Barriers to integration of disciplines and.. an IEM Framework

Into week 2 of the blog (moving on so fast already) and it feels as though we have covered a lot in a small space of time, but at the same time have made some valuable discoveries about integrated environmental management. The key one that I would like to highlight is to re iterate the point that in IEM systems we do not want to be driven straight into the solutions phase..... DEFINE the PROBLEM, DEFINE it CORRECTLY and CLEARLY! And DEFINE it as EARLY as possible!!

Other key things to consider with IEM:

·         Environmental problems described as wicked

·         Frames of reference and an interdisciplinary approach to problem definition are ingredients to problem definition

·         Metaphors can play a key role in problem definition and IEM as a whole

Some other authors have also (re) defined IEM…

Margerum and Born (1995) believe there are 4 substantive elements that define IEM. These are: holistic approaches considering the entire system; acknowledges interconnections in both physical & human systems; goal oriented; and it is strategic.

Margerum (1999) as an individual narrows IEM to more of a holistic & goal oriented approach to environmental management that addresses interconnections through a strategic approach.

Moving forward... are there any barriers to IEM??

If someone was to stop me walking in the street and said hey what is your take in this IEM concept? my first statement would be “start with defining the problem, and then go from there”. Yes so we have established that problem definition is the most fundamental and important concept in IEM (I am glad we have driven that message home). And then we go from there? Where do we go to? And is it as easy as that? Well no its not. Once the problem has been found/defined (correctly), the problem is not immediately solved. Why you may ask, and the answer is because there are many barriers to using IEM. In fact according to Cairns 1991, in Cairns and Crawford, there are 24 main barriers to integrated environmental management…

A brief outline of Cairns (1991) barriers:

1.       Institutions of higher education are primarily reductionist, not integrative

2.       IEM is to time consumptive (this also means money consumptive)

3.       Turf battles can be rampant within organisations

4.       Job insecurity is of paramount importance to all… (IEM may mean efficiency and job cuts if implemented)

5.       Many are unwilling to make compromises

6.       Short term profits are too enticing (no vision…)

7.       There is a “what has prosperity done for me” attitude

8.       IEM is hard work, and issues are not simple to resolve

9.       The uncertainty of the outcome is often highly unacceptable

10.   Standard of living becomes an issue at the global level with competition between developing countries and developed countries

11.   People strongly resist changes in lifestyle, these changes are needed (eg. Recycling, lower consumption of material goods….)

12.   Specialists can be narrow focussed and feel more comfortable working with “their own kind” rather than ‘foreign’ disciplines

13.   Differing value systems between general public and environmental despoilers are concerning

14.   The present attitude of use is a “right” of use that is not open for discussion or compromise

15.   Society is oriented towards growth rather than maintenance

16.   Often change is reactionary and usually only acceptable in the event of a crisis, not when the problem is manageable

17.   Many fear that management authority will be abused

18.   Others fear peer criticism of oversimplification

19.   Some believe that systems are too complex to permit any prescriptive legislation or professional endorsement slows or stops some scientists in their progress

20.   People turn off if they face complex issues

21.   Technical information is inadequate (lack of knowledge)

22.   Non specialists have difficulty determining which evidence is credible

23.   Inadequate IEM specialists

24.   Political process is oriented toward polarised issues rather than IEM

Four questions proposed concerning the barriers…

1.       Are all the barriers still relevant to IEM today?

In my opinion I believe that to an extent all these barriers do still apply in today’s environmental management. Some are more relevant than others but I wouldn’t say any are excludable.

For me, the most relevant today are:

·         Turf battles can be rampant within organisations

·         Job insecurity is of paramount importance to all… (IEM may mean efficiency and job cuts if implemented)

·         Many are unwilling to make compromises

·         Short term profits are too enticing (no vision…)

·         People turn off if they face complex issues

·         Political process is oriented toward polarised issues rather than IEM

·         Society is oriented towards growth rather than maintenance

2.       Are they all equally as important in IEM today?

Not all of the barriers are equally important; some carry more weight than others for sure. However, I believe that the importance of the barriers will be determined by what side of the fence you sit or how high on this fence you sit. Various institutions and disciplines will view things through a different lens.

