Complexity Theory and Systems Thinking

The world’s natural resources are being pushed passed sustainability boundaries (in this instant sustainability refers to maintaining the capacity of ecological systems to support social and economic systems, however due to overexploitation of natural resources, this capacity may not be maintained, Berkes et al. 2003), as this happens, we are being forced to address complexity and we live in a rapidly transforming global environment that influences our understanding of how to behave in it, with major consequences on approaches used for addressing present day problems (Pollard et al., 2011; Rogers et al., 2013). Economic and technological advances have meant that we interact with more people, objects and organisation through communication, production and transport and each of these is increasingly interconnected (Pollard et al., 2011:4). Cilliers (2000) adds that complexity has implications for the way the structure of organisations or systems is perceived, as well as the way in which the organisations or systems are managed.

Moreover, it is widely recognised that natural and social systems are complex in their own right and that their interactions add complexity (Pollard and du Toit, 2011a). Berkes et al. (2003) emphasised that this has resulted in particular challenges for disciplinary approaches that still use the “silo” method. In addition, there is an emerging consensus regarding the need to look for broader approaches and solutions, not only with resource and environmental issues but also a wide front of societal issues.

According to Berkes et al. (2003), for each of the issues that develop in resource management, new theories and explanations are created; however, there is much for more creative forms of collaboration between scientists and society. Theory and policy should also involve a broader range of disciplines and skills needed for the integration Jasanoff et al. (1997) also add that broader public participation is important and scientific solutions

need to be undertaken with greater attention to their social context. The interaction between science and society is increasingly seen as important.

At present the research that is needed in resource management may be ‘created through processes of co-production in which scholars and stakeholders interact to define important questions, relevant evidence and convincing forms of argument (Friibergh Workshop on Sustainability Science, 2000). In order to achieve this it is important to view the interaction of biophysical and social systems.

Whilst there are many definitions of the systems concept, only one will be briefly described here. Meadows (2011:11) define a system as “an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something”. Following Meadows’ (2011) definition, a system therefore consists of three components: elements (sometimes also referred to as variables); interconnections; and a function or a purpose. Each of these components is briefly described below:

• The elements of a system include both tangible, visible components and other intangibles. In a typical water treatment works, the elements would therefore include infrastructure like pumps, ponds, aeration tanks, in addition to intangibles like the expectations of potable water of a particular quality and quantity. These elements can be divided into sub-elements and further into sub-sub elements (Meadows, 2011:13).

• The interconnections in a system are the relationships or interactions that hold the elements together and they can include physical and information flows. In a water treatment works, physical flows include the movement of untreated effluent through a treatment process and the subsequent conversion of the effluent into potable water of drinking quality. But the flows could also include how much effluent is at a particular point in the treatment process at a particular time, which could determine how much is required to move through the system at the next point of the treatment process. Meadows (2011:14) describes these type of interconnections as flows of information through the system and they are understood as signals that go to decision points or action points within a system.

• The function or purpose of a system is determinable by the behaviour of the system over time and not necessarily expressed explicitly (Meadows, 2011:15).In a water treatment works the purpose might be to supply residents with adequate safe water, yet the behaviour of the system might demonstrate that some residents have more secure supply than other residents due to the effectiveness of the water supply system.

The concept of a system as introduced above is undistinguishably linked to the practice of systems thinking. Systems thinking is a concept or theory based on a holistic worldview that emphasises interrelationships rather than parts, and patterns over time, rather than static components (Meadows, 2011). When systems thinking is applied to water resource management it shifts from focusing on isolated situations and their causes to viewing water resources as a system made up of interacting parts (Simonovic, 2009). In a world faced with climate change and a global water crisis, policy makers have also recognised that “a business as usual approach” to governing water resources is not acceptable and systems thinking and practice are key to effective policy and practice that address long-term complex issues (Ison, 2010: 13)

Systems thinking has also led to the recognition that conventional thinking that was used in the past in resources and environmental management may have contributed to problems instead of providing solutions (Holling and Meffe, 1996). One of the most important lessons from systems thinking is that management processes can be improved by developing practice that is adaptable and flexible, able to deal with uncertainty, and adapt to change by building capacity (Berkes et al., 2003). Therefore systems thinking can be used to bridge an integrated understanding of social and biophysical processes to understand, for example, climate, history and effects of human actions on natural resources (McIntosh et al., 2000). Most researchers of social-ecological systems have recognised the paradigm shift that accompanies complexity that emphasises non-linearity, context and contingency-specific interactions among emergent entities (Rogers et al., 2013:1). In the study of social- ecological systems it is often the uncertainty of results that is an outcome of the non-linear interactions that forms the focus (Audouin et al., 2013). The theory of complexity is found in literature of many academic and professional disciplines from business, philosophy,

economics, health, planning and policy, welfare and crime, and the natural and social sciences (Urry, 2005).

