Skip to main content

Requisite Simplicities to Help Negotiate Complex Problems

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. http://www.angasbremerwater.org.au/. Accessed 31 March 2010.

References

  • Ayres, R.S., and Westcot, D.W. 1989. Water quality for agriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29.

  • Balmford, A., and R.M. Cowling. 2006. Fusion or failure? The future of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 20: 692–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2003. Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge: University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, P. 1998. Complexity and postmodernism understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, P. 2005a. Complexity, deconstruction and relativism. Theory, Culture & Society 22: 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, P. 2005b. Knowledge, limits and boundaries. Futures 37: 605–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22: 151–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, L., and C.S. Holding. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. www.cropscience.org.au.

  • Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems. Ecosystems 4: 390–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C.S., and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10: 328–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope. Integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S. 1999. Fragile dominion: Complexity and the commons. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.

  • Ludwig, D., B. Walker, and C.S. Holling. 1997. Sustainability, stability and resilience. Conservation Ecology 1(1) http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art7.

  • 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 

  • Max-Neef, M.A. 2005. Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics 53: 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passioura, J.B. 1979. Accountability, Philosophy and Plant Physiology. Search 10: 347–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passioura, J.B. 2002. Environmental biology and crop improvement. Functional Plant Biology 29: 537–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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) http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art4/.

  • Scholes, R.J., and K.G. Mennell (eds.). 2008. Elephant management. A scientific assessment for South Africa.. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P.M. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snowden, D. 2002. Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management 6: 100–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Stirzaker, R.J. 2003. When to turn the water off: Scheduling micro-irrigation with a wetting front detector. Irrigation Science 22: 177–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art4/.

  • van Kerkhoff, L., and L. Lebel. 2006. Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31: 445–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, B.H., and J.A. Meyers. 2004. Thresholds in ecological and social–ecological systems: A developing database. Ecology and Society. 9(2) http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art3.

  • Walker, B.H., and D.A. Salt. 2006. Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, D. 2005. The simplicity cycle. Baton Rouge, LA: Rouge press. http://www.lulu.com/product/download/the-simplicity-cycle/6390620#reviewSection. Accessed 31 March 2010.

  • 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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Stirzaker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stirzaker, R., Biggs, H., Roux, D. et al. Requisite Simplicities to Help Negotiate Complex Problems. AMBIO 39, 600–607 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0075-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0075-7

Keywords

  • Reductionism
  • Complexity
  • Adaptive learning
  • Decision support models
  • Natural resource management
  • Irrigation