A Transition Intervention Point System: A Taoist-Inspired Multidimensional Framework for Sustainability Transitions

Abstract

This paper introduces the Transition Intervention Point System (TIP-System), a Taoist-inspired theoretical framework aimed at supporting sustainability transitions by integrating multidimensional sustainability research by leveraging point theory. The TIP-System consists of 21 Transition Intervention Points (TIPs), each defined by the intersection of five sustainability dimensions (ecological, social, economic, cultural, and inner) with distinct intervention levels (deep and shallow). The TIP-System endeavors to bridge qualitative and quantitative approaches by drawing on cross-cultural insights. It integrates deep interventions—Taoist-inspired meta-coordination, core values, and spiritual-ethical leverage points—with shallow interventions and technical transition pathways, underpinned by continuous adaptive feedback and systemic interdependencies. Preliminary empirical evidence from eight social innovation initiatives and an ongoing EU-funded rural transition project in Southern Europe suggests that the dynamic interplay among the 21 TIPs may facilitate the identification of transition states and support targeted sustainability change. However, the conceptual complexity of the TIP-System also indicates the need for further refinement to improve its practical accessibility. Future research should aim to develop more user-friendly evaluation tools and assess the framework’s performance across diverse contexts. Overall, the TIP-System provides a promising foundation for guiding transformative change across diverse contexts. Although further empirical validation is warranted, the framework’s novel perspective enriches both theoretical inquiry on and the practical application of sustainability transitions.

1. Introduction

1.1. Framing the Challenge of Sustainability Transitions

The imperative to align societal development with planetary boundaries demands transformative sustainability transitions through long-term, multidimensional restructuring processes [1,2]. Early work in this field centered around four core analytical concepts: the socio-technical multilevel model, strategic niche management, the technological innovation systems approach, and transition management [1,2,3]. They established foundational approaches in transition studies, largely focused on technological interventions in production–consumption systems (e.g., [4,5,6]), emphasizing systemic processes at a macro level [1,3]. As evidenced by systematic reviews, subsequent interventions and methodologies that have evolved from these approaches mainly focus on the creation of transformative knowledge through innovation and technology research (e.g., [2,4,5]).

As discussions evolved, the initial limitations of the sustainability transition field [1]—notably its focus on energy issues [3]—have been mitigated by expanding research topics, scopes, approaches, and methodologies. For instance, studies addressing the field’s social diversity and complexity now span perspectives [7,8,9], normative orientations [10,11,12], values and ethics [13,14,15,16], actor strategies and resources [17,18], and digitalization [19,20]. While these expansions mark conceptual progress, current efforts remain fragmented, and this fragmentation not only neglects the dynamic coupling relationships within the overall system from a theoretical standpoint but also limits the coordination of cross-sectoral policies and actions in practice, thereby exacerbating systemic risks that hinder transformative capacity [21,22]. Critical gaps persist in two fundamental limitations.

First are the limitations of reductionism and quantitative tools. The existing transition tools inadequately address the interplay between deep paradigmatic shifts and shallow operational adjustments—a duality central to sustainability transitions [23]. Reliance on conventional or incremental economic models and top-down initiatives [24], or on proximate “technological fixes” [1,25,26,27,28], not only falls short of this goal but risks deepening entrenched technological and institutional lock-ins [29,30], which exposes a quantifiable research gap in unifying technological interventions with comprehensive systemic integration. These challenges underscore the need for integrative frameworks transcending technical–institutional dualisms. For instance, persistent tensions between Western reductionist approaches and holistic systems thinking manifest in recurring “sustainability paradoxes”, where interventions inadvertently perpetuate path dependencies [27,30]. Most interventions remain siloed within disciplinary boundaries, with only a few studies bridging technical and spiritual–ethical perspectives [31,32,33,34]. These challenges necessitate efforts that transcend conventional fragmentation in the sciences, scholarship, and policy of systemic social change [35,36,37] and steer sustainability science toward synthesis.

Second, although a growing body of theoretical research seeks to integrate various dimensions of sustainability [38,39], practical applications remain constrained by reductionist thinking, quantitative dominated, and disciplinary silos [36,40,41]. Sustainability is inherently complex and multidimensional, yet many studies and practices oversimplify this complexity, neglecting the intricate interconnections among ecological, economic, social, cultural, and inner factors. For example, many government-led climate policies often reduce the ecological dimension to technical parameters, such as carbon emission reductions or resource efficiency. While this facilitates quantification, it may overlook ecosystems’ self-organization, regenerative capacity, and nonlinear feedback mechanisms, as well as the dynamic links between economic and social activities and ecological health. Similarly, climate adaptation plans in some regions may focus on infrastructure improvements without addressing long-term social impacts or local cultural practices essential to sustainable development. Social dimensions are frequently measured by indices like the Gini coefficient, while economic strategies tend to favor incremental growth, such as the short-term stimulus packages in some countries that focus on economic recovery, often failing to fully consider the interconnections with social and environmental sustainability. Cultural aspects are reduced to superficial heritage protection, and intrinsic dimensions are underrepresented (comprising less than 3% of the literature). Such oversimplifications lead to fragmented, short-sighted strategies that fail to address sustainability’s multifaceted nature, ultimately undermining the development of integrated, enduring solutions.

1.2. Addressing the Gaps: Towards an Integrated Framework

Loorbach et al. [42] contended that sustainability transitions must recognize grand societal challenges as inherently systemic issues, resolvable only through fundamental shifts in societal regimes. Achieving such change demands more than mere socio-technical transitions anchored in systems thinking—it requires comprehensive multidimensional systems integration. This calls for more contemplative, all-encompassing progressions [3], process-focused inquiries [43], and multi-perspective transdisciplinary research that transcends single-scale and sector analyses in favor of integrated approaches [44]—a sentiment echoed in calls for a life-sustaining society [45,46,47,48].

Notably, leverage points offer a powerful perspective for achieving systemic change by identifying where targeted interventions can lead to significant systemic change in sustainability. Meadows [49,50,51] originally identified a hierarchy of twelve leverage points in complex systems to face the ineffectiveness of traditional mechanisms for managing large systems and argued that the transformative potential of interventions depends on system characteristics, with small shifts at key points capable of triggering significant systemic change. Abson et al. [23] further advanced this idea by emphasizing the importance of ‘deep’ leverage points in effecting transformative change. In a similar spirit, Liang and Segalas [52] advocated a Taoist-inspired holistic approach that transcends anthropocentric horizons [31,53,54] to address the tension between Western reductionist methods and holistic systems thinking in sustainability transitions. Drawing further inspiration from Meadows’ leverage points perspective, they subsequently developed the “deep and shallow sustainability intervention (DSSI) framework [55]” (further information is provided in Section 2.2). In the DSSI framework, deep leverage points capture underlying pre-paradigmatic, ethical–cognitive foundations and holistic momentum—currently only representing a limited share of leverage points studies—while shallow elements emphasize specific institutional governance, actionable measures, and operational tools. Their work demonstrates that the synergy between these two realms is essential for overcoming entrenched unsustainability. Despite these advances, a coherent framework that marries the leverage point perspective with a multidimensional understanding of sustainability remains elusive. In other words, there remains a quantifiable imbalance: while the majority of research focuses on technological or macro-level interventions, comprehensive frameworks with multidimensional sustainability perspectives that address their systemic roots, ethical foundations, and actionable strategies are scarce.

1.3. Research Question, Hypothesis, and Proposed Framework

This study addresses a critical gap in sustainability transition research: the lack of a coherent framework that connects multidimensional sustainability perspectives with deep and shallow leverage point interventions. Accordingly, this research is guided by the following question: Can an integrated framework that connects deep and shallow transition interventions with multidimensional sustainability perspectives more effectively design, guide, and evaluate interventions supporting systemic sustainability transitions?

We, therefore, developed a Transition Intervention Point System (TIP-System). The TIP-System integrates three key elements: ① Five sustainability dimensions (inner, social, environmental, economic, and cultural), grounded in transdisciplinary synthesis [45,56,57]. ② An intervention continuum, ranging from deep (meta-paradigm shifts) to shallow (operational adjustments in institutions and tools), as outlined in Liang and Segalas’ DSSI framework [55]. ③ The leveraging of intervention point mapping to address multidimensional interdependencies in sustainability transitions. This paper hypothesizes that the TIP-System can serve as a robust tool for designing more integrated and transformative interventions. This tripartite integration addresses a critical gap identified by Loorbach et al. [42]: the absence of frameworks that concurrently engage systemic depth and multidimensional breadth. By embedding the DSSI intervention continuum in a multidimensional framework, the TIP-System allows practitioners to align technical solutions (e.g., renewable energy) with deeper-value shifts (e.g., redefining human–nature relationships), a synergy observed in successful transition cases [27]. Bridging rational, scientific approaches with a holistic, Taoist-inspired outlook, the TIP-System offers both a coherent theoretical lens and practical guidance for initiating radical social change. Through this approach, we aim to enrich sustainability transition theory and provide a robust tool for designing, managing, and evaluating transformative interventions. This hypothesis is explored through the preliminary validation of the TIP-System in eight selected global case studies (see Section 5). While real-world applications are beyond the focus of this paper, preliminary applications of this framework in EU-funded rural transition projects in three countries further validate its capacity to inform contextually relevant and philosophically grounded sustainability practices (to be discussed in future work).

2. Theoretical Synthesis

2.1. Multidimensional Sustainability Study

Sustainability is a multidimensional and evolving concept, understood as a property of systems, often defined differently across disciplines and organizations [1]. Its conceptual evolution has expanded beyond the conventional three-pillar model of ecology (environment), society, and economy, also known as the “triple bottom line” [58,59,60], which is rooted in twin ecological and ‘basic needs’ critiques of economic development and the broader concept of “sustainable development” (e.g., [61,62,63,64,65]. Due to the complexity of the sustainability challenge, the multidimensional nature of sustainability has gained broad recognition, yet its operationalization remains constrained by persistent disciplinary fragmentation. Analysis of the sustainability literature reveals a systematic imbalance in dimension prioritization, with ecological and economic aspects receiving disproportionate attention compared to cultural and inner dimensions (based on a Web of Science analysis covering 2018–2023). This reductionist tendency manifests through three primary limitations: the dominance of technical–economic paradigms, the systematic marginalization of qualitative dimensions, and the inability to address complex interconnections.

The ecological dimension emphasizes the preservation of natural systems and resources to maintain ecological balance and ensure environmental justice for both present and future generations (e.g., [66,67,68,69]. However, it is often reduced to technical metrics, such as carbon budgets [70,71] and biodiversity indices [72,73], which may overlook the cultural and societal aspects of ecological sustainability, such as Indigenous knowledge and cultural values related to nature. The social dimension focuses on equity, inclusivity, and human rights, aiming for social justice and well-being (e.g., [74,75,76]. Yet, research often prioritizes measurable equity indicators like income inequality while neglecting the cultural factors, such as community values and shared social norms [77,78], that strengthen social cohesion. The economic dimension seeks long-term stability and growth, balancing profitability with environmental stewardship (e.g., [79,80,81]). However, its approaches remain tethered to growth paradigms [82] that conflict with ecological limits [83,84], raising concerns about the compatibility of continuous economic expansion with finite environmental resources.

Despite UNESCO’s recognition of the cultural dimension as essential to sustainability and its integration into sustainability is increasingly recognized [85,86,87,88], cultural considerations have often been marginalized in traditional sustainability frameworks. Scholars and institutional reports (e.g., [89,90,91,92] document this exclusion, which presents challenges for implementing sustainability, particularly in Indigenous contexts where culture is key to resilience and identity. A contributing factor is the difficulty in quantifying cultural dimensions. For instance, several studies and reports (e.g., UNESCO Culture 2030 Indicators [93,94]) indicate that culture-related indicators appear in a very small fraction of the overall SDG indicator set. Additionally, culture’s multifaceted nature—encompassing traditions [95], societal values [96], evolving consciousness [97,98], collective worldviews [99,100,101], and cultural heritage [102]—resists reductionist, challenging dominant techno-economic frameworks. Given that integrating diverse perspectives is crucial for devising effective environmental sustainability strategies [103,104], it is essential that decision-making processes go beyond technical or scientific criteria [105] to include cultural dimensions that shape worldviews and guide collective meaning-making.

The inner dimension represents a critical yet often overlooked frontier in sustainability. Society, composed of individuals whose values, self-awareness, and external patterns shape collective behaviors [106], is deeply influenced by this realm of personal transformation, often termed “interior transformation” [107,108] or “the inner dimension of sustainability” [109], which is intrinsically linked to a sustainable future [110]. Engaging the inner dimension is recognized as a critical leverage point to disrupt unsustainable culturally ingrained operating systems [49,111,112,113,114,115,116], yet empirical studies rarely operationalize it [110]. A key factor in this is the difficulty in quantifying the interplay between individuals, dynamic phenomena, inner experience, and external reality in current mainstream academic research systems and practices. Policy frameworks continue to prioritize external interventions over inner transformation [114], overlooking the role of self-awareness and critical thinking in transformative action [117,118] and the link between spiritual well-being and community resilience [119,120,121]. This oversight poses challenges for sustainable outcomes, as the interplay between inner experiences and external realities shapes behavior, external patterns, and responses to crises [122]. Environmental philosophers argue that shifting our inner worldviews is crucial for addressing the environmental crisis [98,123,124,125], a shift increasingly recognized through practices focused on the inner dimension in sustainability initiatives [115,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133].

This paper proposes that sustainability transition pathways must integrate all five sustainability dimension interventions, both in terms of external and internal sustainability (see Figure 1 and

Table 1. Interpretation of external and internal sustainability dimensions.

External sustainability dimensions	Ecological interventions	Safeguarding the integrity, vitality, and resilience of natural ecosystems as the basis for all life, including human society, emphasizing harmony and collaboration with nature, environmental justice, and regenerative practices that ensure future generations inherit a thriving planet.
	Social interventions	Creating the foundations for just, inclusive, and thriving societies by supporting human dignity, social cohesion, collective well-being, and participatory governance, recognizing the interdependence of individuals, communities, and institutions, and fostering systems that promote equity, resilience, and care across generations.
	Economic interventions	Designing and maintaining economic systems that are ecologically bounded, socially equitable, and structurally resilient, ensuring activities support long-term well-being, regenerating natural systems, and distributing resources fairly by prioritizing sufficiency, care, and circularity.
	Cultural interventions	Ensuring the vitality, continuity, and creative evolution of diverse cultures, worldviews, and knowledge systems, while fostering mutual respect for and dialogue and co-existence with diverse cultures, traditions, values, and knowledge systems.
Internal sustainability dimension	Inner interventions	Fostering inner transformation through self-awareness, mindfulness, compassion, and emotional resilience, empowering individuals in aligning values with action, and cultivating the inner conditions necessary for meaningful, long-term transformation in the self, society, and the planet.

). On the one hand, external sustainability dimensions—ecological, social, economic, and cultural dimensions—embody the collective relationships that humans co-create toward sustainability in the external world, constituting the exterior collective world that transforms sustainability, gathering empirical research and systems thinking [134]. Ecological sustainability requires responsible stewardship to maintain biophysical thresholds [67,135], ensuring the harmonious coexistence of all life forms within the Earth’s systems. Social sustainability aims to establish equitable systems that uphold human rights, promote community well-being, and foster social cohesion [136]. Economic sustainability supports regenerative models that balance prosperity with the planet’s limits, ensuring long-term stability while respecting ecological boundaries. Cultural sustainability fosters heritage preservation and adaptive value systems, acknowledging the crucial role of culture in shaping sustainable and resilient societies [137]. While alternatives that categorize perspectives of external sustainability intervention research exist, such as institutional (e.g., [138]) and technological [139] sustainability, etc., this paper does not consider them as the main component dimensions of the external world of sustainability but integrates these perspectives into the proposed framework through the discussion in the next section. On the other hand, the internal sustainability dimension—inner dimension—constitutes the invisible internal world of each individual, involving cultivating self-awareness and ethical consciousness, which shape individual behaviors, social interactions, and external patterns [115]. It has been called by [49] “one of the most powerful ways to dramatically influence sustainability outcomes”.

2.2. Core Theoretical Progression: Evolution and Integration of Leverage Points Perspective Research

Leverage points offer a powerful perspective for achieving systemic change by identifying where targeted interventions can lead to significant systemic change in sustainability. As a milestone in the study of systemic change, Donella Meadows’ [49] leverage point theory has profoundly influenced our understanding of internal system hierarchies by revealing the differentiated efficacy of interventions at various depths with the most powerful leverage points being those that emphasize the power to transcend paradigms, the nature of systems, and altering paradigms and goals, followed by those that influence institutions and rules, while more tangible points, like adjusting feedback loops and material parameters, tend to be less transformative. Its groundbreaking contributions lie, first, in its hierarchical differentiation between parameter adjustments and paradigm shifts; second, in its promotion of systems thinking by steering scholarly attention toward stock-and-flow structures rather than isolated variables; and third, its diagnostic utility for identifying transformative pathways, such as providing a practical diagnostic tool for applications in energy transitions [140] and technological diffusion [141]. Nevertheless, as sustainability challenges grow increasingly complex and culturally embedded, certain limitations emerge. First, there is a linear tendency that accounts for nonlinearity, interconnections, and the deeper, systemic drivers of change that remain undertheorized, and operational guidance for paradigm-level leverage points remains abstract [23]. Second, cultural contexts—critical mediators in intervention success—remain undertheorized, inadequately accounting for the moderating effects of cultural contexts on intervention outcomes [42], particularly non-Western perspectives [52]. Third, there is insufficient dynamic adaptability to context-specific challenges, owing to an overemphasis on static hierarchical classifications that neglect the co-evolution of system elements [142,143,144,145].

Meadows’s contributions provide a valuable foundation for subsequent research, stimulating further investigations and expansions to address these gaps. Abson et al. [23] reconceptualized leverage points into four realms (parameters, feedback, design, intent), emphasizing the deep characteristics of a system that significantly influence the potential impact of interventions at shallower levels. Other studies have examined the implications of adopting a leverage point perspective, exploring how different changes within the system can translate into effective interventions (e.g., [50,51,146,147,148]). Additionally, some researchers have investigated how various systems can leverage these points to enhance sustainability (e.g., [149,150,151,152]. In contrast, others have proposed new paradigms for leveraging system change, drawing on systems ecology and bionic practices (e.g., [153]), or integrating concepts like weak signals [154] for transformative design (e.g., [155]). While advancing methodological rigor, these extensions retain certain limitations, such as retaining the dominance of Western epistemology, neglecting alternative systems’ ontologies, and the synergies and co-evolution of system elements remaining underexplored.

A recent work, the Taoist-inspired “Deep and Shallow Sustainability Intervention (DSSI) framework [55]” addressed these limitations through two paradigm shifts. Taoist philosophy provides a unique and holistic way to understand and expand existing leverage point perspectives, leading to breakthroughs in how we think about and approach complex systems or social dynamics. While a detailed exposition of the framework is beyond the scope of this paper, we provide a concise overview here to ensure transparency because the current paper focuses on the multidimensional transition intervention system framework that further develops on it.

The DSSI framework [55] categorizes ten leverage points (LPs) into two realms according to their potential for systemic change (see Figure 2): the ‘deep’ intervention realm (encompassing the Shì and Dào domains) and the ‘shallow’ intervention realm (encompassing the Fǎ, Shù, and Qì domains). In other words, it introduces a dynamic hierarchical model—Shì (holistic momentum/energy), Dào (essence), Fǎ (principles), Shù (practices), and Qì (tools)—to distinguish between deep interventions (which address root causes, core values, and systemic paradigmatic shifts, and includes LPs 1–5) and shallow interventions (which focus on institutional governances, practical methods, tangible actions and short-term outcomes, and include LPs 6–10). This layered structure also establishes a synergistic mechanism for identifying and leveraging intervention points. Philosophically, the components of this structured five-layer model are grounded in millennia-old Taoist thought, offering a culturally embedded and time-tested epistemological foundation for contemporary sustainability transitions. The Taoist emphasis on the inherent unity and continuous transformation of all things promotes a holistic worldview—one that recognizes the dynamic interdependence between human well-being and Earth’s ecological systems [52]. Unlike Western models that prioritize linear causality and static hierarchies (e.g., Meadows’ leverage points), this Taoist-inspired framework embraces dynamic equilibrium, process primacy, and holographic scale-nesting. It views intervention levels not as discrete layers but as co-evolving forces that require systemic balance. This integrative perspective deepens our understanding of complex transformations and offers an ontologically richer alternative for sustainability theorization. Scholars from deep ecology and systems theory—such as Peter Marshall, Fritjof Capra, Houston Smith, J. Baird Callicott, Arne Naess, and George Sessions—have emphasized the profound, holistic ecological wisdom of Taoism and its potential to reimagine humanity’s relationship with nature [54,156].

In operational terms, the framework attempts to bridge synergies between the quantitative–technical realms and the qualitative–ethical realms. It does so by integrating instrumental interventions—linked to rules, concrete actions, and technical mechanisms—with value transformations, which address macro trends, ethical imperatives, and root paradigmatic foundations. This synthesis fosters a balance between short-term pragmatic functionality and deep systemic change. This synergistic bridge represents a creative transformation of traditional Eastern wisdom, systematically reinterpreted through contemporary logic to address the complexities of modern industrial and informational civilizations. This re-coding renders ancient Taoist philosophical principles operable within current scientific, policy, and innovation discourses. As such, it has the potential to be further enriched into an optimization tool across cultural contexts and disciplinary paradigms, offering new pathways [52] for addressing contemporary sustainability transitions. For instance, the concept of “Dào”, reinterpreted within the framework as the “essence domain” of deep interventions, serves as the ‘First Principles’ for systemic transformation. It articulates both the ethical necessity of change (“why transition must occur—e.g., inseparability from the natural order “the unity of cosmos and humanity”, or Meta-ethical principles”) and the evolving understanding of the inherent operational logics that govern the process of transformation, which shapes the root shifts of paradigm (“what essence laws—e.g., deep structure of complex adaptive systems, or conditions for the emergence of ecosystem resilience—must be followed in the process of change”).

In this sense, Liang and Segalas’ DSSI framework [55] resolves three core limitations in leverage points perspective research: (1) enabling dynamic intervention coupling that embodies a fusion of philosophical–spiritual depth with practical, actionable methodologies, (2) operationalizing paradigm shifts through transformative value reconstruction and cultural reflexivity, and (3) revealing that effective transitions emerge from the alignment of change values, epistemological foundations, and instrumental strategies, highlighting the need to balance shallow (quantitative–technical realms) and deep interventions (qualitative–ethical realms) for effective change. However, the DSSI framework inherits two unresolved challenges from leverage points theory. First, its primary focus on intervention levels overlooks multidimensional synergies. Second, while philosophically robust, it lacks granular operationalization.

2.3. Existing Research Gaps and Theoretical Entry Point

Building on the broader challenges identified in the Introduction, this section consolidates three interrelated structural barriers that continue to constrain progress in sustainability transition research.

First, the dominance of quantitative metrics and data-driven indicators—particularly in global monitoring systems, such as the SDGs [157]—has led to a systematic underrepresentation of qualitative, inner, and relational dimensions of sustainability. While quantification provides standardized comparability, the dominance of quantification often abstracts away context, values, and systemic depth, thereby limiting its utility in addressing the complexity of real-world transformation. Second, disciplinary conventions often lead to epistemological incompatibility and dimensional fragmentation. Different academic domains employ divergent logics of inquiry: for example, the natural sciences typically emphasize causal mechanisms and measurable outcomes, while the social sciences focus on interpretive, cultural, or experiential knowledge. These methodological divides are not inherently incompatible, yet their continued compartmentalization may obscure the potential for truly integrated responses to sustainability. Moreover, dimensional fragmentation—wherein specific sustainability aspects are isolated from one another—results in the persistence of incoherent interventions (e.g., [158,159]) that overlook the complex interdependencies among sustainability domains. For instance, economic efficiency models that disregard ecological or social impacts, or social justice frameworks that neglect environmental feedback, may ultimately introduce long-term sustainability risks. Third, the continued dominance of Western epistemological paradigms often marginalizes non-Western and Indigenous ways of knowing, even though a growing body of literature suggests that place-based ontologies and relational worldviews can significantly improve intervention relevance, adaptability, and legitimacy [52,144,145,160,161].

These barriers underscore the need for a paradigm shift from reductionist, indicator-driven, and sector-based approaches to value-led, synthesized, and multidimensional perspective frameworks. Recent integrative efforts, such as values-based governance [106] and socio-ecological systems frameworks [103], offer partial progress. However, existing works rarely capture the full range of sustainability dimensions—including inner and cultural factors—nor do they simultaneously address both deep systemic interventions (e.g., macro trends, ethical imperatives, and root paradigm-level shifts) and shallow interventions (e.g., institutional governances, operational methods, strategies, and tools). Liang and Segalas’ DSSI framework [55] provides an important step forward by bridging qualitative deep and quantitative shallow interventions through a Taoist-inspired structure and leverage point perspective. Yet it does not fully resolve the challenge of multidimensional integration across the five core sustainability domains (inner, social, ecological, economic, and cultural). This gap forms the theoretical entry point for the present study.

To respond, we propose the Transition Intervention Point System (TIP-System), which expands the DSSI framework by embedding it within a multidimensional sustainability architecture. By addressing both the depth of systemic transformation and the breadth of sustainability dimensions, TIP-System aims to offer an actionable and philosophically grounded tool, enabling more adaptive, systemic, and context-sensitive responses to the sustainability transition challenge.

3. Methodology

This study adopts a mixed-methods approach to develop and validate the TIP-System. The research design follows an iterative and interdisciplinary process involving four key stages: (1) Literature review—an initial literature review was conducted to examine existing sustainability transition frameworks, identify conceptual and practical gaps, and inform the initial design of the TIP-System; (2) Development of the TIP-System—the framework was constructed by synthesizing concepts from Meadows’ leverage points theory, Liang and Segalas’ DSSI framework, and multidimensional sustainability theories; (3) Team discussions—multiple rounds of interdisciplinary team discussions were held to refine both the theoretical foundations and design and practical components of the TIP-System; (4) Case-based validation—the framework was tested through a combination of cross-case analysis and methodological extension, using secondary data from pre-existing case studies. This multi-stage methodology provides a structured and reflexive pathway for both the construction and preliminary application of the TIP-System. The following sections elaborate on the development and validation processes in detail.

3.1. Step-by-Step Development of the TIP-System

The TIP-System was developed through an iterative and interdisciplinary process integrating theoretical foundations and practical insights. It draws from three main sources: Meadows’ leverage point theory [49], the DSSI framework by Liang and Segalas [55], and multidimensional sustainability scholarship (e.g., [45,56,57].

We began by identifying five core dimensions of sustainability—social, ecological, economic, cultural, and inner—as foundational categories for mapping intervention strategies. These dimensions were synthesized from the transdisciplinary literature and reflect the complex nature of sustainability transitions. Next, we incorporated the deep–shallow intervention continuum outlined in the DSSI framework, which distinguishes between interventions targeting foundational paradigms (e.g., value systems, ethics) and those focusing on operational or institutional mechanisms. This continuum complements Meadows’ insights on systemic leverage points, enabling a nuanced classification of intervention strategies by depth. By integrating these two axes—intervention depth and sustainability dimensions—we developed a formulaic structure for the TIP-System, resulting in a matrix of 21 Transition Intervention Points (TIPs). Each TIP represents a potential entry point for systemic change, helping practitioners and researchers design, assess, and align interventions with multidimensional sustainability goals. Throughout the development process, the TIP-System was refined through team-based feedback loops, literature synthesis, and pilot applications on real-world case data. These iterations enhanced the internal coherence and practical relevance of the framework, laying the foundation for its subsequent validation.

3.2. Case-Based Validation

Once developed, the TIP-System was validated using a case study approach to assess its practical applicability and robustness. This study employs a desk-based analysis of eight social innovation cases drawn from the TRANSIT project (TRANsformative Social Innovation Theory, 2013–2017). The TRANSIT project is a multi-continental initiative, documenting over 50 transformative social innovations across Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa that aim to bring about systemic and sustainable change. Desk-based validation was chosen to leverage the TRANSIT project’s rigorously documented cases, enabling a structured cross-case comparison without the resource constraints of primary data collection. This approach aligns with established methods for framework validation using secondary data [162]. While the broader TRANSIT dataset spans diverse sectors (e.g., renewable energy, food systems, sustainable mobility, education, social entrepreneurship, and urban planning, which all contributing to sustainability transitions), this paper focuses on eight local initiatives nested within four transnational networks: the Transition Movement (Cases 1 and 2), Design for Social Innovation and Sustainability (Cases 3 and 4), Global Ecovillage Network (Cases 5 and 6), and European Network of Living Labs (Cases 7 and 8).

3.2.1. Selection of Case Studies

The eight cases (

Table 2. Key information and selection rationale for eight cases. (Note: The data for each case were extracted from its website and from several of the documents labelled with citations in this paper).

Transnational Network	Overview	Approach	Local Initiative Cases	Rationale for Selection
Transition Movement	A movement of Community-led Transition groups, its network has spread now to over 48 countries, with more than 1100 grassroots communities working on local resilience since 2005.	Transition principles (values) balance between head, heart, and hands, and 8 principles. Participatory methods.	Case 1: Transition Town Totnes (UK)	Pioneer in community-led transition, the longest running (September 2006–present) and exemplary Transition initiative.
			Case 2: Transition Wekerle (Hungary)	The first grassroots transition initiative in Hungary (launched in 2008, re-named in 2011), demonstrating adaptation to post-socialist contexts.
DESIS Network (Design for Social Innovation and Sustainability)	A global network of 48 design labs supporting ‘social innovation towards sustainability’, originating from 2006–2008 period, based in design schools and design-oriented universities (DESIS Labs), is actively involved in promoting and supporting sustainable change via design practice.	Use design thinking and design knowledge to trigger, enable, and scale-up social innovation, promoting the design community, and the higher education institutions with a design discipline play a pivotal role as agents of change.	Case 3: DESIS—POLIMI DESIS Lab (Italy)	Urban design-driven innovation in the Global North. Its research activity played a leading role in the historical development of network theory and practice.
			Case 4: DESIS—NAS DESIGN DESIS Lab (Brazil)	Highlights Global South applicability. Studies issues related to social innovation, responsible design, creative communities, and sustainability.
Global Ecovillage Network (GEN)	A formal network of the ecovillage movement, founded in 1995, and made up of about 10,000 communities and related projects. It is a network of sustainable communities and initiatives that bridges different cultures, countries, and catalyzes communities for a regenerative world.	A holistic regenerative approach that empowers ecovillages cooperatively design for ecological, economic, social, and cultural vitality, through courses and workshops.	Case 5: Ecovillage Schloss Tempelhof (Germany)	Holistic sustainability model. A young but extremely fast-growing project with 140 members, started in 2007.
			Case 6: Ecovillage Tamera (Portugal)	Founded in 1994, the largest ecovillage in Portugal with 170 members.
European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL)	A formal network with a membership structure that started in 2006, the community of Living Labs with a sustainable strategy for enhancing innovation on a systematic basis, supporting co-creative, human-centric and user-driven research, development and innovation.	Public–Private–People Partnerships for user-driven open innovation. A user-centric research methodology for sensing, prototyping, validating, and refining solutions through creative processes.	Case 7: Living Lab Eindhoven (Netherlands)	Urban sustainability experimentation. Since 2010, a collection of initiatives has already applied the spirit and method of the Living Lab.
			Case 8: Living Lab Manchester (UK)	One of Living Lab MDDA was a founding member of ENoLL, created in 2002. Demonstrates policy-industry collaboration in urban contexts

) were chosen to balance two criteria. The first was representativeness. Each case exemplifies its parent network’s core approach to sustainability transitions. For example, Transition Town Totnes (Case 1) is a pioneering example of community-led transition, while DESIS-NAS Lab (Case 4) reflects design-driven innovation in a Global South context. The second one was the data completeness. These cases were among the most rigorously documented in the TRANSIT dataset, with standardized narratives and data for cross-case comparisons on intervention types, outcomes, and contextual factors, minimizing subjective interpretation. Secondary data completeness is critical to the TIP-System’s multidimensional coding and desk-based mapping as it provides the depth and context needed to understand the effectiveness, scalability, and long-term sustainability of transformative social innovations. The excluded cases lacked enough detailed documentation for the purpose of this study or were unable to provide a complete and accurate description of the process, impact, or outcome.

3.2.2. Three-Phase Validation Protocol

The validation process followed a three-phase protocol (see Figure 3):

Phase 1. Case Archetype Identification

Identification of representative cases from the TRANSIT’s dataset. Cases were selected based on their alignment with the TIP-System’s focus on multidimensional sustainability interventions. TRANSIT’s 50+ cases were reviewed to identify initiatives with detailed documentation of intervention types and explicit linkages to at least three of the TIP-System’s five sustainability dimensions and transition domains. Two cases per transnational network were selected to ensure diversity in scale (local/transnational) and sustainability transition approach (e.g., community-led vs. design-driven). Multiple case studies were chosen to enable analytic generalization [163], where insights from diverse cases inform theoretical refinement rather than statistical extrapolation, enabling systematic cross-case comparison while accommodating contextual diversity. Through the methodological extension, the TIP-System was able to demonstrate its effectiveness in capturing the complex interdependencies between deep and shallow interventions and mapping them to the five sustainability dimensions. The results of this analysis also highlighted the framework’s capacity to bridge gaps between theoretical sustainability models and practical, action-oriented strategies.

Phase 2. TIP-System Coding

Mapping documented interventions onto the TIP-System’s dimensions and domains using transparent, predefined criteria, using the deductive coding method. The process begins by developing explicit coding criteria for each TIP (see

Table 3. TIP coding criteria of the TIP-System (with examples).

Liang and Segalas’ DSSI Framework [55]		External Sustainability				Internal Sustainability
Intervention Realms	Leverage domains	Ecological Dimension	Social Dimension	Economic Dimension	Cultural Dimension	Inner Dimension
Deep intervention realm	Shì (the holistic energy domain)	TIP 21 The dynamic, emergent, cross-dimensional momentum that emerges when all intervention levels align and work synergistically, creating systemic transformation potential. It is operationalized through the activation of multidimensional interventions (Level 1), their purposeful integration (Level 2), and the emergence of systemic momentum and coherence (Level 3). The presence of Shì suggests that the initiative has moved beyond fragmented approaches toward an integrative, self-organizing transition trajectory.
		e.g., a regenerative city prototype integrating ecological design (e.g., agroecology, watershed stewardship), economic equity (e.g., circular solidarity economies), community co-governance (e.g., inclusive and deliberative processes), cultural creativity (e.g., Indigenous knowledge, intercultural plural storytelling) and inner development (e.g., mindfulness, compassion-based leadership). Over time, the initiative demonstrated signs of emergent systemic momentum that create a field effect—a whole is greater than the sum of its parts where the system begins to self-regulate, self-amplify, and exhibit resilience, generating holistic transition momentum.
	Dào (the essence domain)	TIP 1 Foundational ecological worldviews and cosmologies shaping how nature and ecological balance is understood and valued.	TIP 5 Core worldviews and civilizational axioms about human nature, social relations, and collective well-being.	TIP 9 Ethics basis, foundational worldviews and civilizational axioms about the purpose, operation and nature of the economy.	TIP 13 Core worldviews and cosmologies that define cultural meaning, identity, and humanity’s relationship with nature and each other.	TIP 17 Paradigmatic basis, foundational beliefs and worldviews about consciousness, the self, and the inner-outer connection.
		e.g., affirming humanity’s embeddedness within nature’s interconnected web, recognizing ecological balance as the non-negotiable foundation for all life; symbiosis in harmony, holistic ecological thinking.	e.g., affirming human dignity, equity, and interdependence as irreducible axioms for societal well-being and collective stewardship; socially inclusive, trust, shared future for all, equality in essences.	e.g., embracing sufficiency, reciprocity, and equity as economic paradigms, prioritizing well-being over GDP, rejecting infinite growth paradigms, and the economy as a subsystem of ecology.	e.g., affirming epistemic pluralism, preservation of intergenerational wisdom, and cultural sovereignty, and that diverse knowledge systems hold equal validity, such as human responsibility, harmony and love.	e.g., inner transformation as the root of outer change, non-dualistic regenerative paradigms of interbeing, the self as interconnected, not separate from others or the Earth.
Shallow intervention realm	Fǎ (the principle domain)	TIP 2 Ecological ethics and guiding principles, policies, laws, governance systems that enforce ecological justice, resilience, and alignment with natural laws.	TIP 6 Social values, ethics and normative grounding that govern inclusion, justice, equity, participation, and solidarity.	TIP 10 Economic principles, value commitments and institutional governance to guide sustainable economies, redistribution and circular value creation.	TIP 14 Cultural ethics, value commitments and normative principles guiding inclusion, respect, and coexistence in plural societies.	TIP 18 Inner values, normative logics and ethical commitments that guide personal growth and relational well-being.
		e.g., Constitutional Rights of Nature clauses, regenerative ethics charters, EU Green Deal, biodiversity offsetting regulations, planetary boundaries treaties	e.g., equity-based social paradigms, participatory governance, respect principles and caring relations, anti-oppression legal frameworks, human rights declarations, anti-discrimination laws.	e.g., redesigning economic structures, regulations, incentives and governance systems, self-reliant local economy system, ethical trade agreements, extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws.	e.g., cultural paradigms and mechanisms, Indigenous land sovereignty declarations, UNESCO intangible heritage protocols, traditional knowledge IP rights, multilingual education policies.	e.g., inner ethical grounding, mindset, personal values and normative logics, interconnectedness and relational accountability, compassion, empathy, and loving-kindness as moral imperatives.
	Shù (the practice domain)	TIP 3 Adaptive approaches, ecological design strategies, and regenerative frameworks for restoring ecosystems and harmonising human activities with biophysical limits.	TIP 7 Sustainable practices, solutions, strategic approaches and methods for building inclusive, empowered, cohesive and resilient communities.	TIP 11 Systemic strategies, practices and institutional design approaches for transforming economic systems and localized and regenerative value chains.	TIP 15 Institutional or community strategies, approaches, practices and processes that apply cultural ethics, values and principles to action.	TIP 19 Practices, methods and plans for cultivating inner awareness and transformation.
		e.g., agroecology and permaculture design methods, renewable energy strategies, rewilding, watershed or bioregional planning, agroforestry, coral reef rehabilitation, nature-based solutions.	e.g., co-design and participatory planning in public services, empowerment strategies, cooperative governance model, intergenerational skill-sharing programs, intentional communities and cohousing models.	e.g., doughnut economics frameworks, circular economy strategies, sustainable consumption plan, community-supported agriculture (CSA), industrial symbiosis networks, ethical blockchain supply chains.	e.g., intercultural dialogue frameworks for peacebuilding, community-based cultural revitalization programs, participatory heritage mapping that links culture, place, and identity, transdisciplinary design integrating local art, ritual, and storytelling.	e.g., interventions fostering self-awareness, emotional resilience, or spiritual connection to nature, such as, ecopsychology practices for inner-outer alignment, growth mindset method, values-based training.
	Qì (the tool domain)	TIP 4 Ecological infrastructures, resources, policy instruments, technical tools and monitoring systems for ecological health and regenerative transitions.	TIP 8 Social tools, technologies, platforms, resources and policy instruments that operationalize social sustainability, collaboration and sharing.	TIP 12 Economic policy tools, metrics, infrastructures and technologies for transparent, equitable transactions and resource flow optimization.	TIP 16 Systems, technologies, tools, mechanisms and spaces that enable cultural sustainability practices.	TIP 20 Tools, platforms, and systems that support inner development and transformation at scale.
		e.g., air quality sensors, agro ecological equipment, rainwater harvesting systems, biochar production systems, rewilded urban parks and ecological corridors, regenerative farms using closed-loop systems.	e.g., complete infrastructure, community cohesion, social impact measurement tools, open-source mutual aid platforms, community-led disaster response apps, neighborhood resilience hubs, and community centers.	e.g., solidarity economy networks, circular economy platforms, alternative currency, time-banking systems, exchange services, AI-driven circular design platforms, decentralized renewable energy trading systems.	e.g., community museums, open-source cultural toolkits for educators and planners, digital archives and platforms preserving endangered languages and traditions, such as, digital oral history archives, AR/VR platforms for virtual heritage.	e.g., intentional communities that foster collective inner growth and culture of care, rites of passage programs reconnecting people to land, ancestors, and self, retreat centers, self-cultivation techniques, well-being apps.

