The importance of the method in problem-solving

In March 2025, the Brescia municipality kicked off efforts for the “Plan for Air and Climate (PAC)” with a series of events.

Events were mainly organised to be in-person, and obtaining information to join virtually was somewhat tricky. Retrieving information by visiting the official websites from outside Italy was not the smoothest experience. As of October 2025, access from abroad to official websites still seems impossible. Eventually, things worked out one way or another, and AirQ managed to successfully attend the session on 27th March. This post is to share some high-level and general considerations relevant to AirQ, following the report that was shared after the first round of events.

Before moving forward, a consideration that links to the title of the post is important.

In most, if not all, contexts the energy is limited. Being highly focused on something might bring efficiency and possibly a degree of pragmatism, but this is at the expense of distributing energy in different directions. This is not intended to highlight a dichotomy, but rather to observe that in some contexts a more generalist approach could be beneficial. The case in point here is that this is very much true when interacting with the environment. An iterative, step-by-step approach is not necessarily in contradiction with a generalist approach; I perceive something, assess the situation to some extent, and decide which step to take next. A reference here might be the OODA loop, but there have certainly been evolutions and, even more relevant, “generalist” as intended in this post is not opposed to “customisable”, as they possibly refer to different concepts. All of this is something that could be expanded and researched much further. One valuable remark, however, is that deciding whether to take action or not is deeply rooted in motivation and reasons for being and doing.

Going back to the topic of the post, what follows is a list of interesting takeaways from the PAC report, along with some comments:

• There is clearly more perceived attention to the approach, but little is said about an important area: digitalisation and technology. There is a nuanced perspective here. It is important not to attempt to solve social and environmental problems as if they were technical problems, but nonetheless, technology is an extremely important supporting tool. In the report, there are sparse references to digital means (see points below), but it should be stressed more that points like the monitoring or the quantitative assessments of the effects of the actions need to be considered from a digital and technological point of view.

• Without going too much into detail at this stage, it is a very good indicator to see references to "systems creation" and "cities not as closed systems but as complex ones". On the other hand, this calls for caution; profound knowledge and transparent discussions about processes and methods are key factors.

• Regarding the creation of "predictive scenarios": Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) cannot be predicted because of emergence and constant novelty. The issue is not methodological in itself (i.e., "the continuous change of methodologies for estimation of emissions"), but rather ontological: predictability is difficult because of the number of interactions between the components of the CAS, which leads to emergence. This is extremely important for complexity and non-linear systems.

• "It also emerged that there is a need to adopt the paradigm of complexity as a working methodology: that is, not to analytically break problems down but to relate their components. It is noted that tools and models different from the usual ones are needed to adopt an attitude capable of living with scenarios of greater uncertainty." These are important points where extreme caution is needed. There might not be anything intrinsically wrong with reductionist approaches. Complexity-informed approaches must still be analytically rigorous. From experience, it seems improbable that such an articulated need emerged; the risk here is to lose connection to the authenticity of the experience of the events when trying to codify the output.

• A key concept, taken from the report of the meeting with the economic actors: "Need to adopt a systemic and integrated approach to the issue of air quality and its impacts on public health, as indicated by university experts and members of the Brescia Medical Association. It was stressed that it is essential to identify measurable indicators and parameters to effectively assess the impact of anti-pollution policies on the health of the resident population. In this context, the European Union’s Zero Pollution Action Plan was cited, which for the first time introduces a clear quantitative health objective: to reduce premature deaths linked to pollution by 55% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels."

• From the section of the report with third-sector associations: "Creation of apps to inform citizens about real-time PM10 levels, supporting more sustainable mobility choices and helping people make their daily decisions and protect their health." This is extremely important and this is where, as stated in the first bullet point, more attention to topics like digitalisation and technology is of the essence.

• Regarding health and education, from the report: "Some consider it necessary to make the negative impact of pollution on people’s health (as well as on ecosystems and environmental media) visible and understandable to citizens — for example, the estimated loss of months of life in the Po Valley — to give a precise view of the cause–effect relationships between our actions and the risks we run, and to foster deeper awareness. Emphasis was also placed on the centrality of a participatory and community awareness approach, to simultaneously support changes in individual behaviours and lifestyles, promoting collaboration by everyone in the fight against pollution, starting with citizens and businesses. The example was given of reducing the use of fireplaces and changing mobility habits, stating that it is necessary to ask which regulations can help trigger virtuous behaviours in these areas, which are among those with the greatest impact on air quality." This is another extremely important point, but once again caution is needed. Complex Adaptive Systems are non-linear and causal relationships might not even be visible. Participatory approaches are definitely of value, but they require a high degree of engagement and openness from all participants. Resorting to norms to induce changes in behaviour might be a slippery slope and it also seems to put excessive focus on people’s behaviour when it comes to air quality issues, when this might not be the case.

Exploring in depth the above points is in itself a complex process but it certainly constitutes a starting point.

One closing reflection regarding plans with a long horizon: it is important to keep in mind that value can only be assumed until it is delivered, and the only real test is when the value is delivered to stakeholders. It seems that this calls for what could be framed as the constant measurement of value.

Image created by the author with the help of AI