Wicked Problems in Natural Hazard Assessment and Mitigation
Abstract
Social scientists have defined "wicked" problems that are "messy, ill-defined, more complex than we fully grasp, and open to multiple interpretations based on one's point of view... No solution to a wicked problem is permanent or wholly satisfying, which leaves every solution open to easy polemical attack." These contrast with "tame" problems in which necessary information is available and solutions - even if difficult and expensive - are straightforward to identify and execute. Updating the U.S.'s aging infrastructure is a tame problem, because what is wrong and how to fix it are clear. In contrast, addressing climate change is a wicked problem because its effects are uncertain and the best strategies to address them are unclear. An analogous approach can be taken to natural hazard problems. In tame problems, we have a good model of the process, good information about past events, and data implying that the model should predict future events. In such cases, we can make a reasonable assessment of the hazard that can be used to develop mitigation strategies. Earthquake hazard mitigation for San Francisco is a relatively tame problem. We understand how the earthquakes result from known plate motions, have information about past earthquakes, and have geodetic data implying that future similar earthquakes will occur. As a result, it is straightforward to develop and implement mitigation strategies. However, in many cases, hazard assessment and mitigation is a wicked problem. How should we prepare for a great earthquake on plate boundaries where tectonics favor such events but we have no evidence that they have occurred and hence how large they may be or how often to expect them? How should we assess the hazard within plates, for example in the New Madrid seismic zone, where large earthquakes have occurred but we do not understand their causes and geodetic data show no strain accumulating? How can we assess the hazard and make sensible policy when the recurrence of earthquakes, floods, or hurricanes seems to be changing with time or is expected to do so due to human activity? A starting approach might be to assess what we know, what we don't know, what we think, and what can be done that might improve this situation. We should draw on what is known in other areas of risk assessment including social science, meteorology, engineering, and economics.
- Publication:
-
AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts
- Pub Date:
- December 2017
- Bibcode:
- 2017AGUFMNH41E..01S
- Keywords:
-
- 4313 Extreme events;
- NATURAL HAZARDS;
- 4315 Monitoring;
- forecasting;
- prediction;
- NATURAL HAZARDS;
- 4328 Risk;
- NATURAL HAZARDS;
- 6309 Decision making under uncertainty;
- POLICY SCIENCES