Chapter 6 Review Questions

F (see “Introduction”)

F (see “Context”)

T (see “Context”)

F (see “Context”)

F (see “Context in the Big Picture”)

F (see “Context in the Big Picture”)

T (see “Vision”)

T (see “Social Learning”)

F (see “Long-Term View”)

F (see “Environmental Justice”)

The context (the specific characteristics of a time and place) needs to be systematically considered when developing a strategy, plan, or approach for a resource or environmental management problem. Because biophysical, economic, social, legal, and political conditions differ from place to place and from time to time, context provides whether it is appropriate to proceed as though one model or approach were sufficient for every situation.

(see “Context”)

Management of natural resources and the environment involves many organizations and jurisdictions that frequently have overlapping and/or conflicting legal mandates and responsibilities, and numerous and often conflicting interests regarding access and rights to environmental systems. Managers increasingly deal with conflict because of the many different interests related to resources and the environment.

(see “Context in the Big Picture”)

One is the preoccupation of many governments with debt and deficit reduction; many governments have significantly reduced their allocation of funds to environmental infrastructure and services. Emerging from this concern about debt and deficit reduction, many national and state governments have reduced their role in managing environment by (1) downloading responsibilities for environmental services to lower levels of government, which usually do not have the human or financial resources to maintain levels of service; (2) commercializing such services; and/or (3) privatizing these services. Third, many governments favour less government intervention, more reliance on the private sector and market forces to deliver products and services efficiently, acceptance of the value of globalization, and a “business model” that emphasizes efficiency, results-based management, and tangible products. This demonstrates less interest in using systematic and thorough consultation processes regarding development and implementation of policy. Finally, many governments have been steadily backing away from concern for or commitment to environmental issues and instead have been emphasizing strategies for economic growth.

These characteristics are usually associated with neo-liberalism, a political theory based on the belief that humans’ well-being is best achieved by encouraging and facilitating individual freedom and minimizing the role of government.

(see “Context in the Big Picture”)

Managers should determine what ends or desirable future conditions are sought before deciding how to deal with resource and environmental management problems or opportunities. This vision should incorporate the many viewpoints of stakeholders in order to be effective.

Visions can be developed by asking three questions: (1) What is likely to happen? (2) What ought to happen/what is the outcome we want? (3) What can happen/ what is feasible?

(see “Vision”)

Forecasting takes the trends of yesterday and today and projects mechanistically forward as if humankind were not an intelligent species with the capacity for individual and societal choice. Backcasting sets itself against such predestination and insists on free will, dreaming what tomorrow might be and determining how to get there from today. Forecasting is driving down the freeway and, from one’s speed and direction, working out where one will be by nightfall. Backcasting is deciding first where one wants to sleep that night and then planning a day’s drive that will get one there.

(see “Forecasting versus Backcasting”)

Environmental justice has been defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, colour, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.” Fair treatment here means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences from industrial, commercial, or municipal operations, or from the implementation of federal, state, local, or tribal policies or programs.

The attention to environmental justice reminds us that aspirations for sustainable development always need to incorporate social considerations. In addition, the emergence of environmental justice highlights that resource and environmental policy and management decisions often have public health implications, which can and do lead to reduced resilience of local communities.

(see “Environmental Justice”)

While ecocentrics are concerned about choosing appropriate ends and using consistent means, technocentrics focus more on means because of their confidence in human ingenuity and rights, which makes them less concerned about the moral aspects of activities or consequences. Those with ecocentric values are not against technology, per se, but favour application of low-impact technology, while technocentrics admire the capacity and power of technology and believe that technology and human inventiveness will overcome possible resource shortages as well as remediate or rehabilitate environmental degradation. Technocentrics believe the environment and resources exist primarily to provide direct value for humans, while ecocentrists advocate behaviour consistent with ecological principles of diversity.

(see “Ethics and Values”)

The Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront summarized the ecosystem approach as follows:

• includes the whole system, not just parts of it;
• focuses on the interrelationships among the elements;
• recognizes the dynamic nature of the ecosystem;
• incorporates the concepts of carrying capacity, resilience, and sustainability;
• uses a broad definition of environments (natural, physical, economic, social, and cultural);
• encompasses both urban and rural activities;
• is based on natural geographic units such as watersheds, rather than on political boundaries;
• embraces all levels of activity—local, regional, national, and international;
• understands that humans are part of nature, not separate from it; and
• emphasizes the importance of species other than humans and of generations other than the present.
  (see “Characteristics of the Ecosystem Approach”)

The ecosystem approach offers the following opportunities:

• challenges the dominant anthropocentric/technocentric perspective;
• reminds us to consider management problems and solutions in the context of linked “systems”;
• demands that the links between natural and economic or social systems be considered (exceeding thresholds lead to environmental degradation);
• reminds us that decisions made (or actions taken) at one place or scale can have implications for other places or scales;
• raises questions regarding what is the most appropriate areal or spatial unit for planning and management (not political boundaries); and
• highlights that systems are dynamic or continuously changing (in short and long terms).
  (see “Opportunities through the Ecosystem Approach”)

Systems often change slowly and that a significant period of time may be required to shift values, attitudes, and behaviour. Thus, a long-term view must be taken to effectively manage environment and resources.
(see “Long-Term View”)

Problems frequently encountered in resource and environmental management:

1. viewing people and their activities as separate from nature
2. fragmenting knowledge or disciplines, as well as ecosystems, jurisdictions, and management responsibilities
3. emphasizing single resource uses or economic sectors and conflicts, while ignoring possible alternative uses
4. not recognizing the many ways in which ecological and socio-economic systems are interconnected
5. ignoring the propensity of biophysical and socio-economic systems to change, sometimes rapidly and unexpectedly
6. rather than anticipating change and problems, being reactive and attempting to eliminate uncertainty by controlling complex, dynamic systems instead of adapting to them
   (see “Characteristics of the Ecosystem Approach”)

The emphasis in single-loop learning is attaining a match between intent and outcome. Double-loop learning, in contrast, addresses a different condition—a mismatch between intention and outcome. Double-loop learning thus challenges underlying values and behaviour.

(see “Social Learning”)