The normative conceptualization of IREM has evolved over the past two or three decades and continues to change, but has generally focused on the substantive and procedural aspects of the process. The ‘substantive’ refers to thewhat, or the descriptive issues associated with resource management such as the scope and scale of application, and the application of scientific methods, or what is included in the planning process. In other words, how we divide up the resource pie: in essence who gets what and how much. The ‘procedural’ aspects refer to the process ofhow IREM should be undertaken. The answer to how IREM is
conducted centres around what is included in the decision-making process and how they are included. It must be noted that this conceptual division between the substantive and procedural components of IREM is an artificial distinction because frequently process and substance are inter-related and cannot easily be divided in practice or at ground level.
In particular, authors have sought to develop a definitional template for the integration process (Mitchell, 1986; Born and Sonzongi, 1995; Margerum, 1997) that identifies the general characteristics that are required to make IREM ‘work’.
One of the more useful conceptual frameworks for defining the normative components of IREM is provided by Born and Sonzongi (1995). They divide the core elements into four major divisions:
● Comprehensive/inclusive
● Interconnective
● Strategic/reductive planning
● Interactive/coordinative
The first three elements define the substantive aspects of IREM, while the fourth component defines the procedural requirements. We have added a fifth building block, ‘Holistic’, to this framework that we have borrowed from Margerum’s (1997) evaluation of the IREM process. Figure 9.1 provides a conceptual overview of these five inter-related characteristics of IREM.
Comprehensive/inclusive
This composite element refers, first, to the extensive breadth of issues and considerations that are to be included (as much as possible) in the scope of the planning system. Secondly,comprehensiverefers in more detail to the process of ensuring that the biophysical and social components associated with IREM are integrated appropriately into the initial assessment of the evaluation framework.
Identifying the suitable boundaries and scale, for example, is integral to this process. In this regard, Beanlands and Duinker (1983) identify the following five crucial boundaries for comprehensive scoping in environmental assessment:
ecological, administrative, technical, cultural and temporal. The complexity of these boundaries and the degree to which they are considered in effect delimits the realm of inquiry, but also effectively defines spatial and political concerns.
The act of beinginclusivecomplements the action of comprehensiveness in that it incorporates a wide range of views, adopting multiple perspectives, and a breadth of scope to include a depth of both social and biophysical functions in the planning process. This approach takes in a broad view of human issues and ecosystem functions as an initial step in decision making.
Interconnective
One of the important tenets of IREM is that relationships among different bio- physical and socioeconomic processes are recognized and integrated into the
resource management decision-making process. The complexities of the inter- dependencies of a natural system, such as a mangrove ecosystem for instance, need to be recognized when we consider a management intervention (such as dredging) in that system. While trying to solve one problem, such as navigation along the river (a human dimension), a whole host of ecological problems may be introduced that have more wide-ranging human implications later on. The interconnectionsbetween natural and social systems need to be recognized. In a similar manner, various social systems impacting the management arena and internal interdependencies within the management system must also be considered. Social linkages that connect complex management systems are as important as the substantive issues being considered. To be effective, IREM must recognize this complexity.
INTERCONNECTIVE
HOLISTIC COMPREHENSIVE
INCLUSIVE
IREM
STRATEGIC REDUCTIVE interactive
coordinative
interactive coordinative
interactive coordinative
interactive coordinative
Fig. 9.1. Theoretical framework for IREM.
Strategic/reductive planning
Strategic/reductive planning introduces the need for IREM to focus solely on key or pertinent issues that reduce or limit the focus of management action to a specific agenda and desired outcome. This orientation is frequently necessary because needed efficiencies in budget and time often constrain resource man- agers in their operations. Strategic and reductive elements of IREM, therefore (although seemingly contradictory to the previous two elements), are a required step in effective resource and environmental management. Once the necessary inter-relationships and the scope of analysis are recognized, then subsequent steps require more action-oriented approaches. This necessitates accurate scoping of the problem, such as the requirement to ensure that information is passed throughout the management complex in the required format and in a timely manner. This process is fundamentally an iterative process that changes with organizational learning, evolving external, environmental and organizational conditions, shifting information insights and the passage of time.
Interactive/coordinative
The fourth element of our model provides the procedural guidance for IREM and deals primarily withhowthe process is carried out. Similar to the first two sub- stantive elements, the interactive/coordinative aspect of IREM recognizes the complexity of the social dimension but focuses on the diversity of different actors and interests that must be considered in the natural resource management environment. Friedmann’s (1987) model of transactive planning provides a theoretical basis for normative planning that incorporates interaction and dia- logue as a foundation for the transactive approach. Lang (1986) defines ‘inter- active’ as one of the essential elements of resource planning, which moves it beyond the routines of conventional comprehensive planning. He suggests that interaction should consist of a spectrum of management practices that includes information feedback, consultation, collaboration and negotiation. At one end of the spectrum, information is disseminated and responses retrieved from participants. As managers progress along the spectrum, consultation goes one step further to inform and solicit views. More intense collaboration provides for joint problem solving and direct stakeholder involvement; and at the far end of the spectrum, negotiation resolves conflicting interests and allows for mutually beneficial bargaining amongst parties with initially competing views.
Margerum and Born (1995) define interaction as being divided into two general forms, with the general public and affected stakeholders having variable input into the decision-making process. In this context, information is dissemi- nated on a continual basis to the general public, and there are a series of strate- gies to involve the public so as to include their input in the decision-making process. Interaction with the general public may take place using mail-out surveys, conducting public surveys or gaining input through the media or open houses. Identifying ‘the public’ and their concerns and conducting an effective public consultation programme are considered to be essential in ensuring
adequate interaction at this level. As Hooper et al. (1999, p. 753) suggest,
‘a hallmark of integrated and co-ordinated approaches is often the creation of partnerships by state agencies with local community-based groups’. Thus, integrating local interests through partnerships with state or municipal planning provides a forum for information exchange and shared decision making.
Stakeholders have a vested interest in the issues being addressed, and some are directly involved in operational decisions. Interaction with stakeholders frequently involves exchanging information and views on a resource issue and attempting to incorporate their input in the decision calculation. Stakeholder interaction may involve working groups, technical steering committees, joint decision boards and a variety of methods that can, to varying degrees, share decision-making power. In some cases, conflict resolution methods need to be employed to mediate interests.
The importance of stakeholder involvement has been well documented in the literature. Wondolleck (1988), for example, provides a comprehensive account of the US Forest Service and the conflict ensuing from the exclusion of stakeholders and the public by the Forest Service in decision making on public lands. Both changing expectations by the public and the access to information have forced public agencies to include stakeholder and public views in their management plans.
Coordination is an essential element and defines a role for how we interact with participants. Margerum and Born (1995) separate the coordinative func- tions into the categories of communication and conflict resolution. They note that the functions are often intertwined and ‘constitute key elements or tools used to put integrated management into practice’ (Margerum and Born, p. 385).
The continuum from communication to conflict resolution can range from simply information sharing between parties to binding arbitration.
Holistic
The addition of the holistic component to the model is important because it recognizes the need for IREM to embrace the wide spectrum of management vari- ables, rather than focus on isolated elements of the decision-making process.
Holistic identifies the broadest range of physical and social factors across an area or region (Margerum, 1997) and allows for the widest scope of elements and issues feasible to be included in a substantive evaluation. This necessitates the consideration of a wide range of variables in the decision calculation such as cultural, ecological and economic issues on a broad scale, such as watersheds or river basins. A holistic approach generally provides analysis at an ecosystem level that recognizes the integrative complexity of both natural and social systems.