One very interesting point raised in this essay and in Ostrom’s nobel prize speech is that complexity does not connote chaos. Rather, complexity is necessarily a component of a successful system. When I heard that in her speech, I did not fully understand what Ostrom was referring to, but her analogy in this essay greatly clarified the concept for me. She compares a social-ecological system to a human body, with all of the interacting variables equally contributing to the equilibrium of the system.
A human body needs so many different components to interact for a person to stay healthy. Each hormone and enzyme has to be in the right place at the right time, every neuron must be fired with precision.
The ten subsystem variables delineated in this paper are the components needed to keep the body running smoothly. Each component has its own seperable value, but the outcomes are derived from their interactions.
Whenever an author tries hard to clarify a subject in terms that I can appreciate, I am grateful.
The ideas in this paper are extremely relevent and important. It is so important that the consume population is allowed the opportunity to influence change. There is of course a risk in giving the public the control, but it may be the best way to implement policy, as opposed to allowing the government full control.