"OTHER "

• Thinking toward my COMP... [not currently posted]
• Post-Normal Science Discussion Group Summaries - 1999 [not currently posted]

Most recent changes to this page were made in Novermber 2005

ABSTRACTS

Abstracts are listed in chronological order, with the most recent first. Not all of the above-listed publications or presentations have abstracts. Where possible, links to html or pdf files are provided. If you have an interest in something that is not posted, please let me know.

Planning for health through the built environment: An introduction

To begin, consider the conception of planning as the link between knowledge and action (Friedmann 1987). Or as the process and practice that mediates between past, present and future (Dempster 1998). These notions indicate the essential nature of planning: to take what we know and apply it towards improving our future by informing current actions. With respect to public health, the relevant knowledge has primarily been medical knowledge, resulting in actions ranging from surgery and antibiotics to fitness classes, food guides and anti-smoking campaigns. An increasing amount of research, however, suggests that additional types of knowledge are important and that the typical role of planning – shaping land use actions – also has a significant influence on health.
...The papers in this volume provide a few examples of the relevant knowledges and the subsequent actions. They are diverse, yet they provide a mere taste of what needs to be considered. Land use planning – for which built environment is the domain – has a key role to play. The papers in this theme issue touch on what some of these roles might be.

Multi-sectoral Collaboratives for Health through the Built Environment: Seven stories, seven lessons, seven truths.

The importance of the built environment as a critical influence on public health is receiving increasing attention from researchers, planners and health professionals. While it seems impossible to identify specific causal influences and their impacts, there is a convincing need for action. The multifaceted, interconnected character of both influences and impacts suggests the need for collaborative, multi-sectoral approaches. Drawing from a recent study of multisectoral collaboratives in Ontario that are focused on improving health through changes to the built environment, this paper briefly discusses some of the lessons that were learned by collaborative participants. Each lesson is described in the context of a different collaborative. While not presented as the definitive lessons, they were all identified as important to effective multi-sectoral collaboration. For example, “Just try it!” and “Honour the process of the community” – illustrated using the communities of Haliburton County and Timiskaming District – offer constructive suggestions for collaboratives entering into this type of work. Several “truths”, which provide a cautionary note, are also described. “It takes time” and “Context is critical” are nearing platitudes, yet are valuable enough to bear repeating. The general conclusion is that multi-sectoral collaborative efforts make an important contribution to addressing the challenges and that such collaboratives benefit from the involvement of health professionals, planners, citizens and politicians.

the boundaries of sustainability? considering alternatives for an impossible task

paper presented at CANSEE 2005, York University, Toronto, October 29

Among the opportunities open to ecological economics - and other disciplines grappling with sustainability - are approaches based in complex systems thinking. Emphasizing self-organization, feedback, fundamental uncertainty, interconnectedness and multiple possible states, such approaches often suggest a 'poly-ocular' perspective. The multiple understandings that emerge from different ways of conceptualizing the world may strengthen planning for sustainability. This paper draws on a unique approach, conceptualizing socioecological systems as complex, self-producing and boundaryless. Rather than draw connections among ecological and human systems across global and local scales, the approach considers these to be diverse influences constituting an inseparable unity. While boundaries are typically assumed to be essential for defining, understanding and working with systems, this paper explores implications of relinquishing such an assumption. Five considerations are discussed: 1) Adaptation is critical, but evolution is the over-riding process: Change and adaptation of specific socioecological components are embedded within - and also produce - evolution of the whole. 2) Interconnections among system components and processes require appropriate degrees of 'fit': Any new or altered species, person, or cultural norm must obtain appropriate 'food' to survive. 3) Self-production is a fundamental process of complex systems: Forests continue as forests (mostly), cultures as cultures, ways of thinking as ways of thinking. Such processes can provide opportunities for change, but may also be subversive and countervailing. 4) Socioecological organizations and processes are embodied in structural forms. Slow to change, structures are hard and concrete in their different domains (e.g. superhighways, molecular structures, mathematical models and ethnic profiling). Their 'invisibility' can heighten their significance - as barriers and/or avenues. These five considerations are interdependent and often paradoxical. Their relevance for planning - a ubiquitous human activity - is emphasized. In presenting this paper, dialogue among participants will be encouraged.

