So far we have been learning a bit about the diversity and complexity of environmental problems. We have looked at three different real life problems that could be addressed using an IEM approach and we have considered two theoretical perspectives, first on problem framing and then on IEM according to Buhrs, 2009. However, I feel that although some IEM approaches have been discusssed, IEM still needs to be more clearly defined. This post will set about attempting to make the aspects of IEM clearer by developing an IEM criteria from some of the prominent literature.
As we learned earlier, Bardwell (1991) tackles IEM from the very beginning with problem framing. She argues that both cognitive psychology and conflict management offer useful perspectives on problem framing that can assist with addressing even the most complex issues. Defining the problem effectively and properly understanding it is an essential stage of the problem-solving process. It also has a huge influence over what strategies are adopted later on in the process to address the issue. Her argument here is that being able to problem frame will enable people to overcome barriers to action and increase the likelihood of developing successful solutions.
Cairns (1991) talks more about barriers, but first he defines IEM as:
“proactive or preventative measures that maintain the environment in good condition for a variety of long-range sustainable uses”. He is certain about the benefits of IEM insisting that they are obvious and asserts an IEM approach should be adopted to prevent environmental collapse. Other characteristics of IEM discussed by Cairns include coordinated control of all human activities, being able to achieve broad objectives both long-term and short-term, holistic approach, less emphasis on experts and an abandonment of the frontier mentality of ‘man against nature’. He advocates a management strategy focused on early warning and continual surveillance to intervene before issues escalate.
Bührs (1995) recognises that even the various approaches to IEM are not integrated and constructs a matrix to review them. The vertical axis consists of the environmental elements and the horizontal axis (the management axis) contains IEM approaches under three categories: (1) integrated interpretation efforts (knowledge, information and interpretations of the environment), (2) institutional integration (organisations, rules and procedures); and (3) policy integration. He goes on to argue that these integration efforts require still further co-ordination for effective implementation and builds a more encompassing framework for IEM. He provides guidance on implementation under three headings. The first is thinking politically. This recognises the people aspect of initiating collective action and change. People must be engaged through consultation, participation and collective deliberation and the process must be open, participatory and inclusive. The second heading is thinking analytically and laterally. This means recognising the spectrum of interpretations and explanations to problems and being able to identify the connections between various components. It is intended to develop a comprehensive understanding of issues and a more robust collective effort. The final heading is thinking practically and strategically. This is intended to focus efforts on ‘pressure points’ that can be influenced to produce significant effects and to avoid trying to do more than what is feasible.
In the conclusion Bührs 2009, he provides a concise definition of Environmental Integration as "the integration of an environmental dimension into all spheres of human thinking, decision-making, interaction, action and behaviour".
Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998) make their approach from an ecological perspective. They establish five clear criteria for integration: (1) inter-sectoral integration, (2) inter-governmental,(3) spatial integration, (4) science integration; and (5) international integration.
Born and Sonzogni (1995) present a relatively simple conceptual framework for IEM. They identify
four principal dimensions: (1) comprehensive, (2) inter-connective, (3) strategic and (4) interactive/coordinative. Comprehensive is taken to mean including all the biophysical, chemical and human parts of the ecosystem. Inter-connective is about addressing linkages between different components. Strategic is taken to mean a reductive or filtering process; meant to make planning more adaptive and anticipatory. Finally, interactive/coordinative is described as a process of bargaining and negotiation to achieve mutually desired objectives.
Antunes and Santos (1999) argue that IEM is a process that is required to achieve certain tasks being: (1) problem identification and assessment, (2) develop scenarios for possible environmental change, (3) sets priorities and goals (4) establishes measure and management instruments, (5) evaluation of policy performance; and (6) stakeholder involvement. They also remind us that the environmental problem is an important one and becoming increasingly urgent. Therefore, although integrated approaches need to have a long-term horizon they also need to set intermediary goals and install a sence of urgency.
As we learned earlier, Bardwell (1991) tackles IEM from the very beginning with problem framing. She argues that both cognitive psychology and conflict management offer useful perspectives on problem framing that can assist with addressing even the most complex issues. Defining the problem effectively and properly understanding it is an essential stage of the problem-solving process. It also has a huge influence over what strategies are adopted later on in the process to address the issue. Her argument here is that being able to problem frame will enable people to overcome barriers to action and increase the likelihood of developing successful solutions.
Cairns (1991) talks more about barriers, but first he defines IEM as:
“proactive or preventative measures that maintain the environment in good condition for a variety of long-range sustainable uses”. He is certain about the benefits of IEM insisting that they are obvious and asserts an IEM approach should be adopted to prevent environmental collapse. Other characteristics of IEM discussed by Cairns include coordinated control of all human activities, being able to achieve broad objectives both long-term and short-term, holistic approach, less emphasis on experts and an abandonment of the frontier mentality of ‘man against nature’. He advocates a management strategy focused on early warning and continual surveillance to intervene before issues escalate.
Bührs (1995) recognises that even the various approaches to IEM are not integrated and constructs a matrix to review them. The vertical axis consists of the environmental elements and the horizontal axis (the management axis) contains IEM approaches under three categories: (1) integrated interpretation efforts (knowledge, information and interpretations of the environment), (2) institutional integration (organisations, rules and procedures); and (3) policy integration. He goes on to argue that these integration efforts require still further co-ordination for effective implementation and builds a more encompassing framework for IEM. He provides guidance on implementation under three headings. The first is thinking politically. This recognises the people aspect of initiating collective action and change. People must be engaged through consultation, participation and collective deliberation and the process must be open, participatory and inclusive. The second heading is thinking analytically and laterally. This means recognising the spectrum of interpretations and explanations to problems and being able to identify the connections between various components. It is intended to develop a comprehensive understanding of issues and a more robust collective effort. The final heading is thinking practically and strategically. This is intended to focus efforts on ‘pressure points’ that can be influenced to produce significant effects and to avoid trying to do more than what is feasible.
In the conclusion Bührs 2009, he provides a concise definition of Environmental Integration as "the integration of an environmental dimension into all spheres of human thinking, decision-making, interaction, action and behaviour".
Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998) make their approach from an ecological perspective. They establish five clear criteria for integration: (1) inter-sectoral integration, (2) inter-governmental,(3) spatial integration, (4) science integration; and (5) international integration.
Born and Sonzogni (1995) present a relatively simple conceptual framework for IEM. They identify
four principal dimensions: (1) comprehensive, (2) inter-connective, (3) strategic and (4) interactive/coordinative. Comprehensive is taken to mean including all the biophysical, chemical and human parts of the ecosystem. Inter-connective is about addressing linkages between different components. Strategic is taken to mean a reductive or filtering process; meant to make planning more adaptive and anticipatory. Finally, interactive/coordinative is described as a process of bargaining and negotiation to achieve mutually desired objectives.Antunes and Santos (1999) argue that IEM is a process that is required to achieve certain tasks being: (1) problem identification and assessment, (2) develop scenarios for possible environmental change, (3) sets priorities and goals (4) establishes measure and management instruments, (5) evaluation of policy performance; and (6) stakeholder involvement. They also remind us that the environmental problem is an important one and becoming increasingly urgent. Therefore, although integrated approaches need to have a long-term horizon they also need to set intermediary goals and install a sence of urgency.
From the above literature review criteria is now established by drawing together the conceptual threads that overlap, interlink and complement. Below are the seven criteria identified:
(1) Good problem framing, prioritisation and goal setting. This criterion draws strongly on Bardwells’ (1991) work on problem framing. It also brings in the concepts on the subject discussed by Antunes and Santos (1999).
(2) Long-range, future focused and sustainable in approach in order to be predictive, proactive and preventative to anticipate issues and explore possible responses to scenarios before they develop. These concepts are discussed primarily by Cairns (1991) but are also alluded to by Bührs (1995) and Born and Sonzogni (1995).
