{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019740259740259742, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0015584415584415584, 'mean_word_length': 5.506756756756757, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Managing variance: Key policy challenges for the Anthropocene

Developing effective governance structures for the fair and sustainable use of benefits that flow from shared natural resources is arguably one of the defining challenges of our time. Addressing this challenge has been extremely difficult because the associated governance problem is multifaceted and multilayered. Governance structures must address at least three interrelated issues: (i) equitable distribution within and across generations of affordances for well-being; (ii) social dilemmas associated with providing shared infrastructure and preventing overexploitation of shared resources; and (iii) coping with deep uncertainty and variability that complicates decision-making and planning efforts. Addressing these issues will often require us, both as individuals and in groups, to act against our natural tendencies. Familiar examples related to the first two issues include delaying rewards for the sake of future outcomes and overcoming our aversion to the “sucker’s pay-off” to build sufficient trust to address social dilemmas. Recent work suggests that this is also true when coping with uncertainty and variability in benefit flows while sustaining them over the long term. Specifically, Carpenter et al. (1) develop an important set of ideas related to managing environmental variability that may cause two of our natural aversions to collide. The authors suggest that we must learn to live with a certain amount of variability if we want to enlarge the safe operating space for exploited ecosystems. Just as with delayed rewards, humans are averse to variability in benefit flows related to subsistence (2, 3). More challenging yet, because allowing variability in ecosystems may well involve reduced exploitation, we may be required to forego present consumption as well as tolerate variability to maintain a safe operating space for humanity.