Challenging boundaries by 'walking the talk': systems-based reflections on moving toward sustainability

We can conceptualize self-reinforcing systemic processes in many activities and structures around us: personal habits, institutional memories, corporatizing academies, increasingly resistant pests and diseases, and many others. In moving toward sustainability, we attempt to evaluate such processes as beneficial or detrimental, and increase/decrease their respective influences. To be ethical, it is critical to recognize that such evaluations will vary, depending on philosophical, institutional and ecological (in the very broadest sense) situations and sensitivities. In this paper, I consider the potential for change by focusing on the conceptualization of one particular form of systemic process - self-production - at three levels of organization - individual, institution/group and society. I take the position that challenging boundaries - as a means for manifesting change - requires challenging these self-producing processes. In addition, I take the position that entanglements among and within these levels of organization require that change be interconnected and intersupportive. As a form of self-critique, I posit that cross-level, within-level and ethically attentive changes can be interpreted - in colloquial terms - as 'walking the talk'. Using the conceptualizations of self-producing processes discussed through individual, institutional and social examples related to knowledge and planning, I reflect on challenges and implications involved in 'walking the talk' for manifesting sustainability.

Canadian Biosphere Reserves: Idealizations and realizations

[Introduction] A three-part ideal has been central to the planning and designation of bio-sphere reserves throughout their history. The simplest configuration is three concentric rings: core, buffer and transition zone. Reading the papers in this theme issue, I was struck by the difference between the ideal conception and on-the-ground configurations of Canadian biosphere reserves: The linear orientation of the Niagara Escarpment and the Georgian Bay Littoral; the Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Reserve, with (for me) its almost ironic inver-sion; Riding Mountain with its seemingly non-existent buffer zone. I do not think, however, that the lack of 'ideal' biosphere reserves should be a sur-prise or disappointment. Rather, each should be acknowledged as an ideal realization of the central concept. Given the purpose of biosphere reserves and the complexity of systemic processes and land-uses that exist across Canadian landscapes, flexibility and creativity are to be expected, even applauded. Administrative and legal systems that deal with specified ownership, detailed plans and precise boundaries have been developed to provide clarity and certainty and to control influence. As discussed throughout this issue, however, entanglement among socio-ecological systems is a fact of existence. In consequence, the connections between ownership and control, boundaries and influence, are increasingly recognized as tenuous, paradoxical or just plain non-existent. Impacts and influences - including ecological, social, po-litical and economic ones - occur across small and broad scales and arise from synergistic and often surprising interactions. We should expect that any attempt to deal with this complexity will be manifest in novel, site specific ways. Three examples are illustrated with maps and short discussion: Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Reserve, Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve and Long Point World Biosphere Reserve.

themes, entangled; simplicity, confounded [theme issue commentary]

[excerpts] Challenging the received paradigm of environmental management is the dominant theme weaving through these paired issues of Environments. In the first issue Managerial Ecology: Contestation and Critique (2002)the challenge is primarily expressed through philosophical argument. In this second issue Counterproposals (2003) the challenge is primarily expressed by proposing and describing alternatives. To infer that these issues outline the problem(s) and the solution(s) of environmental management, however, would be in error. Each issue - even each paper - illustrates entanglements among arguments and counter-arguments, exposing the reader to the various interconnected complexities and conundrums that lie within attempts to address social and environmental concerns.

So what lessons can we take from the convoluted story I have spun by winding among points and counter points? To call management complex would be trite; to call it simple, mistaken. To summarize themes would be difficult; to itemize specifics, redundant. For me, the primary value of these two theme issues is confirmation of the entangled and confounding nature of critiques and alternatives. Control is shown to manifest itself through subtle mechanisms of power and influence as well as more explicit directives - and outcomes are shown to be often surprising. Straightforward responses are shown to be incompatible with the complex and uncertain situations that exist. I am reminded of Socrates. admonition that an unexamined life is not worth living - perhaps we could add that an unexamined critique or alternative is not worth promulgating. Yet even this comment requires a caveat: to acknowledge that even hind-sight will not be 20-20 and that looking forward will be much fuzzier. We can see various consequences of management, such as described in these papers, but cannot see the consequences of our current 'good' intentions.

Developing a ground? for radical praxis

Given a concern for sustainability - inclusive of ecological, social and ethical aspects - this paper considers possible ground for its manifestation. Beginning with a brief discussion of epistemology that points to the uncertainty involved in fully knowing or understanding 'reality,' the paper attempts to present a variety of perspectives. Regarding sustainability, possible causes and influences leading to environmental and social degradation described in the literature are discussed. Particular emphasis is placed on 'deeply ingrained driving forces,' 'institutionalized ignorance' and 'moralizing groups,' with a few examples from different authors.

Central to the paper, and forming the bulk of the discussion, is a survey and description of recent advances in systems theory and planning theory that may be relevant to understanding and manifesting a more sustainable and equitable world. Regarding systems theory, discussion includes brief reference to general systems theory and its more recent outgrowths: cybernetics, complexity, and self-organization. Particular emphasis is placed on discussion of autopoietic (self-producing) systems and sympoietic (collectively-producing) systems and their characteristics. Regarding planning theory, discussion includes reference to rational-comprehensive, participatory and communicative planning, as well as feminist, postmodern and Foucauldian critiques. Systems based planning approaches are also discussed.

Considering whether these recent advances are conventional or radically different leads to multiple answers, which are discussed briefly. Two themes that are emerging in both systems and planning are noted: recognition of complexity/uncertainty and encouragement of participation/deliberation. A third theme - reflexivity - is discussed through a sampling of different approaches, including critical theory, postmodernism, poststructuralism, Foucauldian critique and Marxism.

Throughout the paper, consideration is given to the notion of radical praxis - the linking of theory and action in a mutually constitutive fashion motivating fundamental change - which is seen as a potential means for manifesting sustainability. The potential for systems theory - in particular, self-referential poietic systems theory - to contribute to the development of radical praxis is briefly considered in the final section. While the discussion is far from conclusive, it begins to outline questions that might be addressed by deeper consideration of sympoietic systems, the subsequent consideration of boundarylessness and paradoxical self-observation, and the potential for radical praxis as embodied action assisting in the manifestation of fundamental change.

Developing a ground? for radical praxis - a continuation

Urban Living and Environmental Change: Fostering urban environmental management through civic process

Urban environmental management is increasingly recognized as a challenge that encompasses a range of issues and concerns. Coping with these challenges tends to follow conventional specialized and sectoral approaches; however, such approaches are insufficient for addressing the interconnected social, institutional, ethical, ecological and other factors that are involved. Introducing a theme issue of Environments, this paper discusses the Urban Environmental Management Project initiated through the Heritage Resources Centre at the University of Waterloo. In particular, the paper focuses on the motivation, challenges and lessons involved in the planning and implementation of a workshop series that brought together people with diverse backgrounds and expertise to discuss urban environmental issues and the potential for addressing them through civic processes.

Some Reflections on Civics and Civil Society as Grounding for Urban Environmental Management

The diversity, complexity and uncertainty of issues and concerns relevant to urban environmental management require new alternative approaches - especially for the interconnected processes of planning, decision-making and inquiry. This paper advocates explicitly addressing and encouraging these interconnections through the development of civic processes, by integrating interactive, interdisciplinary and participatory principles. Problematic aspects of participatory processes are noted, including variable conceptions of democracy, tension between "communicative" and "Foucauldian" perspectives and questions over knowledge and expertise. Examples from the Urban Environmental Management Project in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario are used for illustration. These examples also illustrate the challenges involved in integrating disciplinary knowledge and the importance of experiential learning. Drawing from discussion around civil society, this paper considers the benefits and identifies some key features of a civic - rather than a "participatory" - process for addressing urban environmental challenges.

Being organizationally ajar: an alternative heuristic for understanding change in system organization

A key aspect of systems-thinking is applying different ways of looking/understanding to the complex situations we are surrounded by and embedded within. My intention in this paper is to describe an alternative system concept that may offer such an opportunity, by questioning the construction of two distinct categories - organizationally closed vs. organizationally open systems. In studying behaviours and interactions of/in ecosystems and social groups, I find that neither absolute characterization offers adequate heuristic potential. While the notion of organizational closure provides a valuable heuristic for understanding many systems, and while other characteristics of autopoiesis - notably self-production and self-reference - provide valuable contributions toward understanding complex ecological and social systems, organizational closure seems somewhat misleading in these latter cases. In consequence, I consider the possibilities provided by also conceptualizing a middling category: What opportunities for understanding emerge from considering systems to be organizationally ajar? Ecosystems, for example, allow changes to their pattern of organization in a different manner than organisms do - such as through the incorporation of new species. While organisms can be characterized as organizationally closed, ecosystems are open-but-not-completely-open, hence, organizationally ajar. In this paper, further questions are offered for consideration, such as: What implications arise by rephrasing the open/closed question to become: to what entities/phenomena is a system open and to what is it closed? How does any system regulate inputs, and of what type? What are the implications of this different concept for the definition of boundaries in ecosystems and social systems?

Interactive Session: Questioning boundaries

For many system-thinkers, boundaries are a defining system characteristic and their delineation a critical and integral aspect of system identification. It is quite straightforward: No boundaries? Not a system. There are, however, many entities/phenomena we intuitively conceptualize as "systems" that do not have distinct or clearly definable boundaries. Ecological, cultural and knowledge systems provide examples. In these cases, specific criteria can be developed to usefully delineate "system" from "environment." Yet in some circumstances such delineation leads to inappropriate intervention or restricted understanding - even when the boundaries are clearly recognized as heuristics and defined as temporary, fuzzy, or permeable. Much North American forest management, racism, and strict disciplinary distinctions provide examples. Given that "systems" are conceptual heuristics developed to structure our understanding of phenomena/experience, is it possible and/or fruitful to develop a category of "systems" that are complex, self-organizing and boundaryless? Following the precedent set by a lively session at the ISSS-Toronto, the intent of this interactive session is to provide a forum for exploring the question of boundaries. A few short focus papers will be posted on the web prior to the conference and succinctly summarized at the beginning of the session. The emphasis, however, will be on discussion. This will be stimulated by a few key questions/positions that arise from the focus papers and/or from the floor. Intending to cover a range of issues and applications, questions could include the following:

• What are the constraints to relinquishing boundary delineation as a critical component of system description and identification? What opportunities emerge through such relinquishment?
• How often, and in what types of situations, are boundaries inappropriately interpreted as barriers, or as fixed entities? How often do fuzzy, flexible boundaries become rigid and constraining? If the notion of "boundary" is an unrelinquishable (i.e. defining) system concept, how can we prevent their inappropriate application and rigidification, especially when describing such complex systems as ecological, cultural and knowledge systems?
• What are the differences in how we think about organisms (as autopoietic systems) and ecosystems (as sympoietic systems)? What implications arise from considering ecosystems to be autopoietic or organisms to be sympoietic?
• Is it possible to "let go" of the notion of "boundary" without opening up to "everything"?
• What alternative understanding is offered by a focus on relations and interactions instead of boundaries? (Perhaps even if the notion of "boundary" is maintained?)

