This is a topic of interest that will support my research into solving environmental conflicts. This article provides an overview of the characteristics and qualities of “wicked problems.”  

"The kinds of problems that planners deal with--societal problems--are inherently different from the problems that scientists and perhaps some classes of engineers deal with. Planning problems are inherently wicked (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 160)."

The idea of wicked problems first came to prominence in an editorial by C. West Churchman in Management Science (Churchman, 1967), in which he discussed a seminar by Horst Rittel, which Churchman (1967, p. B-141) described by saying that professor Rittel suggested, “the term 'wicked problem' refer to that class of social system problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing. The adjective ‘wicked’ is supposed to describe the mischievous and even evil quality of these problems, where proposed 'solutions' often turn out to be worse than the symptoms.” 

The essential challenge for planners is that the future is unknowable and yet choices must be made right now. What makes planning problems inherently wicked is the inability for rationalist approaches to keep pace with the complexity involved in those choices. Those who are called upon to guide society towards the future are in an extremely difficult circumstance. Not only does pure rationalism not solve our current problems, but society expects us to continue solving them under the industrial age rules (Rittel & Webber, 1973). 

Churchman (1967) and Wexler (2009) focus on the moral element of wicked problems with the simple proposition that, if a problem is wicked, it behooves a scientist to not claim to have solved it in situations where he or she has only tackled part of it. 

Failure to acknowledge incompleteness in the context of environmental conflicts can have dire consequences for humans and the environment. 

In defining wicked problems I will return to the source document, in which Rittel & Webber (1973) lay out a framework for planning in the context of a complex, post-industrial society characterized by increasingly more competing values and visions for the future. 

1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem: The description of any problem requires that one understand the possible solutions in advance, which is not possible with wicked problems. 

2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule: There is no end to a potential solution, because each step in that direction uncovers new challenges. 

3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad: Wicked problems are not characterized by truth claims, but by value claims. 

4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem: A current “solution” to a wicked problem will impact the system for years to come, so it is impossible to judge the solution on the basis of current outcomes. 

5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly: Unlike tame problems, every step towards a solution is irreversible. 

6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan: The set of all possible solutions is infinite and unknowable, and solutions may not be mutually exclusive. 

7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique: Even in situations that are similar, wicked problems will have unique characteristics that are essential to the eventual solution. 

8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem: Wicked problems are essentially nested loops of problems that are impossible to untangle, where disentangling one leads to a series of others. 

9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution: Unlike rationalistic scientific inquiry, there is no rule for determining the cause(s) of wicked problems because their complexity makes possible any number of competing causes. 

10. The planner has no right to be wrong: Scientists are allowed to be wrong in their hypotheses as long as they advance the search for truth, but planners are not looking for truth, they are trying to improve the world so they are liable for the consequences of their recommendations.

References

Churchman, C. W. (1967). Wicked Problems. Management Science, 14(4), B141–142. doi:10.1111/j.1601-5037.2012.00571.x

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4, 155–169. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01405730

Wexler, M. N. (2009). Exploring the moral dimension of wicked problems. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 29(9/10), 531–542. doi:10.1108/01443330910986306