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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment