A Framework for Analyzing and Supporting Communities on Their Path to Sustainability

Abstract

Sustainable community development presents complex challenges, often leading to failed initiatives. This paper addresses the need for a conceptual framework to analyze, understand, and support communities striving for sustainability. It questions how diverse community stories can be synthesized to clarify core issues and subtleties, enabling communities to navigate towards a sustainable future. The research adopts a design perspective, drawing parallels between engineering design processes and community development. The methodology involves applying the Problem-Social-Institutional (PSI) framework, initially developed for engineering design, to analyze published case studies of sustainable and ecological community projects in Israel. The PSI matrix, a tool within the framework, models initiatives across three layers (vision, reflection/implementation, daily life) and three spaces (Problem-‘What’, Social-‘Who’, Institutional-‘How’). By analyzing multiple case studies using the PSI matrix, the research identifies key factors that contribute to both the success and failure of these initiatives. Results indicate that sustainable communities require dynamic alignment across all matrix cells, a shared and adaptable vision achieved through dialogue, an active ‘reflection/implementation’ layer for monitoring and alignment, community-defined daily operations, and the nurturing of citizen skills and leadership for participation and dialogue. The framework effectively highlights misalignments—such as conflicting visions or the absence of a reflection layer—as early indicators of potential failure. The paper concludes that the PSI framework provides a valuable, albeit simplified, tool for communities to diagnose challenges, facilitate dialogue, and guide actions toward sustainability, acknowledging the complexity of social systems and the need for continuous adaptation and learning.

1. Introduction

How can we weave a large collection of stories into a single fabric, each depicting a rich ecosystem but focusing on one or another aspect of the concept of sustainable communities? Can such a fabric clarify not only the main issues underlying sustainable communities but also identify subtleties? Is it possible to produce a conceptual framework that not only describes communities but also helps characterize the challenges they face, thereby guiding members toward a sustainable future? Can a model be developed that illuminates complex dilemmas such as what constitutes a sustainable community, or even the meaning of sustainability itself? At the core of these questions is a desire to understand how a community—collection of people—can design or change their lives as a community according to their goals and desires while focusing on sustainability as a meaningful basis [1,2,3,4,5]. Many other important questions that seek answers include, for example, whether a community is independent of people and exists even when people change and leave, and whether to be a community, one must be sustainable and vice versa.

A community is commonly defined as a “group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical locations or settings ([6], p. 1929)”. This conceptualization emphasizes not only the physical or spatial dimensions but also the psychological and social bonds that foster a sense of belonging and collective identity; it excludes other types of communities, such as virtual communities or communities of practice that are not discussed in this paper. Recent research has demonstrated that a strong sense of community belonging is associated with improved health outcomes, increased social cohesion, and enhanced capacity to give and receive help during crises such as COVID-19, underscoring the importance of these connections in all contexts [7,8]. Foundational and contemporary studies highlight that community experience can differ significantly across settings, but core elements such as social ties, shared values, and joint action remain central to most academic definitions [6,8].

A sustainable community strives to balance environmental integrity, economic vitality, and social well-being to meet the needs of current and future generations. Roseland [5] describes sustainable communities as those that manage natural, social, and economic capital holistically, integrating environmental stewardship with social and economic development. Dempsey et al. [9] further emphasize the importance of social sustainability, including inclusivity, accessibility, participation, and quality of life, as critical dimensions of urban sustainability. As the field evolves, scholars increasingly recognize the need for innovative frameworks that address the interconnectedness of ecological, economic, and social systems, particularly in the face of climate change and rapid urbanization [5,9]. Recent studies describe sustainable communities as complex and adaptive systems that integrate social, economic, and ecological goals, empowering citizens to participate in the green transition and fostering resilience against external shocks [10,11].

There is a debate about whether sustainable community development and sustainable communities are synonymous concepts [11]. Nevertheless, we can limit sustainable community development to participatory, adaptive processes and skill development through which communities build the capacity to achieve long-term sustainability [10,11,12]. Recent work highlights the significance of community resilience as an indicator of social sustainability, with adaptive governance structures enabling communities to respond effectively to environmental and social shocks [13]. These perspectives underscore the need to model community development as a dynamic, participatory process that integrates local knowledge, social capital, and adaptive strategies for sustainable growth [11,12,13].

A key element in this paper is design. In design, challenges, needs, or desires drive people to address them by creating something new [14]. The new object could be a technological product, method, service, organization, or something else that solves the problem or meets the challenge. If the challenge is to preserve an urban environment, the solution could be a community that settles in and cares for it. While this might seem unconventional, it is important to recognize that anything not naturally occurring has been shaped by some form of design.

Common design processes include Analysis and Understanding, Problem Definition, Stakeholder Involvement, Research, Planning, Ideation, Concept Development, Detailed Design, Prototyping, Testing and Validation, Implementation, Evaluation and Review, and Iteration and Refinement [15,16,17,18]. Consequently, although challenges can be diverse, from different domains of knowledge and differing contexts, their design processes can be similar [14,19].

The generality of design processes across disciplines allows insights from the field of engineering design to inform people about designing their lives as a community. Therefore, I address some of the above questions with knowledge from engineering design accumulated mainly during participatory action research projects with enterprises, mostly related to developing large products, services, or systems in general [20]. It relies on multiple fields of knowledge, including economics, psychology, sociology, management, and others, recognizing that these are equally important as engineering knowledge for the success of diverse real-world initiatives [19].

We as individuals, but also as researchers of engineering design, are used to thinking about design through the products we encounter in our lives: the internet, cell phone, transportation, medical equipment, recycling plant, green energy source, coffee machine or elevator and maybe even bank service, medical care, government service, or police investigation. But design is not just the final product; it is mainly the process that causes the product to be realized out of ideas or needs. Unfortunately, many design processes fail [21,22]. It is also estimated that only a few ideas, even those registered as patents, come to fruition [23,24]. Design processes, therefore, are complex, difficult, and prone to failure. Given the low success rate, it is crucial to deeply explore the essence of design processes by analyzing both failures and successes.

It is common to classify projects as failures when they end without realizing their stated goal, at a higher cost than planned, beyond the allotted schedules, and/or without producing value for the product stakeholders. Adopting a more comprehensive definition of value [25,26] might change the odds, but not significantly. These challenges are even more acute in the context of sustainable community development, where the complexity far exceeds that of conventional engineering product design [1,27].

To help communities on their path to sustainability, it is important to analyze cases or initiatives of establishing sustainable communities, understand where they have succeeded and where they have not, and generate knowledge that can enhance such future initiatives (e.g., in the context of grassroots innovations, [28], or community-based social enterprises, [29]). A collection of cases of community projects in Israel attests to the great difficulty of managing the development of sustainability in communities [30], and it seems that the communities and their supportive environment, including experts in various fields, can benefit from a new and simple perspective that allows structuring sustainable community failure modes for future improvement.

To understand the failures or successes of design projects in general, we developed a framework called the PSI (Problem, Social, Institutional) framework [31,32]. This framework includes several modeling instruments that should be selected depending on the context. The PSI framework has been used to analyze and understand the success and failure of many projects [31,32], including development projects in developing countries [33].

For example, many cooking stove development projects in India were initiated to help replace custom-made wood stoves, which use free wood collected in the fields, but are dangerous to health, with new one-size stoves whose energy source needs to be purchased. Many such projects, including those run by the Government of India, have failed [33]. The PSI framework can anticipate these failures due to a lack of understanding of users’ cultural practices and daily routines. In settings where power dynamics, politics, and culture are significant—such as in the establishment of sustainable communities—the ability to foresee such issues is highly valuable. Other applications of the PSI framework included predicting the success or failure of design research projects by analyzing their research papers [34,35] and analyzing the history of residency matching market design in economics through multiple secondary sources [36]. When it comes to complex collaborative projects between two or more social entities, we have seen that when two PSI models of two social entities do not align, or when the collaborative project cannot be modeled with an aligned PSI framework, the project is likely to fail—rendering it unsustainable [31,32,36].

There are other approaches to support communities when conducting joint actions such as participatory action research [37,38], action research [39,40], innovation journey [41,42], communities of practice [43], or open innovation [44,45]. These approaches consider the participation of different stakeholders, within and outside an organization or community, through a dialogue organized in different ways, to contribute ideas and knowledge, to learn, and facilitate a joint action. However, not all projects using these or other approaches succeed. The PSI framework offers a mechanism for ensuring these projects are aligned across critical dimensions. In addition, any one of these approaches can be used in PSI to drive stakeholder participation. Thus, these approaches do not conflict with PSI; rather, they complement it.

The purpose of the paper is to present a tool for analyzing sustainable communities to identify challenges and improve stakeholders’ ability to address them. Inability to face challenges can lead to community failures, which can lead to the dissolution and severance of its members, or waste of resources and failure to live long-term according to the community vision. The tool is simple, concise, and easy to use compared to lengthy, even if valuable, handbooks and guides for designing communities (e.g., [1,2,4,5]).

The hypothesis is that the PSI framework provides a concise representation of complex sustainable community contexts that can be used to determine the fate of these communities. To validate this hypothesis, one needs to use the PSI framework in different contexts and compare the tool’s recommendations with reality, which is precisely what this paper is set to do. The remainder of this paper discusses the PSI framework, the research method, and the application of the PSI framework in different cases. Section 5 describes how the insight from the analyses can be used by practitioners, and Section 6 and Section 7 discuss and conclude the paper.

2. The PSI Framework

The basis for design, or any creation, is a dialogue among people who have different desires, knowledge, and perspectives [46,47]. For example, engineers from two fields of expertise, customer and professional, and engineer and manufacturer, see and think about the world differently. Creating a successful product demands that all major stakeholders generate a common ground built on a new language that develops in the process [48]. The more they succeed in developing a common language, enriching it, and using it in the process, the better the work will be [19]. The ability of stakeholders to cooperate in a structured process allows for engaging diverse and even contradictory bodies of knowledge, thus succeeding in addressing complex and multi-disciplinary challenges [47,49]. Just like products or services, communities are also designed; they emerge from dialogue among diverse individuals who must build long-term common ground, develop a shared vision, culture, and often even a unique language.

To help succeed in designing products, services, or communities, participants must answer three key interrelated questions: (1) What is the challenge, and why is it important? (2) Who participates in attending the challenge (i.e., the stakeholders)? (3) How do these stakeholders cooperate to address the challenge (e.g., using specific design process and organizational structure, utilizing internal and external relationships, and knowledge sharing)? An easy challenge may be resolved with a few people employing a simple and intuitive process. In contrast, a complex challenge requires the cooperation of many stakeholders in an orderly and structured process while managing and sharing knowledge. To succeed, the answers to these three linked questions must be aligned. Many times, we start with a small challenge that grows into a complex endeavor; in such transitions, it may become necessary to change which stakeholders are involved and adapt the working methods to fit the new level of complexity. To model complex design contexts, including their transitions, a framework called the PSI framework was developed in engineering [31,32]. The PSI framework supports modeling and analyzing complex processes and projects [19,31,32,36]. With the help of this analysis, it is possible to predict whether the process or project will fail and what the reason for the failure is; it is also possible to recommend improvements that increase the chance of success of these processes or projects.

While the PSI framework includes several models, we will use one that is sufficient to capture the complexity of the cases presented in this paper—The PSI matrix. As stated, the PSI matrix models the answers to three questions: (1) What do we do?—P—Problem space. (2) Who does—S—Social space. (3) How those who do, do it—I—Institutional space. The name of the framework is derived from the initials of the concepts. Each initiative can also be characterized with three different layers: (1) vision layer—creating a concept that organizes, directs, and determines meaning for the organization or community; (2) reflection or implementation layer—determining the content and the course of action that realizes the vision as well as managing and aligning the daily life functioning concerning the vision; and (3) daily life layer—activities addressing daily challenges. The last layer is usually the focus because it describes the daily life functioning of all stakeholders, which is the direct driver of stakeholders’ value.

Table 1. The PSI matrix—framework description.

The Spaces	P—Problem—What?	S—Social—Who?	I—Institutional—How?
The Layer
The vision	What vision?	Who is a partner?	How is the vision created?
Reflection/implementation	What is the organization for implementing the vision? What do we need to do to maintain alignment?	Who is a partner?	How do partners organize for implementing the vision or for aligning?
Daily life	What are the daily challenges?	Who is a partner?	How is the vision realized?

shows the PSI matrix composed of the three layers, where each includes the answers to the same three core questions: what, who, and how. These create a 3 by 3 matrix of 9 cells.

The order in which the matrix cells are filled does not matter; what is crucial is that all components must be aligned. An aligned matrix describes a situation in which all factors match each other and are properly directed to realize the vision. A misaligned matrix models a situation that is prone to failure.

Each component in the matrix has further characteristics. The “What”—P—component is characterized by the number of knowledge domains required to define and solve the challenge, the challenge’s complexity in terms of the number of issues and their interconnections, and whether the knowledge needed for the solution is readily available or must be generated. The “Who”—S—component is characterized by the number of perspectives required to solve the problem, the mix of skills within the team or community, and whether the group is open or closed. The “How”—I—component refers to the structure, culture, and working methodologies of the organization or community addressing the “What”; it also includes internal and external connections (strong or weak), and the extent of knowledge sharing within the group.

Every organization or community evolves. If we analyze them using a matrix at different times, we will obtain different matrix models. The process of transitioning between such models embeds a great deal of information about the organization and its ability to deal with challenges. To move from one state to another, an organization must develop or adjust its capabilities. In this way, when an organization finds itself in a misaligned state, often due to changes in the environment, it can direct itself to a new, desirable, aligned state.

The PSI framework was tested on many different cases. In many instances, its use explains project failures or their success. In a small number, it was used as a project management tool. Like any tool, the matrix allows for a particular point of view and focuses on specific answers. Other perspectives are possible and even desirable to produce additional insights, from which improved solutions can emerge [50].

Using an abstract and structured model like this inevitably sacrifices some of the nuanced details found in the rich, natural language used in case descriptions such as those analyzed in this paper. However, such a model also has advantages over natural language. With natural language, it is easy to construct complex logical arguments based on equally complex concepts and definitions whose validity cannot always be determined. This ambiguity can even exist in mathematics—a domain often perceived as delivering certain truth—where seemingly valid arguments may later be disproven. One need only recall the history of the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem to acknowledge this; proofs once considered correct were later found to be flawed [51]. A simplified model like the PSI matrix helps avoid these pitfalls by trading detail for clarity, with the hope that the omitted details are not essential to the problem’s core understanding. Other methods from design or systems engineering also help analyze texts to identify contradictions, errors, and improve them following similar logic [52,53]. Furthermore, applying the framework across multiple cases can highlight common denominators that are easily discernible within a structured framework.

3. The Research Method

The research method is based on a theoretical analysis of several case studies that were published as chapters in a book on sustainable and ecological communities in Israel [30]. These chapters were the result of an open call for contributions on sustainable and ecological communities in Israel. Submissions were evaluated and screened following discussions with prospective authors to make sure they adhere to high academic standards beyond their fit to the subject. All the book chapters were analyzed in this research, while only a few are presented. It should be noted that the chapters in the book do not constitute a random or statistically representative sample. For example, this sample includes cases where the success component outweighs failure; this relates to the natural tendency of authors to propose writing on cases that seem successful rather than failures. Consequently, there are few reports of failures in the scientific literature compared to their real frequency. Although the sample is biased toward success stories, it is sufficiently large and diverse to serve as a foundation for this type of case study analysis.

Figure 1 shows the overall research process. Each case contains rich and varied information that allows the extraction of information and demonstrates the use of the PSI matrix and the benefit of the analysis. The analysis of each case begins with reading the text (Step 1 in Figure 1). As the text is read, portions of it are interpreted through the lens of the PSI matrix, assigning each excerpt to its corresponding cell. The content of the cells is numbered in the order it appears in the text to construct a full representation of the PSI matrix for that case (marked 2 in the figure).

Due to the variety in case contexts and the way these projects unfolded in their text descriptions, the order of filling the matrix may seem arbitrary or inconsistent; nevertheless, this order does not impact the use of the framework, as what counts is that the critical cells are represented and the cells are aligned. Likewise, the level of detail provided for each cell varies according to the information available in the cases; this variation does not undermine the analysis if enough information is present. The large variation in using the PSI matrix without compromising its usefulness demonstrates its robustness and value.

In complex cases, several matrices are drawn to represent different stakeholders or depict the community at different times (3). Each set of models is then analyzed to derive insight from the model (4), and this insight is validated against the case description (5).

This process was reiterated for all cases (6). Subsequently, all cases were analyzed together to derive sustainable communities’ insight (7).

In places where the interpretation of cases with the PSI matrix was unclear, the chapter’s authors were asked questions, and their explanations or additions in the revised version of their chapters validated and enriched the PSI models (8). Additional insight was gained by the authors’ presentations at book launch events and informal discussions. This author was also familiar with some of these cases, and last, one case was studied in detail in another research project [54]. This analysis process yields case studies that are richer and more reliable than a purely subjective interpretation, as is often the case when only secondary sources are analyzed. In that sense, the present analysis is better than other successful studies of PSI that used published papers only [34,35,36,55] or better than the use of multiple secondary sources to derive knowledge in review or meta-analysis studies [56,57].

The second reading of the chapters was conducted on the updated text, incorporating answers to the questions where provided. It appears that the available material, including the interaction with authors, was sufficient for the analysis. The analysis reconstructs portions of the texts and documents them using the PSI matrix. It must be stressed that while the analysis is subjective, it is probable that the significant insights from different analyses would be similar. This aspect requires future examination.

When a new community development or challenge occurs (9 in Figure 1), it can be modeled as a set of PSI matrices (10) that can be analyzed and compared to the insight derived in this research (11) to provide actionable recommendations.

It is important to understand that in a design challenge, there are many possible solutions [58], and similarly to the questions raised above. The analysis presented here offers a particular viewpoint as interpreted by the author, with corresponding possible insights.

Another important point concerns the interdisciplinary analysis—using a tool developed in one domain within another, especially a tool that integrates knowledge from several disciplines and is adjusted as needed, is inherently challenging. Such use may be termed a conceptual “trespassing” [59], and in such cases, there is a chance of breaking or adapting existing ideas for the purpose of connecting them to others. Interdisciplinary analysis requires readers from different disciplines to be more open to interpretations that differ from their disciplinary interpretations.

4. Analysis of Examples

I will use the PSI matrix to analyze several cases in detail to demonstrate how to work with the model, understand the analysis’s meaning, and grasp the framework’s capabilities and limitations. All the cases analyzed come from a book documenting case studies of sustainable and ecological community projects in Israel [30].

Three examples out of all that were analyzed were chosen for analysis based on their focus on different layers. Case 1 describes a community’s development process, initially focused on daily life, evolving in response to events [60]. Case 2 focuses more on abstract concepts, including the complex issue of vision creation [47]. Case 3 shows how focusing on the process of vision creation leads to both the vision and daily activities; this case also depicts development over time [61].

The working hypothesis is that applying the PSI matrix will help answer some of the questions raised in the introduction and provide readers with a practical tool for analysis and recommendations to support sustainable community initiatives. It is important to remember that the analyses are based on the subjective reporting found in the case reports, without attempting independent verification of the details, except for the first case. Nevertheless, the analyses are meaningful; they allow for explaining the cases and deriving conclusions. The implementation of these conclusions, of course, depends on engaging in dialogue with the people involved in the cases and securing their cooperation.

4.1. Case Analysis—Between Industrial Identity and Sustainable Identity in Arad

This case study, while relying on a chapter in the book, was subsequently studied in much more depth for over two years [54], confirming the analysis of this case. Every situation starts with a context—in our case, the establishment of the state of Israel, Arad as a Negev frontier town with an initial vision, and a contemporary challenged economic situation. This context serves as the basis for the initial PSI matrix. At the outset, the government (1—see numbering in

Table 2. The PSI matrix—initial state.

Layer	What? (Problem)	Who? (Social)	How? (Institutional)
1. Vision	3. Vision: industry + tourism	1. Government	2. Hierarchical decision- making structure
2. Reflection/ Implementation	9. Maintaining asymmetry	7. Corporation with government	8. Collaborative structure (corp. and govt.)
3. Daily life	6. Industrial products, resident QoL (low)	4. Government, corporation, residents	5. Hierarchical decisions, asymmetry in knowledge sharing

), through a top-down process (2), defined a vision for the city based on industry as the primary sector, with tourism as a secondary goal (3).

Daily life involved three main stakeholders: the government, a corporation, and the residents (4). There was no real dialogue between these groups. Decision-making processes reflected the stakeholder hierarchy (5), as did the daily life outcomes—industrial products prioritized over residents’ quality of life (QoL) (6).

The matrix’s daily life layer (Layer 3) can be seen as internally aligned—it reflects the systemic asymmetry among stakeholders. However, there is a clear misalignment between the vision layer (Layer 1) and the daily life layer, as tourism and quality of life were not truly implemented and remained subordinate to industrial goals. Under these conditions, the reflection or implementation layer (Layer 2) is either absent or distorted. If it does exist, it operates predominantly within the corporation (7), in collaboration with the government (8), actively preserving the system’s imbalances and suppressing changes (9). The knowledge asymmetry in the daily life layer (5) and the fact that residents do not participate in the reflection layer prevent them from questioning the misalignment between their daily lives and the stated vision. This is a misaligned and unsustainable situation from the residents’ perspective.

The situation worsened after the privatization of factories, the decline of industrial employment (partly due to contract work), and a further erosion of resident quality of life—amplifying the system’s asymmetry and highlighting the disconnect between vision and reality.

If we consider the residents themselves and their environment, including the municipality, as a system (7—see

Table 3. The PSI matrix—start of crisis—Arad residents’ perspective (Arad).

Layer	What? (Problem)	Who? (Social)	How? (Institutional)
1. Vision	3. Vision: multiculturalism, tourism	2. Residents	1. Bottom-up planning, dialogue, participation
2. Reflection /Implementation	9. Realizing the city vision without the mine	7. Residents, municipality, wider circles of partners, media, etc.	8. Dialogue, participation
3. Daily life	6. Industry (reduced), QoL (declining), new mine proposed	4. Government, corporation, residents	5. Info/knowledge asymmetry, dialogue emerging

), we can identify the development of dialogue capabilities, democratic participation, decision-making, and involvement in local struggles (8). These capabilities burst forth when, on the one hand, more residents (2) become involved in planning a new vision for the city (3), and on the other hand, the corporation attempts to develop a new mine. The previous misalignment, now worsened, combined with the residents’ newfound awareness of their ability to effect change, creates a new situation. Residents began a struggle to realize the city’s vision, fiercely opposing the mine (9)—a struggle that continues to this day.

In contrast to the residents who seek dialogue with various actors and work towards it, the government and the corporation resist this process, seeking to preserve the original asymmetry, while proposing to develop a new mine. The contradictions between stakeholders are clear but the residents are unwilling to revert to the previous state now that they recognize their agency. Once the apple from the tree of knowledge has been eaten, and residents can participate in the second layer—reflecting on the gap between vision and reality and possessing tools to change reality—there is no going back.

The conflict revolves precisely around the difference between the matrices in Table 2 and Table 3. However, now that the asymmetry is exposed, we can update the initial matrix (Table 2) to

Table 4. The PSI matrix—start of crisis—corporation’s perspective (Arad).

Layer	What? (Problem)	Who? (Social)	How? (Institutional)
1. Vision	3. Vision: industry + tourism	2. Government, corporation	1. Top-down planning
2. Reflection /Implementation	9. Focus on realizing corporate goals	7. Corporation	8. Corporate management
3. Daily life	6. Industrial products, resident QoL	4. Government, corporation, residents	5. Decisions by the corporation, info/knowledge asymmetry

by highlighting the starker roles: the state relinquishes its role in ensuring citizen well-being (as described by Shadmi [47]), leaving the field to the corporation (2), which dictates the vision according to its needs (3) and manages daily life (6) essentially without resident participation (5), with residents serving merely as corporate employees (4).

The difference between the matrices in Table 3 and Table 4 (for instance, their entire vision layers differ) can serve as a tool for residents to clarify their position to other stakeholders and enlist them in the struggle. Additionally, the knowledge they have accumulated allows them to substantiate their opposition to the mine against the corporation’s desires and the government’s acquiescence. The matrix, therefore, allows for depicting a desired state (Table 3, top two rows: Vision and Implementation) and an undesirable, misaligned state (all of Table 4).

The importance of knowledge—whether symmetrical or asymmetrical—and the residents’ capabilities, built over time, are crucial to the process of community formation. A state of conflict or an existential challenge can act as a catalyst for building a community. The PSI framework guides us to define a community as a collection of people who independently participate in and lead across all three layers of the matrix towards an aligned state. Initially, the second layer was nearly absent from the description, meaning the residents could not be defined as a community, and certainly not a sustainable one. The second layer is where community resilience, mentioned by Gan et al. [61] on education for sustainability, resides and is defined. This is the layer that ensures that daily life (the third layer) is aligned: processes aligned with challenges, and citizens equipped with the capabilities to address them.

From an engineering design perspective, when two collaborating entities hold conflicting visions, manifested as major differences in their PSI matrices, the collaboration will fail; hence, the situation is unsustainable [31,32]. Furthermore, another analysis of this case that we conducted supports this claim [54]. Sustainability will be possible only when these entities reach an agreement on a single, aligned matrix state. The difficult question is whether the local citizen community possesses sufficient resources and perseverance to continue the struggle to achieve this state and whether struggle alone can lead to this outcome.

Methodologically, the analysis above describes a situation starting in the daily life layer (Layer 3) of the matrix and striving to percolate upward to the vision and reflection layers.

4.2. Analysis of Approach—Mother’s Way: Imagining Another World—A Community of Existence

Table 5. The PSI matrix—capitalism.

Layer	P—Problem	S—Social	I—Institutional
1. Vision	1. Capitalism: growth and privatization improve living standards	2. Government, corporation (no citizens)	Top-down, govt.–corp. collaboration
2. Reflection /Implementation	Commodification of services	3. Government, corporations (no citizens)	Govt.–corp. collaboration
3. Daily life	Privatized services, insecurity	4. Hierarchy: govt., corps., citizens	Hierarchical management, knowledge asymmetry

depicts the capitalist worldview (1) described by Shadmi (2023) [47]. When citizens do not participate in all layers (2–4), there is no community. A community is measured by residents’ leadership across the three layers and their ability to sustain this state over time. This ability defines sustainability, not necessarily environmental sustainability, though the desire for the latter often derives from general sustainability. Table 5 is essentially identical in structure to Table 4. The generally desired state for residents resembles Table 3 (specifically, the top two rows), differing only in the specific details of the daily life layer, which depend on the particular case.

If citizens (1,

Table 6. The PSI matrix—desired state (“Mother’s Way”).

Layer	P—Problem	S—Social	I—Institutional
1. Vision	3. Vision: imagine another world, utopia	1. Citizens	2. Dialogue, knowledge symmetry
2. Reflection/Imp.	6. Plan to realize city vision	4. Citizens with activist capacity	5. Dialogue, knowledge symmetry
3. Daily life	8. Equality, quality of life	7. Citizens	9. Dialogue, knowledge symmetry

), through a dialogue driven by knowledge symmetry (2), succeed in creating a shared vision (3), the gap between this vision and daily life would reduce. When citizens are aware of their capabilities (4), they could engage in a dialogue (5) that generates hope that can fuel activism to develop a plan to realize their vision (6). Implementing this plan under citizen leadership (7) would lead to the realization of the vision in a quality life for all (8). In the desired state, the PSI matrix would be aligned across all layers and columns. The only way to achieve perfect alignment is through dialogue and knowledge symmetry (2, 5, 9).

Imagining a vision is a complex act. On one hand, vision is just a cell in the PSI matrix (3 in Table 6). On the other hand, it is the product of an activity that can be strenuous, complex, and long-term. We could turn to the PSI network model [32] and define a PSI matrix for this activity itself, perhaps as shown in

Table 7. The PSI matrix—defining the vision (“Mother’s Way” process).

Layer	P—Problem	S—Social	I—Institutional
1. Vision	1. Well-being (as the goal for the vision-seeking process)	7. Community	3. Dialogue, symmetry
2. Reflection/Imp.	2. Gift economy, matriarchal society, indigenous thinking	8. Community	4. Dialogue, symmetry
3. Daily life	6. The vision itself, subsistence (meeting needs instead of new products)	9. Community	5. Dialogue, symmetry, giving

. Shadmi [47] defines the foundations of her proposed approach (1), thereby setting a direction for the search or the “vision”. This direction can be realized through several approaches modeled in the implementation layer (2). Note that the mode of operation in all layers is collaboration and dialogue facilitated by knowledge symmetry (3–5). There is no hierarchy in the community, rendering the concept of leadership secondary or non-existent. The complexity of vision creation is apparent from the matrix because it is difficult to characterize what belongs in each cell. It is hard to separate the first layer (1) from the third (6); they blend into one another, creating reflexivity.

A community (7–9) is a state where a collection of people participates across all layers through endless dialogue (3–5). If we isolate the community from its surroundings, these conditions are sufficient for its existence and, therefore, its sustainability. However, once the human social environment exists, conditions must be met in the community–environment relationship, allowing the community to continue functioning this way. Some conditions are within the community’s control (like environmental sustainability), but others are not.

Methodologically, the analysis above describes a situation starting in the vision layer (Layer 1), which, through an implementation process, ultimately influences daily life (Layer 3).

4.3. Analysis of Implementation Approach—Education-for-Sustainability as a Promoter of Community: Afek Elementary School, Rosh HaAyin as a Case Study

It is not always easy to pinpoint the starting point of a story like the one by Gan et al. [61] on education for sustainability. In this case, I chose to embrace the emphasis in the chapter’s title’s opening words and the fact that it involves a school (1,

Table 8. The PSI matrix—education (Afek School, conceptual).

Layer	P—Problem	S—Social	I—Institutional
1. Vision	4. Sustainability for students and community (near/far), community resilience	8. School, community	9. Partnership, community involvement, openness, two-way comm.
2. Reflection/Planning	2. Learning framework for sustainability education (designing citizens)	1. Educational institution: Afek School and community	How the education process is planned; dialogue: partnership, openness, involvement
3. Education process	5. Students, citizens with capabilities and knowledge reinforcing attitudes		3. Execution of the education process
4. Daily life	7. Sustainable lives	5. Citizens with capabilities and knowledge reinforcing attitudes	6. Collaboration, dialogue, social norms

) whose role is to educate values and impart knowledge (2). Here, the framework of the educational process (2) is the core. Such a process (3) is meant to realize a vision that includes values to be instilled (4), measured by success within the education system (5), with the hope that they translate into daily functioning (6), leading to sustainable lives (7).