For me the most important would be:

·         Inadequate IEM specialists

·         People strongly resist changes in lifestyle

·         Technical information is inadequate

3.       Could there be any additional barriers?

Why would you want any more? Is 24 not enough… but on a more serious note as I currently view this I cannot think of any more barriers. Perhaps this may change over the course of ERST 633!!

4.       Could the list of 24 barriers be reduced to a core set of barriers?

For sure these barriers could be clustered or framed into a core set… from class we came up with 4 main cores:

• Territorial
• Simplicity
• Status Quo
• Utility Maxi misers

There are ways around barriers but there are also many ways to challenge particular  barriers in order to proceed

A framework for applying IEM

An IEM matrix can encompass a broad range of initiatives and help us to understand the problem by resolving the ‘x’ and ‘y’ questions, this framework can be very useful in the initial stages of IEM. Buhrs (1995) created this initial IEM matrix however it has been adapted by Hughey & Montgomery into the following:

Notes:

·         On the environment axis, the main challenge is to manage all human action whilst considering the environment as a whole. We must there for look at the connections and relationships between the different classifications within the environment.

·         There are many approaches to interpreting the environment; however, none are perfect or totally comprehensive. The key challenge is therefore to use approaches which are contextually appropriate, based on informed judgement.

Cairns Jr., John (1991), “The Need for Integrated Environmental Management Systems”, Cairns Jr., John and Todd V. Crawford (eds.), Integrated Environmental Management, Lewis Publishers: Michigan, pp. 5-20.

Hughey, K. and Montgomery, R. (July 2012), Session 3 lecture notes

Margerum, R.D. and Born, S.M (1995), Integrated Environmental Management Moving from Theory to Practice, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 38, No. 3, 371-390.

Breaking the ice.. and Establishing the meaning of IEM, Problem Definition and Framing

Hello and welcome to my Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) blog. I’m George Enersen, a Masters of Environmental Policy student from Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand. One of the core papers for this master’s degree is on the topic of Integrated Environmental Management. This paper is taught over a period of approximately 12 weeks, and one of the assessment components is to write regular blog entries on learning’s and experiences from IEM, so here we are!

So what is IEM?

A good starting point is to establish what on earth Integrated Environmental Management is all about and how it can be defined. Without establishing this, from here on my entries may not make a lot of sense. Before elaborating on other peoples.. ideas, I personally relate to integrated management at this point in time as the bringing of many things together to work under an 'umbrella' to achieve the most optimal outcome...

From the first session in class it is discovered that like most other things in life, there are various definitions that can be used to describe or define what IEM entails. Although there is essentially no perfect definition for Integrated Environmental Management, we must remain open minded and respect authors’ points of view. Here I list some varying definitions with different focuses and approaches.

Buhrs (1995) depicts IEM as:

“... An approach to the management of the environment that takes into account its complex, multi- facetted, & interconnected nature.” (Buhrs 1995)

This is a theoretical approach that provides a particularly broad vision for what integration within environmental management may mean. This definition looks at the environment as a whole... something which could be considered as not separable. It recognises the complexity and interconnectedness of our natural systems.. 

Cairns & Crawford (1991):

“Coordinated control, direction or influence of all human activities in a defined environmental system to achieve & balance the broadest possible range of short- & long-term objectives.”

Here the focus of the authors is centred on the activities or the needs of human beings. This is not of a surprise after learning that the authors are of engineering backgrounds and a built environment perspective. The approach and or focus tend to be a practical one where it can be said that one’s feet are firmly on the ground. The definition fundamentally states that to achieve IEM, we must have coordinated control and influence of all human activities whilst balancing objectives. The inclusion of short and long term objectives is a credible aspect as it guides how environmental issues may be managed on different time scales. Take climate change for example; short term objectives may mean making incremental changes of ways of doing. These shorter term objectives may be easier to define and achieve but in turn may only make micro adjustments. Longer term objectives may be harder to achieve and may not be necessarily incremental. Long term objectives to improve the state of our changing climate may require fundamental (deep ecology) change.

