Strategies for managing complex social-ecological systems in the face of uncertainty

Link to DPSIR framework

In the earlier posts, we focused on the various frameworks that can used to identify the various linkages in complex socio-ecological systems (SES). The DPSIR framework for example allowed us to categorise and identify the driving forces of society that exert pressure on the ecosystem. This pressure has the potential to change the state of the environment of the SES. Which brings us to the concept of adaptive change and robustness. Ecosystems change naturally albeit slowly over time. They can adapt to changes to some extent. However, societal pressures often exceed the adaptive limits of SES. This is the robustness concept which is the ability of a SES to maintain its structures in the face of change.

Oftentimes, a change in state provokes a response from society. For example, the haze in Singapore led to public outcry against the burning of forests in Indonesia which in turn caused businesses to pay more attention to fighting pollution (World Wildlife Fund, 2016). These responses are often varied in scope and often times may not be effective. Thus it is important that we examine the various strategies that can be used to manage SES.

General Framework

First off, general strategies would allow us to apply it to ecosystems in Singapore. Thus it is important to identify general strategies first. Biggs, et al (2015) listed out 4 major strategies to manage complex social ecological systems with. 

Source 1: Bigg

s, et al (2015)

What is interesting about this framework is the basis on which these strategies are formed. All four strategies incorporate the element of uncertainty in SES. Uncertainty is important because of the nature of SES. Brigs et al (2015) provides three main reasons for this. First, SES continuously evolve to adapt to internal and external changes. This implies a continuously changing system in which management strategies must change constantly to match. Second, the amount of linkages in an SES complicates the predictive capability of models. Third, societal values vary according to time and place. Thus the strategies used in responding to changes in SES may need to constantly change to meet the requirements of society.

These three sources of uncertainty in turn lead to three types of complexity. Analytical complexity which stems from difficulties in deconstructing complex systems. Ontological complexity which comes from the unpredictability of SES and Societal complexity which arises from “the different meanings…..that different societal groups attach to SES” (Biggs, et al., 2015).

The presence of complexity changes the overall approach management should take to managing SES. Wicked problems which are problems that are ill-defined; with no “true” solution; have constantly changing variables;  and can be considered a symptom of another problem (Rittel & Webber, 1973) oftentimes stem from this complexity. Thus management must address uncertainty in their decision making process and consistently adapt their strategies to change. For example, the return of the otters we discussed earlier created problems for fish owners in Singapore. Thus the National Environment Agency needs to find means to protect the interests of fish owners whilst balancing public interest in the otters.