ContactISSN:e-ISSN: 3108-4885
Author Sign-inReviewer Sign-inRegister
TürkçeEnglish
HomeABOUTAIM AND SCOPEGUIDE FOR AUTHORSSend ArticleLatest IssueArchiveContact Us

A Comparative Evaluation of General Systems Theory, Complexity Theory, and Complex Adaptive Systems in Addressing Urban Challenges

Sevde Derman Siddiqui,Ülkü Duman

  • Sevde Derman Siddiqui: Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi
  • Ülkü Duman: Gazi Üniversitesi
  •  Year : 2025
  •  Vol : 2
  •  Issue : 1
  •  Page : 88-108
Urban systems are increasingly recognized as dynamic, multi-scalar networks shaped by nonlinear interactions, feedback loops, and adaptive behaviors. Addressing the “wicked problems” of rapid urbanization—from socio-economic inequality to climate risks—requires theoretical frameworks capable of capturing complexity and informing adaptive governance. This study critically and comparatively examines three major approaches—General Systems Theory (GST), Complexity Theory, and Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)—in the context of urban systems, through a systematic literature review combined with a bibliometric analysis of publications indexed in Web of Science and Scopus between 2000 and 2025. Using bibliometrix and Biblioshiny, the analysis traces conceptual trends, keyword co-occurrence patterns, thematic clusters, author keyword distributions, and thematic evolution. Indicators such as publication growth, thematic mapping, and conceptual development provide insights into the intellectual trajectory of urban complexity research. The findings demonstrate a clear theoretical progression: GST provides a holistic framework emphasizing structural stability but has limited capacity to capture adaptive processes; Complexity Theory advances the field by foregrounding nonlinearity, self-organization, and co-evolutionary dynamics; CAS extends these perspectives by emphasizing decentralized interactions, adaptive learning, and path dependence. The bibliometric mapping shows a sharp increase in CAS-related urban studies after 2015, reflecting its growing recognition as a promising framework. Yet, this surge does not imply CAS has displaced other paradigms; planning theories, socio-spatial perspectives, and governance models remain dominant. Rather, CAS emerges as a complementary approach that enriches existing theories, clarifies theoretical boundaries, identifies research gaps, and enhances the ability to interpret and respond to complex urban transformations. This study underscores that while GST, Complexity Theory, and CAS each provide distinct contributions, CAS holds particular potential as a flexible and complementary lens for advancing both urban theory and practice.
Cite this Article As : Derman Siddiqui, S. & Duman, Ü. (2025). Which theory fits the city? a comparative evaluation of gst, complexity, and cas in addressing urban challenges. Thinking of Urban Decoding Journal (TUDEJ), 2(1), 88-108. https://doi.org/10.69992/0.2025.12

Conflict of interest : The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

This article is published under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Thinking Of Urban Decoding Journal
2025, Vol2, Issue1
E-ISSN: 3108-4885
Received : , Accepted : , Published Online :

