Leverage points in cities: a blueprint for action

1 A search for leverage

1.1 Systemic introduction: a narrative for the present

A defining feature that the human species shares with the multiple species of the biosphere is the drive for survival and reproduction, which characterizes individuals and groups across all scales and levels of organization (Kenrick et al., 2010).

Such drive has varying degrees of strength depending on individuals and groups, but it is consistently present. It feeds the capacity to observe and analyze one’s predicament and it is supported by it. Such feedback loops constitute one of the drivers underlying the formation of organised groups of individuals, commonly referred to as societies or communities, depending on their size and degree of organisation (Rousseau, 1996). A collective behaviour (decisions and actions towards a common purpose) emerges as the individual behaviour. This is affected by the interaction with the group (Aronson and Aronson, 2018) and by the ways and the tools used to communicate and share information outside and inside the group (see for instance: Herman and Chomsky, 1988; Cinelli et al., 2021; Bozdag et al., 2026; Quattrociocchi et al., 2026).

A holistic and systemic narrative of the current predicament of our species describes it as a superorganism that is constantly pushing its resource use beyond the limits posed both by its own structure and by the ecosystem it is part of. Individualist-reductionist views are useful to capture features of separate groups or societies (i.e., sub-superorganisms), particularly the competition between groups and individuals fostered by the dominant capitalist economic system (Fix, 2021) and they are also included in hybrid narratives (see for instance: Dussault, 2020). However, from an evolutionary perspective (Szathmáry and Smith, 1995), the emergent transition toward a single superorganism is reflected in the coherence and consistency (King, 2020; Fix, 2021; Hagens, 2025) of the capitalist paradigm’s pervasive expansion across multiple spheres of social life (Marx, 1867; Polanyi, 1944; Schor et al., 2003; Pellandini Simányi, 2020; Agenjo-Calderón, 2021), as well as in the structuring of both intra-societal and socio-environmental interactions (Smessaert et al., 2020; Moore, 2016). The underlying mechanism for the suppression of inter-component competition characterizing the transition is still under investigation (Fix, 2021): whether the coherence emerges from gene-like cultural units (called memes) representing underlying fusing superorganisms (Dennett, 2017) or it stems from the cultural selection process occurring at each transition from smaller to larger groups (Wilson et al., 2023; Turchin, 2015).

The human superorganism(s) is (are) a (set of) complex (interacting) metabolic adaptive system(s) (Giampietro et al., 2011). It is an entity (or a set of entities): (i) exchanging fluxes of energy and matter with the ecosystem in which it is embedded, according to its features (purpose, internal nature), and (ii) describable through multiple narratives and different non-equivalent scales of analysis. Although cities can be interpreted as functional components of the human superorganism, this metaphor should not imply that urban systems are homogeneous or governed by common objectives. Rather, urban metabolisms are inherently political, as they are shaped by asymmetric power relations, socio-economic inequalities, competing governance priorities, and context-specific institutional arrangements that influence how resources are mobilized, distributed, and transformed. Consequently, sustainability transitions emerge from the interaction between biophysical processes and socio-political dynamics, whose outcomes vary across different urban realities (Heynen et al., 2006).

As the manifestation of the self-defined “dominant species on the planet” (Swartz and Mishler, 2022) the human species, indeed, features a significant and growing intake and usage of matter and energy surpluses from the surrounding ecosystem compared to other species of the biosphere (see for instance: Vitousek et al., 1986; Haberl et al., 2007; Bradshaw et al., 2026). The superorganism is currently fixated on continuous growth in resource consumption (energy, materials and bioservices) (IPBES, 2019; United Nations Environment Programme, 2024) driven by a significant and increasing intake and use of matter and energy surpluses from the surrounding ecosystem, compared to other species in the biosphere (see for instance Vitousek et al., 1986; Haberl et al., 2007; Bradshaw et al., 2026). This trajectory has been particularly enhanced since the understanding of how to harness the energy content of fossil fuels to perform exosomatic tasks corresponding to the work of a large number of human individuals (Smil, 2008; Hall and Klitgaard, 2018). However the laws of physics governing the coupling with the surrounding ecosystem impose limits both in material and energy use and in sink capacity (Meadows et al., 1972; Meadows et al., 2004; IPCC, 2023) in spite of multiple and space-limited attempts to evade such constraints (Parrique et al., 2019). This history of “more” is straining the human superorganism(s) both from within and from outside and the collision with physical reality is threatening the survival of the species itself, as a result of the pushback from ecosystem damages (IPBES, 2019; IPCC, 2023).