Complexity lacks a definition that has been agreed upon that includes an all-encompassing theory, but the working definition of complexity is “the interdisciplinary understanding of reality as composed of complex, open systems with transformational potential” (Preiser, 2012: 37). Cilliers (2000) summarises the key characteristics of complex systems as:

• Open-systems;

• Comprising of many interacting components; • With non-linear processes;

• With feedback loops between components and processes;

• Where temporal and special scale influences processes and feedbacks; and • They are adaptive.

Pollard and du Toit (2008) also state that complex systems can be distinguished from simple systems by a number of attributes including non-linearity, uncertainty, emergence, scale, self-organisation, and feedback loops (as seen in Table 1). Furthermore, acknowledging these attributes means accommodating both their implications and lessons for future action (Berkes et al., 2003).

The concept of complexity within the context of water resources management in South Africa is not a new one. South African’s policies and legislation make specific reference to complexity or complex systems, and as a result, the need for integration. Even the first edition of the NWRS dedicates a significant portion of its first chapter to the need for IWRM in complex water systems (Pollard and du Toit, 2008). Moreover, the core of complex systems is their inherent variation in space and time that determines the system function and significantly, what causes them to adapt. It is therefore important to strive to see systems holistically, considering them as sub-systems of larger systems that interact with other sub-systems, and the bigger and smaller systems relate. Furthermore, ‘phenomena whose causes are multiple, diverse and dispersed cannot be understood, let alone managed or controlled, through scientific activity organized on traditional disciplinary lines’ (Jasanoff et al., 1997:2066).

According to Pollard and du Toit (2011a:10), adopting complexity has particular applicability in water resources management with are three key principles:

• Seeing a catchment as a complex system with inter-linkages where all things are potentially connected is an important point of departure for making sense of water resources management processes. The complex nature of IWRM cannot avoid the integratedness of water, linking a multitude of issues in catchments.

• Whatever happens in the real world is not as a result of a single causal mechanism. Events are a result of the interaction of diverse causal and counter-causal tendencies.

• The world is subject to an infinite number of (often mutually exclusive) future possibilities. Governance mechanisms that represent one way of selecting the number of future possibilities (Jessop, 2003).

The above discussion demonstrates that strategies and policies for water resource management should be designed to take account of the complexity of catchments by acknowledging that multiple drivers, multiple outcomes and feedback loops are all realities within the water resource management context (see Table 3.1.2) (Pollard and du Toit, 2008). It is also important to note that since outcomes may have uncertainty linked to them, the process of developing effective ways of managing water resources is a learning and reflective experience. More importantly, the main reason for grounding this study in complexity theory is that it relates to the intentions of the national water legislation in South Africa which are grounded in sustainability principles that recognise complexity. This study acknowledged complexity and used a complexity-based perspective to explore the development of an integrated, participative, water quality management process for the Crocodile River Catchment, focusing on the sugar industry.The study was also embedded in a Strategic Adaptive Management setting in the Inkomati-Usuthu Catchment Management agency, as described in section 3.1.3 below.

TABLE 3.1.2

Key attributes of complex systems

synthesised by Pollard and du Toit, 2008 from Holling (2001), Gunderson and Holling (2002), Berkes et al., (2003) , Walker et al., (2004), Allison and Hobbs (2006)

Attribute Example

Socio-ecological systems are heterogeneous, dynamic and in a state of flux. Variability is essential and not a ‘management inconvenience or problem’.

Rainfall may vary around an ‘average’ of 500mm per year- from 200mm in a dry year to 800mm in a wet year. This brings about different effects each year and cumulatively.

Systems have multiple drivers, many of which are non-linear in their effects and which operate at different scales. Hence outcomes are usually not entirely predictable. Also some of these drivers may relate to other ‘sub-systems’ such as a political or global drivers.

A reduction in base flows may reflect increased abstraction, the impacts of a weir and a political decision to expand agriculture, such as biofuels which are seen as a way to improve our foreign exchange or reduce our dependency on imported fuel.

Components of systems are independent and interacting and understanding the linkages is important. In particular feedback loops are an important attribute of complex systems.

For example. A reinforcing loop is evident when wetland health improves, causing an increase in the water table which causes a further improvement in wetland health (Pollard and Perret, 2007).

Multiple drivers and feedback loops often mean uncertainty because we can’t predict exact outcomes; moreover they can lead to unexpected outcomes.

The global drive to reduce dependence on fossil fuels (viewed as a favourable position for sustainability) has increased biofuel initiatives which are impacting on water resources and on food availability

Complex systems display lags. We are unlikely to see immediate benefits from the policy to determine environmental

flows because complex socio-economic and political arrangements are needed to achieve this.

Complex systems are not necessarily complicated; in fact, they often only have a basic set of drivers and responses.

For example, fire, rainfall and fire management may be the key drivers of savannah eco-systems.