Developing adaptive management systems or Silencing the seductive siren of certainty

Conventional approaches to planning and management of natural resources have been based on expert driven, control oriented, management systems that rely on the certainty and predictability provided by scientific information. 'Adaptive management' has encouraged movement toward more collaborative, flexible approaches, yet the underlying basis is still the traditional 'scientific' approach: experimentation. Advocates suggest management intervention should be designed to gain new information - to increase certainty and to improve predictability. Although this describes a learning process, learning is focused on enabling managers (i.e. experts) to manage (i.e. control) using new knowledge (i.e. certain, predictable, scientific information). Based on an emerging conception of boundaryless systems, this paper supports an alternative notion of adaptive management. The focus turns inward, to consider planning and management systems themselves. I advocate and describe the development of systems that embody adaptive characteristics. In this paper, emphasis is placed on particular characteristics: supporting a degree of openness, working with distributed information, and recognizing uncertainty as an advantage that holds adaptive potential.

Sympoietic and autopoietic systems: A new distinction for self-organizing systems

Heuristics provide essential tools for understanding living systems, their characteristics and their behaviours. My intent in this paper is to describe a considerably different heuristic than the conventional tools. My motivation is a concern that heuristics based on the organism metaphor are often inappropriate and misleading for understanding complex systems. I propose a new concept based on an interpretation of ecosystems: sympoietic systems. These are complex, self-organizing but collectively producing, boundaryless systems. A subsequent distinction between sympoietic and autopoietic systems is discussed. This distinction arises from defining a difference between three key system characteristics: 1) autopoietic systems have self-defined boundaries, sympoietic systems do not; 2) autopoietic systems are self-produced, sympoietic systems are collectively-produced; and, 3) autopoietic systems are organizationally closed, sympoietic systems are organizationally ajar. A range of other characteristics arise from these differences. Autopoietic systems are homeostatic, development oriented, centrally controlled, predictable and efficient. Sympoietic systems are homeorhetic, evolutionary, distributively controlled, unpredictable and adaptive. Recognized as caricatures at ends of a conceptual continuum, these descriptions present a useful heuristic. By introducing an alternative to the organism metaphor, the conceptualization of sympoietic systems draws attention to many, often neglected, complex system characteristics. In addition, the heuristic provides a means for recognizing trade-offs between the two sets of characteristics that are associated with the two system types. These, and other distinctions, lead to a range of new questions that have significant implications relevant to understanding complex living systems. Since it is based on generic system descriptions, the heuristic can be applied to a wide range of situations, including social, political, economic and cultural systems. In this paper, brief application of the heuristic to describe organisms and ecosystems, different types of small groups, and different forms of inquiry indicate this potential.

Relinquishing boundaries: Developing a more appropriate conceptualization of complex systems

In order to prevent continued reliance on boundary delineation for system identification, this paper proposes a new means for conceptualizing complex self-organizing systems: the notion of sympoietic systems. In many complex biophysical and socio-cultural situations boundary delineation is - even when defensible criteria are applied - effectively arbitrary. In consequence, identification has often led to misunderstanding and mismanagement. Rather than force boundaries on systems to make analysis and understanding easier, and consistent with dominant modes of inquiry, planning and management, I advocate developing new concepts that enable recognition of the complexities, contradictions, and uncertainties that appear to exist. A critical question arises: If we relinquish boundaries, what other factors can be used to identify complex systems? In response, I propose the concept of sympoietic systems: complex, self-organizing but collectively-produced, boundaryless systems. Based on this concept, I explore alternate means of system identification, focusing on relations among system components and factors involved in system self-organization. Research has pointed to several key considerations, which are described in this paper. These include: degree of organizational closure, extent of structural coupling, interaction of global (directional) and local (constraining) influences, creation of dynamic tension, distinction between creative and transmitted self-organization, and the roles of history, information, feedback, redundancy, recursion and uncertainty. In addition, a contrast between sympoietic systems and autopoietic (self-produced, boundaried) systems provides an heuristic useful for understanding sympoietic systems. To ground the sympoietic systems concept, emphasize its general nature, and illustrate its potential application, a range of examples, including ecosystems, small social groups, and different modes of inquiry, are identified and discussed.