Within our societies, the analyses observing that global behaviour of the human superorganism(s) is endangering both individual and species survival have developed into a wide, rich and well-established body of knowledge. From the first indications in specific environmental domains (for instance Carson, 1962), a system dynamics analysis has evolved into seminal works identifying growth in resource consumption (Meadows et al., 1972) and the associated increase in complexity (Tainter, 1988) as crucial drivers of the current predicament, then developing to strengthen its initial message by ever wider ecosystemic analyses (see for instance Boulding, 1966; Catton, 1982; Meadows et al., 2004). Ultimately, as of 2025 the rich systemic narrative provided by the planetary boundaries framework (Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015) finds that seven out of nine planetary boundaries are transgressed. The planetary boundaries are critical processes which are relevant representatives of the stability and resilience of the earth biosphere and are significantly affected by anthropogenic activities. The control variables describing transgressed boundaries are now perturbed in the “risk zone” of Earth system forfeiting its stable Holocene-like preindustrial features experienced over the past 10,000 years (Richardson et al., 2023; Sakschewski et al., 2025). The shared conclusion that a change in the activities pursued by the human superorganism(s) is necessary to allow its survival has also increasingly been accompanied by the emergence of visions for how to implement such change (see for instance Odum and Odum, 2001; Strand et al., 2020 and references therein).

1.2 From changing course to leverage points: the mechanism

The human superorganism(s) is interpretable as a semiotic system which observes, anticipates and acts according to its observation and anticipatory models. The decision-action process unfolds into steps which are continuously repeated at the multiple levels of the superorganisms forming an iterative, circular, continuously updating process (Giampietro et al., 2011). Consequently, a clear illustration of the steps of the semiotic process is crucial to understand the requirements to achieve a change in the system’s behaviour. Using quantitative information to inform models and consequently make decisions which are then adopted at the individual and community level (city level) depends on the quality of the choices on the normative and the descriptive side (Giampietro et al., 2011). Assessing information on the normative side means to determine relevance, i.e., give value to the norms the information has to abide by, to the rules that determine how the information was produced and accepted.¹ The assessment on the descriptive side determines pertinence, i.e., how coherent the quantitative description of the system is when constructing an anticipatory model (e.g., information flows and decision control mechanisms) that captures the system’s complexity including metabolic features across different hierarchical scales and different analysis dimensions (Giampietro and Bukkens, 2015). The following seven steps are aimed at determining how to act: all these steps take place in the information space and are affected by both normative and descriptive choices.

The first step is to perform an assessment of the current predicament and to ensure that it is understood and agreed upon by the elements of the system. This requires the system’s capacity to observe itself (“observer role”) and the ecosystem in which it is embedded as well as to represent them. Moreover, it is further linked to the system’s capacity to build a shared, common perception of the problems at hand, of its identity and of its ability to extract information about itself and the surrounding ecosystem. This step is influenced by the choices, made before the assessment, about what is considered relevant to perceive (choices on the normative side) and the quantities chosen to produce the representation (choices on the descriptive side).

The second step requires understanding and defining the condition one aims to reach, which differs from the present one in terms of interaction with the environment (structural coupling) and in terms of the capacity to survive, adapt and reproduce. This is the step at which the normative aspects are more relevant. Normative choices regarding what ought to be done, in determining desirability, shape this definition. This step is also sensitive to the social dimension: once this is considered, it becomes necessary to reach an agreement on the meaning of sustainability (Giampietro et al., 2011, 2025). Human beings aspire to more than mere survival in basic energetic terms (see for instance: Kenrick et al., 2010). The quality and quantity of what exceeds basic material survival influence the interaction with the ecosystem and within the superorganism.

The third step consists in developing a clear assessment of the differences between the present conditions and the desired ones. Such assessment needs to be validated and agreed upon. The pre-analytical choices made in the previous two steps will determine how these differences are evaluated and whether the present state is considered acceptable. This step enriches the need to build a common perception of what the system is becoming (Giampietro et al., 2011).

The fourth step develops an “anticipatory model,” i.e., an interpretation of reality that allows for predictions about how the system will behave. As pointed out by Giampietro et al. (2011), this stage is constrained by two main features. The first is indeterminacy in time evolution, due to the difficulty in accounting for the multiplicity of processes across different scales (individual, societal, physical): the underlying complexity of the system implies an inevitable reduction of information. The second is uncertainty and ignorance regarding the evolution of the system’s identity itself, particularly in terms of which parts of the system will assume the roles of observation, action and the determination of normative choices.

The fifth step is to agree on a shared strategy to achieve the conditions identified as desirable in the second step, i.e., jointly define a new metabolic pattern, structure the pathway to achieve it, determine the roles that each sub-system and/or individual element has to play at the different levels of the superorganism and assess these arrangements. The autopoietic nature of the superorganism(s) (i.e., complex adaptive system which continuously produce and reproduce themselves) (Maturana and Varela, 1972, 1980, 1991) requires an ongoing circular process through which the system “continuously redefines in time the set of formalizations adopted when storing experience, making anticipatory models and developing mechanisms of controls” (Giampietro and Bukkens, 2015).

In the sixth step actions to implement the chosen strategy takes place in conjunction with the observation of the results according to the criteria defined in step five.

Finally, in the seventh step, an assessment of the results of the accomplished actions is performed to determine whether both the outcomes and the knowledge associated with them were consistent with the goals of the system, i.e., whether semantic closure was achieved (Pattee, 1995; Giampietro and Bukkens, 2015). The survival of the superorganism depends on the coherence between the measurement process (data assembled in the observation, knowledge that guides its assembly and is modified by it) and the resulting actions, in relation to the system’s goals, first and foremost, its own survival. When such coherence is attained, semantic closure is said to be achieved [see Pattee, 1995 quoted in Giampietro et al. (2011)]. This step aims to determine whether the choices made were effective in relation to the original purpose and whether the knowledge used to guide actions should still be considered valid.

The first five steps are related to constructing knowledge and, the actions are control and adaptation to reality to allow the cycle to reproduce itself. Most importantly, the first five steps are affected by and associated with “socio-technological imaginaries”:² shared expectations, purposes and aspirations held in the collective memory and, on top of the common history, paint a “virtual collective future” shared by members of society. These are referred to as the “notional side” (Giampietro et al., 2025). Such imaginaries are the concepts that individual members of a society in the superorganism associate with their societal identity (Rosen, 1985; Giampietro et al., 2025). They guide the decisions and actions taken in the final two steps and are, in turn, updated through (and interact with) the interpretation of the experiences in those steps, particularly as humans modify energy stocks and flows and technology (“tangible side”) in their connection with elements of the system and the external ecosystem (Giampietro et al., 2025). As noted by Giampietro et al. (2025) and Rosen (1985) argued that the “notional side” (human feelings and shared aspirations) plays a dominant role in the determination and reproduction of the societal/systemic identity. They are at the center of the “metabolic rift” which is affected by the upward causation, they do not build congruity with the downward causation and its social practices/perceptions/experiences which are connected to the structural coupling with the environment, so, instead of integration into the global ecosystem metabolism, the superorganism asserts its identity by trying to alter the external ecosystem “to suit” its “own perceived needs” (Giampietro et al., 2025) assuming limits are avoidable by using technical innovation according to the linear narrative of neoclassical economics.

