Category: IEM theory

Hello friends!

We’re back with another instalment of IEM theory. This week, we are going to discuss the concept of Gifting and Gaining (G&G) and an example of it in practice.

G&G is a concept that reframes ‘losses’ for stakeholders as ‘gifts’ and defines ‘gains’ as positives that can be enjoyed and shared by stakeholders and the environment. The concept frames trade-offs as acceptable losses for the greater good. It demonstrates the importance of framing and the impact it can have on environmental management.

The concept of G&G has been a part of several environmental management projects, such as the development of the Kaikōura Marine Reserve. The Kaikōura Marine Reserve was first proposed off the back of a nationwide campaign encouraging the increase of marine reserves in Aotearoa New Zealand’s waters. The aim of the campaign was (and still is) to have 10% of the country’s coastal-marine environment in reserves. A marine reserve operates as a conservation tool, protecting all components of a marine ecosystem, helping to conserve biodiversity and allowing ecosystems to return to a more natural state (DOC, n.d.).

Forest & Bird submitted a proposal for a marine reserve on the Kaikōura Peninsula in 1992 (which did not eventuate). The proposal generated debate amongst stakeholders in the area – commercial and recreational fishers, iwi, local authorities, and the community. The significance of the area, overfishing issues and the appropriateness of the proposal were at the forefront of discussions. As there was no coordinated institutional or policy response to these concerns, there was no process to develop a problem-solving framework. A lack of exploration into other options resulted in people falling into a ‘goal trap’.

G&G was applied to address the environmental problems through the consideration and understanding of multiple stakeholder perspectives. This problem framing (Bardwell, 1991) considered social, cultural, economic and environmental concerns (TKTTM, 2011). This process facilitated the collaborative environment for discussions that generated consensus amongst stakeholders to work towards a common goal (Margerum and Born, 1995).

Eventually, a marine reserve was established in Kaikōura. With the framework of G&G, the impasse between stakeholders and iwi was addressed. G&G became a part of every discussion and other barriers (Cairns, 1991) such as non-statutory plans for Kaikōura’s coastal resources were developed.

G&G is most effective in the solution space of the IEM process, as it can guide the identification and implementation of resolutions to environmental problems. While G&G is beneficial, it is still faced with several barriers to widespread implementation (Borrie et al., 2020).

 

References

Bardwell, L.V.  (1991). Problem-framing: A perspective on Environmental Problem-Solving. Environmental Management, 15:603-612.

Borrie, A., Brown, I., Butterfield, K., Driver, T., Gear, S., Nevin, S., Shirley, L., & Wijesinghe, R. (2020). Gifting and Gaining: Theory, Application, and Linkages with Integrated Environmental Management. https://www.learn.lincoln.ac.nz

Cairns, J. (1991). The Need for Integrated Environmental Systems Management [book chapter]. In Cairns, J. and Crawford, T.V. (ed.), Integrated Environmental Management. Lewis Publishers

Department of Conservation (DOC). (n.d.). Type 1 Marine Protected Areas – Marine reserves. Department of Conservation. https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/habitats/marine/type-1-marine-protected-areas-marine-reserves/purpose-and-benefits/

Te Korowai o Te Tai ō Marokura (TKTTM) (2011). Te Korowai: Strategy.  http://www.manu-ao.ac.nz/massey/fms/manu-ao/documents/Te%20Korowai%20Strategy%20- %20JPirker.pdf?0706724C78B9E36CF719A3C36253FFD7.

Margerum, R.D. and Born, S.M. (1995). Integrated Environmental Management: Moving from theory to practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 38(3).

Hello friends!

To build on our understanding of IEM, we can lean into Cairns’ (1991) definition of “coordinated control, direction, or influence of all human activities in a defined environmental system to achieve and balance the broadest possible range of short and long term objectives”. He then goes on further to explain that IEM is not fragmented decision-making and does not prefer short-term or single-focused goals.

So far we have discussed the theory behind the application of IEM. In reality, IEM is not always easily implemented. Barriers can hinder the planning and implementation of environmental projects. Today, we will focus on Cairns’ (1991) Barriers to Integrated Environmental Management. A brief summary of the 24 barriers he identified are as follows

1. Institutions of higher education are primarily reductionist
2. IEM requires time and money resources
3. Organisations withhold information from each other – turf battles run rampant
4. Risk of job security
5. Many are unwilling to compromise
6. Short-term profits are enticing
7. Lack of consideration for future generations
8. Complexity of IEM
9. Outcome uncertainty
10. Developing countries aspire to the lifestyles of developed countries
11. Resistance to lifestyle changes by society
12. Specialists working in silos
13. Fears the general public does not have the same value system
14. The present use of a resource is considered a right
15. Society is structured toward growth
16. Change is only accepted in a crisis
17. Fear management authority will be abused
18. Fear of peer criticism of oversimplification
19. The belief that systems are too complex for prescriptive legislation
20. People disconnect when faced with complex issues
21. Inadequate technical information
22. Difficulty determining credible evidence
23. Inadequate IEM professionals
24. Current political processes orient toward polarized issues over IEM

The barriers above can be classified as capacity or resource-based, societal attitudes, economic factors, political processes and institutional arrangements. It is important to be aware of barriers and how they can affect the implementation of IEM so plans can be created to mitigate effects.

