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.