(3) Practical, strategic and co-ordinating. The interpretation of this criterion is the one provided by Bührs (1995) which means using pressure points to make effective change. Born and Sonzogni (1995) also apply this reductive interpretation. The co-ordinating aspect draws on Kay and Alder (2005) and again from Born and Sonzogni (1995).
(4) Integration of policy and institutions. This criterion combines several concepts discussed by Bührs (1995, 2009) and several by Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998).
(5) Integration of knowledge and perspectives whilst being analytical and interconnected. This criterion has been developed from Bührs (1995) and Bührs (2009) as well as Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998). Parts of it also relate to Born and Sonzogni (1995) conceptual framework and Bardwells’ (1991) attention to cognitive psychology.
(6) Participative, consultative, inclusive approach with stakeholder involvement. This criterion is based partially on Bührs (1995) think political concept, but also Antunes and Santos (1999) IEM tasks as well as Born and Sonzogni (1995) attention to bargaining and negotiation. Bardwells’ (1991) attention to conflict resolution also links in here.
(7) Measurement and evaluation of performance. This is mainly discussed by Antunes and Santos (1999) but is considered particularly important to be one of the criteria.
The criteria is by no means exhaustive. There is no one solution to IEM and there are always other ways of defining or describing an integrated approach. However, the building of a criteria is a valuable process to go through as it encourages significant consideration and thought into what are the key elements of Integrated Environmental Management and how greater integration can be achieved. IEM is not just a philosophical exercise, it is a process designed to achieve sustainable outcomes. In the words of Barbies' other half Ken, "I'm interested in outputs!". So this criteria, can be used to develop a new approach or to improve an exisiting approach to be more integrated and to achieve better environmental outcomes for all. A process for developing an IEM approach can be outlines below:
(2) Long-range, future focused and sustainable in approach in order to be predictive, proactive and preventative to anticipate issues and explore possible responses to scenarios before they develop. These concepts are discussed primarily by Cairns (1991) but are also alluded to by Bührs (1995) and Born and Sonzogni (1995).
(3) Practical, strategic and co-ordinating. The interpretation of this criterion is the one provided by Bührs (1995) which means using pressure points to make effective change. Born and Sonzogni (1995) also apply this reductive interpretation. The co-ordinating aspect draws on Kay and Alder (2005) and again from Born and Sonzogni (1995).
(4) Integration of policy and institutions. This criterion combines several concepts discussed by Bührs (1995, 2009) and several by Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998).
(5) Integration of knowledge and perspectives whilst being analytical and interconnected. This criterion has been developed from Bührs (1995) and Bührs (2009) as well as Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998). Parts of it also relate to Born and Sonzogni (1995) conceptual framework and Bardwells’ (1991) attention to cognitive psychology.
(6) Participative, consultative, inclusive approach with stakeholder involvement. This criterion is based partially on Bührs (1995) think political concept, but also Antunes and Santos (1999) IEM tasks as well as Born and Sonzogni (1995) attention to bargaining and negotiation. Bardwells’ (1991) attention to conflict resolution also links in here.
(7) Measurement and evaluation of performance. This is mainly discussed by Antunes and Santos (1999) but is considered particularly important to be one of the criteria.
The criteria is by no means exhaustive. There is no one solution to IEM and there are always other ways of defining or describing an integrated approach. However, the building of a criteria is a valuable process to go through as it encourages significant consideration and thought into what are the key elements of Integrated Environmental Management and how greater integration can be achieved. IEM is not just a philosophical exercise, it is a process designed to achieve sustainable outcomes. In the words of Barbies' other half Ken, "I'm interested in outputs!". So this criteria, can be used to develop a new approach or to improve an exisiting approach to be more integrated and to achieve better environmental outcomes for all. A process for developing an IEM approach can be outlines below:
With the criteria and framework developed, the path to integrated environmental management should now be much clearer.
No comments:
Post a Comment