 

References

Cairns, Jr, J. (1991). The Need for Integrated Environmental Systems Management. In J. Cairns, Jr & T. V. Crawford (Eds), Integrated Environmental Management (pp. 5-20). Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers.

Alright folks! We are back for another instalment understanding the need and application of IEM.

Building on Bardwell’s 1991 article from last week, this week I reflect on content from class and a 1995 unpublished article Integrated Environmental Management: Towards A Framework For Application by Ton Bührs.

Wider literature agrees there is no simple definition or recipe book in the undertaking of IEM. Bührs (1995) understands the IEM as a management approach “that takes into account the complex, multi-faceted and interconnected nature” of the natural environment. IEM acknowledges the environment is to be considered as a whole entity, and actions taken in one sphere can have flow-on effects on other parts.

There is a diverse range of approaches to environmental management, such as environmental impact assessment, strategic planning, environmental policy and management (Bührs, 1995). While there is no single framework that details IEM as a process, there are several frameworks that have been created. One such example of this is from Hughey (2022) in Figure 1. This framework can be broken down into five key steps that are applicable across any application of IEM.

Figure 1 Integrated Environmental Management Framework (Hughey, 2022)

Another framework that can be used to evaluate IEM performance was created by Bührs in 1995. The framework presents environmental parameters along the vertical axis and management efforts along the horizontal axis with the intention that a holistic approach considers all these components.

Figure 2 The IEM Matrix (Bührs, 1995, pg 4).

These two frameworks, although different highlight some key characteristics of IEM. These are problem definition, stakeholder participation, institutional framework, legislation and solutions. Solutions should address the quadruple bottom line – cultural, economic, environmental and social aspects. IEM intends to integrate these management techniques into one holistic approach.

 

References

Bührs, T. (1995). Integrated Environmental Management: Towards A Framework For Application. Unpublished. Lincoln University, Environmental Management and Design Division.

Hughey, K. (2022). Bühr’s Analytical Framework [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from ERST633, Lincoln University: https://learn.lincoln.ac.nz

Tēnā koutou katoa,

Hello and welcome to the first of many blog posts about Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) and all it entails. This blog is a place for me to chart my journey through ERST633 as I experience it, and as a practice space to integrate ideas and skills learned throughout the semester.

So, what is IEM?! At the start of this course, I summarised IEM in one sentence – “I believe IEM to be an approach that involves different actors and stakeholders all attempting to address complex environmental issues”. Reflecting on what I have learned these past few weeks, I now realise IEM is not so easily defined. Thankfully there is academic literature on how to begin to understand environmental problems. One of these pieces is Problem-framing: A perspective on Environmental Problem-Solving by Lisa Bardwell (1991). She identifies a key feature of an integrated management approach is problem framing. If an environmental problem is not correctly defined or framed it can create challenges in finding solutions, or can cause other problems to be arise. Bardwell (1991) identifies the importance of problem framing. She acknowledges

“… how one defines a problem determines one’s understanding of and approach to that problem, being able to redefine or reframe a problem and to explore the “problem space” can help broaden the range of alternatives and solutions examined.”

Inadequate time spent in the problem exploration phase can result in ineffective problem solving. This can lead to issues such as solving the wrong problem, solving a solution, or trying to get an agreement on the solution before there is an agreement on the problem (Bardwell, 1991). Bardwell (1991) identifies that a problem solving effort entails several stages

1. 1. Building an understanding of the problem: defining the problem-space
   2. Establishing some initial criteria for the goal
   3. Searching for solutions
   4. Deciding among solutions
   5. Evaluating progress: comparing initial goals to and monitoring the solution

At the interface of problem solving also lies the complexity of people. Problem framing incorporates a cognitive perspective on how people respond to information (Bardwell, 1991). Problem definition is not always a typical part of the problem solving approach. Key features of the problem solving approach acknowledges cognitive psychology and conflict management. These draw on management techniques that encourage a problem solving environment that is holistic, inclusive and productive.

The information environment can greatly influence successful problem solving. Sufficient time in the problem framing arena can yield better approaches to environmental problems.

 

References

Bardwell, L.V.  (1991). Problem-framing: A perspective on Environmental Problem-Solving. Environmental Management, 15:603-612.