Dixon & Easter (1986) - cited in Margerum & Born (1995)

“A process of formulating & implementing a course of action involving natural & human resources in an ecosystem, taking into account the social, political, economic, & institutional factors operating within the ecosystems in order to achieve specific societal objectives.” Dixon & Easter 1986; cited in Margerum & Born 1995)

Another practical approach where the feet are firmly on the ground, although compared to Cairns and Crawford (1991),  Dixon & Easter have included the focus of ecosystems and taken into account the social, political and economic (triple bottom line approach) factors that operate and contribute to the overall environment.

Why do we need IEM?

Some environmental problems (in fact most) are wicked problems, wicked problems are considered as problems that are very complex, long term and of a large scale which make them very difficult to solve. Some more traditional approaches to environmental management such as participatory management or top down/bottom up approaches are seen as too narrow, compartmentalised, uncoordinated and reactionary to environmental problems rather than proactive approaches (which would be preferable). To enable a more successful approach to solving these wicked problems, integration of a multiple of disciplines is needed...

So how do we begin to solve environmental problems? (even the wicked problems)

According to Lisa Bardwell (1991), how an environmental problem (or in fact any problem) is defined will determined how the problem is understood and how the problem will be approached.

After reading the Bardwell article (you should too if you haven’t already) it comes across to me to be plain logic that identifying the initial problem correctly is perhaps the most important aspect to solving environmental issues. It is also important that the scale of the problem is taken into account to ensure that all viewpoints or aspects of the problem are included; rushing the process of problem definition or solution may result in the most effective solution being overlooked. Like most things we do in life we manage to waste time along the way (even though we like to think we are always being efficient). A lot of time we spend solving environmental problems is also wasted for a number of reasons including but not limited to the following:

·         Solving the wrong problem

·         Stating the problem so that it cannot be solved

·         Solving a solution

·         Stating problems too generally

·         Agreeing on the solution before the actual problem has been agreed on

The discussion surrounding problem solving takes two approaches. Cognitive psychology as a theoretical stance and conflict management as a more applied stance, both of which can be reflected in the definitions of IEM provided above.

If there were two key points to always remember when attempting to solve environmental issues, these would be:

1.      Establish who will solve the problem- (ensure that the problem solver can be understood)

2.      What is the actual problem? - (Correct identification of the problem is essential)

Simon Swaffield (1998) (another IEM discipline author) applies the Bardwell ideas and concepts into the real world context with the help of using metaphors and framing. In my opinion I feel that Swaffields ideas are a progression on from Bardwell’s, where once the initial problem has been identified then the perspectives of people’s choices can be framed.

Using metaphors to describe problems comes into valuable use as it makes the unfamiliar become more familiar, it helps the unknown relate to environmental issues and get an idea or a picture in their mind regarding the problem. The metaphor of ‘Dirty Dairying’ has been an influential one and one that has stuck. This metaphor essentially carries the message that environmental degradation is attached to dairy farming. Framing is also a good method as it allows room for negotiations and choices to how individuals apply themselves to problems.

As it stands after lecture one… this is a framework for progressing with IEM….

It will be interesting to see how I may or may not develop this framework myself over the course of 12 weeks..

ReferenceBardwell, Lisa V. (1991), "Problem-Framing: A Perspective on Environmental Problem-Solving", Environmental Management Vol.15 No.5, pp. 603-612

Swaffield, Simon. (1998), “Frames of Reference: A Metaphor for Analyzing and Interpreting Attitudes of Environmental Policy Makers and Policy Influencers “, Environmental Management Vol.22 No.4, pp. 495-504