Using systems-thinking approaches to evaluate impacts to essential services in fragile contexts: a case study on Venezuela

ABSTRACT

The global risk landscape is evolving, leading to more protracted and complex crises. The eventual degradation of critical infrastructure in such contexts often results in insufficient access to essential services and heightened risks of public health crises. To navigate complex protracted crises, engineering decision-makers can use systems-thinking approaches to develop a better understanding of the systems they are working in. This paper presents a qualitative systems mapping approach and applies it to a case study in Venezuela to assess how electricity and water services are being impacted by the ongoing political and economic crisis. The analysis uses the systems map to explore the current state of the sectors, as well as the root causes, cascading effects, and coping mechanisms causing or resulting from the current state. The insights drawn from the case analysis demonstrates how systems mapping can reveal alternative interventions that are rooted in a holistic understanding of a problem rather than opting for conventional, sector-based solutions that do not necessarily reflect the specific contextual challenges. For example, in this case, it became apparent that engineering decision-makers need to not only address issues of electricity continuity, but also consider power quality to ensure the electricity supply is usable. This work is part of a Special Issue on Systems Perspectives: Clarity through Examples (see Dias 2023).

KEYWORDS:

• Electricity
• decision-making
• humanitarian engineering
• systems mapping
• water

View correction statement:

Correction

Acknowledgments

The research presented in this paper was carried out in collaboration with the International Committee of the Red Cross, who helped to facilitate the fieldwork and provide contacts to stakeholders in Venezuela.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Ethics declaration

This research received ethics approval from the International Committee of the Red Cross Ethics Review Board and from the University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering Research Ethics Committee.

Correction Statement

This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2023.2288611)

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Gates Cambridge Trust.