Chapter 1. Humanitarian Engineering behaviour and mindset: A socio-technical systems thinking approach

Engineering has long played a role in the development of society. At its best, engineering improves quality of life, protects people from harm, and helps communities to thrive within the constraints of the natural environment, with science, technology, and innovation all recognised as enablers of sustainable development [1]. Yet a paradox exists; whilst autonomous vehicles, high-speed internet and space tourism are all feasible, hundreds of millions of people around the world still lack access to essential services such as safe water, sanitation, energy, housing and medical care. More than 600 million people worldwide experience extreme poverty and are highly vulnerable to disasters, with climate change, conflict, and inequality all compounding this challenge [2, 3]. At its worst, engineering and technological advancement have been a part of exploitative colonialism that has exacerbated inequality and poverty [4]. Engineering interventions can be selective, benefiting some groups at the expense of others.

Essentially, despite huge technological advancements, global challenges, including poverty alleviation, persist, underscoring that the problem is not simply a lack of technical solutions. This is not a new phenomenon; over 50 years ago, Ernst Schumacher wrote:

“Who we design for defines the importance of the solution, not the frontier of the technology” [5, 6]

Delivering safe water or sanitation services, for instance, is not just a matter of finding a source and building infrastructure; it requires appreciating local cultures and values [7,8]. Affected communities require high-quality, sustainable solutions tailored to their specific needs and contexts.

Affected communities require high-quality, sustainable solutions tailored to their specific needs and contexts. This raises important questions: what skills are necessary for engineers to contribute to these global challenges, and how do we assess problems that require both technical and social responses? The field of Humanitarian Engineering has emerged [9] in Australia and New Zealand at the intersection of engineering, technology and innovation for humanitarian action and development assistance, recognising that engineers play a role in humanitarian problem-solving, but those problems are often complex, do not occur in isolation, and rarely involve only technical constraints.

This chapter provides the groundwork for this textbook by exploring not only what humanitarian engineers do, but also how they approach their work and engage with the world around them: their behaviour. Subsequent chapters build on this groundwork, exploring different ways to work with communities, including engaging in co-design and participatory approaches (see Chapter 2) and involving communities in developing new, affordable technologies (see Chapter 6).

Unpacking the gap for humanitarian engineers

The introductory statement by Irina Bokova (the Director-General of UNESCO at the time) for the seminal report Engineering: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities for Development, included a call:

“We need to ensure that motivated young women and men concerned about problems in the developing world continue to enter the [engineering] field in sufficient numbers” [10].

This statement highlights the need to engage engineers in humanitarian work; however, the pitfalls and unintended consequences of efforts based solely on motivation have long been recognised. The infamous address by Ivan Illich to the Conference on InterAmerican Student Projects [11] delivered the critique that outsiders, even with “good intentions,” often reinforce systems of cultural imperialism, do more harm than good, and perpetuate cycles of dependency and superiority. Baillie et al point out that engineers:

“either imagine that they themselves can accurately and adequately represent their end users’ needs and wishes, or forget the end-user entirely” [12].

Humanitarian challenges are often wicked problems, and addressing them with inappropriate methods or narrow technical mindsets can lead to unintended consequences. History is littered with failures based on trying to solve wicked problems with mainstream thinking [13]. Emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT), and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have an amplifying effect. Their power makes emerging technologies valuable for humanitarian efforts, but also means the consequences of misuse can be devastating [14].

The humanitarian thinking (and role) of engineers 

A humanitarian engineer is defined not only by technical skills, but also by mindset and behaviour. To understand the role of a humanitarian engineer, it is essential to learn how to think and act accordingly. While engineering can achieve remarkable breakthroughs, many people still lack access to basic rights, which is not simply a technical problem to be solved, for example, access to water. Affected communities require high-quality, sustainable solutions tailored to their specific needs and contexts. This raises important questions: what skills are necessary to achieve these goals, and how do we assess problems that require both technical and social responses?

The complex contemporary challenges facing the world, including climate change, social justice, and poverty alleviation, demand engineering professionals with a more holistic set of competencies. As disasters grow in frequency and severity, and universal access to essential services remains elusive, humanitarian engineering seeks to address these interconnected challenges through inclusive and systemic approaches. There is an increasing need for engineers who can diagnose the interconnections and interdependencies between social problems and technical issues. In this way, socio-technical challenges become opportunities in humanitarian contexts, translated into projects that apply engineering, technology, and design in ways that prioritise marginalisation and social justice.

