Check list para identificación de aspectos importantes en el diseño

Framework

Until now, the framework has been built up and illustrated with research examples that span the whole of environmental science, i.e., analysis, explanation and design, at the applied studies level. Many other studies have a more restricted scope, focusing on a specific area of the framework. In this section, these research types will be enumerated. They are using the most simplified version of the Problem-in-Context framework, Figure 3D. Then, the level of middle- range theories is briefly touched upon.

Starting at the lower right-hand corner of Figure 3D, we meet research into the physical causes of environmental Emphasizing its usual core output, envi- ronmental capacity research seems a proper name. In the other lower corner, social causes research goes into the environmentally relevant interactions, options and motivations of environmentally relevant actors and the backgrounds in structure and culture. In the next section, we will discover the amazing feat (at least, it was amazing to me) that this social causes research is in fact the version of research into a whole people- environment system hence including a physical environ- ment. Both environmental capacity research and social causes research need, and nearly always indeed use in a greater or lesser degree, the rest of the

ocntext framework in a contextual role. For the environmental capacity research, this context is a necessary one, since environmental capacity is a normative concept (Ref. Section Focusing for relevance is the contextual role of the problem-in-context framework for social causes research. It serves, for instance, to identify the activities that are the most problematic from the environmental point of view; it may identify options that may be discussed with the actors; and etic environmental measure- ments (of erosion rates, water quality etc.) may help in the understanding of their ('environmental perception') counterparts et 1989).

In Figure 3D, we now arrive at the at the environmental problem block. First, research types will be distinghed that concentrate on either the facts side or the values side of the environmental problem (left or right in the figure). Then, research types are discussed that deal with both facts and values but emphasize either the lower ('sources') or upper ('impacts') area of the problem analysis.

The research types that have values (norms, objectives, standards, criteria etc.) as their major output may be given the umbrella name of

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM

Figure 3D

Environmental Science Research Types EA = Effects Analysis

N = (design, analysis and derivation of norms) SCR = Social Causes Research

ECR = Environmental Capacity Research PA = Problem Analysis

PSA = Problem-Situation Analysis (analysis and explanation) SNR = Shallow Normative Research (analysis and design)

The most common line of reasoning in the field is to go 'downward', deriving norms in terms of emissions, etc. from 'higher' norms in terms

of victims and impacts (human health, of production for basic needs, protection of rare species This line of reasoning has already been touched upon in the previous sections; other example will be given in Section 3.9. Norms derivation could be their common name, following GESAMP (1986), that shows how environ- mental capacities for marine ecosystems may be derived from water quality standards. There exists a 'reasoning upward' type of normation research too. Then, one takes a number of generally accepted 'lower' norms emissions standards) as the point of departure and calculates what 'higher' norms (e.g., standards in terms of

sions or impacts on nature) are apparently held. This is especially relevant if the 'lower' norms concern different activities, environmental compartments etc. but are relevant for a single target organism or ecosystem. For instance, we may take the standards for the concentration of a certain substance in drinking water, food and air, and then calculate the uptakes in the human body that are apparently considered allowable for the three intake routes. More often than not, one will find these allow- able uptakes to be different; for instance, food residues will show to be allowed to be more dangerous than drinking water In order to find out whether this is inconsistent or not, we may move to a one-step higher norm, a principle that the cost-effectiveness of toxic substance reduction should be equal for drinking water, food and air. Even if the three cost-effectiveness figures would also show to be in fact different, still some degree of consistency may be found by moving another step upward, introducing, for instance, the unavoidability of exposure as a principle that should be allowed to influence norms. 'Reasoning upward' this way from a set of innocent-looking 'lower' norms will show to be a way of probing into one of the weakest and most secluded areas of environmental policy: its conceptual clarity, substantive consistency and integration. Norms-analysis may be the best name for this subtype of normation research.