), which define how interventions will be categorized based on the dimensions and domains within the TIP-System framework. Next, we systematically review selected cases, reviewing standardized case reports, interviews, project evaluations, and public documentation (such as websites and annual reports). We then list the documented interventions identified in these cases and tag them according to the TIP-System’s 21 TIPs, using predefined coding rules. For example, ‘monthly meditation activities’ were categorized under ‘TIP19: the inner practice Shù’—the practice domain of the inner dimension, as its coding criteria is “Practices, methods, and plans for cultivating inner awareness and transformation”. Finally, each intervention is mapped onto the TIP-System, ensuring that all TIPs are either mapped with relevant interventions or left blank if no intervention is identified or not applicable. This approach provides a structured and complete overview of which interventions align with which dimensions and domains within the TIP-System, ensuring accuracy and thoroughness. To ensure coding consistency, two researchers independently mapped a subset of cases, achieving 85% inter-rater agreement. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and the refinement of coding rules. This structured protocol balances methodological rigor with contextual sensitivity, addressing critiques of case study generalizability [164].

Phase 3. Pattern Validation

Iterative pattern recognition through comparative analysis of intervention synergies and cultural-contextual adaptations. This study conducted cross-case analysis to compare how these case interventions aligned with the TIP-System’s TIPs and used visual mapping (e.g., Figures and Tables) to highlight patterns, such as the prevalence of holistic multidimensional interventions (see related Figures and Tables in Section 5) in ecovillages (Cases 5–6) versus the social-economic dimension focus in urban living labs (Cases 7–8).

3.3. Limitations of the Methodology

While the methodology employed in this study is robust, there are certain limitations to be considered. 1. The geographic scope limitations. The geographic distribution of current cases is predominantly European, and while this reflects the historical development of the analyzed networks (e.g., the Transition Movement originated in Europe but now operates globally), it may limit the generalizability of the findings to other geographic regions or contexts. 2. Scope of case studies. Although a diverse set of case studies was selected, the research methodology is still dependent on the quality and completeness of the documentation available for each case. In some instances, data may have been insufficient for a comprehensive analysis of all sustainability dimensions. However, albeit within the constraints of the TRANSIT dataset (its non-European cases often lacked data accessibility of multidimensional interventions), the inclusion of the DESIS-NAS Lab (Brazil) and the Global Ecovillage Network’s global reach demonstrates the framework’s adaptability beyond Europe. 3. The iterative refinement. The TIP-System is a work-in-progress, and while it has undergone iterative validation, ongoing development is needed to ensure it continues to evolve in response to new sustainability challenges and emerging research, and further advance the development of the theory.

4. Generation of the TIP-System

4.1. Development Formula and Conceptual Foundations

The Transition Intervention Point System (TIP-System) is a culturally embedded theoretical framework developed to support more integrated, context-sensitive sustainability transitions. It is designed through the intersection of two foundational axes: ① Sustainability Dimensions: five interdependent dimensions—ecological, social, economic, cultural, and inner—drawn from transdisciplinary scholarship. ② Intervention Levels: derived from the Liang and Segalas’ Taoist-inspired DSSI framework, the intervention continuum comprises leverage point perspective and five nested intervention levels—spanning from deep (ethics, paradigms, and momentum) to shallow (strategies, principles, and tools) interventions, as follows:

• The essence domain (Dào): The core axioms and paradigmatic foundations of sustainability. It ensures that the transition is grounded in an ethical foundation and shared understanding of humanity’s role and relationship with the Earth, which is critical for fostering collective action and systemic change.
• The principle domain (Fǎ): governance principles, systems, and institutional architectures.
• The practice domain (Shù): adaptive implementation strategies and operational methods.
• The tool domain (Qì): material-technological enablers and physical tools, and resources.
• The holistic energy domain (Shì): System synergy momentum and transformative potential, expressed as “Ψ”, emerges from the dynamic equilibrium of the first four intervention hierarchies, multidimensional feedback loops, and critical thresholds, and the nonlinear interactions among all TIPs. “Ψ” addresses cross-scale coordination, referring to a meta-coordination layer transcending individual TIPs, embodying the Taoist wisdom of ‘generating dynamic equilibrium through holistic synergy’, ensuring that efforts at different levels work together cohesively. Ignoring this domain risks creating fragmented or misaligned actions that fail to address systemic challenges. Interventions in this level refer to “Shì-domain momentum governance”, which is about understanding, identifying, and leveraging the existing dynamics or momentum and potential, “Ψ”, within a system, designing interventions that align with and reinforce the system’s natural flow in a context-aware and adaptive manner. It offers a subtle, flexible perspective, focusing on modulating change, and complements Western transition theories like adaptive governance and systems thinking by emphasizing feedback, emergent change, and multi-level governance.

The TIP-System is generated through a conceptual “Cartesian product” of these two axes, sustainability dimensions (D) and intervention levels (L), and is augmented by a meta-coordination momentum (Ψ), an emergent layer representing holistic system dynamics. The TIP-System formula is shown below.

$$\mathrm{T}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}-\mathrm{S}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{m}=\underset{\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}-\mathrm{C}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n} \mathrm{P}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}}{\underbrace{\mathrm{\Psi }}}\oplus \left(\bigcup _{\left\{\mathrm{d}\in \mathrm{D}\right\}}\bigcup _{\left\{\mathrm{l}\in \mathrm{L}\right\}}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{I}{\mathrm{P}}_{\left\{\mathrm{d},\mathrm{l}\right\}}\right)$$

Sustainability Dimensions: D = {d₁, d₂, d₃, d₄, d₅}, where d₁ = Ecological, d₂ = Social, d₃ = Economic, d₄ = Cultural, d₅ = Inner.

Intervention Levels: L = {l₁, l₂, l₃, l₄}, where l₁ = Dào (Essence domain), l₂ = Fǎ (Principle domain), l₃ = Shù (Practice domain), l₄ = Qì (Tool domain).

System Momentum: Ψ = Shì (Holistic Energy domain).

Symbol Definitions:

⊕: Cross-level synergy operator (satisfying commutativity and associativity).

TIP_d,l: intersection of dimension D and level L. D = {d₁, d₂, d₃, d₄, d₅}: set of sustainability dimensions. L={l₁, l₂, l₃, l₄}: set of intervention levels (Dào, Fǎ, Shù, and Qì).

Ψ: holistic system dynamics and momentum (Shì), the 21st TIP, refers to the meta-coordination layer transcending the individual TIPs, denoting the system’s transformative momentum and potential.

Figure 4 provides a simplified visualization diagram of the TIP-System where “Intervention levels”, both shallow and deep interventions in the five sustainability dimensions, are integrated. The TIP-System is depicted schematically as five concentric rings, each representing an intervention level—Dào (essence), Fǎ (principle), Shù(practice), Qì (tool) domains—with all rings intersecting the five sustainability dimensions and merging in the outermost Shì (holistic energy) domain. To visualize the system dynamics momentum, “Ψ”, in the holistic energy domain, this diagram uses gradient color to represent its energy states, schematically conveying the symbiotic dynamic progress of interventions. This gradient is divided into four color levels when it comes to specific intervention scenarios: 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%, representing the coverage at the intervention levels.

4.2. TIP-System’s 21 TIPs and Their Functions

This integrative logic yields 21 Transition Intervention Points (TIPs)—corresponding to the four intervention levels applied across five sustainability dimensions, with an additional meta-level (Ψ) to ensure systemic integration and coordination. A tuple TIP_{d, l} = (Dimension_d, Level_l). Mathematically, d ∈ multiplied by l ∈, i.e., 5 × 4 = 20 TIPs, and the 21st TIP is then the meta-coordination momentum, the Shì domain, arising from the nonlinear dynamic interactions among the first 20 TIPs, together forming 21 TIPs.

$$\left|\mathrm{T}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}-\mathrm{S}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{m}\right|=\left|\mathrm{D}\right|\times \left|\mathrm{L}\right|+1=5\times 4+1=21$$

Visually, the configuration of these two axes results in the TIP-System’s TIP matrix which comprises 21 Transition Intervention Points (TIPs) (see Figure 5). Each TIP is an ordered pair of a sustainability dimension and an intervention level. For example, TIP19 reflects the practice domain of the inner dimension, focused on methods and practices of self-reflection or emotional resilience, whereas TIP6 corresponds to institutional-level interventions in the social domain. Every TIP holistically mirrors the system at a specific dimension-level intersection, representing an intervention zone within the sustainability system, where targeted interventions can trigger multidimensional transition.