Thinking as an engineer has traditionally meant focusing on problem-solving through technical models: defining the problem, developing a solution, creating a prototype, and testing or optimising performance. However, a humanitarian engineer does not simply apply a formula to eradicate poverty or assume that access to water or electricity can be achieved by “switching on” infrastructure. Humanitarian challenges are often wicked problems, and addressing them with inappropriate methods or narrow technical mindsets can lead to unintended consequences.

This tension raises a critical question: Is all engineering humanitarian engineering? Engineering is frequently described as a profession committed to improving the quality of life, yet in practice, this aspiration is not always realised. Engineering interventions can be selective, benefiting some groups at the expense of others. There is often a gap between what is claimed about the profession and what actually occurs. For example, stating that engineering is inclusive of women does not make it so; advocating for reconciliation is inconsistent with the destruction of cultural heritage sites; and promoting sustainability sits uneasily alongside continued investment in fossil fuels.

The field of humanitarian engineering has grown, in part, to address this gap, one that ideally should not exist. Its emergence reflects a need for greater social impact within engineering as a whole. However, there is a risk that humanitarian engineering becomes a mechanism through which mainstream engineering avoids confronting these issues directly, as occurred previously with sustainability engineering. As sustainability became more integrated into general engineering practice, the need for a separate focus diminished. Similarly, the mindset and skills developed through humanitarian engineering are valuable across all engineering domains. There is a growing demand for professionals who can identify socio-technical opportunities in humanitarian contexts and translate them into practical technical projects, assembling the resources required to address complex challenges. Interest continues to rise in engineering, technology, and design that prioritise marginalised communities and social justice. 

Exercise 1: Hidden interconnections

Objective

Reflect on the limits of technical solutions by identifying how technical choices in humanitarian engineering interact with social, cultural, and ethical factors.

Context

You are assisting a humanitarian engineering team deployed to the greater Volta Lake region in Akosombo, Ghana. Your team is designing a solar-powered cold storage facility for agricultural produce in a rural district. The primary goal is to reduce post-harvest losses and improve food security. The project design brief focuses on technical performance and includes the following technical decisions  :

• Type of solar panel and battery,
• Harvest  storage design
• Refrigeration system type
• Installation method
• Maintenance requirements and spare parts
• System scalability and future expansion

Activity

Write each technical decision as a separate item (or draw simple circles). Draw lines between decisions that depend on one another. For example:

At first, the project design appears to be a purely technical challenge. No explicit social or cultural analysis has been requested. Choose one decision and think about what other factors might affect it (hint: consider social, cultural, and ethical factors).

• Work individually or in pairs.
• Do not worry about being “right” — focus on noticing the influences/connections.
• Keep explanations short (one sentence per connection).

Discussion & Reflection

a. Did any technical decision affect people, not just equipment?
b. Which choice felt the safest technically, and why?

c. Which decision seems simple at first and purely technical, but has become complex?

d. What might be missing if engineers focus only on performance and cost?

Ethical considerations

a. What happens if the system stops working?
b. Who is expected to fix it?
c. Is the “best” technical option always the most appropriate one?

Systems thinking: socio-technical approach

In ecological science, a long-standing challenge has been the tendency to consider ecosystems and human systems as separate entities. In reality, human societies exist within, and are inseparable from, the natural landscapes they inhabit. Humans are therefore not external to ecosystems, but integral components of them. For this reason, scholars increasingly refer to social–ecological systems, recognising that social systems are embedded within ecological systems [15, 16].

Within these systems, interactions between humans and their environment, such as how communities access food, collect water, and sustain livelihoods, are fundamentally shaped by the ecosystems in which they live [16]. These livelihood practices are essential for understanding which interactions are most relevant when environmental disturbances occur. For example, if river water becomes contaminated and is used for drinking, human health will be directly affected. Conversely, if human illness or practices lead to soil contamination, this may further pollute water sources, compounding the problem. These feedback loops illustrate what ecology describes as socio-technical conflict, in which social behaviour and environmental processes interact to intensify risk and vulnerability [16].

A similar dynamic can be observed in built environments, where social and technical systems are tightly interwoven [17]. Social systems comprise people interacting with infrastructure and technological assets, while technical systems include engineered components such as pipes, tanks, and treatment facilities [17]. For instance, wastewater or water supply systems designed for a given population may become inadequate as the population grows. When infrastructure capacity remains unchanged while demand rises, systems may fail or collapse, leading to cascading consequences for public health, environmental quality, and social well-being. Such challenges are characteristic of wicked problems, which cannot be understood or addressed by examining isolated components alone. Instead, they require thinking in terms of systems rather than individual elements. This is the foundation of systems thinking [18].

As humanitarian engineers, we therefore have both a responsibility and a necessity to think systemically and to develop the capacity to engage with complex systems [19]. Thinking in terms of socio-technical systems involves exploring the interplay between social and technical components of a system [17], recognising that technical elements are embedded within networks of interdependent actors. Problems cannot be effectively addressed without an understanding of both the system and the people who shape and are shaped by it [19]. Complexity emerges from the properties of multiple interactions between subsystems that are arranged and connected over time [20]. The foundations of this perspective lie in Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) theory, which emphasises non-linearity, emergence, and adaptation, and highlights how system behaviour arises from interactions rather than from individual components alone [20].

Humanitarian Engineering behaviour: Using the COM-B Framework

By this point in the Chapter, you should hopefully be comfortable with the idea that Humanitarian Engineering means more than just applying disciplinary skills, say as a civil, mechanical or electrical engineer in a humanitarian context. The inherent complexity in humanitarian contexts makes Humanitarian Engineering a profoundly socio-technical endeavour in which technical proficiency is inseparable from cultural awareness, community engagement, ethical responsibility and cooperative action. Essentially, engineering competencies must be blended with humanitarian principles and practice. This naturally leads to the question, what does it look like to be a humanitarian engineer?

The question of what it looks like to be a humanitarian engineer can be answered in many ways, one of which is to think about the expected Behaviour of a humanitarian engineer. Behaviour refers to the decisions that a person makes and the actions that they take. The COM-B Model, developed by Michie et al. in 2011 [25], posits that a person’s Behaviour (B) is a product of three components: Capability (C), Opportunity (O), and Motivation (M) [See Figure 1].

You can use the COM-B model to consider a learning journey into humanitarian engineering. If you are reading this book, then the chances are that you already have Motivation, preferably an intrinsic drive for social justice (rather than wanting something ‘good’ on your CV). You may also be looking for Opportunities for resources, placements, appropriate infrastructure, mentors, and inclusive environments that facilitate exposure and experience in humanitarian engineering projects. You may already be on your way to building a Capability set to be effective, realising that there are many benefits of a humanitarian engineering Capability set when applied to mainstream engineering practice.

When considering offerings, it is important to remember that the three components (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation) interact and are influenced by the behaviour (indicated by the directional arrows, in Figure 1), this means that if you want to change your behaviour, you should remember you may need to target multiple components or that changes to a component may also be reinforcing or cancelling (i.e. positive or negative) with other components. As a practical example, many engineering programs at universities in Australia and New Zealand include a first-year unit of study that incorporates the EWB Challenge [26, 27]. The EWB Challenge is a project-based Learning offering that addresses engineering challenges in humanitarian contexts. Whilst the EWB Challenge includes a humanitarian context, it tends to be used by educators to introduce core engineering concepts (e.g. design processes and professional practice), rather than to directly build humanitarian engineering capability; Brown and Rosenqvist (2024) differentiate Humanitarian Engineering context courses from content courses [6]. Therefore, we might theorise that exposure to the EWB Challenge provides the Opportunity to learn more about Humanitarian Engineering, which could influence Motivation to want to be involved in humanitarian efforts. You should expect your behaviour to change naturally over time, as you gain experience and exposure to decisions and scenarios. However, some behaviour change requires intention and dedicated personal and professional development.

The exercise below uses the COM-B framework as a mechanism to help you think about and consider ‘interventions’ that might change your behaviour. Reading the other chapters in this book should help you understand the behaviours of a humanitarian engineer. You can then use this exercise to help you decide what interventions are right for you. Remember, this is a marathon, not a sprint. You won’t be able to rush, and the truth is, it often takes engineers many years, even decades, to feel comfortable with the behaviours of humanitarian engineers, as leading practices are also changing over time.

References

[1] K. Tibbo and S. Drimie, “Humanitarian Exchange Magazine,” Humanitarian Exchange, no. 33, Apr. 2006. London, U.K.: Humanitarian Practice Network, Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

[2] World Health Organization and UNICEF, “1 in 4 people globally still lack access to safe drinking water – WHO, UNICEF,” World Health Organization, Aug. 26, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/news/item/26-08-2025-1-in-4-people-globally-still-lack-access-to-safe-drinking-water—who–unicef. Accessed: Dec. 28, 2025.

[3] Dang, HA.H., Hallegatte, S., Nguyen, M.C. et al. Impacts of global warming on subnational poverty and inequality. Nat. Clim. Chang. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02516-6

[4] S. J. Eichhorn, “How the West was won: A deconstruction of politicised colonial engineering,” The Political Quarterly, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2020.

[5] E. F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful: Economics as If People Mattered. New York, NY, USA: Harper & Row, 1973.

[6] N. Brown and T. Rosenqvist, “Cultivating the humanitarian mindset and skillset in engineers,” in A Skilled Hand and a Cultivated Mind: A Culture of Learning and Teaching at RMIT University, J. Lee, M. Yoshida, J. Ni, K. Quek, and A. M. Ducasse, Eds. Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Open Press, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://rmit.pressbooks.pub/askilledhandandacultivatedmind/chapter/chapter-4-cultivating-the-humanitarian-mindset-and-skillset-in-engineers/

[7] M. Mead, N. J. Brown, M. Currell, D. Grenfell, and D. I. Cendon, “Adopting groundwater monitoring techniques to strengthen customary water conservation methods in rural Timor-Leste,” in Proc. 2024 Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium (HWRS 2024). Barton, ACT, Australia: National Committee on Water Engineering, Engineers Australia, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.T2025050600027891455062916

[8] T. Mink et al., “Who participates in ‘participatory design’ of WASH infrastructure: A mixed-methods process evaluation,” PLOS Global Public Health, vol. 5, no. 6, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003430.

[9] J. Turner, N. Brown and J. Smith, “Humanitarian Engineering – What does it all mean?”. RMIT University, 01-Jan-2015.

[10] UNESCO, Engineering: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities for Development. Paris, France: UNESCO, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000189753

[11] I. Illich, “To hell with good intentions,” Address to the Conference on Inter-American Student Projects, Cuernavaca, Mexico, Apr. 20, 1968. [Online]. Available: https://www.uvm.edu/~jashman/CDAE195_ESCI375/To%20Hell%20with%20Good%20Intentions.pdf

[12] C. Baillie, A. Pawley, and D. Riley, Eds., Engineering and Social Justice: In the University and Beyond. West Lafayette, IN, USA: Purdue University Press, 2012, doi: 10.2307/j.ctt6wq5pf.

[13] A. Sobocinska, Saving the World? Western Volunteers and the Rise of the Humanitarian–Development Complex. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

[14]  J. Carreno, N. J. Brown, P. Stasinopoulos, and T. Rosenqvist, “An investigation into the development of emerging technology for humanitarian action and development assistance,” Information Technology for Development, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2026.

[15] E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

[16] E. Ostrom, “A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems,”Science, vol. 325, no. 5939, pp. 419–422, 2009. doi: 10.1126/science.1172133.

[17] S. E. van der Merwe, R. Biggs, and R. Preiser, “A framework for conceptualizing and assessing the resilience of essential services produced by socio-technical systems,” Ecology and Society, vol. 23, no. 2, p. 12, 2018. doi: 10.5751/ES-09623-230212.

[18] L. von Bertalanffy, “General systems theory as integrating factor in contemporary science,” in Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of Philosophy, vol. 2, 1968, pp. 335–340.

[19] H. de Bruijn and P. M. Herder, “System and actor perspectives on sociotechnical systems,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A, Syst. Humans, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 981–992, 2009. doi: 10.1109/TSMCA.2009.2025452.

