Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World: The Case of Climate Change

Abstract

Successful solutions to pressing social ills tend to consist of innovative combinations of a limited set of alternative ways of perceiving and resolving the issues. These contending policy perspectives justify, represent and stem from four different ways of organizing social relations: hierarchy, individualism, egalitarianism and fatalism. Each of these perspectives: (1) distils certain elements of experience and wisdom that are missed by the others;(2) provides a clear expression of the way in which a signifi cant portion of the populace feels we should live with one another and with nature; and (3) needs all of the others in order to be sustainable. ' Clumsy solutions ' -policies that creatively combine all opposing perspectives on what the problems are and how they should be resolved -are therefore called for. We illustrate these claims for the issue of global warming.Most climatologists agree that by burning fossil fuels and engaging in other forms of consumption and production we are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases that fl oat around in the atmosphere. These gases, in trapping some of the sun ' s heat, warm the earth and enable life. The trouble is,

Reductionist and integrative research approaches to complex water security policy challenges

“…Analytical approaches to complexity that appreciate social diversity can thus supplement locally relevant blends of adaptation as well as appropriate (if "clumsy") infrastructure and technology (see e.g. García et al, 2014: Ch 4;Matthews et al, 2011;Palmer, 2010;Verweij and Thompson, 2006). For example, combined storage options are more adaptable than single storage systems, and hence provide better 'security' against the vagaries of rainfall (McCartney and Smakhtin, 2010).…”

A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than needed

“…Because of different and sometimes conflicting individual and group cultures, values, and experiences, there are many divergent perceptions about the risk of climate change impacts Leiserowitz 2006;Verweij et al 2006). This can lead to polarization and gridlock surrounding decisions about how to prepare for long-term climate variability and change.…”

“…Some think climate adaptation and mitigation are top priorities, and others do not Kahan et al 2011;Renn 2011). It is critical to move beyond this gridlock and create collaborative and inclusive processes for implementing climate adaptation (Doria et al 2009;Renn et al 2011;van Aalst et al 2008;Verweij et al 2006). Currently, a dearth of experience integrating local knowledge and needs with traditional scientific information has impeded adaptation activity and capacity building in many parts of the nation (Lackstrom et al 2012;McNeeley 2012).…”

“…Research is needed on how to reduce this barrier by, for example, fostering coordination and better communication and sharing of knowledge among fragmented governing structures and stakeholders. Understanding the dynamics of governance and institutional structures (including the influences of multiple and sometimes conflicting risk perceptions, cultures, values, and ideas about how to govern the economy and environment) is critical to adaptation concerning complex environmental resource problems such as climate change (Lemos and Agrawal 2006;Verweij et al 2006). Ongoing research that supports, sustains, and identifies criteria for best practices for building governance and institutional capacity to anticipate and respond to climate change is imperative (Bierbaum et al 2007;Kareiva 2008).…”

The latest iteration of IPCC uncertainty guidance—an author perspective

“…This is a useful strategy for tame risks but breaks down in complex policy settings. Furthermore, a rich literature warns against using inflexible top-down policy frames to manage or communicate complex policy situations (e.g., Chaffee 1985; Hart and Banbury 1994;Lindblom 1959;Simon 1976), in favor of a multiple-strategy approach, which is spreading into climate change scholarship (Dessai et al 2009;Hulme 2009;Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002;Verweij et al 2006;van Der Sluijs et al 2008). Scientific paradigms that combine theory, social practice and application (after Masterman 1970) are very different to decisionmaking paradigms that combine scientific knowledge with other knowledge.…”