TIP-System is inherently dynamic, integrating pre-intervention design, in-intervention management, and post-intervention evaluation through continuous feedback loops and adaptation among the 21 TIPs. These TIPs function in coordination to facilitate dynamic, process-oriented interactions, with each TIP serving as an adaptable variable within the system. As transition states evolve, interventions at each TIP can be modified, extended, or reconfigured, enabling the system to respond to local dynamics and cross-disciplinary challenges. This flexibility allows the TIP-System to bridge the gap between addressing deep systemic changes (targeting root causes) and implementing practical, immediate interventions (such as technological fixes and short-term actions), offering a pathway for crafting layered, manageable solutions to local sustainability challenges.

The synergy among the TIPs is order-independent, meaning any subset of TIPs can be activated and integrated to drive systemic transformation. This results in a holistic, cyclical transition process, beginning with a singular intervention, progressing to linear interventions, then to domain-specific interventions, and finally evolving into a comprehensive systemic intervention. As this cycle progresses, the TIPs work in tandem, systematically integrating across levels and dimensions to maximize their transformational impact. This dynamic process enables the identification of risks, trade-offs, and long-term outcomes that might otherwise be overlooked in narrow, human-centered approaches. Ultimately, the TIP-System’s adaptive framework fosters more enduring and comprehensive solutions, integrating multiple sustainability dimensions and driving system-wide change. Through this process, the system helps participants locate, coordinate, and evaluate intervention strategies across both their interventional depth and dimensional breadth, allowing for an adaptable matrix that can be tailored to diverse transition contexts by adjusting the focus across different sustainability dimensions and intervention levels.

4.3. Theoretical Contributions

The TIP-System integrates the DSSI framework’s five-level intervention continuum with five key sustainability dimensions: ecological, social, economic, cultural, and inner sustainability. This integration allows the TIP-System to address critical challenges in sustainability transitions.

First, it bridges integration divides by utilizing a nested Dào–Fǎ–Shù–Qì structure. The Qì (technical tools) and Fǎ (institutional principles) act as bridging elements between technical and regime gaps, ensuring that interventions are not only practically feasible but also aligned with deeper value systems. The Dào (values and ethical foundations) and Shù (specific practice strategies) help close the value–action gap, ensuring that sustainability interventions are not just conceptually robust but also operational in the real world. Second, the TIP-System tackles the scale mismatches and cross-scale coordination by embracing the Shì-domain—the holistic system dynamics and momentum Ψ. Through the Shì-domain, the TIP-System is able to dynamically adjust interventions to reconcile mismatches across scales, from local to global. This process of Shì-domain momentum governance helps align interventions at multiple levels, allowing for more effective governance across scales. Third, the TIP-System allows for contextual adaptation by recognizing and embedding local cultural and ecological contexts. The TIP-System prioritizes context-sensitive solutions, ensuring that interventions are responsive to local needs and resilient across diverse settings, and avoiding over-simplistic or isolated interventions that originate from narrow institutional processes and transient cultural representations (e.g., [165,166,167,168]. For example, the Green Revolution, while successful in increasing agricultural yields, is often criticized for its overreliance on technology-driven solutions and for overlooking their broader social and ecological implications [169]. Similarly, global climate frameworks like the Copenhagen Climate Summit (2009) struggled because they failed to account for the political and economic diversity of participating countries [170].

The key contributions of the TIP-System are as follows: (1) Multidimensional and Nested Intervention Hierarchy: The TIP-System introduces a five-dimensional framework for sustainability, encompassing ecological, social, economic, cultural, and inner dimensions. By integrating these dimensions with the DSSI framework’s five-tiered intervention continuum, it creates a nested intervention hierarchy that accommodates both deep, systemic changes (e.g., values and ethical foundations) and shallow, operational interventions (e.g., tools and practices). This dual-layered approach allows the TIP-System to address both high-level paradigm shifts and pragmatic actions within the same framework, providing a comprehensive strategy for sustainability transitions. (2) Dynamic Adaptation and Reweighting of Interventions: The TIP-System is designed to be adaptive and responsive, with interventions that can be dynamically reweighted based on local contexts and ongoing feedback. This iterative process allows for the constant recalibration of intervention strategies as new information emerges or as conditions evolve. The ability to adjust interventions at each Transition-Intervention Point (TIP) ensures that the system remains context-sensitive, enabling long-term transformation without rigidly adhering to a fixed set of actions. (3) Cross-Disciplinary and Cross-Cultural Synthesis: The TIP-System draws on both Eastern and Western systems of thinking to create a more holistic and cross-cultural integration. Taoist insights, which emphasize emergence, self-organization, and dynamic equilibrium, provide valuable alternatives to reductionist models. These insights are embedded within the TIP-System, can be integrated into transition pathways, complementing frameworks that provide Western systems thinking and analytical rigor. (4) Holistic Systemic Change: The TIP-System facilitates transformational sustainability transitions by creating a framework for identifying and addressing the root causes of sustainability challenges. The systemic synergy among the 21 TIPs helps to integrate long-term systemic interventions with short-term tactical actions, thus enhancing coherence and sustainability in intervention strategies. By mapping out the connections between deep and shallow interventions across multiple sustainability dimensions, the TIP-System provides a multi-level approach that supports the design (pre-intervention), management (in-intervention), and evaluation (post-intervention) stages of transitions.

4.4. Operational Logic Examples and Implementation Suggestions

4.4.1. Operational Logic Examples

Each TIP can be operationalized through targeted interventions. As shown by

Table 4. Ecological TIPs of TIP-System.

TIP Coordinate	Intervention Levels	Operational Definition	Sustainability Transition Operationalization
TIP21 {Ψ: System momentum—Shì}	Holistic energy domain, refers to system synergy holistic momentum and potential	Emergent ecological properties from nonlinear system interactions	An emergent, system-level outcome that integrates and amplifies the effects of individual ecological interventions, resulting in a comprehensive enhancement of ecosystem resilience
TIP1 {d1—Eco, l1—Dào}	Essence domain, refers to ethical–cognitive schema and meta-paradigm architecture	Deep ecological value paradigms and ontological commitments	Paradigmatic reframing, e.g., reconceptualizing human–nature relationships and restructuring ecological cognition via planetary boundaries theory
TIP2 {d1—Eco, l2—Fǎ}	Principle domain, refers to institutional symbiosis and coupling governance system	Complementary institutional architecture ensuring eco-dimensional goal alignment	Institutional design, e.g., complementary design of ecological redlines and market mechanisms
TIP3 {d1—Eco, l3—Shù}	Practice domain, refers to fluid adaptive responses, dynamic practical method, and strategies to context	Context-sensitive dynamic ecological intervention strategies	Adaptive management method, e.g., dynamic water allocation based on real-time ecosystem diagnostics
TIP4 {d1—Eco, l4—Qì}	Tool domain, refers to value-embedded techniques, instruments, and resources	Eco-technological artifacts	Technological embodiment, e.g., biomimetic urban infrastructure, water monitoring sensors, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

, the generation of ecological TIPs demonstrates the framework’s operational logic:

4.4.2. A Three-Phase Implementation Approach

To facilitate the TIP-System’s practical application, a phased approach is suggested: pre-intervention, intervention design, and post-intervention evaluation. This structured approach ensures accessibility and effectiveness for real-world sustainability transitions.

Pre-Intervention Phase: Identifying Gaps and Mapping the Current Landscape

The pre-intervention phase is focused on mapping the current sustainability landscape and identifying key gaps across the sustainability dimensions within existing sustainable actions and plans through the TIP-System. This phase serves as the foundation for effective intervention by providing a clear diagnosis of the system’s current state, revealing areas of underrepresentation or missed opportunities for change, particularly those that may overlook non-economic dimensions of sustainability and deep intervention realms, facilitating a deeper understanding of the complexities at play in any given system, ensuring that interventions will not only target one-dimensional issues but also encourage cross-cutting, systems-level change. This phase lays the foundation for developing interventions that are both contextually relevant and comprehensive in scope.

Intervention Design: Balancing Deep and Shallow Interventions

The second phase focuses on designing transition interventions. The TIP-System framework promotes a holistic approach, distinguishing itself from solutions that address only partial dimensions or rely on overly technical methods. It encourages a balance of deep and shallow interventions across multiple sustainability dimensions, tailored to the local context. Shallow interventions (e.g., policy changes, incentives, or technological solutions) may bring immediate results, but often fail to address the root causes of sustainability issues. The TIP-System encourages combining these with deeper, more transformative interventions that address underlying systems, such as fostering value-driven awareness changes or supporting long-term social mobilization. This combination ensures that sustainability actions are not only impactful in the short term but also aligned with long-term systemic shifts. By selecting appropriate TIPs, practitioners can tailor interventions to local contexts and adjust them as needed over time.

Post-Intervention Evaluation: Assessing Outcomes Across Dimensions

In the post-intervention phase, sustainability outcomes are evaluated across all five dimensions of the TIP-System. The multidimensional framework ensures that evaluations consider not just economic or ecological impacts, but also cultural and social changes, as well as shifts in individual attitudes toward sustainability. For instance, in addressing food insecurity, quantitative data might measure food security improvements, while qualitative feedback on cultural shifts and community engagement provides a fuller picture of the intervention’s impact. This holistic evaluation allows for the identification of successful strategies, areas for improvement, and new intervention points for future efforts.

5. TIP-System Validation in Case Studies

5.1. The TIP-System for Each of the Eight Social Innovation and Sustainability Initiatives Cases

A comprehensive and detailed case study is beyond the scope of this paper; thus, this paper only maps eight social innovation and sustainability initiatives onto TIP-System’s simplified visualization diagram to validate it. Each case was analyzed through the TIP-System by collating secondary data (see Figure 6).

The TIP-System’s application revealed that cases 1, 2, 5, and 6 (e.g., Transition Town Totnes and Ecovillage Network) demonstrate a relatively complete set of interventions (as shown in Figure 6), experimenting with alternative systems and ways of life, triggering changes in people’s daily actions, behaviors, and routines towards more sustainable communities, which resonates with the findings of the TRANSIT project reports [171,172]. By mapping cases such as Ecovillage Tamera (Case 6) and Ecovillage Schloss Tempelhof (Case 5) [172], the TIP-System illustrates how the transition process aligns with these dimensions, fostering community-driven transformation. The TIP-System’s strength lies in its ability to highlight synergies and gaps across these dimensions, enabling a more holistic approach to sustainability transitions. Case 6, Tamera, exemplifies a pioneering model of integrated, multidimensional sustainability, where each value, principle, strategy, tool, and dynamic energy is meticulously aligned to help catalyze global change by offering an alternative living model of a peaceful and ecologically responsible future. Tamera’s community is built on a foundation of shared values (Dào domain)—commitment to restoring the soil and creating regenerative ecosystems, respect for all life, and solidarity with all beings is demonstrated in its efforts to create sustainable living spaces that are deeply connected to nature. It is governed by principles of honesty and transparency that encourage collaboration and mutual respect, ensure trust, and the community remains united in its mission (Fǎ domain). Tamera implements various practical strategies (Shù domain), such as the meditative ceremonies like the “Ring of Power” or community-based projects, such as gardening and youth empowerment, creating the conditions for a thriving, engaged, and resilient community, supported by practical tools and technologies (Qì domain) that enable sustainable living. These range from the tangible products like books, herbs, jewelry, and handicrafts to the underlying systems that facilitate Tamera’s model, such as the gift economy. Finally, the dynamic momentum (Shì domain) generated by Tamera’s activities propels the community forward. This energy is both the spiritual and social force that arises when values, principles, strategies, and tools are aligned and in motion.

On the other hand, cases 3, 4, 7, and 8 (e.g., Living Labs in Eindhoven and Manchester) focus on specific innovation areas such as design, methodology, and technology, but with a number of transition points missing in both deep and shallow intervention realms, particularly ecological and inner dimensions (as shown in Figure 6). Missing dimensions in the transition process, as identified by the TIP-System, were seen to limit the potential for achieving systemic change. This observation resonates with findings from the TRANSIT project reports [173,174].

Taking Transition Town Totnes (Case 1) as a more detailed example, its interventions [171], mapped to the TIP-System, are spread across the deep and shallow intervention realms of the five sustainability dimensions (see

Table 5. The 21 Transition Intervention Points of Case 1 “Transition Town Totnes” (supported by examples, data collated from Noel and György’s [171].

Intervention Realm	Realm of Leverage	Ecological Dimension	Social Dimension	Economic Dimension	Cultural Dimension	Inner Dimension
Deep intervention realm	Shì (the holistic energy domain)	TIP 21—the holistic energy Shì e.g., a looser network of projects working around transition based themes (a relaxed approach), which adhere in some way to the overall goals of transition
	Dào (the essence domain)	TIP1—ecological essence Dào. e.g., towards ‘a more enriching and gentler perspective on the earth than the way most of us live today’	TIP5—social essence Dào. e.g., well-being, justice, and a collectively produced vision, which argues for the need a societal shift towards a more ecologically sustainable future	TIP9—economic essence Dào. e.g., put ‘new economic’ values at the heart, contributing to enhancing local economic resilience	TIP13—cultural essence Dào. e.g., working collaboratively to build a ‘town that cares’, committed to improve the well-being of people within the locality and caring passionately about the future of the locality	TIP17—inner essence Dào. e.g., Inner transition, the transformation of the values or beliefs of participants
Shallow intervention realm	Fǎ (the principle domain)	TIP2—ecological principle Fǎ. e.g., incorporating permaculture principles into transition approaches, Totnes Renewable Energy Society (TRESOC)	TIP6—social principle Fǎ. e.g., well-being, justice, and a collectively produced vision which argues for the need a societal shift towards a more ecologically sustainable future	TIP10—economic principle Fǎ. e.g., economic blueprint, gift economy model (users pay what they can afford and practically support the day-to-day operations of the center, such as cleaning or contributing in other ways)	TIP14—cultural principle Fǎ. e.g., creating a narrative about how societal change can be facilitated by community mobilization, producing collaborative community based process	TIP18—inner principle Fǎ. e.g., a deeper form of change for broader values and worldviews
	Shù (the practice domain)	TIP3—ecological practice Shù. e.g., launching the Food-Link project, building good energy partnership, initiating Totnes Energy Descent Action Plan	TIP6—social practice Shù. e.g., offers a set of 21 ‘tools for transition’, using the technique of ‘backcasting’, launch the Caring Town Totnes project to build a different form of social care provision from the bottom up	TIP11—economic practice Shù. e.g., ‘Totnes Pound Local Currency’ system (first paper based local currency in the UK), TRESOC (an Industrial and provident model of community ownership that is specifically focused on being economically self-sustaining)	TIP15—cultural practice Shù. e.g., management “unleashing collective genius”, emphasizes cultural change (public talks and courses at Schumacher College); viewing transition as a cultural process, to nudge the culture and prepare communities for uncertainty and change [175]	TIP19—inner practice Shù. e.g., Transition support and mentoring and well-being of group, an approach that engages with ‘head, heart, and hands’
	Qì (the tool domain)	TIP4—ecological tool Qì. e.g., gardenshare, Follaton Forest Garden, more solar panels are installed on the roofs of the town	TIP8—social tool Qì. e.g., open eco homes fair, free skillshare, traffic and transport forum, publications (e.g., Transition in Action, a powered down, re-localized future for the locality in 2030)	TIP12—economic tool Qì. e.g., Totnes pound, local entrepreneur forum, written guidance such as the published “Transition Companion”, and physical spaces to support new initiatives, such as the REconomy center	TIP16—cultural tool Qì. e.g., transition tours, publications such as ‘Transition Handbook’, websites, transition training, such as ‘Life after Oil Course’; Totnes Arts Network; open public meetings, public talks	TIP20—inner tool Qì. e.g., behavior change intervention, reskilling, individual consumption patterns changing

). The town’s interventions, initiated with the “Energy Descent Action Plan” (see Figure 7, TIP 3), addressing climate change, peak oil, and economic crises, then expanded its efforts into various sectors covering the five sustainability transitions, like housing, skills sharing, and local food economy, resulting in over 20 projects spanning food, housing, energy, transport, economy, arts, health, and waste. Although the two domains of the deep intervention realm are not easy to analyze logically and implement, some corresponding interventions and actions still can be found in the report by Noel and György [171], which lead to its transformative innovation (see Table 5 and Figure 7). Despite these efforts, there is still much room for improvement in a number of aspects of its design, governance, and overall dynamics, symbiotic relationality, and the coherence of the transition process, particularly in terms of the ecological dimension, which could strengthen the initiative’s overall transition. This coincides with the findings of this report, which found that this case is considered a looser network of projects working around transition-based themes [171].

In parallel, the TIP-System demonstrated effectiveness in showing transition states and potentials for the Living Lab Eindhoven (Case 7) and Living Lab Manchester (Case 8) of ENoLL. ‘ENoLL’ is primarily technology-driven, offering spaces and tools to develop or produce new technologies and methodologies. Both cases, as open innovation communities utilizing Living Labs, have shown progress in fostering collaboration through user innovation and open innovation concepts. However, the application and post-intervention evaluation of the TIP-System (Figure 8) reveal that they still require more external cooperation to achieve a holistic and systematic transition process, especially showing significant room for improvement in achieving a resilient and balanced transition. Over-reliance on methods, tools, and technologies may inadvertently hinder the exploration of deeper needs for a co-future. This concern is reflected in critical discussions surrounding privacy and digital technology, such as those raised at Manchester’s ‘Future Everything’ festival (Case 8).

According to the case study report of the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) network [174], we give the specific intervention example involved in Case 7 Eindhoven Living Lab (see

Table 6. The 21 Transition Intervention Points for case 7 “Living Lab Eindhoven” (supported by examples, data collated from Saskia and Adrian [174].