For each step, the information used to make decisions, as well as any new generated information, must be validated based on the criteria established for its assessment, the correct way to be given value (normative side) and its coherence with the description of the reality under consideration (descriptive side). Societal validation is therefore required. At present, many relevant decisions take place in a “post-normal” context, in which “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993). As individual human beings or groups, such as scholars and concerned citizens, come together to face in this process, a crucial question emerges: how can this be effectively achieved? Achieving an understanding of the constraints the system is subjected to both in physical and relational (intellectual and emotional) terms, requires an assessment which is expressed in terms of feasibility, viability and desirability (Giampietro and Bukkens, 2015).

While feasibility and viability are related, respectively, to the external and internal constraints placed on the metabolic flows, desirability is connected to the reciprocal constraints which internal local functions of the system must satisfy when acting at different levels of the system itself. In addition, desirability needs to be expanded to include the crucial role played by the “notional side” (shared, common desires, aspirations and feelings) associated with the societal identity of the superorganism(s). Accomplishing change in the process will therefore require the superorganism(s) to develop a new societal identity by determining “what aspects of our identity we are willing to lose to retain what we collectively want to sustain” (Giampietro et al., 2025). The superorganism(s) will need to go through the “tragedy of change” [Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990 quoted in Giampietro et al. (2025)], collectively reshape the shared virtual future and consequently modify the exosomatic tangible activities (energy flows and stocks, technologies) which affect both the reproduction and adaptation of the functional elements (autopoiesis) and the acquisition of the necessary inputs from the external ecosystem (structural coupling). The complex nature of the system implies the need to begin from a given level in order to start developing the narrative, with the understanding that it may need to be revised, expanded, or adapted to the different levels (non-equivalent narratives). Achieving sustainable transformations requires moving beyond conventional interventions focused on easily measurable outcomes, such as technological improvements or efficiency-oriented solutions. Drawing on systems thinking and Meadows’ theory of leverage points (Meadows, 1999; Abson et al., 2017), it is crucial to identify deeper intervention areas capable of generating transformative and synergistic change. Integrating strategies that complement existing theoretical frameworks, such as circular economy, resilience thinking, transformative innovation, and urban sustainability transitions, can strengthen both the theoretical foundation and the practical contribution to sustainable urban development. Within this perspective, leverage points represent strategic intervention areas for addressing the underlying drivers of unsustainable urban trajectories and for supporting the development of sustainable urban systems capable of balancing environmental, economic, and social dimensions. Identifying and assessing leverage points becomes essential for designing integrated strategies that foster systemic change and enhance the capacity of cities to respond to complex sustainability challenges. Building on this approach, three major domains of leverage are identified: reconnecting people with nature, restructuring institutions, and rethinking how knowledge is generated and used. In this perspective, leverage points represent strategic entry points for systemic interventions, enabling sustainability science and governance approaches to address the underlying causes of unsustainable trajectories rather than only their visible symptoms. Within this framework, heritage preservation, adaptive reuse, and circular urban design can be interpreted as critical leverage points for developing resilient and regenerative cities. Heritage is understood not only as a cultural asset but also as a strategic resource capable of supporting environmental, social, and economic objectives. Adaptive reuse plays a central role in this transition, demonstrating that heritage conservation and circularity are complementary strategies that can generate sustainable outcomes through lifecycle-oriented interventions and closed-loop resource management (Munonye, 2026). The integration of digital technologies, circular economy principles, and urban metabolism approaches enables a shift from static preservation models toward dynamic heritage stewardship. Successful heritage-based circular regeneration requires coordinated governance, interdisciplinary collaboration, and participatory processes. Policy mechanisms, including incentives for circular retrofitting, adaptive regulations, and public–private partnerships, are essential to scale up sustainable interventions (Munonye, 2026). Lifecycle assessment, embodied carbon analysis, and socio-economic evaluations provide critical tools to ensure that interventions achieve both environmental efficiency and social equity. Future research should focus on developing standardized metrics, predictive models, and integrated digital frameworks capable of assessing the broader impacts of heritage-inclusive circular strategies across different urban contexts. Aligning technological innovation, ecological responsibility, and social inclusion is essential to advancing sustainable development goals and shaping urban futures that are adaptive, culturally grounded, and regenerative (Munonye, 2026). To achieve this, we argue that it will be necessary to find crucial elements, features or concepts that, given the impossibility to describe the system in simplified terms without losing essential information, capture and influence its dominant driving dynamics (Meadows, 1997, 1999, 2008).

2 Leverage points: at what level?

There are multiple non-equivalent spatial and organizational levels at which the superorganism is observable such as communities, metropolitan regions, urban agglomerations, regions, states, community of states. All these levels are relevant and connected in the understanding of the superorganism behaviour and metabolism. The identification of leverage points of the superorganism is proposed to be thoroughly examined at the cities’ level. This choice is motivated by several considerations.

Historically, cities have represented a crucial initial point of modification of the social metabolism, making the transition from hunter-gatherer systems to stable, agriculture-based societies (Childe, 1936, 1950; Mumford, 1961; Montgomery, 2012) accompanied by a significant shift in the systemic complexity.

Today cities are the main drivers of the growing resource consumption (energy demand, food flows): while covering less than 2% of the earth’s surface, urban areas consume 75% of global energy resources and account for 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions (United Nations, 2025) with an increasingly unbalanced metabolic relationship with the rest of the human superorganism(s) (towns, rural areas) (see for instance Pianegonda et al., 2022). They are consequently a crucial element in determining viability and feasibility for changes in the superorganism’s metabolism.

Visually, cities define the level at which human individuals are capable of observing the striking difference between the internal elements of the city and the embedding admissible environment to which the city is coupled. Logistically, cities are becoming the dominant place of residence of the human population (United Nations, 2025): as of 2025, cities hold 45% of the world’s population, after more than doubling the 20% share recorded in 1950. If the current trends continue, projections indicate that two-thirds of the global population growth between now and 2050 will take place in cities, with most of the remainder in towns, while the rural population is expected to peak and begin declining around 2040. Cities established themselves as the decision-making centers of the superorganism(s) where social narratives are produced, individuals are shaped (see for instance: Simmel, 1903; Habermas, 1962) and desirability is consequently determined (see for instance the diverse analyses developed in: Mumford, 1961; Jacobs, 1961; Gehl, 2010; Glaeser, 2011). However, this role is being modified and increasingly challenged by the growing pervasiveness of virtual environments generated by digital communication technologies (Castells, 1996; Gonella, 2019; Habermas, 2023; Cinelli et al., 2021). At the same time, there is a growing need to analyse the multiple pathways through which ecological risks are transmitted among cities within urban agglomerations (Zhang et al., 2022).

Therefore, action and understanding at the level of cities are crucial for developing a vision of a sustainable future for the human species (Zucaro and Agostinho, 2025).

2.1 Where to from here? A call for contributions

A concerted effort is necessary to identify leverage points in the metabolism of the human species. Leverage points capable of influencing cities have the potential to change the trajectory of the entire human species. Accordingly, a call is made for research that aims at finding and/or illustrating such leverage points to enable transformations in the urban metabolism, with a focus on three key aspects in order to address the current “post-normal” predicament. It is expected that leverage points are identified, characterised in qualitative and/or quantitative terms (how they are assessed, measured when/if possible) and categorized in connection to the context they are embedded in.

Research along such venues will allow the development of a more systematic and shared picture of how leverage points underlie intervention mechanisms to face urban challenges and achieve outcomes consistent with sustainability. Such a picture will provide a description of actual methods, indicators and empirical dimensions which will characterize implementable pathways and lines of actions for communities.

The first conceptual venue is the identification of governance instruments to repurpose the urban complex system internally: how to decide on the “optimal allocation of resources” (see Zucaro et al., 2022) over which the urban human system has control and which are used to reproduce the societal functions and how to achieve the semantic closure (Pattee, 1995; Giampietro and Bukkens, 2015). What conceptual economic, scientific, quantitative, qualitative, psychological, and intellectual resources and at what level have to be brought to bear to modify the autopoietic direction of the system in such a manner that it achieves a greater level of sustainability? With what instruments procedures such change of direction is monitored, understood in quantitative and qualitative terms and observed in a systemic manner, i.e., by connecting to the whole system and indicating the level and the coherence of the narrative? Contributions are called for over a wide spectrum of features addressing the conceptual venue from a different interdisciplinary perspective: ranging from agentic simulation of the urban systems including explainability, appropriate sensitivity and uncertainty assessment for anticipatory models (Saltelli, 2025) to active and/or proposed community experiences and protocols to make assessments, reach decision and assess it (Latouche, 2007; Raworth, 2017; Kallis et al., 2025; D’Alisa et al., 2015). The entire process of semantic validation, along with the inputs required to achieve it, may also be considered. Novel social and community-based approaches are called for (see for instance, Heron et al., 2025; Bergaglio et al., 2026), particularly in the desirability domain (Krpan et al., 2025).

The second conceptual venue is systemically connected to the first. It concerns the study of the instruments aimed at redefining the structural coupling between the city and its environment (Giampietro and Bukkens, 2015): which tools are developed to utilize the resource basis that urban metabolism receives from primary external flows, and to design strategies “to extend the life of urban resources and to make cities become producers of resources and ecosystem services” (Zucaro et al., 2022). What are the leverage points to make decisions in which direction to move the system and how are they used to implement the decisions that are taken? The autopoietic internal structure would thereby couple to the resource basis in a different manner, through actions, studies, directives, and quantified interventions that directly address the definition of a new identity of the urban metabolism. In this sense, the city would acquire a different goal and purpose. Contributions are invited across a wide spectrum of topics addressing this conceptual venue from a different interdisciplinary perspective, ranging from the redefinition of urban food production (Fratini, 2026) to the development of local energy catchers assessed through life-cycle approaches.

A third conceptual venue concerns studies aimed at understanding the conceptual, emotional and aspirational contributions generated in the urban communities/environment to the “virtual future” that is driving the current predicament with the goal of fostering a new societal identity of superorganism(s) capable of changing course. Key questions include: (i) which urban level narratives are inconsistent with the coherence required for a new social identity that integrates the system rather than destabilizing it? (ii) where signs of ancien régime syndrome³ are identified, what are the leverage “uncomfortable truths” (Giampietro et al., 2025) in terms of their impact on urban social metabolism, should they replace dominant concepts and elements (which ones?) in the current “notional side” discourse? (iii) is it possible to develop a taxonomy of “uncomfortable truths” and “noble lies” (Giampietro et al., 2025) to clarify which function as leverage points in shaping social metabolism? (iv) finally, are there examples, frameworks or strategies that support the inclusion of “uncomfortable truths” in the processes through which they may become part of the common “virtual future”? Contributions are called for over a wide spectrum of features addressing the conceptual venue from a novel possibly interdisciplinary perspective. Instances are analyses of communication and media strategies aimed at maintaining the present ecological framework or developing a new one; educational/didactic experiences, projects and studies to develop new scheme; studies making psychological connection to the tangible bio-economic activity in understanding mental categories driving maintenance of the “status-quo” both in active (i.e., trust in punctual technical solutions) and passive (i.e., numbness to threats, structural interest in present over future) terms.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Gabriella Duca, Institute for Sustainable Society and Innovation, Italy

Reviewed by: Yang Chen, Southwest Jiaotong University, China

Richard Kotter, Northumbria University, United Kingdom

Obey Akinmorin Akinloye, Obat Real Concepts Limited, Nigeria

Footnotes

Who selects the goals? Who decides how to observe? Who decides about the validity of the information? Who selects the action to be taken?” [from Chap. 4 of Giampietro et al. (2011)].

As defined in Giampietro et al. (2025) sociotechnical imaginaries are defined as: “collectively held, institutionally stabilized, and publicly performed visions of desirable futures, animated by shared understandings of forms of social life and social order attainable through, and supportive of, advances in science and technology” (Jasanoff and Kim (2015) quoted in Giampietro et al., 2025, pag. 732, footnote 2).

“A state of affairs in which the ruling elites become unable to cope with stressors and adopt instead a strategy of denial, refusing to process either internal or external signals, including those of danger” [Funtowicz and Ravetz (1994)].