This matrix has four layers. Layers 3 and 4 could have collapsed, but since the educational framework and process are so central, they can be given their own layer. While not the focus of this paper, this demonstrates the flexibility of the PSI matrix to accommodate specific case needs.

The existence of a second layer—in this case, operated by an educational institution (1), realizing a vision and modifying the educational approach (2) as needed (due to misalignment in layers 3/4 or between layers 3 and 1)—is central to the community’s existence. We already saw in the first case analysis that an absent second layer invalidates a community, and we have seen this also in research on organizations as systems [62]. Afek School advanced its relationship with the community to a state where the community (8) participates in setting the vision through a symmetrical relationship (9).

Gan et al. [61] focus on the community relation to a place with all its characteristics, or the community as a system of relationships. Collaboration and dialogue across all layers clearly define the relationships between the community and others, while the environment provides the context. It is easy to incorporate the environment into the dialogue framework by personifying it as a community member. When the environment has a voice appropriate to its role in the dialogue, environmental sustainability is nourished, and the community becomes sustainable. This explanation brings collaboration, dialogue, and symmetry to the forefront as central factors, compelling us to consider what enables or even enhances them. This is a space nurtured by trust, reciprocity, familiarity, and deep acceptance of a shared vision—one created through collaboration and dialogue in the vision layer. Again, we see reflexivity or circularity with positive feedback.

A commitment to learning is expressed by creating a strong and reflexive implementation layer (Layer 2). Once a vision is set and learning outcomes are assessed in students, and when reality presents challenges that alter these, there must be a process of review and learning in the second layer that can potentially modify the vision itself.

Using a framework from engineering also allows importing insights learned there into the topic of sustainable communities. For example, we can discuss managing a learning state during normal operations: How do you change teaching processes and methods while schooling is ongoing? Do you turn the school into an experimental lab, potentially exposing some students to less-than-optimal teaching, perhaps even setting them up for failure? Systems engineering for organizations offers solutions like experimental and integration labs [62], but this is not necessarily straightforward in schools, despite our own prior experience [63].

We can also depict the school’s development using the matrix, as shown in

Table 9. The PSI matrix—community development (Afek School).

Layer	P—Problem	S—Social	I—Institutional
1. Vision	5. Shaping the school’s vision	4. School, community	3. Partnership
2. Reflection /Planning	2. Building school– environment–community links	1. Afek School	School staff
3. Daily life (phase 1)	8. Experiential learning, outdoor activity	7. School, community, experts, staff training	6. Partnership
3. Daily life (phase 2)	9. Participating in environmental struggle	10. School, govt., business and third sector, residents	11. Broad and dynamic partnership

. The journey begins with the school (1). The staff focuses on building the school–environment–community connection (2). Partnership (3) between the community and the school (4) shapes the school’s vision (5). The learning process implementation (5) involves collaboration (6) between the community and school and includes environmental experts training the school staff (7). In practice, learning includes experiential activities like outdoor work (8). As a learning (and teaching) organization, the next stage of development involves focusing on staff skills (7) to align the vision (5) with the daily activities (6, 8). This stage is also depicted in the same matrix, sharing cells with the previous stage to avoid unnecessarily duplicating the top two layers in another table. This new stage enables learning in more diverse and challenging ways, such as participating in an environmental struggle (9). Experiencing more complex issues necessitates aligning other factors, leading to broader participation from all sectors (10) dynamically, according to need (11). Transitioning between these two modes of daily life requires a reflection and planning layer (Layer 2) to ensure the transition occurs while maintaining alignment among factors and progressing towards the vision.

The analysis demonstrates the importance and centrality of a strong learning, reviewing, and aligning reflection and implementation layer (Layer 2). In this case, it not only enables vision realization and oversight of daily life but is also the source from which a sustainable community grows.

4.4. Analysis of Other Cases by the PSI Matrix

Briefly analyzing a complex case is a challenge, as the quote attributed to Mark Twain and Winston Churchill goes, “I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead”. The question is how well the PSI matrix alone, with minimal text and context connecting the cells, can represent an abstract state of a complex case. The examples in this subsection show that even a brief analysis has value. It can help predict the success or failure of initiatives and point towards possible improvements. Such an analysis can serve as a basis for dialogue with case partners, like the community involved, during which the analysis itself can be reviewed and refined, and the implementation of recommendations considered.

4.4.1. Systemic Analysis—Auroville Community

This case deals with a project in India led by Israeli professionals [64]. The state before the project began is shown in

Table 10. The PSI matrix—before project.

Layer	P—Problem	S—Social	I—Institutional
1. Vision	Collaborative community, environmental values	Aurobindo & Alfassa (founders)	?
2. Reflection /Implementation	Understanding the need for change in Layer 1	Community, municipality	Community acceptance process
3. Daily life	Diverse considerations: social, environmental, cultural, economic	Heterogeneous community	Dialogue, no consensus-reaching process

. An old vision is not translated into reality due to the absence of an active second layer. Fortunately, the partners who potentially belong to the second layer realize that the first layer is not functioning due to a mismatch in complexities and initiate a process to rectify the first layer.

The project process is shown in

Table 11. The PSI matrix—after project phase (a).

Layer	P—Problem	S—Social	I—Institutional
1. Vision	No agreement on vision	-	-
2. Reflection /Implementation (a)	Master plan	Experts, municipality, community	Interviews, study, consultations
3. Daily life (a)	Long-term action strategy	Workgroups	Contract, dialogue, conflict management

and

Table 12. The PSI matrix—after project phase (b).

Layer	P—Problem	S—Social	I—Institutional
1. Vision	No agreement on vision	-	-
2. Reflection /Implementation (b)	Working document	Experts	Identifying weak points
3. Daily life (b)	Documents	Integration of workgroups	Structured process

, depicting two project phases. It is clear from the matrices that the outcome is not sustainable. Firstly, the actions in the second layer were not conducted with symmetrical participation and dialogue with the community. Consequently, once the experts left, no relevant second layer remained. The project did not explicitly address the city’s vision or the existence of conflicting views about it. No space was created for community discussion about the vision. Without a shared vision, sustainability is impossible; a vision is the compass—if there are two directions, the group will fragment. According to Eshkol and Eshkol’s [64] report, the project aimed at building a sustainable community did not achieve its goal, even if it had temporary successes.

