Irwin, Alan, Susse Georg and Philip Vergragt. 1994. "The Social Management of Environmental Change." Futures 26(3): 323-334.

Thesis:

There is a gap between citizen concerns over environmental threats and the organization and direction of innovation. This creates social inequity and a severe limitation on the dialogue surrounding environmental change. (P.325).

Summary:

The authors base their article on the notion, derived from the Brundtland Report, that sustainability is only achievable through active citizen participation in making informed choices in the development process. This requires social management of environmental changes. Social management involves enhancing our decision-making structures to "build upon a wider range of interests, needs and perspectives" (p.324).

The authors identify four aspects of the 'orthodox' national response to the Brundtland Report, and suggest ideas for an alternative framework (pp.324-325):

'Our common future' implies that all social interests are identical. Alternative assessments of the nature of environmental threat and differing needs must be acknowledged.

There has been a focus on the facts of environmental issues and solutions. In reality, these 'facts' are characterized by disagreement in the technological development process. Thus, 'environmental threat' is inseparable from "the social structures and institutional arrangements which both identify and generate those threats" (p.324).

There is a 'top-down' view of information dissemination. The public should be viewed not only as information receivers, but as information generators. The variety of knowledge produced by people in everyday contexts should be emphasized.

There has been a limited notion of what organizations may be appropriate participants, at what levels of the development process, to the exclusion of opposition groups and the public in general. The public can play a more "integral role within the planning and organization of technological systems..." (P.325).

Adopting 'social management' means involving those groups in society which are typically excluded from the usual processes of environmental management. The authors present three positive citizen initiatives for environmental decision-making in Europe in the areas of urban ecology, wind energy, and science shops (pp.327-332). Following their presentation of these examples, the authors offer three defenses of the need for social management (p.333):

Citizens are already taking significant steps in the direction of environmental decision- making. Continuing to try to impose a top-down approach to environmental management will fail, and only increase the gap between citizens and the technological development process.

Current official ideologies are coming under criticism. There is a 'loss of faith' in institutions, and 'technocratic development is losing its cultural consensus'.

Any approach to environmental management that ignores the knowledge, expertise, and imagination of the majority of the population will be limited. These approaches cannot be sustainable and will be resisted.

Citizen involvement is more likely to yield solutions that are flexible and case-specific, and "stem from a fully contextualized awareness of local problems" (p.333). In the search for successful responses to environmental change, pragmatic arguments such as those listed above are needed to balance conceptual/theoretical approaches to problems.

Keywords: social management, citizen participation, environmental change, sustainable development