References

  1. Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 341–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.02
  2. Bettencourt, L. M. A. (2013). The origins of scaling in cities. Science, 340(6139), 1438–1441. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235823
  3. Bettencourt, L. M. A., & West, G. (2010). A unified theory of urban living. Nature, 467(7318), 912–913. https://doi.org/10.1038/467912a
  4. Byrne, D. (1999). Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction (pp. 45–58). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203003916
  5. Cilliers, P. (2005). Complexity, deconstruction and relativism. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(5), 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276405058052
  6. deMattos, P., Miller, D., & Park, E. (2012). Decision making in trauma centers from the standpoint of complex adaptive systems. Management Decision, 50(9), 1549-1569.
  7. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420
  8. Gilley, J. W., Eggland, S. A., & Gilley, A. M. (2002). Principles of human resource development (pp. 33–47). Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
  9. Gleick, J. (2008). Chaos: Making a new science (pp. 102–118). New York: Penguin.
  10. Goldstein, J. A., Hazy, J. K., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2010). Complexity and the nexus of leadership: Leveraging nonlinear science to create ecologies of innovation (pp. 67–85). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230115117
  11. Gorjian, M. (2025). Complexity Theory in Sustainable Urban Development: A Systematic Review of Adaptive Governance, Computational Models, and Resilience Frameworks. Preprints.
  12. Hayles, N. K. (1990) Chaos Bound, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. — (1991) Chaos and Order, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  13. Holland, J. H. (1992). Complex adaptive systems (pp. 15–32). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  14. Jacobs, J. (1962). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
  15. Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1981). General systems theory: Applications for organization and management (pp. 88–101). New York: Wiley.
  16. Larson, C. (2016). Evidence of shared aspects of complexity science and quantum phenomena. Cosmos and History The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 12(2), 160-171.
  17. Lindberg, C., & Schneider, M. (2013). Combating infections at Maine Medical Center: Insights into complexity-informed leadership from positive deviance. Leadership, 9(2), 229-253.
  18. Lorenz, E. (1993). The essence of chaos (pp. 102–115). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
  19. Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer (pp. 11–29). London,UK: Earthscan Publishes.
  20. Meerow, S., & Newell, J. P. (2019). Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why? Urban Geography, 40(3), 309–329.https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1206395
  21. Nicolis, G. (1995). Introduction to nonlinear science (pp. 3–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511626289
  22. Preiser, R., Biggs, R., De Vos, A., & Folke, C. (2018). Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: Organizing principles for advancing research methods and application. Ecology and Society, 23(3), 46. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10358-230346
  23. Richardson, K. (2004). Systems theory and complexity: Part 1. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 6(3), 75–90.
  24. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
  25. Schneider, M., & Somers, M. (2006). Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implications of complexity theory for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 351–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.006
  26. Shi, Y., Zhai, G., Xu, L., Zhou, S., Lu, Y., Liu, H., & Huang, W. (2021). Assessment methods of urban system resilience: From the perspective of complex adaptive system theory. Cities, 112(2021), 103141.
  27. Subbanarasimha, R. P., & Venumuddala, V. R. (2025). Embracing complexity in smart city services: A case of waste management. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 10(1), 1–11.
  28. Shukla, N., Das, A. & Mazumder, T.N. (2025). Complexities of urban resilience in the global south: key insights from Surat city, India. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 30, 43.
  29. Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2001). Foundations of human resource development (pp. 56–69). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
  30. Taşdelen, Ö. (2016). Biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının sistem düşüncesi ve biyolojik mantık yaklaşımlarına yönelik algı ve becerilerin değerlendirilmesi. Ankara: Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  31. Turner, J. R., & Baker, R. (2019). Complexity theory in practice: Understanding systems and leadership. Systems, 7(3), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7030045
  32. Tursun, M. (2021). Sistem düşüncesine dayalı muhasebe eğitiminin öğrencilerin öğrenme yaklaşımları, tutumları ve akadeik başarılarına etkisi. Malatya: Doktora Tezi, İnönü Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  33. von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications (pp. 30–55). New York: Braziller.
  34. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00650-090205
  35. Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos (pp. 78–94). New York: Simon & Schuster.
  36. Wang, T. (2004). From general system theory to total quality management. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 4, 394-400.
  37. Westhorp, G. (2012). Using complexity-consistent theory for evaluating complex systems. Evaluation, 18(4), 405-420.
  38. Xu, C., Han, Y., Qi, L., Wang, J., & Yao, W. (2025). Adaptive evaluation of urban water resource carrying capacity: Development and empirical study of the URCA model. Journal of Hydrology, 634, 130650.
  39. Yan, J., & Wang, H. (2025). Does the Development of Digital Finance Enhance Urban Energy Resilience? Evidence from Machine Learning. Sustainability, 17(14), 6434.
  40. Yawson, R. (2013). Systems theory and thinking as a foundational theory in human resource development—A myth or reality? Human Resource Development Review, 12(1), 53-85.
  41. Yorks, L., & Nicolaides, A. (2012). A Conceptual Model for Developing Mindsets for Strategic Insight Under Conditions of Complexity and High Uncertainty. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), 182-202.