The invisible lever for transitions

Growth ambitions hit visible limits

In core economic regions – such as the Brainport region – this tension becomes clearly visible. The Brainport Eindhoven region aims to build 8,000 additional homes per year. At the same time, travel times to cities in Brabant during peak hours are increasing by 31 to 44 per cent (compared with off-peak travel times), companies have to wait until at least 2033 for a new electricity connection, and nitrogen deposition is too high in 91 per cent of vulnerable nature areas. Nature has become so fragile that in some forests dogs are no longer allowed to be walked. Social cohesion is also under pressure: in the Eindhoven region, 6 per cent of people feel less connected to their own neighbourhood than they did a few years ago. Taken together, these figures paint a picture of a region that is thriving economically, but finding it increasingly difficult to adapt physically and socially.

Space is scarce, grid congestion is hampering new developments, the mobility system is grinding to a halt and the ‘good life’ is under pressure. There is simply not enough space available for 200,000 additional people and the associated transition challenges.

Not whether we choose, but how we choose

The result is a growing tension between strategic ambitions and the actual willingness and capacity of society and institutions to realise those ambitions. This tension is often approached as a technical, institutional or financial problem. In doing so, however, we miss a deeper and decisive layer. We know that difficult choices are inevitable, but also hard to make, so the central question is: how do we make those choices?

The power of assumptions

Underlying policy choices, investment decisions and societal debates are deeply rooted assumptions about how the world works and how it should work: mental models. These mental models determine what actors consider desirable, feasible or inevitable. Think of implicit beliefs about housing (“growth requires building on the edges of the city”), mobility (“economic development requires car accessibility”) or energy (“electricity is always and everywhere available”). These assumptions steer behaviour and decision-making, often without being explicitly articulated or questioned.

The problem is not that we have mental models – they are necessary to make complexity manageable. The problem arises when they continue to reinforce the status quo, conflict with one another, or fail to evolve alongside changing societal and physical realities. In a context where spatial, ecological and social limits are becoming increasingly visible, unconscious assumptions can lead to policy lock-ins (situations in which alternative policies become costly, complex or unattractive), societal resistance and suboptimal solutions.

That is why, alongside technical and institutional change, attention is also needed for cognitive change. Especially when choices are contested and interests clash, making underlying assumptions explicit is essential. Not to smooth over differences, but to make them visible. Effective collaboration and innovative capacity require a shared language and unambiguous terminology. Yet this dimension is still often seen as a soft precondition, and rarely as a system driver of real significance.

Mental models as a lever for system change

Nothing could be further from the truth. System innovation literature shows that mental models play a crucial role in where friction arises and how that friction can be used as a lever for change. Donella Meadows even describes making mental models explicit and transcending one’s own mental model as the most powerful lever for system change. Only when assumptions are made explicit, and people realise they are not laws of nature, space emerges for reflection and reassessment.

It is therefore time to shift the focus from defending one’s own positions to jointly exploring underlying ways of thinking and the values behind them. The social sciences already offer rich insights into how people process information, assess risks and make choices. There are also a number of practically applicable methods for mapping tensions and mental models. Examples include the Dutch NSOB publication Waarden Wo(o)rden, Werkelijkheden, the publication by Dutch TNO and the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management on policy narratives and broad prosperity, and the TNO UNLOCK approach. When this knowledge is connected with spatial, mobility and energy expertise, a bridge can be built between strategic ambitions and concrete urban planning and implementation.

What still needs further development are methods to make mental models explicit at a collective level, to compare them and, above all, to connect them in a goal-oriented way. This enables purposeful alignment: not because everyone needs to think the same, but because this lead to a shared understanding of where differences come from and which assumptions leave room for alternatives. It turns out that tensions around housing construction often revolve less around numbers, and more around differing views on quality of life, broad prosperity and future resilience. Mental models also play a role here. The Chief Government Architect frames the current mental model primarily in terms of new-build larger family homes, while he mentions housing subdivision as an alternative: “If 5 per cent of all existing homes were adapted, the housing shortage would largely be resolved.”

The courage to reflect on assumptions

Especially in times of scarcity, our thinking determines not only what we find desirable, but also what we consider possible. Anyone who takes the transitions that Europe and the Netherlands face seriously cannot suffice with simply building faster or investing more. We must also dare to reflect on the assumptions that guide our current actions. Making mental models explicit and questioning them is therefore a necessary precondition for effective and broadly supported decision-making.