, and wúwéi (non-coercive action).

While the primary focus of this paper is conceptual and theoretical construction, the framework has been piloted in EU-funded rural transition projects in Southern Europe, with preliminary applications suggesting its utility in navigating culturally diverse and complex governance contexts. A full empirical analysis will be presented in forthcoming research.

Looking forward, the DSSI framework invites continued refinement and application across varied socio-ecological settings. Future studies may deepen its diagnostic capacities; explore the synergies between deep paradigmatic shifts and shallow interventions; and investigate the emotional, cognitive, and spiritual dimensions of systemic change. By bridging ancient wisdom and contemporary complexity science, DSSI offers a pluralistic and ethically grounded approach to sustainability transitions—one that supports more resonant, resilient, and cosmologically aware relationships between humans and the Earth.