What Happens to Environmental Philosophy in a Wicked World?



What is the significance of the wicked problems framework for environmental philosophy? In response to wicked problems, environmental scientists are starting to welcome the participation of social scientists, humanists, and the creative arts. We argue that the need for interdisciplinary approaches to wicked problems opens up a number of tasks that environmental philosophers have every right to undertake. The first task is for philosophers to explore new and promising ways of initiating philosophical research through conducting collaborative learning processes on environmental issues. The second task is for philosophers to recognize the value of philosophical skills in their engagements with members of other disciplines and walks of life in addressing wicked problems. The wicked problems framework should be seen as an important guide for facilitating philosophical research that is of relevance to problems like climate change and sustainable agriculture.


Collective learning processes Sustainability science Wicked problems Environmental ethics Environmental philosophy 


  1. Allen, G. M., & Gould, E. M. (1986). Complexity, wickedness and public forests. Journal of Forestry, 84(4), 20–24.Google Scholar
  2. Arabena, K. (2010). All knowledge is indigenous. In V. A. Brown, J. H. Harris, & J. Y. Russell (Eds.), Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination (pp. 26–267). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  3. Aslin, H. J., & Blackstock, K. L. (2010). Now i’m not an expert in anything: Challenges in undertaking transdisciplinary inquiries across the social and biophysical sciences. In V. A. Brown, J. H. Harris, & J. Y. Russell (Eds.), Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination (pp. 117–129). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  4. Batie, S. S. (2008). Wicked problems and applied economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(5), 1176–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bawden, R. (2005). Systemic development at Hawkesbury: Some personal lessons from experience. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 22, 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bawden, R. (2010). Messy issues, worldviews and systemic competences. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice. London: The Open University.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, V. A. (2010a). Collective inquiry and its wicked problems. In V. A. Brown, J. H. Harris, & J. Y. Russell (Eds.), Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination (pp. 61–83). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, V. A., Harris, J. A., & Russell, J. Y. (2010). Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. Washington, DC: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, V. A. (2010b). Conducting an imaginative transdisciplinary inquiry. In V. A. Brown, J. H. Harris, & J. Y. Russell (Eds.), Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination (pp. 103–114). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  10. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callicott, B. J. (1987). Just the facts, Ma’am. The Environmental Professional, 9, 279–288.Google Scholar
  12. Callicott, B. J. (2009). The convergence hypothesis failed: Implicit intrinsic value, operational rights and de facto standing in the endangered species act. In B. A. Minteer (Ed.), Nature in common? Environmental ethics and the contested foundations of environmental policy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
  13. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Churchman, W. C. (1967). Wicked problems. Management Science, 14(4), B141–B142.Google Scholar
  15. Churchman, W. C. (1971). The design of inquiring systems, basic concepts of systems and organizations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue mapping: building understanding of wicked problems. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. David, K., & Thompson, P. B. (Eds.). (2008). What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agricultural biotechnology and Gmos. Amsterdam: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Elliott, K. C. (2010). Is a little pollution good for you?. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Elliott, K. C. (2007). Norton’s sustainability: Political, not metaphysical. Environmental Ethics 29, 3–22.Google Scholar
  20. Ferkany, M., Whyte, K. P. (2011). The importance of participatory virtues in the future of environmental education. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, OnlineFirst.Google Scholar
  21. Fischer, F. (1993). Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foss, J. E. (2008). Beyond environmentalism: A philosophy of nature. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Freeman, D. M. (2000). Wicked water problems: sociology and local water organizations in addressing water resources policy. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 36(3), 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harmon, M., & Mayer, R. (1986). Organizational theory for public administration. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  25. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems—A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Lach, D., Rayner, S., & Ingram, H. (2005). Taming the waters: Strategies to domesticate the wicked problems of water resource management. International Journal of Water, 3(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lazarus, R. (2009). Super wicked problems and climate change: Restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell Law Review, 94, 1153–1234.Google Scholar
  29. Minteer, B. A., & Taylor, B. P. (Eds.). (2002). Democracy and the claims of nature: critical perspectives for a new century. New York, NY: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  30. Mitchell, G. H. (1980). Images of operational research. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 31(6), 459–466.Google Scholar
  31. Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Parissi, C. (2010). Truth, knowledge and data: A study of truth-building in organizational change. In V. A. Brown, J. H. Harris, & J. Y. Russell (Eds.), Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination (pp. 204–213). Earthscan: London.Google Scholar
  33. Rith, C., & Dubberly, H. (2007). Why Horst WJ Rittel matters. Design Issues, 23(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rittel, H. W. J. (1972). On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the first and second generations. Bedriftskonomen, 8, 390–396.Google Scholar
  35. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roberts, N. C. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review, 1(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  37. Russell, J. Y. (2010). A philosophical framework for an open and critical transdisciplinary inquiry. In V. A. Brown, J. A. Harris, & J. Y. Russell (Eds.), Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination (pp. 31–60). Washington, DC: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  38. Salwasser, H. (2004). Confronting the implications of wicked problems: Changes needed in Sierra Nevada National forest planning and problem solving. In D. D. Murphy, & P. A. Stine (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada Science Symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-193 (pp. 7–22). Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  39. Schoonveldt, J. (2010). Applying specialized knowledge. In V. A. Brown, J. H. Harris, & J. Y. Russell (Eds.), Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination (pp. 139–147). London and New York: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  40. Thompson, P. B. (1996). Pragmatism and policy: The case of water. In A. Light & E. Katz (Eds.), Environmental pragmatism (pp. 187–208). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Thompson, P. B. (2002). Why food biotechnology needs an opt out. In B. Bailey & M. Lappé (Eds.), Engineering the farm: Social and ethical aspects of agricultural biotechnology (pp. 27–44). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  42. Thompson, P. B. (2003). Value judgments and risk comparisons: The case of genetically engineered crops. Plant Physiology, 132, 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thompson, P. B. (2010). The agrarian vision: Sustainability and environmental ethics. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Turnpenny, J., Lorenzoni, I., & Jones, M. (2009). Noisy and definitely not normal: responding to wicked issues in the environment, energy and health. Environmental Science and Policy, 12, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilson, K. A., & Morren, G. E. B., Jr. (1990). Systems approaches for improvement in agriculture and natural resource management. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations