Back to Christchurch, New Zealand

Believe it or not, the Rugby World Cup is not the only big event happening in New Zealand this year. It is also election year. Come 26 November 2011, we will have a new government, of sorts. 

 

Of course, neither the election nor the World Cup is on the same level as the event that took place at the beginning of the year – the February 22 Christchurch Earthquake.

These three events are all very different, but are at the same time linked. The World Cup and the earthquake will and have put us in the sight of global news media. The election may not have quite the same exposure, but it will nonetheless be affected by both of the earlier events. 

Which NZ will receive the most exposure?  This one?

This one?

Or this one?

     

Some people think that the result of the rugby will determine the result of the election. Likewise, the Government's response to the earthquake may have a bearing on the outcome of the election.

So I was pleasantly surprised when I received last week a letter from the Hon Gerry Brownlee, MP for Ilam (my electorate) and Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. Mr Brownlee welcomed me to his electorate and gave me the opportunity to complete a survey on how I felt the Government's response to the earthquake had been.

My response looked something like this:

Rate the Government's response to the earthquake. Poor    Fair   Good         Excellent Comments Good, in so far as the immediate financial assistance to people. However, I'm concerned that the response is ignoring the views of Christchurch residents. Christchurch is a city needing to be rebuilt, not a failed business requiring assistance. Rate the Government's response to land damage. Poor    Fair   Good         Excellent Comments Good, in so far as owners of the worst affected land have been offered financial assistance. However, I am concerned that again, the Govt is treating this as a business case by intending to redevelop this land in the future. There are other ways of getting value from land that do not include housing and commercial developments. Any other areas you would like more Government action in. Comments The consultation to date has highlighted a pretty unanimous desire from residents to see a “green” city rebuilt, both for recreational and sustainable purposes. It is unclear at this stage how the Government will include this desire, as little environmental focus has been shown .

Of course, I'm no expert in evaluating the Government's response to the earthquake to date. Being lucky enough to live in the “shower zone”, and not owning my own home, I have had little involvement in the rebuild consultation over the past few months. I do follow the news and am interested in how the CBD demolition is going, as well as the higher level planning for recovery and rebuilding. Based purely on my own perceptions, and supported by the discussions we had in class a couple of weeks ago, it feels like the Government-led recovery operation requires a much greater focus on the environment. The people have given their views, and the Christchurch City Council has produced a commendable rebuild plan with a vision for a Christchurch with greater emphasis on the river, green space, attractive architecture, new-urbanist style design to create an overall “modern” and sustainable city.

But where is this in the Government's response? Have they considered these views? Only the day after the draft plan was released, Mr Brownlee told the press that Christchurch would “have to choose” what it wanted to have from the plan, meaning that having everything that was put forward is not possible. Why should we have to choose between the environment and the economic bottom line? Who says they are mutually exclusive? Mr Brownlee works in the world of business and numbers, but he is only one person to live in Christchurch. Albeit a person with a lot of influence.

But a city is more than the sum of its parts. I can't help thinking that, like I mentioned in my survey response, this is merely a business case for the Government, a purely technocratic response to a problem of collapsed buildings, when this can be turned into an opportunity for a great new city that everyone has a share in.

What is more important to you? Winning the Rugby World Cup, the general election, or an integrated, sustainable rebuild for Christchurch?

The final passport check (and a very helpful matrix)

I'm nearly ready to take off – the basic theory is covered, well, enough to actually go a few places.

Sunrise on the Southern Alps

Today I'll cover a bit about how to do IEM. Which has been put to the test in writing the essay for this week. How do you do IEM? How do you know you're doing IEM?? What can be done to improve the IEM approach?

One method is to use the IEM matrix of Bührs (1995). I drew from this in writing my essay, which, by the way, was set in the lovely tourist Mecca of the Queenstown Lakes District.

Lake Wanaka, towards Mt Aspiring from Iron Mountain

I digress.. the very helpful matrix can be set out as follows (adapted from Bührs, 1995, by Hughey & Montgomery):

		Management
	Classification	Interpretation / analysis	Institutions / analysis	Policy / analysis	IEM
The ENVIRONMENT	Land
	Water
	Air
	Plants
	Animals
	Resources
	People
	Built environment
Techniques/issues		Disciplines, EIA, SIA, risk assessment, TBL analysis	Approaches or barriers to integration	Relationships and connections	Management

This is all very nice and concise, but still the question remains, how exactly do you do IEM?? Well, to begin with, you undertake an interpretation, institutional and policy analysis. You look, like Bardwell, for where the problem actually is. What is wrong with the current management of the environmental problem? Where has the information been lost, the institutions disconnected and the policy fragmented?

These three steps are a start:

1. Think broadly and freely: Problem definition – why are we here? Interpretation, knowledge, information required at this stage. What do we know, what do we need to know?

2. Think interdisciplinarity and co-operatively. Who is involved? What institutions exist/should exist/have existed? Watch out for gremlins! We need vertical as well as horizontal integration. Where do the agencies work and what do they work on? e.g. Kaikoura, DoC in Christchurch and in Nelson, MFish in Christchurch, no one in Kaikoura. Do “turf battles” exist?

3. Think cohesively and develop connections Where is the policy? What policy works best together, or apart? “Fragmentation” or “independence”?

But also: you must think practically. Feasibility is crucial. How far can we expect to go on the budget/time/level of need we have? What interpretation/policy/institution has/hasn't worked before? Don't reinvent the wheel!

When things come to an impasse (like Kaikoura) – revert back to step 1.

References

Buhrs, T. (1995), Integrated Environmental Management: Toward a Framework for Application, Environmental Management and Design Division, Lincoln University (unpublished).

Hughey, K. and Montgomery, R. (August 2011), Session 3 lecture notes.

At a crossroads

Today I'll follow on from the definitions of last week, and highlight the importance of problem definition when dealing with “environmental problems”.  I'll also point out the use of the “frames of reference” metaphor by Simon Swaffield. 

Environmental problems and IEM

Environmental problems are often “wicked” - and that does not mean in a good way. They are long-running, complex, have multiple dimensions and boundaries and their effects can be irreversible. It is for this reason that integration (i.e. consideration of more than one aspect of the “environment” when looking at a problem) is important if feasible, practical and successful solutions are to be implemented.

Most approaches to environmental management begin with some sort of problem definition - sorting out what the environmental issue is and placing some boundaries on this.  Two articles we have read deal with this concept of problem definition – the first written by Lisa Bardwell (1991) and the second by Simon Swaffield (1998). We discussed these articles in class and below are some of the points I have taken from them.

The importance of framing the problem

Lisa Bardwell wrote in 1991 of the importance of spending adequate time on problem definition at the outset of any environmental problem solving process, or what she calls “problem framing”. She is still a strong advocate of this approach today.

Bardwell observes that, whilst problem definition is an important part of any approach to environmental management, its value is often overlooked and insufficient time is spent at this early stage. She argues that how one sees a “problem” can have a profound effect on the latter stages of their problem solving. If sufficient focus is put on the problem, i.e. it is well framed, then its role as a directional guide for “where one ends up” will be met. A good metaphor for this is the sign post found at a cross roads, or, for example, this one at Cape Reinga:

Where to from here?

In other words, why go all the way to London if you should really only be travelling to Bluff??

Bardwell goes on to provide a 6-step strategy for problem framing – drawing on cognitive psychology and conflict management (she has a Ph.D in environmental psychology):

1. avoid “solution-mindedness” – fixating on solutions before defining the problem;
2. limit information – people have an information threshold of 5 +/- 2;
3. choose appropriate levels – in terms of fit, linkage and personalisation of information;
4. generate imagery – as a starting point to motivate people; and
5. develop “metacognition” – have flexible ways to understand and reduce confusion.

A good local example of “solution-mindedness” is the investigations into a proposed $400 million wood-fired power station in central Christchurch to combat the issue of power supply distribution. Department X has decided that the best solution is to build the power station – when in actual fact, the problem is less about supply and more about having robust distribution networks. Department X is fixated on the power station as the solution, without adequately identifying the problem. Watch this space...

Wouldn't it be great for tourism?

Swaffield draws from Bardwell's problem framing when he writes about “frames of reference” as a useful metaphor to understand the attitudes of those involved in (and influenced by) environmental management.  In his case study he looks at attitudes towards forestry in the high country of the South Island.

To forest or not to forest?

You might have noticed that this blog uses the metaphor of travel to investigate and understand IEM – I would like to claim immaculate conception for this idea for “imaginative understanding”, but alas, Swaffield's article has in some way influenced my decision to do this, even if only by affirming my initial thoughts!

The frames of reference metaphor helps to set up the boundaries for the “problem space”, within which to analyse an environmental problem at various levels. In his article, Swaffield used different frames of reference within the group he surveyed. He defined the use of frames of reference in three ways:

1. an analytical model of attitudes concerning a specific resource policy or management issue;
2. a personal frame of reference incorporating the attitudes expressed by an individual; and
3. a common frame of reference representing a pattern of attitudes common to a number of individuals.

This appears to be a useful method for analysing attitudes. However, it pays to be mindful of metaphor – it might be instrumental in providing an easy-to-grasp overview or as a dynamic part of conflict resolution, but it can also be difficult to dislodge and can over-simplify complex situations. Likewise, the setting up of frames of reference in itself can result in rigid boundaries with socially-constructed boundaries.

In other words, use appropriate metaphors and avoid clichés and stereotyping participants in a group environment – as this is generally the least helpful technique for reaching consensus. Will the “dirty” dairy farmer and the “greenie” environmentalist really listen to each other if they are typecast at the outset??

Dirty dairy

Treehugger

           VS
 

References

Bardwell, Lisa V. (1991), "Problem-Framing: A Perspective on Environmental Problem-Solving", Environmental Management, Vol. 15, pp. 603-612.

Swaffield, S. (1998), "Frames of Reference: A Metaphor for Analysing and Interpreting Attitudes of Environmental Policy Makers and Policy Influencers", Environmental Management, Vol. 22, pp. 495-504.