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
No comments:
Post a Comment