1. Side-by-Side comparison of three environmental policy/conflict frameworks
| Framework | Short Explanation | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional Conservation vs. Economic Development | This framework pits environmental conservation and preservation against economic development. It assumes that the two goals are inherently at odds with each other and that any policy decision must choose one over the other. | Davis & Lewicki (2003) |
| Multiple Goals and Interests | This framework acknowledges that there are often multiple stakeholders with competing interests in any given environmental conflict. It recognizes that policy decisions must balance these interests in order to achieve the best overall outcome. | Bryan (2003) |
| Collaborative Problem-Solving | This framework emphasizes the importance of collaboration and communication among stakeholders in order to reach mutually beneficial solutions to environmental conflicts. It recognizes that there may be shared values among stakeholders that can be used as a starting point for negotiation. | Susskind, McKearnan, & Thomas-Larmer (1999) |
- My own environmental policy framework with five frames
| Framework | Short Explanation |
|---|---|
| Ecological Resilience | This frame emphasizes the importance of maintaining healthy ecosystems as a foundation for human well-being. It recognizes that ecosystems are complex and dynamic, and that human activities can disrupt their natural processes. Policy decisions should prioritize the long-term health and resilience of ecosystems. |
| Social Equity | This frame recognizes that environmental issues often disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Policy decisions should prioritize addressing the needs and concerns of these communities in order to achieve a more just and equitable society. |
| Sustainable Development | This frame acknowledges the importance of economic development, but recognizes that it must be pursued in a way that is environmentally sustainable. Policy decisions should prioritize balancing economic growth with environmental protection. |
| Precautionary Principle | This frame emphasizes the importance of taking a precautionary approach to environmental issues, especially in cases where there is scientific uncertainty. Policy decisions should prioritize preventing harm, even if the potential risks are not fully understood. |
| Adaptive Management | This frame recognizes that environmental issues are complex and dynamic, and that policy decisions must be flexible and adaptive in order to respond to changing circumstances. It emphasizes the importance of ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure that policies are achieving their intended outcomes. |
- Justification for Selected Environmental Policy Framework
After conducting research on various environmental policy frameworks, I have chosen five frames that I believe are crucial for effective policy-making. These frames are ecological resilience, social equity, sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and adaptive management.
The ecological resilience frame emphasizes the importance of maintaining healthy ecosystems as the foundation for human well-being. This frame acknowledges that ecosystems are complex and dynamic and that human activities can disrupt their natural processes. Thus, policy decisions should prioritize the long-term health and resilience of ecosystems. I selected this frame because I believe that it is essential to address the root causes of environmental issues, rather than just treating their symptoms. By prioritizing ecological resilience, we can create policies that are sustainable in the long run and promote the well-being of both humans and the environment.
The social equity frame recognizes that environmental issues often disproportionately affect marginalized communities. This frame acknowledges that environmental policies can perpetuate social inequality if they fail to address the needs and concerns of these communities. Policy decisions should prioritize addressing the needs and concerns of these communities in order to achieve a more just and equitable society. I selected this frame because environmental justice is a critical issue, and policies must be designed to promote equitable outcomes.
The sustainable development frame acknowledges the importance of economic development, but recognizes that it must be pursued in a way that is environmentally sustainable. This frame emphasizes the need to balance economic growth with environmental protection. I selected this frame because it recognizes the importance of economic development but also acknowledges that economic growth must not come at the expense of environmental sustainability.
The precautionary principle frame emphasizes the importance of taking a precautionary approach to environmental issues, especially in cases where there is scientific uncertainty. This frame acknowledges that there may be risks associated with human activities that are not fully understood, and policy decisions should prioritize preventing harm. I selected this frame because it recognizes the need to err on the side of caution in cases where scientific knowledge is limited.
The adaptive management frame recognizes that environmental issues are complex and dynamic, and that policy decisions must be flexible and adaptive in order to respond to changing circumstances. This frame emphasizes the importance of ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure that policies are achieving their intended outcomes. I selected this frame because it recognizes the importance of ongoing learning and adjustment to improve policies and their outcomes.
In conclusion, the five frames that I have selected for my environmental policy framework are ecological resilience, social equity, sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and adaptive management. I believe that these frames are essential for effective policy-making that promotes both environmental sustainability and social justice. By considering these frames in policy development, we can create policies that are robust, sustainable, and effective in addressing environmental issues.
References:
Bryan, T. (2003). Context in environmental conflicts: Where you stand depends on where you sit. Environmental Practice, 5(3), 256-264. BRYAN_2003_Context_in_environmental_conflict Framing.pdf
Lawrence Susskind, McKearnan, S., & Thomas-Larmer, J. (n.d.). The consensus building handbook : a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. https://nvclibrary.on.worldcat.org/search/detail/846492950?queryString=Susskind%2C%20McKearnan%2C%20%26%20Thomas-Larmer%20%281999%29
No comments:
Post a Comment