[20] J. W. Forrester, The Beginning of System Dynamics. Albany, NY: System Dynamics Society, 1990.

[21] Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Port activity and economic relevance in Latin America, 2018. https://www.cepal.org/en/infographics/ports-activity-2018-top-20-ports-latin-america-and-caribbean

[22] Collazos, J., and Borrero, S., “Economic significance of the Buenaventura port in the Colombian economy,” 2006.

[23] CNMH. National Centre for Historical Memory. “Buenaventura: A Port Without a Community.” Report.Jun. 2015. Available: https://bapp.com.co/documento/buenaventura-un-puerto-sin-comunidad/

[24] . Avendaño-Uribe, M. Milke, and D. Castillo-Brieva, “Participatory modelling: precedents and prospects for civil engineering,” Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 93–122, 2022, doi: 10.1080/10286608.2022.2083111.

[25] S. Michie, M. van Stralen, and R. West, “The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions,” Implementation Science, vol. 6, no. 42, 2011.

[26] Engineers Without Borders Challenge, “EWB 2026,” ewbchallenge.org. [Online]. Available: https://ewbchallenge.org/. Accessed: Jan. 13, 2026.

[27] A. Singer, M. Jarvie-Eggart, and J. Perlinger, “First-year engineering student reflections on service learning: The EWB Australia Challenge,” in Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Lincoln, NE, USA, 2021, pp. 1–5, doi: 10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637167.

Further reading: 

D. Lambert, Doing No Harm and Beyond: How Humanitarian Aid Can Save Lives Today and Tomorrow. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press, 2014.

J. C. Camillus, “Strategy as a wicked problem,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 99–109, May 2008.

J. H. S. Lie, “The humanitarian-development nexus: humanitarian principles, practice, and pragmatics,” Journal of International Humanitarian Action, vol. 5, art. no. 18, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s41018-020-00086-0.

N. J. Brown, J. Smith, S. Daniel, and C. Birzer, “Exploring the position of humanitarian engineering in Australia,” Accepted Manuscript, 2022.

About the authors

name: Dr Nick Brown

institution: RMIT University

website: https://www.rmit.edu.au/profiles/b/nick-brown

Dr. Nick Brown is dedicated to leveraging engineering to tackle complex global issues, including poverty, inequality, and sustainability. Dr Brown completed both his master’s and doctoral studies in civil and environmental engineering at the University of Edinburgh, UK. His work focuses on empowering engineers to meet community needs both in Australia and internationally. Dr Brown is the co-founder and education lead of the Humanitarian Engineering Lab at RMIT University. In his roles as education lead, he designs and delivers innovative teaching at the crossroads of design, technology, and social change. Dr Brown’s excellence in education is demonstrated by numerous awards, including an Australia Award for University Teaching, three Engineers Australia awards, three RMIT University Vice Chancellor’s awards, and four STEM College and School of Engineering teaching awards. As a member of both the International Federation of National Teaching Fellows and Engineers Australia and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (UK), he maintains a prominent presence in Humanitarian Engineering Education.   Before joining RMIT University, Dr Brown served as the Research Lead at the not-for-profit organisation Engineers Without Borders Australia. In this role, he spearheaded ground-breaking humanitarian engineering education and research initiatives. These efforts generated critical advancements in knowledge and technology for sustainable development.

name: Dr Bryann Avendaño-Uribe

institution: University of Canterbury

website: https://oer.pressbooks.pub/humanitarian-engineering/front-matter/about-the-editor/

Dr Bryann Avendaño-Uribe is a knowledge broker and former Postdoctoral Research Fellow and Guest Lecturer in Humanitarian Engineering at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He holds honours bachelor’s degrees in Science—Biology and Ecology—plus continuing studies certificates in Business and Leadership from Georgetown University (USA) and Modelling and Simulation from CIRAD, Montpellier (France), and a PhD in Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of Canterbury. His research centres on participatory modelling and community engagement for humanitarian engineering, with a focus on developing facilitation tools to translate complex scientific knowledge for non‐scientific audiences. Dr Bryann’s work addresses climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, resilience planning, and environmental education, with a strong emphasis on co‐creation with communities. He actively advocates for scientific education policies and STEM education through his co-founded think tank, Scientelab.