Zweers (1986), discussing the tasks of philosophy in the environmental field, has identified two, more or less opposed roles for philosophical reasoning. One is the analytical function of identifying hidden assumptions and inconsistencies of values that are held. Our norms-analysis is the environmental science-level (that is, less general) counterpart of this. Zweers' second type of philosophical contribution is what he calls philosophy's "synoptic" function, i.e., the articulation of world views that may express and clarify world views held in society. On its own less general level, environmental science has a counterpart here too. In Chapter 7 of De Groot (1992b), for instance, the general concept of is brought in contact with empirical ecology, in order to formulate a health-of-nature concept at a more

Strictly speaking, environmental capacity research also belongs to the normation research types. I have kept them apart because of the difference, in practice, between reasoning from the higher norms 'downward' and eventually reaching environmental capacity, and determining environmental capacity largely 'from below', out of the ecological basis.

operational level. Norms seems the appropriate term for this subtype of normation research.

On the left ('facts') side of the problem-block we find the type of research that studies effects, moving one way or another between activity-variables and the 'final variables' concerning impacts and victims. Often, this research has a directional character, either seeking what a certain activity will result in predictive direction) or where a certain impact comes from (the explanatory direction), or doing both for different parts of the chain, as has been the case in the reservoir silt-up example of Section 3.3. An other research type in this field is purely i.e., environ- mental monitoring. The umbrella name of all these research types could be effects analysis.

Normation and effects analysis do not necessarily need support from the explana- tory or designing parts of the framework. Diersing et al. (1988) show, for instance, that normation studies can be useful without knowing much about why the activities studied are in fact undertaken or what designs would be possible to rectify the prob- lem. One phenomenon is quite worthy to note, however, namely, the necessity to have effects analysis guided by the other, values-side of the environmental Effects usually branch off in many directions, growing into effect-trees rather than single It seems almost trivial to say that chosing what effects to study at what level of detail should be guided by an assessment of their problem relevance, i.e., their opposition to norms. In too many applied studies (e.g. these choices are made on irrelevant grounds Section

The need to have effects analysis guided by their values-counterparts points at a number of research types in which the facts and values that constitute an environ- mental problem are studied both, in a balance set by considerations of relevance. The proposed umbrella term of these research types is problem research.

The first subtype is plain problem analysis, that covers both the 'upper' facts/value oppositions close to the victims and the 'lower' ones close to the sources and actors. The reservoir silt-up and forest acidification cases have been examples.

The second subtype focuses on the 'upper' part of the environmental problem, i.e., the area of environmental and final variables. The general question is, therefore: does this given environmental variable, in its present or predicted state, signify an environmental problem in terms of health, or an other final variable? For instance, will present erosion rates in this given area cause an unacceptable decline of agricultural productivity on an unacceptable short term, or will they cause water quality problems downstream? Hence, is the present erosion rate unacceptable? Research of this type may be called problem analysis.

The opposite of the impacts-oriented problem analysis may be called sources- oriented problem analysis. These studies focus on the relations between activities (land-use, emissions etc.) and environmental variables, again comprizing both facts and values (norms) in these terms. Swart et al. reporting on studies done for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are an example. The article is confined to the relations between emissions and ambient CO2 concentrations, but 116

contains both facts and norms. Two lines of reasoning are placed side by side. The one is what the authors call "normative, top-down", using CO2 concentration objec- tives as starting points and then calculating the maximum allowable C02 emissions; in our terms this is called 'reasoning downward' in a norms derivation. The other line of reasoning goes taking expected emission reductions as the point of departure and then calculating the resulting ambient C02 concentrations. The C02 problem, then, is formulated as the two-steps chain of discrepancies between the expected versus the allowable emissions, plus the expected versus the allowable ambient concentrations. It is interesting to note that the combination of allowable (values-side) and expected (facts-side) emissions and concentrations enables Swart et al. to discover that the CO2 problem is in fact a double problem; even when they use the emissions that may be expected when the CO2 problem is fully recognized and international agreements are adhered to, there still remains a large discrepancy with the allowable emissions. (1984, p. 72 passim) distinguishes two lines of reasoning conceptually equivalent to those of Swart et when defining "emission standards based on ambient standards" and "technology-based emission standards". Not bringing these into relation with each other, however, Ortolano cannot conceptual- ly identify Swart et double problem phenomenon.

Rounding off the analytical research types, Figure 3D distinguishes 'Problem Situation Analysis '. This term may be used to denote the combination of problem analysis and the two types of problem explanation (social and This combina- tion of analysis and explanation can be referred to with the single term 'analysis' by defining the term problem situation, as opposed to a problem, as: An environmental problem situation is an environmental problem plus its backgrounds (causes) in society and environment. Thus, analyzing an environmental problem plus explaining it is equivalent to analyzing an environmental problem situation.

Moving up the final step in the Figure 3D, we arrive at the 'design' block, consisting of design in the stricter sense and evaluation, of which and cost-benefit analysis are well-known Designing research will be treated in Section As for evaluation, it may be noted that it is conceptually equal to repeated problem analysis; the designed activity or plan is fed into some 'low' area of the problem block or causes block, effects are then predicted 'upward' and assessed against norms (standards, criteria etc.) at a higher level. The prediction process may stop as soon as a sufficiently grounded norm is encountered on the way upward. For instance, if there exists a set of politically and scientifically well-grounded norms concerning toxic substances concentrations in a soil, the effects prediction process may stop there and effects may evaluated against these norms. Otherwise, one has to continue the risk analysis, for instance predicting human toxic substances intake and assessing these against ADI norms.

In practice, designing research hardly ever occurs as a stand-alone research type, because there hardly ever exists an analytical basis sufficiently large to supply all knowledge needed during the design process; this is again the phenomenon. Therefore, designing research is almost always a final part of a more integrated

research type that includes also analytical elements. This defines the two other 'inte- grated research types' that stand besides problem situation analysis in Figure 3D and the summary in Box

In Chapter 1 we have distinguished a type of research usually called "environmen- tal planning and coinciding, roughly, with analysis and design, without problem explanation. Calling this type of research by its usual name here would suggest that environmental planning and management is logically in that position, or even that it should be. Therefore, I have opted for the radical but not

term of normative research.

Research that does embrace all elements of Chapter triad (analysis / explana- tion / design) is fidly integrated research. There are of course many intermediate explaining an environmental problem relativily shallow but sufficiently deep, with Ellemers (1987) in mind, who states that 'too deep' explanations are inefficient, leading to general background variables that do not yield practicable options for solutions. Section 5.3 goes deeper into this matter.

We have now seen that some research types apply the framework as a whole, while others apply some of its parts, e.g., an analysis of social causes or a source-oriented derivation of norms. In the latter cases, the non-emphasized parts of the framework structure the search for contextual insight with a lower degree of detail and sophistication, providing guidance to identify relevant questions and parame- ters for the core research. Further narrowing the scope of the research core, we enter the realm of the environmental specialisms (single-element, single-relation or single- aspect), such as environmental chemistry, environmental biology and environmental law. For these, the framework is context only. Excluding the environmental specialist research, the research types identified now may be summar- ized as in Box

Needless to say, all these research types may be carried out both as specific case studies or at a higher level of Especially the range' level Chapter 1), focusing on types sources, impacts, environments, causes and policies rather than specific problems, sources is an important field of current progress. More or less going down the list in Box some examples are:

and (1986) about the social causes of soil degradation, and Repetto and Gillis (1988), doing the same for deforestation

Breman and De Ridder about the methodology to assess carrying capacities of grasslands

Copius Peereboom and Copius Peereboom-Stegeman (1989) analyzing the lack of consistency in standards for toxic substances

Denneman et (1989) proposing and exemplifying a statistical method to assess the acceptable percentage of soil ecosystem species that may be affected

Guinée et al. (1992) developing the methodology to assess the weighted emissions associated with consumer products

Box