, Volume 39, Issue 8, pp 600–607 | Cite as

Requisite Simplicities to Help Negotiate Complex Problems

  • Richard Stirzaker
  • Harry Biggs
  • Dirk Roux
  • Paul Cilliers


Decision makers responsible for natural resource management often complain that science delivers fragmented information that is not useful at the scale of implementation. We offer a way of negotiating complex problems by putting forward a requisite simplicity. A requisite simplicity attempts to discard some detail, while retaining conceptual clarity and scientific rigor, and helps us move to a new position where we can benefit from new knowledge. We illustrate the above using three case studies: elephant densities and vegetation change in a national park, the use of rules of thumb to support decision making in agriculture, and the management of salt in irrigation. We identify potential requisite simplicities that can allow us to generate new understanding, lead to action and provide opportunities for structured learning.


Reductionism Complexity Adaptive learning Decision support models Natural resource management Irrigation 



We thank Oonsie Biggs, Nicky Grigg, John Passioura, Fabio Boschetti, Ted Lefroy, and Stefanie Freitag-Ronaldson for their helpful comments on the manuscript.


  1. Ayres, R.S., and Westcot, D.W. 1989. Water quality for agriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29.Google Scholar
  2. Balmford, A., and R.M. Cowling. 2006. Fusion or failure? The future of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 20: 692–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge: University press.Google Scholar
  4. Cilliers, P. 1998. Complexity and postmodernism understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Cilliers, P. 2005a. Complexity, deconstruction and relativism. Theory, Culture & Society 22: 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cilliers, P. 2005b. Knowledge, limits and boundaries. Futures 37: 605–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Du Toit, J.T., K.H. Rogers, and H.C. Biggs. 2003. The Kruger experience: Ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity. London: Island Press.Google Scholar
  8. Folke, C., S. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, and C.S. Holling. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 35: 557–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. French, R.J., and J.E. Schultz. 1984a. Water use efficiency of wheat in a Mediterranean-type environment. I. The relation between yield, water use and climate. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35: 743–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. French, R.J., and J.E. Schultz. 1984b. Water use efficiency of wheat in a Mediterranean-type environment II: Some limitations to efficiency. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35: 765–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22: 151–156.Google Scholar
  12. George, R.J., D.J. McFarlane, and R.A. Nulsen. 1997. Salinity threatens the viability of agriculture and ecosystems in Western Australia. Hydrogeology Journal 5: 6–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gunderson, L., and C.S. Holding. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hayman, P.T. 2004. Decision support systems in Australian dryland farming: A promising past, a disappointing present and uncertain future. In New directions for a diverse planet. Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress, 26 Sep–1 Oct 2004, Brisbane, Australia.
  15. Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems. Ecosystems 4: 390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holling, C.S., and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10: 328–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope. Integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  18. Levin, S. 1999. Fragile dominion: Complexity and the commons. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  19. Ludwig, D., B. Walker, and C.S. Holling. 1997. Sustainability, stability and resilience. Conservation Ecology 1(1)
  20. Lynam, T.J.P., and M. Stafford Smith. 2004. Monitoring in a complex world—seeking slow variables, a scaled focus and speedier learning. African Journal of Range & Forage Science 21: 69–78.Google Scholar
  21. Max-Neef, M.A. 2005. Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics 53: 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCown, R.L. 2001. Learning to bridge the gap between science-based decision support and the practice of farming: Evolution in paradigms of model-based research and intervention from design to dialogue. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52: 549–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCown, R.L. 2002. Locating agricultural decision support systems in the troubled past and socio-technical complexity of ‘models for management’. Agricultural System 74: 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Passioura, J.B. 1979. Accountability, Philosophy and Plant Physiology. Search 10: 347–350.Google Scholar
  25. Passioura, J.B. 2002. Environmental biology and crop improvement. Functional Plant Biology 29: 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roux, D.J., K.H. Rogers, H.C. Biggs, P.J. Ashton, and A. Sergeant A. 2006. Bridging the science-management divide: Moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society 11(1)
  27. Scholes, R.J., and K.G. Mennell (eds.). 2008. Elephant management. A scientific assessment for South Africa.. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Senge, P.M. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  29. Snowden, D. 2002. Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management 6: 100–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stankey, G.H., R.N. Clark, and B.T. Bormann. 2005. Adaptive management of natural resources: Theory, concepts, and management institutions. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-654. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.Google Scholar
  31. Stirzaker, R.J. 2003. When to turn the water off: Scheduling micro-irrigation with a wetting front detector. Irrigation Science 22: 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tengö, M., and K. Belfrage. 2004. Local management practices for dealing with change and uncertainty: A cross-scale comparison of cases in Sweden and Tanzania. Ecology and Society 9(3):4. [online]
  33. van Kerkhoff, L., and L. Lebel. 2006. Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31: 445–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Walker, B.H., and J.A. Meyers. 2004. Thresholds in ecological and social–ecological systems: A developing database. Ecology and Society. 9(2)
  35. Walker, B.H., and D.A. Salt. 2006. Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  36. Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Ward, D. 2005. The simplicity cycle. Baton Rouge, LA: Rouge press. Accessed 31 March 2010.
  38. Whyte, I.J., R.J. van Aarde, and S.L. Pimm. 2003. Kruger’s elephant population: its size and consequences for ecosystem heterogeneity. In The Kruger experience: Ecology, management of savanna heterogeneity, ed. J.T. Du Toit, K.H. Rogers, and H.C. Biggs. London: Island Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Stirzaker
    • 1
  • Harry Biggs
    • 2
  • Dirk Roux
    • 3
  • Paul Cilliers
    • 4
  1. 1.CSIRO Land and WaterCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Scientific ServicesKruger National ParkSkukuzaSouth Africa
  3. 3.IWC, Africa Water Research NodeMonash South AfricaRoodepoortSouth Africa
  4. 4.Centre for Studies in ComplexityUniversity of StellenboschMatielandSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations