134
M. Bavinck and J. Kooiman
Kooiman argues that diversity “calls attention to the speci fi c and varying qualities
of actors and other entities. […] It is a source of creation and innovation, but also
carries the danger of disintegration” ( 2008 , 176). For the natural system, diversity
concerns features such as biological heterogeneity, species abundance, habitats and
ecosystem health. Notably, the composition of the species assemblage in these
ecosystems, the species richness and the status as rare, endangered, endemic or
keystone species have to be identi fi ed. For the socio-economic system, the issues of
diversity pertain to the composition of stakeholder groups in terms of their demographic pro fi le, their organization, vested interests, property and access rights, and
political orientation. Their capacity to in fl uence the way the system works is determined by the power they exercise, which may or may not enable governability.
Thus, what constitutes power (the capacity to ignore, exclude, marginalize or mobilize
other groups) is a central issue.
According to scholars in the fi eld of interactive governance, it is only through replication that systems-to-be-governed of high diversity can be adequately governed. They
follow Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety, which argues that only variety in governance can ‘destroy’ societal mimesis. Wilden ( 1987 , 192) has expanded on this idea,
adding a principle of ‘requisite diversity in representation’. He argues that it is not the
diversity of the whole system-as-a-whole that must be represented; rather a governing
system must be able to represent the basic types of variety found in the system-to-begoverned. Low diversity of a system-to-be-governed can be met by simple, unitarian
styles of governance, whereas high diversity necessitates varied approaches.
Complexity is related fi rst of all to how the natural system interconnects, how species interact, and how particular habitats (such as mangroves and coral reefs) contribute to the productivity of the system as a whole. This is the fi eld of systems ecology.
The complexity of the socio-economic system on the interactions among the actors
involved, their interdependency, collaboration and integration, which rests partly on
their “organic solidarity” (Durkheim 1964 ) , and the normative ties that exist among
them. Governance of the combined socio-ecological system is the topic of much
recent scholarly activity (cf. Berkes et al. 2003 ; Folke 2006 ) . According to Kooiman
( 2008 , 176), “complexity invites examination of societal structures, interdependencies
and interrelations and is a condition for combining interdependencies. The dif fi culty
is how to reduce it in an effective and responsible manner.” Kooiman ( 2008 ) highlights the problems involved in understanding complexity – in building an appropriate
image – and thereby also in fi nding a suitable response.
Generally speaking, Kooiman ( 2008 , 176) argues that dynamics “create the potential for change, but can have disruptive consequences.” The focus is on alterations
that occur over time, in the short as well as in the long term. They may involve both
internal and external factors. Climate change (e.g. temperature, weather patterns,
storm frequency and intensity) and invasive species are examples of natural system
dynamics. Socio-economic system dynamics include alterations in stakeholder
compositions, relationships, and interactions. Con fl ict and power differentials play
an important role. The relationship between the human and the natural sub-system
includes changes in use patterns or variations in the levels of extraction.
In acknowledging that uncertainty and risk are primary characteristics of
human-in-nature systems, it becomes necessary to revise our understanding of their
M. Bavinck and J. Kooiman
Kooiman argues that diversity “calls attention to the speci fi c and varying qualities
of actors and other entities. […] It is a source of creation and innovation, but also
carries the danger of disintegration” ( 2008 , 176). For the natural system, diversity
concerns features such as biological heterogeneity, species abundance, habitats and
ecosystem health. Notably, the composition of the species assemblage in these
ecosystems, the species richness and the status as rare, endangered, endemic or
keystone species have to be identi fi ed. For the socio-economic system, the issues of
diversity pertain to the composition of stakeholder groups in terms of their demographic pro fi le, their organization, vested interests, property and access rights, and
political orientation. Their capacity to in fl uence the way the system works is determined by the power they exercise, which may or may not enable governability.
Thus, what constitutes power (the capacity to ignore, exclude, marginalize or mobilize
other groups) is a central issue.
According to scholars in the fi eld of interactive governance, it is only through replication that systems-to-be-governed of high diversity can be adequately governed. They
follow Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety, which argues that only variety in governance can ‘destroy’ societal mimesis. Wilden ( 1987 , 192) has expanded on this idea,
adding a principle of ‘requisite diversity in representation’. He argues that it is not the
diversity of the whole system-as-a-whole that must be represented; rather a governing
system must be able to represent the basic types of variety found in the system-to-begoverned. Low diversity of a system-to-be-governed can be met by simple, unitarian
styles of governance, whereas high diversity necessitates varied approaches.
Complexity is related fi rst of all to how the natural system interconnects, how species interact, and how particular habitats (such as mangroves and coral reefs) contribute to the productivity of the system as a whole. This is the fi eld of systems ecology.
The complexity of the socio-economic system on the interactions among the actors
involved, their interdependency, collaboration and integration, which rests partly on
their “organic solidarity” (Durkheim 1964 ) , and the normative ties that exist among
them. Governance of the combined socio-ecological system is the topic of much
recent scholarly activity (cf. Berkes et al. 2003 ; Folke 2006 ) . According to Kooiman
( 2008 , 176), “complexity invites examination of societal structures, interdependencies
and interrelations and is a condition for combining interdependencies. The dif fi culty
is how to reduce it in an effective and responsible manner.” Kooiman ( 2008 ) highlights the problems involved in understanding complexity – in building an appropriate
image – and thereby also in fi nding a suitable response.
Generally speaking, Kooiman ( 2008 , 176) argues that dynamics “create the potential for change, but can have disruptive consequences.” The focus is on alterations
that occur over time, in the short as well as in the long term. They may involve both
internal and external factors. Climate change (e.g. temperature, weather patterns,
storm frequency and intensity) and invasive species are examples of natural system
dynamics. Socio-economic system dynamics include alterations in stakeholder
compositions, relationships, and interactions. Con fl ict and power differentials play
an important role. The relationship between the human and the natural sub-system
includes changes in use patterns or variations in the levels of extraction.
In acknowledging that uncertainty and risk are primary characteristics of
human-in-nature systems, it becomes necessary to revise our understanding of their