4.4.2. Sustainability as Strengthening Local Identity—The Kidron Valley Project

Despite different starting points, at the matrix level, there are similarities between this case [65] and the Arad case [60] regarding the residents and community development. The initial situation was poor: a misalignment between vision and daily life, no reflection layer, and no clear vision. The program, based on diverse theories and knowledge bases, essentially aimed to create an aligned matrix. At its core were linked communities of people with capabilities, a willingness to learn, and involvement across all layers through participation, empowerment, and dialogue, as depicted roughly in

Table 13. The PSI matrix—project plan—desired state.

Layer	P—Problem	S—Social	I—Institutional
1. Vision	Kidron sewage solution, community participation and population care, biosphere development, river as bridge (political/cultural), tourism/heritage conservation	Society, community with social capital (skills), authorities, local leadership	Participation and dialogue
2. Reflection /Implementation	Action based on three components, capable of aligning Layer 3 with vision	Society as a learning source, activist network (critical mass of CoPs), college, authorities	Assessing desired vs. actual participation, dialogue
3. Daily life	Specific projects	Community with social capital (skills), authorities	Participation, trust, info channels, learning, knowledge sharing, autonomy, structured activity processes

. Transitioning from the initial state to the desired one could take years, especially given the complex context. However, the actions taken over the years have a high chance of achieving the goals, considering the target model represented by the matrix in Table 13. Although this initiative is far from complete, the aspiration towards matrix alignment and the focus on nurturing and empowering the community and its leaders could lead to success.

5. Application of the PSI Framework by Community Stakeholders

This section describes a possible process of establishing a sustainable community using the PSI framework as guidance; other processes are also possible. The process is depicted in

Table 14. A process of establishing a sustainable community.

The Spaces	P—Problem—What?	S—Social—Who?	I—Institutional—How?
The Layer
The vision	(2) Shared vision including environmental integrity; economic resilience; social well-being; and participatory governance and equity	(1) A group of people with diverse characteristics	(3) Dialogue; knowledge symmetry; participation
Reflection /implementation	(7) Reflection; capacity building; vision implementation	(6) Experienced trusted representatives	(8) Dialogue; knowledge symmetry; participation
Daily life	(5) Joint action in a geographical location, implementing the vision	(1) A group of people with diverse characteristics and social ties	(4) Participatory governance and equity

The cells in bold font represent elements that are not explicitly addressed in other sustainable community models.

, where the cell numbers reflect the order in the sequence.

We start the process with a group of people who are interested in becoming a community (1). The group starts by establishing a shared vision (2) through a participatory dialogue, ensuring knowledge is shared symmetrically (3). The shared vision includes many aspects that influence and govern the community operation, including governance and equity (4). The vision can determine the joint actions the community would like to exercise (5). Central to the sustainability of the community is establishing a group of experienced, trusted representatives (6) whose task is to reflect on the state of the community, make sure that the agreed vision is implemented, and that the community has the capacity and resources to respond to challenges (7). This group operates through open dialogue supported by symmetric knowledge exchange, allowing other community members to participate as needed (8). An essential part of their task is to build capacity within the community by preparing successors—ensuring these critical skills are retained and passed on.

The community acts as an adaptive system, making sure that all cells are aligned. New internal or external challenges are met by skill acquisition, or by modifying community processes, rules, governing structure, or culture as well as the joint actions. Members who leave must be replaced with others who have the necessary skills, or the community must adjust itself. Significant external events may call for updating the vision or other aspects of the community. Every challenge that represents misalignment in the PSI matrix must be met with alignment activities. It is the task of the trusted representatives to identify these events and propose responses for the community to deliberate and decide. Referring to Table 14, the cells in bold font represent elements that are not explicitly addressed in other sustainable community models.

While Spiliotopoulou & Roseland [11] suggest considering a sustainable community as a complex, adaptive, and networked system, they do not articulate how this can be realized at the development and governing level of the community. By comparison, Ostrom’s [66] framework for analyzing the sustainability of social-ecological systems (SES) is very complex and difficult to apply [67]; it is not intuitive and cannot be easily used to interpret the case studies analyzed in this paper.

In contrast to existing studies, using the PSI framework as outlined in this section is intuitive and simple to familiarize oneself with; it may require a couple of hours’ workshop session and some practice. No facilitator is necessary during its use. The use is predicated on educating the community members, or at least the experienced, trusted representatives of the community (also see the conclusions).

6. Discussion and Conclusions

This paper introduces an analytical framework for sustainable communities that is simple enough to allow them to examine their current situation and generate insights for improving their initiatives. This stands in contrast to more complex [3] and research-oriented systemic analyses (e.g., [29]). The analyses of the cases validate the hypothesis that the PSI framework provides a concise representation of complex sustainable community contexts that can be used to determine the fate of these communities. Analyzing case studies of sustainable communities using the PSI framework leads to several conclusions pertinent to this hypothesis:

