Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 603–612 | Cite as

Problem-Framing: A perspective on environmental problem-solving

  • Lisa V. Bardwell
Article

Abstract

The specter of environmental calamity calls for the best efforts of an involved public. Ironically, the way people understand the issues all too often serves to discourage and frustrate rather than motivate them to action. This article draws from problem-solving perspectives offered by cognitive psychology and conflict management to examine a framework for thinking about environmental problems that promises to help rather than hinder efforts to address them.

Problem-framing emphasizes focusing on the problem definition. Since how one defines a problem determines one's understanding of and approach to that problem, being able to redefine or reframe a problem and to explore the “problem space” can help broaden the range of alternatives and solutions examined.

Problem-framing incorporates a cognitive perspective on how people respond to information. It explains why an emphasis on problem definition is not part of people's typical approach to problems. It recognizes the importance of structure and of having ways to organize that information on one's problem-solving effort. Finally, problem-framing draws on both cognitive psychology and conflict management for strategies to manage information and to create a problem-solving environment that not only encourages participation but can yield better approaches to our environmental problems.

Key words

Conflict management Environmental problem-solving Environmental dispute resolution Helplessness Metacognition Problem definition Problem-framing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Alexander, C. 1965. The city is not a tree.Architectural Forum, 122:58–62.Google Scholar
  2. Allman, W. 1985. Staying alive in the 20th century.Science85 October:3–41.Google Scholar
  3. Bellman, H. S. 1980. Siting for a sanitary landfill for Eau Claire, Wisconsin.Environmental Professional 2(1):56–57.Google Scholar
  4. Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving environmental disputes: A decade of experience. The Conservation Foundation. Washington, DC, 284 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, A. L., and J. S. De Loache. 1978. Skills plans and self-regulation. Pages 18–32in R. S. Siegler (ed.), Children's thinking: What develops? Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter, S., and W. J. D. Kennedy. 1985. Managing environmental conflict by applying common sense.Negotiation Journal 1(2):149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carroll, J. M. 1982. The adventure of getting to know a computer.Computer November:49–58.Google Scholar
  8. Crowfoot, J. E., and J. M. Wondolleck 1990. Environmental disputes: Community involvement in conflict resolution. Island Press, Washington, DC, 275 pp.Google Scholar
  9. De Groot, A. D. 1965. Thought and choice in chess. Mouton, The Hague, 463 pp.Google Scholar
  10. De Young, R. 1984. Some psychological aspects of resource conservation: The role of intrinsic motivation in recycling. PhD dissertation. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 134 pp.Google Scholar
  11. De Young, R., and S. Kaplan. 1988. On averting the tragedy of the commons.Environmental Management 12:273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dweck, C. S., and E. L. Leggett. 1988. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review 95(2):256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrlich, P. 1980. An ecologist standing up among seated social scientists.The CoEvolution Quarterly Fall:24–35.Google Scholar
  14. Elbow, P. 1981. Writing with power. Oxford University Press, New York, 384 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Fischhoff, B. 1981. Hot air: The psychology of CO2-induced climatic change.In J. H. Harvey (ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  16. Fisher, R., and W. Ury. 1981.Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin Books, New York, 161 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Freudenberg, K. 1984. Not in our backyards. Monthly Book Review Press, New York, 304 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Garber, J., and M. Seligman. 1980. Human helplessness: Theory and applications. Academic Press, New York, 402 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Hobson, T. 1989. Searching for success: Launching a nationwide campaign.The Renew America Report 3(3):1.Google Scholar
  20. Interaction Associates. 1986. Conflict resolution in organizations. Handout from the third national conference in peacemaking and conflict resolution. June 1986, Denver, Colorado, 35 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Kaplan, S., and R. Kaplan. 1982. Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. Praeger, New York, 287 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Lake, L. 1980. Environmental mediation: The search for consensus, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 233 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Lovins, A. B. 1977. Soft energy paths: Toward a durable peace. Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 231 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Maier, N. 1967. Assets and liabilities in group problem solving: The need for an integrative function.Psychological Review 74(4):239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mandler, G. 1975. Memory storage and retrieval: Some limits on the research of attention and consciousness.in P. M. Rabbitt and S. Dornic (eds.)Attention and performance, vol. 5. Academic, London.Google Scholar
  26. Mason, R., and I. Mitroff. 1981. Challenging strategic planning assumptions. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 324 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, G. A., E. Galanter, and K. H. Pilbram. 1960. Plans and the structure of behavior. Holt, Rinehalt and Winston, New York, 226 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Odell, R. (ed.) 1982. Can science deal with environmental uncertainties?Conservation Foundation Letter January:1–7.Google Scholar
  29. Posner, M. I. 1973. Cognition: An introduction. Scott Foresman, Glenview, Illinois, 208 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Rappaport, J. 1986. In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. Pages 141–164in E. Seidman and J. Rappaport (eds.) Redefining social problems. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Sampson, R. N., and D. Hair. 1990. Natural resources for the 21st century. Island Press, Washington, DC, 349 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Schnaiberg, A. 1980. The environment: From surplus to scarcity. Oxford University Press, New York, 464 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Simon, H. A. 1978. Rationality as process and as product of thought.American Economic Review 68: 1–16.Google Scholar
  34. Straus, D. B. 1981. Managing complexity. Pages 1–9in P. A. Marcus and W. M. Emrich (eds.), Environmental conflict management: Working paper series. American Arbitration Association and Clark-McGlennon Associates, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Talbot, A. R. 1983. Settling things: Six case studies in environmental mediation. The Conservation Foundation. Washington, DC, 45 pp.Google Scholar
  36. Voss, J. F., S. W. Tyler, and L. A. Yengo, 1983. Individual differences in the solving of social science problems. Pages 205–232in R. F. Dillon and R. R. Schmeck (eds.), Individual differences in psychology, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Watzlawick, P., T. Weaklind, and R. Fisch. 1974. Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. W. W. Norton, New York, 172 pp.Google Scholar
  38. Weick, K. 1984. Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems,American Psychologist 39(1):40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Williams, H. 1986. Barn-raising: An old approach helps old towns today.Small Town May/June:14–17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa V. Bardwell
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations