Bardwell's Basics

So far, we have looked at several very different examples where an Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) approach might provide some improvements to the situation. The case studies show the diversity and complexity of environmental problems. It may be appropriate to turn now to some of the academic literature on the subject. Lisa Bardwell tackles IEM from the very beginning - problem framing. She has a PhD from the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and links human psychology to solving environmental problems. In "Problem-Framing: A Perspective on Environmental Problem-Solving" (1991), Bardwell argues that cognitive psychology and conflict management offer perspectives on problem solving that can assist people with addressing even the most complex issues.
Bardwell identifies that environmental problems are "complex, plagued with uncertainty and extremely political" and claims that often people are so overwhelmed by the magnitude of the issues that they become too confused and frustrated to actually take any action. To overcome these challenges, she gets inside the inner workings of the human brain to understand just how we solve problems. Bardwell argues that people have a limited capacity for information. She states that humans can typically process only "5 +/- 2" (or 3-7) packets of information at a time. She also talks about how people construct cognitive maps to help them organise and interpret information. These human limitations result in inadequate problem-solving tendencies that lead to solving the wrong problem, solving a solution, framing a problem so it can't be solved or trying to get agreement on a solution before there is agreement on the problem. Therefore, defining the problem effectively and understanding it is an essential stage of the problem-solving process and has a huge influence over what strategies are adopted later on in the process to address the issue. Bardwell goes on to discuss studies that have shown more effective problem solvers spend more time on problem definition and have better mental models or cognitive maps to draw on and work through the problem.
Bardwell takes this line of argument as a basis to offer some ideas on how to problem-solve more effectively using perspectives from both cognitive psychology and conflict management. She recommends staving off solutions, in favour of spending more time on a detailed problem definition. This can also be known as positional stances in conflict management. Bardwell suggests limiting information but to be wary of over-simplification of issues or encouraging advocacy. She also suggests choosing a level to manage the information and identifying the links between levels. Bardwell encourages the personalisation of environmental problems and here highlights the NIMBY responce. She argues that more tangible results will arise from issues that have clear links established to peoples personal situation. Bardwell suggests that imagery is needed to influence how we think about environmental problems and to inspire success. Finally, she argues that people need to develop a metacognition through an awareness of their own problem-solving process. She argues people should consciously adopt strategies to improve their problem solving abilities.
There is scope here to reflect on how these lessons might be applied to the three previous examples we have discussed. In the case of Lake Horowhenua, on the surface it appears the cause of the pollution is obvious. Why then has the community failed to initiate an action plan to restoring it. Have they really done their problem definition in a way that promotes community involvement? Have they rushed through the problem analysis to formulating solutions, assuming the issues were obvious and therefore forced stakeholders into positional stances? The article broadcast on TV and online does not provide the full information required to fully analyse these possibilities, however, it is likely that some or all of these pitfalls may be the reason why resolution has not yet been found.
Turning now to the Rolleston land-swap, it appears that the problem analysis process has not gained sufficient buy-in from local residents. Even if the council is convinced that the land-swap they have devised is the best solution, they have not managed to persuade others. Perhaps this is a good reminder that environmental problems involve people and cannot be solved with technical solutions alone. Part of the problem definition process is defining the problem from the perspective of all the stakeholders. An expert planner, no matter how technically proficient, cannot produce the best solution using only their professional knowledge. Community values, preferences, experiences and opinions need to be incorporated.
Finally, the post-diaster reconstruction planning in Pakistan. Problem-definition will play a huge part in this complex and tenuous situation. Unfortunately, pressure to find solutions to pressing humanitarian concerns may cause the problem analysis phase to be rushed and may need to be revisited. Perhaps there is an aspect highlighted here that Bardwells article did not draw out, that problem solving is not a linear process. There is requirement for the problem definition stage to be reviewed as the situation progresses. In post-disaster planning the circumstances are volatile and will quickly change in nature. Planning must deal with short-term emergency relief as well as plan for long term recovery. In co-ordinating such planning, the links between short-term and long-term issues must be made to ensure that immediate solutions do not aggrevate larger issues later down the track. Relocating displaced people, for example, may cause resource conflict in their allocated homes. Clearing away waste water, mud and debris may risk the spread of contaminants.
Bardwell's article definately provides plenty of material for reflection and discussion and provides an excellent basis to commence further investigation on IEM topics.