• A sustainable community can be represented by a PSI matrix, where all layers and columns exist in dynamic alignment. This means that even if one element changes, others will adjust to reestablish alignment. Although perfect alignment does not occur automatically, as it takes time and reflection to notice misalignment and conscious resourceful activity to re-align the matrix, even transitioning between states of alignment can be sufficient, as shown in this paper. Similarly, if the definition evolves to that of a regenerative community [3], it can also be modeled with an aligned PSI matrix, though framed in regenerative terminology. While not demonstrated here, the PSI framework is multilayered and multilevel and can model networked and nested communities [31,32].
• A sustainable community must have a shared vision among its members [1,3,27,68]. Without a common vision, individuals tend to act on their personal goals rather than collaborate. This vision may initially come from external sources, but it must be embraced, adapted, and owned by the community. Updating the vision will likely involve disagreements; full consensus may never be achieved, but the process should reflect continued commitment to agreement. If the vision-setting process is undefined or misaligned with community values, the community will struggle to sustain itself over time. Shared vision is a necessary, though insufficient, condition. At the outset of the Arad [60], Kidron [65], and Auroville [64] cases, no shared vision existed through dialogue, which rendered those situations unsustainable at that point. In the other cases analyzed in this paper, a shared vision exists, offering a chance for the community to achieve sustainability.
• A sustainable community requires an internal body, comprising experienced and trusted individuals, tasked with reviewing the community’s vision in relation to its daily operations. This group must also define responses to any misalignments within the PSI matrix and facilitate necessary adjustments. This is manifested in the Afek school case [61] and the Kidron case [65]. This function resides in the “Reflection/Implementation” layer of the matrix. The group’s conclusions must be adopted through a transparent dialogue process, built on symmetrical knowledge sharing. This body is not necessarily composed of community leaders, whose role is also critical in the daily life of the community [29], though its function is equally important. Ideally, its members train successors, ensuring the group’s continuity and evolution. We have not seen this particular role made so explicitly in other frameworks.
• In a sustainable community, daily life operates according to principles formulated by the community itself, again through collaboration, dialogue, and commitment as in the Afek case. Day-to-day practices should be observed and adjusted to ensure alignment with the broader community vision.
• A sustainable community must nurture and empower citizens’ skills regarding participation in public discourse at all levels. This goes beyond teaching sustainability in schools [68] or providing generic training [5,10] or improving human capital [5]. Citizens must develop leadership capable of navigating internal and external dialogue, across all PSI layers. Essential competencies include visionary thinking, systems thinking, reflective practice, trust-building, design methods, dialogue, and collaborative problem-solving. These are the skills necessary to align the PSI matrix cells in practice. The Arad (Table 3), Afek (Table 9), and Kidron (Table 13) cases illustrate this positively, while the Auroville case (Table 10) highlights the absence of these skills.
• Environmental sustainability is promoted when the environment is personified and treated as a stakeholder, appearing across PSI layers and participating in dialogue. This was effectively done in the Afek case. Practically, this can be operationalized by including the environment as a represented actor in the relevant ‘Social’ (S) cells of the PSI matrix (Table 14). However, turning this into a consistent practice is not without difficulty.

Any neglect of one of these six factors can lead to misalignment in the PSI matrix, which may ultimately result in system failure. Each specific case will require a unique approach to implementing these principles, depending on the context and starting conditions. Nevertheless, across all cases analyzed, positive or negative, these factors offered explanatory insight. These findings could form the basis for a refined or new definition of “sustainable community”—a definition grounded in operational principles. This form of analysis does sacrifice some of the richness and detail found in full case studies. Condensing expansive case descriptions into a half-page matrix with interpretative notes offers limited granularity compared to tools like those proposed by Gibbons [3], or guides like those by Christian [1], Clark II [2], Kelly et al. [4], or Roseland [5]. However, the PSI matrix enables a high-level overview, helping to identify issues that might be overlooked amidst the complexity of real-world engagement.

If every sustainable community initiative succeeded, such a tool might be unnecessary. But the prevalence of partial or failed outcomes indicates a need for frameworks that simplify complexity without obscuring it.

The PSI framework and the six conclusions act as an integrated system—serving as necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) conditions for successful community development. Similar efforts often identify specific factors—such as collaboration, literacy, or governance—as necessary or sufficient (e.g., [69]), but they do not present a holistic logic model, as this paper does.

The conclusions themselves are not overly complicated, and some of them are known, yet many individuals involved in the analyzed cases were unaware of these challenges, despite having relevant knowledge. Without a practical, simplifying framework, identifying these critical elements in real-time is remarkably difficult due to the underlying complexity of community development as a social process. We believe this analysis can help future initiatives navigate those complexities more effectively.

This paper was limited to sustainable communities engaged in a joint action in a geographical location and not to other types of communities, such as online communities or communities of practice, because we analyzed data only on such communities. We see no theoretical reason that the same principles wouldn’t apply to those groups, but a proper demonstration will require a separate study.

Another limitation is that most cases are from Israel, except for one from India. However, the variety of cases—including schools, ecological projects, grassroots struggles, urban gardens, and mixed Arab-Jewish contexts—offers a broad spectrum that likely reflects conditions elsewhere.

Perhaps the one factor that may differentiate the Israeli context is the particularly strong entrepreneurial culture [70], which significantly influences how citizens contribute to sustainable development efforts [71]. Nonetheless, our experience applying the PSI framework in India [19] supports its broader applicability. The approach laid out in Section 5 may help communities elsewhere identify which skills they need and how best to develop them—through training, action research, or open innovation.

That said, further analysis of additional cases remains necessary. Analyses of communities as they evolve will generate a library of patterns that will help future communities better use the PSI matrix. Simplifying the use and providing further evidence will reduce stakeholders’ concerns about the value of the PSI matrix in supporting communities’ journey into sustainability.

This paper also did not address other important topics: for instance, how can a non-homogeneous group, with unequal power and knowledge, within a specific political and social context, enter a truly reciprocal dialogue? How can people be taught the necessary skills for this, including systems and critical thinking? These and other questions must be left to future research [72,73,74].

7. Summary

This paper presented a framework for analyzing initiatives, projects, or organizations originating from engineering and demonstrated its use for analyzing sustainable community initiatives. Six conclusions emerged from the analysis (see Section 6), defining necessary conditions for a sustainable community. The framework offers a streamlined representation of complex realities, helping identify key challenges so they may be surfaced and addressed. This form of analysis serves as an additional viewpoint—complementing, rather than replacing, community members’ lived experience and perspectives. It can act as a foundation for community dialogue, from which members may choose to adopt the conclusions presented. Admittedly, the analysis is subjective. But early indications suggest that different analysts would likely achieve similar results. Future research could examine this further through comparative evaluations of the same case studies. Additionally, while a good grasp of the PSI model and experience with multiple cases are needed for proficiency, even preliminary use can be helpful. The tool is not infallible—some seemingly successful communities may appear misaligned under PSI, and vice versa. But if it is used as a dialogical, interpretive framework, such limitations become less problematic.

The PSI framework is still evolving. Its long-term ambition is to support the analysis of any organizational or social system and assess its likelihood of success, given its vision and constraints. Continued research and case studies will improve its reliability and relevance.

This paper did not explore how the PSI framework could support the definition of key concepts such as “arena of struggle” or “safe space”. However, we believe it holds potential to ground such definitions and bring greater coherence to their use in practice—an avenue for future research.