Intervention Realm	Realm of Leverage	Ecological Dimension	Social Dimension	Economic Dimension	Cultural Dimension	Inner Dimension
Deep intervention realm	Shì (the holistic energy domain)	TIP 21—the holistic energy Shì As a label for a collection of various collaborative initiatives focusing on social challenges and the use of technology and data in the city
	Dào (the essence domain)	-	TIP5—social essence Dào. e.g., safety, liveability and attractiveness of the Stratumseind area	-	-	-
Shallow intervention realm	Fǎ (the principle domain)	-	TIP6—social principle Fǎ. e.g., contribute to a dynamic European Innovation System	-	TIP14—cultural principle Fǎ. e.g., innovative institutional arrangement relation with actors/initiatives/networks	-
	Shù (the practice domain)	TIP3—ecological practice Shù. e.g., suggested urban-gardening and producing one’s own (sustainable) energy, feasible, efficient, and environment friendly solutions, such as the Smart Grid and the future ‘Energy Internet’	TIP6—social principle Shù. e.g., ICT applications in Doornakkers (see Figure 8, the Intervention Initiation Point indicated by the red arrow in Case 7), as a general neighborhood improvement strategy	TIP11—economic practice Shù. e.g., A triple helix (business, government, and knowledge and educational institutions), business innovation, and new business model	TIP15—cultural practice Shù. e.g., embraces technological change, openness, cooperation, the use of data and social media	-
	Qì (the tool domain)	-	TIP8—social tool Qì. e.g., The project Stratumseind 2.0, the Smart Light Grid, urbanization, and a focus on prevention, Slimmer Leven 2020 competition	TIP12—economic tool Qì. e.g., bricks-and-clicks and Public–Private–People Partnerships	TIP16—cultural tool Qì. e.g., The Strijp S, Eckhart-Vaartbroek City Studios, Smart Cities publications, workshops and educational activities	TIP20—inner tool Qì. e.g., attempt to connect people and start dialogues, and interventions of individuals

). The TIP-System provides a structured approach to understand local transition actions, governing interventions, and evaluate outcomes. From its post-design assessment of this case, we can see that case 7 excels in promoting the participation of technology and methodologies in social and cultural sustainability. While both cases focus on connecting digital Public–Private–People Partnerships (PPPPs), experimenting with new forms of cooperation, and integrating technologies like ICT, big data, and Smart Cities, they lack balanced interventions across the five sustainability dimensions, nor have they fully developed into a comprehensive transition system. The visualization of case 7’s TIP-System (see Figure 8) reveals transition gaps across the five sustainability dimensions, especially clear gaps in interventions related to ecological, inner, and economic sustainability in both shallow and deep areas. As [174] stated, the case lacks the resources needed for large-scale environmental and empowerment projects (ecological and inner sustainability). The visualization of Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 and Table 5 and Table 6 underscores the importance of integrating the missing areas, though strong in promoting technological and methodological participation (mainly shallow), faces limitations, which limit their potential to contribute to the system’s overall functioning unless they are aligned with deeper interventions. These observations align with Saskia and Adrian’s [174] report. The TIP-System, through visualization, encourages participants to develop a more holistic and transformative transition intervention strategy.

5.2. Validation Finding

Through case verification, the TIP-System has several advantages in analyzing social innovation and sustainability initiatives.

5.2.1. Comprehensive Understanding and Systemic Integration

The TIP-System enables a comprehensive analysis of sustainability initiatives by integrating ecological, social, economic, cultural, and inner dimensions across both deep and shallow intervention realms. The validation of the framework shows that the action trajectories of community-led movements align with the intervention structures emphasized by the TIP-System, which effectively bridges deep and shallow interventions across the five interconnected sustainability dimensions. Despite facing transition risks related to financial constraints, political and regulatory pressures, and challenges in social adaptation, the application of the TIP-System can enhance systemic integration, scalability, and sustainability governance. When all 21 TIPs are activated and coherently applied, the transition processes and transformative capacities of communities—such as Tamera—are significantly strengthened in a structured and holistic manner.

5.2.2. Identifying Strengths and Gaps for Targeted Support

The TIP-System provides a structured framework for assessing the strengths, weaknesses, and risks of sustainability initiatives, thereby facilitating the identification of areas for improvement and more effective resource allocation. For example, Transition Wekerle (Case 2) demonstrates strong community engagement through its grassroots networks and longstanding commitment to green initiatives [171]. The TIP-System not only visualizes and highlights such strengths but also identifies areas where deeper interventions could enhance transformative potential. It also draws attention to potential risks, such as institutional and cultural barriers that can constrain implementation. For instance, the “Citizens of Kispest for Public Catering” initiative [171], which sought to reform school catering systems, encountered significant institutional resistance, limiting its broader impact. While the initiative effectively mobilized local community engagement—representing shallow intervention—it lacked integration with systemic deep realms, particularly in policy reform and ecological sustainability. This illustrates the importance of aligning initiatives with systemic structures to enable durable, transformative change.

Similarly, in the Living Lab Eindhoven (Case 7), the TIP-System identifies gaps and risks related to ecological and economic dimensions, notably in terms of financial sustainability and dependency on subsidies [174]. The city administration plays a central role in coordinating Living Lab activities, demonstrating strong political support. In contrast, the Manchester Digital Development Agency (MDDA) (Case 8), despite its pioneering role in founding the Living Lab movement and EnOLL, while local activities continue, the Living Lab concept no longer holds a formal position [174]. These cases demonstrate the TIP-System’s utility in identifying critical gaps and risks across social, ecological, institutional, and economic dimensions, reinforcing its value as a tool for supporting comprehensive and systemic sustainability transitions.

5.2.3. Fostering Collaboration and Synergy

The TIP-System emphasizes the synergies between deep and shallow intervention realms, fostering collaboration across diverse sustainability initiatives. While some social innovation and sustainability efforts initially do not prioritize systemic sustainability transitions, focusing instead on specific dimensions or domains, they possess the potential to collaborate and scale their impacts in addressing complex transition challenges. By identifying complementary dimensions, the system promotes partnerships that enhance collective impact. For example, the Polimi DESIS Lab (Case 3) and the NAS Design DESIS Lab (Case 4) [173], both centered on design for social innovation, could benefit from partnering with initiatives focused on ecological or inner dimensions. The TIP-System facilitates these collaborations by visualizing complementarities and encouraging participants to identify and leverage potential synergies, thereby promoting cross-sector cooperation to tackle the full range of sustainability challenges.

5.2.4. Evaluating Long-Term Impact

The TIP-System facilitates the evaluation of long-term impacts by linking all 21 TIPs across both deep and shallow realms. This approach ensures that interventions are not only impactful in the short term but also sustainable in the long run. For instance, the TIP-System’s ability to analyze from design to post-intervention evaluations of the transition process ensures that initiatives are holistically evaluated. By considering all 21 TIPs, policymakers and practitioners can ensure that transitions are not only comprehensive but also resilient and adaptable over time.

5.3. Discussion

The case verification process demonstrates the utility and versatility of the TIP-System in guiding sustainability transitions across diverse real-world initiatives. By mapping eight sustainability initiatives, the TIP-System reveals strengths and weaknesses in each case, offering insights into the dynamics of transition interventions across multiple dimensions. This validation highlights the TIP-System’s value as a comprehensive framework that moves beyond isolated interventions and offers a holistic, systems-based approach to sustainability transitions. Three key patterns emerged: (1) Increased Resilience through Integrated Sustainability Dimensions: by integrating ecological, social, economic, cultural, and inner sustainability dimensions, systems are better equipped to adapt to transition challenges, fostering long-term sustainability and reducing risks. (2) Balancing Deep and Shallow Interventions to Prevent Lock-in: Combining deep (meta-paradigm cognitive restructuring) and shallow (operational interventions) strategies reduces the risk of path dependency. This balanced approach allows for adaptive, flexible responses, ensuring long-term systemic transformation. (3) Adaptability and Extensibility through Localized and Universal Strategies: The TIP-System adapts to different cultural and ecological contexts, tailoring interventions to local needs while maintaining broad applicability. This flexibility ensures interventions are relevant and effective for each community while offering a robust framework for sustainability transitions across diverse settings.

6. Conclusions

This study introduces the Transition Intervention Point System (TIP-System), a novel framework for guiding sustainability transitions by integrating ecological, social, economic, cultural, and inner dimensions with both deep and shallow intervention realms. Comprising 21 distinct Transition Intervention Points (TIPs), the TIP-System offers a structured approach to designing, managing, and evaluating sustainability transitions.

From an academic perspective, the TIP-System bridges gaps in current research by combining qualitative and quantitative interventions, fostering cross-disciplinary collaboration, and integrating local knowledge. It unites multidimensional sustainability with Taoist-inspired leverage point insights, providing new perspectives on transition processes. The framework views the five sustainability dimensions as a dynamic, interdependent whole, using both shallow and deep interventions to illustrate how these dimensions interact. The cross-cultural synthesis of Eastern and Western paradigms offers a nuanced, context-sensitive approach for addressing systemic challenges.

Practically, the TIP-System has demonstrated promise as a boundary-spanning mechanism for systemic change. Validation through eight social innovation initiatives underscores its flexibility, adaptability, and context-sensitivity. Currently, the TIP-System has undergone initial validation through its application in an EU-funded transnational rural transition project in Southern Europe, demonstrating improved synergy among interventions. These preliminary empirical insights indicate that, when tailored appropriately to local contexts, the TIP-System has the potential to support long-term sustainability. Nonetheless, additional empirical studies are needed to fully assess its effectiveness across varied environmental and cultural settings.

Despite its potential, the TIP-System faces three challenges: (1) Complexity of the Framework: The multidimensional, systemic nature of sustainability transitions makes the framework challenging to grasp, particularly the abstract elements like holistic system dynamics and spiritual–ethical considerations. The TIP-System’s conceptual complexity presents challenges for practitioners unfamiliar with its multidimensional nature. It requires further refinement to enhance accessibility and applicability. (2) Limited Evaluation Metrics: the framework needs further development of validated measures to assess its impact. (3) Cognitive Barriers: the impact of Western skepticism regarding “unquantifiability” and balancing cultural specificity with universal applicability.

Future research should focus on simplifying the TIP-System without losing its depth, refining intervention assessment tools to enhance accessibility for local stakeholders, and addressing cognitive barriers related to its abstract components. While the current study relied on secondary data from the TRANSIT project for case validation, this approach has limitations, particularly in assessing the real-world applicability of the TIP-System. These case studies are not statistically generalizable, but rather serve to demonstrate the framework’s applicability across different contexts and establish a foundation for broader testing. This aligns with Yin’s [163] emphasis on analytical generalization in qualitative research. Moving forward, primary data, such as stakeholder interviews, should be incorporated to capture tacit cultural values. Expanding empirical case studies across diverse regions and sectors will also be critical to test the TIP-System’s cross-cultural relevance and robustness. In conclusion, ongoing refinement and empirical validation are essential in realizing the full potential of the TIP-System, ensuring it can support transformative, equitable, and sustainable change worldwide.