COMPLEXITY AND CONTINGENCY: UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGING COMPLEX WATER PROBLEMS

Shafiqul Islam

Abstract

While classical scientific methods seek generalizable and predictable solutions, these methods do not work for complex problems where solution spaces are neither well bounded nor predictable. A key challenge for many water problems — such as allocation between competing uses, providing access to water in urban slums or creating water-sharing arrangements between riparian countries — is that outcomes from interventions are not predictable due to the dynamic nature of interactions and interdependencies of complex water systems. An interdisciplinary understanding of different schools of thought from complexity science can provide a pragmatic way to diagnose sources of complexity, identify intervention points and develop equitable and sustainable solutions for complex water-management problems. Here we provide an overview of key concepts from complexity science and use a case example to illustrate how to operationalize complexity thinking to address a complex water allocation problem. This case example of water sharing between Israel and Jordan demonstrates how the creation of an actionable space with a commitment to collaborative adaptive management can produce a relatively sustainable water agreement. To manage complex water problems, we need to reframe traditional specify-design-implement to a try-select-adapt management approach. Instead of searching for optimal solutions to address complex problems we need to look for optimal space where certain solutions are actionable given the constraints the context imposes.

Introduction

This introductory chapter is intended to provide a broad overview of complexity science from multiple domains of knowledge (e.g., Anderson et al. 1988; Nicolis and Prigogine 1989; Lewin 1992; Kauffman 1993; Mainzer 1994; Bar-Yam 1997; Cilliers 1998; Maguire et al. 2006; Maguire 2011). A cursory look around this vast body of literature in complexity sciences shows incredible diversity in terms of ontological and epistemological assumptions, foundational concepts, levels of analysis, research methods and so on. Clearly, there are important differences among the approaches followed by disciplinary groups but, among these examples, the within-group differences are much smaller compared to the differences between groups. In this chapter we focus on broad ways of thinking about the different faces of complexity: numbers and narratives; models and meanings; objective and interpretive. Clearly, the boundary between these domains (e.g., numbers and narratives) is not as sharp as implied; in addition, the breadth and depth of scholarship within each domain suggest that a comprehensive synthesis may not be attainable. Our goal is not to provide a complete description of the multifaceted reality but to develop an interdisciplinary understanding of these two broad ways of thinking about complexity. We hope an interdisciplinary understanding of different schools of thought from complexity science can provide a pragmatic way to diagnose sources of complexity, identify intervention points and develop equitable and sustainable solutions for complex water-management problems. This chapter is organized in three sections: Understanding Complexity; Understanding Complexity of Water; and Managing Complexity of Water Resources.

Understanding Complexity

From Clock to Confusion: Origin of Complexity

We desire clocklike precision, clear certainty, deterministic prediction, and explicit knowledge to guide us in making objective choices and decisions about the future. Yet, the world that we live in is filled with confusing signals; uncertainty and randomness are everywhere, and many of our choices and decisions are guided by tacit knowledge and subjective interpretations where numbers and narratives often collide to reinforce perceptions and create meaning.

Is there one or multiple world(s) and worldview(s)? Is there a difference between world(s) and worldview(s)?

These are age-old philosophical questions without definitive answers; yet, they have practical implications in our everyday life. Do we live in one world or multiple worlds? Differences in thinking about and acting in these singular and multiple worlds with competing — and often conflicting — worldviews create complexity. These are not new problems; in fact, many of the important problems were (are), indeed, complex, and wise people knew (know) how to deal with them. For centuries, stories and metaphors have crystallized wisdom of complexity through cultures and continents using narratives — think about the story of blind men and the elephant from the Indian subcontinent, the fable of the...