Those situations are certainly relevant to 'wicked problems', yes. I grabbed a few highlights from what was formally a ten-point definition; Rittel and Webber m

Those situations are certainly relevant to 'wicked problems', yes. I grabbed a few highlights from what was formally a ten-point definition; Rittel and Webber managed to be impressively restrictive while still including a lot of problems. I think several of the rules they give imply wicked problems are likely, though not necessarily, multi-causal issues like you describe: 1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem. 2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule. 4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. 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. 8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem. 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. 1, 8, and 9 imply that the scope of wicked problems is undefined and linked to the choice of solution, so we should problems with multiple causes. 2, 4, and 6 imply that we can't be sure when a solution is adequately tested or a solution space is exhausted, so we can never eliminate the possibility that the solution is "all our measures plus one more." What's more, the difficulty of assessment means we might never know if a solved wicked problem was multicausal, or if the final measure which produced change might have sufficed on its own. And you're definitely right that multi-factor solutions are a big part of what makes this harder. It's not enough to run antismoking ads, or raise tobacco taxes, or implement black box warnings; it could always be some combination that mattered. And if you try all three and smoking rates drop, you can't backtrack to find out, because the problem might be hysteresic - what if the taxes stopped smoking, but the ads plus warnings prevent it? The implications for ongoing problems, from drug addiction to gun violence, aren't terribly comforting. Not only can we not try each solution, we can't be sure a measure we've already tried unsuccessfully is safe to dismiss.