Exploring the human dimensions of ecological integrity - applying a systems perspective

Spatial cross-boundary influences are well recognized issues of concern for maintaining the ecological integrity of parks and protected areas. The intent of this paper is to extend the notion of ecological integrity beyond these spatial boundaries, but also beyond the conceptual boundaries that place primary emphasis on spatial, biophysical influences. Ecological stresses typically result from interactions among various aspects of the social, political, economic and cultural systems that parks and protected areas are embedded within. Concern for maintaining ecological integrity must address this wide range of influences. New heuristics able to promote such incorporation and extension must be developed. Drawing on emerging concepts from complex, self-organizing system theories, such a heuristic is presented in this paper. A conception of boundaryless systems is described by using ecological and social examples such as forest ecosystems, small groups and participatory planning processes. In such cases systems must be identified by recognizing the self-organizing factors that generate them. Based on this system conception, which forces recognition of various wide-ranging influences, critical factors relevant to understanding ecological integrity are presented. Of particular note are the interaction of underlying directional influences and local constraints, the magnifying effect of positive feedback, the importance of history, the potential for recognizing and accepting new and different types of information, and the potential for recognizing, accepting and encouraging evolutionary change. The focus will be on how an understanding of these factors can be used to identify the often neglected sectoral, institutional, economic and other socio-cultural influences on ecological integrity. A broad set of criteria for characterizing ecological integrity that arise from these considerations, are also presented. To ground the conceptual systems perspective, Point Pelee and Georgian Bay Islands National Parks, both located in south-western Ontario, will be used as examples to illustrate application of both concepts and criteria.

Relinquishing Boundaries: Metaphors for conceptualizing institutional systems

Planning for parks and protected areas is characterized by 'messy' and 'wicked' situations. Due to the complexity of these situations, we need sense-making devices - heuristics or models - that can aid in their conceptualization. Conventional approaches rely on delineating boundaries - boundaries between ecosystem types, political jurisdictions, disciplinary considerations, and more. Although such boundaries have been developed to reduce the complexity of intractable systems, they fail by excluding many critical factors. Such failures are indicated by many threats to ecological integrity, including fragmentation, invasion of exotic species, increased intensity of stressors, and loss of biodiversity. In order to cope, we need alternate heuristics that can help identify and inter-relate the wide range of factors influencing the systems of concern, including geological, ecological and socio-cultural factors.

Drawing on complex and self-organizing systems concepts explained through simple metaphors, an alternate heuristic is presented. Physical, ecological, and social examples relevant to Point Pelee and Georgian Bay Islands National Parks are used for illustration. Such examples emphasize the need to consider factors beyond park boundaries. In addition, since the heuristic can also be applied toward understanding park planning and management systems, the need for approaches that can cope with changing circumstances is reinforced.

The complex system characteristics described in this paper, then, have both evaluative and prescriptive potential. The heuristic can be used for matching systems of concern to appropriate planning approaches, and for indicating possible directions for change. In particular, relinquishing boundaries and incorporating self-organizing factors provides a tool that can be used to consider opportunities for developing more participatory approaches. Such approaches are especially relevant to situations involving influences beyond park boundaries.

Self-Organizing Systems Perspective on Planning for Sustainability

Current approaches to planning and management are inadequate for achieving sustainability. Complexities, uncertainties, and interconnections among natural and social systems preclude the possibility of predicting and controlling future outcomes, yet these qualities are implicit in many planning approaches. The rational-comprehensive model arising from the engineering paradigm, is increasingly questioned, but continues to underlie many planning processes. Achieving sustainability requires flexible, adaptive planning that is capable of recognizing uncertain futures, synergistic possibilities, differing perspectives, and multiple values.

The contrast between the two system types provides a useful heuristic for identifying and conceptualizing many complex systems that are relevant to planning for sustainability. The different characteristics illustrate the need to apply different approaches in different situations. The characteristics also illustrate that many of the systems we must cope with are sympoietic, although they have mistakenly been interpreted as autopoietic.

A variety of examples including small groups, western science, and national parks are used to illustrate the concepts and their application. The latter examples, in particular, are used to consider the implications of these systems concepts for planning. Such critique is relevant to the systems of concern to planning as well as the planning systems themselves. In addition, the concepts illustrate possibilities for developing more appropriate approaches. Both critiques and possibilities are discussed.

This thesis is primarily conceptual and makes no attempt to draw definitive conclusions. Its primary value is in presentation and description of two contrasting lenses that provide alternative views of the world, forcing recognition of system properties often neglected. In addition, its value lies in the system concepts described, the consequent potential for conceptualization and critique of many intractable situations, and, perhaps most particularly, for the possibility of considering new directions to pursue.

** The spelling of 'sympoiesis' here is different from that in the hard copy of my thesis. My initial spelling - 'synpoietic' has been altered to account for more 'correct' linguistic considerations. (With thanks to Ted Creese for noting the difference.)

Conceptualizing Complex Systems: A methodology for characterizing systems relevant to the planning and management of parks and protected areas

from the introduction

Western industrialized society is influencing the biophysical systems upon which humans depend at an unprecedented rate and scale (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991, Smith 1993, Funtowicz and Ravetz 1994). Parks and protected areas, representing a small portion of the landscape, are increasingly dominated by such influences (Parks Canada 1991a, Dearden and Rollins 1993, Agee 1996). As small islands in an altered landscape, parks can neither retain their own integrity, nor provide sufficient protection for biodiversity and essential ecosystem processes without recognizing the consequent impacts (Dearden and Rollins 1993, Agee 1996). Understanding, defining, and managing for ecological integrity must include an understanding of the processes underlying the emergence, evolution, and continuation of complex ecological and social systems. Parks and protected areas must be managed as components of the matrix by altering or incorporating relevant factors and influences from the wider social and ecological systems within which they are embedded.

This paper describes a methodology for recognizing, conceptualizing, and attempting to understand the complex systems relevant to the planning and management of parks and protected areas. It is based on new concepts emerging within science that relate to complex self-organizing systems. These systems have many components and interactions of many different types and appear to arrange themselves without the benefit of external influences. Examples include relatively simple physical systems such as rivers, living systems such as individual organisms and ecosystems, and complex social and cultural systems, including planning and management systems. An objective of the paper is to introduce basic concepts relevant to such complex systems. A further objective is to outline a methodology for identifying and conceptualizing them. The methodology is intended to augment the application of planning and management frameworks currently in use by providing a different perspective. In addition to providing a general understanding of complex systems themselves, concepts from complex self-organizing systems theory can be used to suggest directions for planning and management. This paper outlines a conceptual map to aid in choosing suitable approaches for coping with complex systems.

Relinquishing Boundaries: A self-organising systems approach for conceptualizing complex systems

Conventional approaches to planning and management with respect to natural and social systems rely on delineating boundaries - boundaries between ecosystem types, resource uses, political jurisdiction, academic disciplines and more. Such boundaries have been developed to categorize complex intractable systems that are too difficult to comprehend as a whole. Although categorization cannot be eliminated, I present an alternate by drawing on complex and self-organizing systems concepts: many natural and social systems can be identified by the factors that generate them. This recognition is particularly important for understanding synpoietic (together producing) systems. These are self-organizing systems that do not have clearly defined spatial or temporal boundaries.
Physical and ecological examples are used to illustrate key self-organizing factors. These include interactions between underlying directional influences and local constraints; the magnifying effect of positive feedback; the critical role of balancing point; and the importance of uncertainty, complexity, and historical momentum. Such constitutive factors can also be used for identifying and understanding socio-cultural systems. To demonstrate the broad applicability of these concepts, examples are brief. They include language, effective small groups, planning for national parks, and the influence of individual actions on climate change.
Relinquishing boundaries offers a perspective that not only reinforces the need for new approaches, but also indicates possible directions. The self-organizing factors and synpoietic system characteristics described in this paper have both evaluative and prescriptive potentials. In conclusion, I use these attributes to suggest opportunities for linking among systems and issues that are typically separated by boundaries.