IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v35y2013i1p32-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dealing with the uncertainties of climate engineering: Warnings from a psychological complex problem solving perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Amelung, Dorothee
  • Funke, Joachim

Abstract

Decision-makers in the context of climate politics are confronted with considerable uncertainties due to the complexities inherent in the relevant natural and social systems. Nonetheless, pressure on decision-makers to find solutions to dangerous climate change is rising due to the inertia in the climate system. Considering these pressures, technological options (climate engineering) have been proposed to counteract the effects of climatic change. However, introducing options that bear their own scientific uncertainties means further adding to the complexity of the situation. By adopting the psychological perspective of complex problem solving research, we analyze one frequently neglected source of uncertainty with regard to climate engineering: errors of the political problem-solver in his interaction with the situational demands of complex problems. More specifically, we examine the psychological sources for human error that are common in dealing with the uncertainties implied in this type of problem. We will conclude from the complex problem solving perspective that a consideration of climate engineering in the context of climate change can provide a dangerous illusion of controllability.

Suggested Citation

  • Amelung, Dorothee & Funke, Joachim, 2013. "Dealing with the uncertainties of climate engineering: Warnings from a psychological complex problem solving perspective," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 32-40.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:35:y:2013:i:1:p:32-40
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.03.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X13000110
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.03.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carlsen, H. & Dreborg, K.H. & Godman, M. & Hansson, S.O. & Johansson, L. & Wikman-Svahn, P., 2010. "Assessing socially disruptive technological change," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 209-218.
    2. Sterman, J.D., 2006. "Learning from evidence in a complex world," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(3), pages 505-514.
    3. Sterman, John., 1994. "Learning in and about complex systems," Working papers 3660-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2002. "A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk‐Based, Precaution‐Based, and Discourse‐Based Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1071-1094, December.
    5. Rob Bellamy & Jason Chilvers & Naomi E. Vaughan & Timothy M. Lenton, 2012. "A review of climate geoengineering appraisals," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(6), pages 597-615, November.
    6. Gregor Betz, 2012. "The case for climate engineering research: an analysis of the “arm the future” argument," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(2), pages 473-485, March.
    7. Marlos Goes & Nancy Tuana & Klaus Keller, 2011. "The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 719-744, December.
    8. Adam Corner & Nick Pidgeon & Karen Parkhill, 2012. "Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of ‘upstream’ engagement," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(5), pages 451-466, September.
    9. John Sterman, 2011. "Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 811-826, October.
    10. Gonzalez, Cleotilde, 2005. "Decision support for real-time, dynamic decision-making tasks," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 142-154, March.
    11. Carolyn Kousky & Roger M. Cooke, 2012. "The Value of Information in a Risk Management Approach to Climate Change," Springer Books, in: Ramanan Laxminarayan & Molly K. Macauley (ed.), The Value of Information, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 19-43, Springer.
    12. Lipshitz, Raanan & Strauss, Orna, 1997. "Coping with Uncertainty: A Naturalistic Decision-Making Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 149-163, February.
    13. Thomas Webler, 1999. "The craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 55-71, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sabrina Kirschke & Jens Newig, 2017. "Addressing Complexity in Environmental Management and Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Klaus, Geraldine & Ernst, Andreas & Oswald, Lisa, 2020. "Psychological factors influencing laypersons’ acceptance of climate engineering, climate change mitigation and business as usual scenarios," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paulo Gonçalves & Paolo Ferrari & Luca Crivelli & Emiliano Albanese, 2023. "Model‐informed health system reorganization during emergencies," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(5), pages 1323-1344, May.
    2. Anne van Bruggen & Igor Nikolic & Jan Kwakkel, 2019. "Modeling with Stakeholders for Transformative Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, February.
    3. Yang, Y. & Lin, J. & Liu, G. & Zhou, L., 2021. "The behavioural causes of bullwhip effect in supply chains: A systematic literature review," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    4. Michael Shayne Gary & Robert E. Wood, 2016. "Unpacking mental models through laboratory experiments," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(2), pages 99-127, April.
    5. Miles M. Yang & Hong Jiang & Michael Shayne Gary, 2016. "Challenging learning goals improve performance in dynamically complex microworld simulations," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(3-4), pages 204-232, July.
    6. Frerichs, Leah & Young, Tiffany L. & Dave, Gaurav & Stith, Doris & Corbie-Smith, Giselle & Hassmiller Lich, Kristen, 2018. "Mind maps and network analysis to evaluate conceptualization of complex issues: A case example evaluating systems science workshops for childhood obesity prevention," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 135-147.
    7. Carola Braun & Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: survey evidence," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 471-484, April.
    8. Margaret R Weeks & David W Lounsbury & Jianghong Li & Gary Hirsch & Marcie Berman & Helena D Green & Lucy Rohena & Rosely Gonzalez & Jairo M Montezuma-Rusca & Seja Jackson, 2020. "Simulating system dynamics of the HIV care continuum to achieve treatment as prevention," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-22, March.
    9. Lu, Jinfeng & Dimov, Dimo, 2023. "A system dynamics modelling of entrepreneurship and growth within firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 38(3).
    10. Martin L. Weitzman, 2015. "A Voting Architecture for the Governance of Free-Driver Externalities, with Application to Geoengineering," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 117(4), pages 1049-1068, October.
    11. Johannes Emmerling & Vassiliki Manoussi & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2016. "Climate Engineering under Deep Uncertainty and Heterogeneity," Working Papers 2016.52, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    12. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    13. Sridharan, Sanjeev & Jones, Bobby & Caudill, Barry & Nakaima, April, 2016. "Steps towards incorporating heterogeneities into program theory: A case study of a data-driven approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 88-97.
    14. Seth D. Baum & Timothy M. Maher & Jacob Haqq-Misra, 2013. "Double catastrophe: intermittent stratospheric geoengineering induced by societal collapse," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 168-180, March.
    15. Day Yang Liu & Wen Chun Tsai & Pei Leen Liu & Chung Yi Fang, 2021. "Determinants of sales revenue in innovation diffusion effects of Taiwan sports lottery during the FIFA World Cup 2018," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 10(4), pages 43-58, June.
    16. Wenjing Luo & Zhi Qiu & Yurika Yokoyama & Shengyuan Zheng, 2022. "Decision-Making Mechanism of Joint Activities for the Elderly and Children in Integrated Welfare Facilities: A Discussion Based on “Motivation–Constraint” Interaction Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-23, August.
    17. Hazhir Rahmandad & Nelson Repenning, 2016. "Capability erosion dynamics," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 649-672, April.
    18. Katarzyna Tworek & Katarzyna Walecka-Jankowska & Anna Zgrzywa-Ziemak, 2019. "The role of information systems in shaping integrative logic for business sustainability," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 29(4), pages 125-146.
    19. Ortwin Renn & Andreas Klinke, 2013. "A Framework of Adaptive Risk Governance for Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-24, May.
    20. Meri Duryan & Dragan Nikolik & Godefridus Merode & Leopold M. G. Curfs, 2015. "Reflecting on the efficacy of cognitive mapping for decision-making in intellectual disability care: a case study," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 127-144, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:35:y:2013:i:1:p:32-40. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.