Progress in Human Geography 22,3 (1998) pp. 321±343

Rethinking environmental management Raymond L. Bryant and Geo€ A. Wilson Department of Geography, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK

Abstract: The field of environmental management developed as a technocentric problem-solving initiative, providing `practical' assistance to state officials involved in environmental management. Since the field was largely associated with what state officials and associated experts `do', little effort was devoted to understanding the political, economic or cultural forces conditioning the process of environmental management. The potentially significant contribution of diverse nonstate actors ± for example, farmers, shifting cultivators, businesses or nongovernmental organizations ± to this process was notably neglected. The field has recently become the target of mounting criticism with `environmental managerialism' dismissed as a research agenda divorced from key issues in human±environment interaction. This article argues that a recognition of the limitations of traditional understandings of environmental management ought to serve as the basis for a rethink of this field of study. This argument is developed in two stages. The article first explores how the traditional approach understands environmental management as a state-centred process, assesses diverse problems with that understanding and sketches an alternative way of thinking about this issue. The article then assesses how environmental management as a field of study is usually understood, the pitfalls of that understanding and the possible contours of an alternative appreciation of the field of environmental management. By adopting a more inclusive understanding of what environmental management is as a process, a broader appreciation of the nature of environmental management as a field of study can be obtained. The article concludes that a revitalized field can overcome existing deficiencies so as to be in a position to make thereafter an important contribution to research on human±environment interaction. Key words: environmental management, state-centrism, actors, process, field of study, positivism, social sciences, re-evaluation. The management of the environment assumes urgency as we become more aware of what is going wrong in our relationship with the natural environment (Benton and Redclift, 1994:13).

The need for an innovative and coherent research field centred on `environmental management' questions increases as environmental problems intensify worldwide (Pickering and Owen, 1994; Redclift and Benton, 1994; Atchia and Tropp, 1995; O'Riordan, 1995). Yet, paradoxically, fundamental doubts persist over the nature, purpose and disciplinary c Arnold 1998 *

0309±1325(98)PH202RA

322

Rethinking environmental management

location of environmental management as a field of study (MacNeill, 1971; Birch, 1973; Garlauskas, 1975; Petak, 1980; 1981; Mitchell, 1989; Redclift and Benton, 1994; O'Riordan, 1995). The literature has certainly discussed the research status of environmental management, but usually only in the context of attempting to `improve' the problem-solving capacity of the field in relation to state concerns and practices. This narrow interpretation is criticized by various scholars as being insufficiently analytical, as well as lacking a rigorous appreciation of the historical bases of human±environment interaction (Powell, 1976; Sachs, 1993; Redclift and Benton, 1994; Redclift, 1996). Yet, a historical and analytical approach is essential if environmental management is to be a useful means to address intensifying environmental problems (Redclift, 1994). This article argues that such criticism ought to be the starting point for a critical reevaluation of environmental management as a process and as a field of study. The article is divided into two parts. The first part explores our understanding of environmental management as a process. The traditional state-centric basis of this understanding is examined, before elements of an alternative appreciation, incorporating the crucial role of nonstate actors, are discussed. The second part then investigates how environmental management has been understood as a field of study. Its traditional basis in positivist science is considered, before the case is made for a strengthened social scientific role in environmental management on the basis of the re-evaluated understanding of environmental management as a process. The article concludes with a brief consideration of the possible future of environmental management as a field of study both in relation to geography and other environmental research fields.

I Rethinking environmental management as a process 1 State-centrism in environmental management Traditional accounts usually equate environmental management with the environmental practices of the state (e.g., Petak, 1981; Dorney, 1987; Buckley, 1991). The assumption is that environmental management is something that state agencies `do' as a result of the state's distinctive position in society. In this view, the state is the key actor in the management of `public' goods of which the environment, and its associated `resources', is seen to be a prime example (Johnston, 1996). If one of the state's key responsibilities is to act as a `steward' of the environment, it follows that environmental management is an activity conducted by the state on behalf of the citizens that it claims to represent (Walker, 1989; Paehlke and Torgerson, 1990; Hurrell, 1994). The belief that environmental management is a process uniquely linked to the state has grown in the measure that the state itself has become more powerful, especially since the mid-nineteenth century. However, that belief became particularly influential in the midtwentieth century as the state assumed responsibility for a growing array of social and environmental tasks (Johnston, 1996; Wilson and Bryant, 1997). By the 1960s, the state's pre-eminence in environmental management seemed `natural' to many scholars, notwithstanding the social struggles that marked state ascendancy in this area. The point here is not to dwell on the historical role of the state in environmental management (cf. Guha, 1989; Walker, 1989; Peluso, 1992; Johnston, 1996), but to emphasize the important implications that follow from this traditional `state-centric' approach to understanding environmental management as a process. Four key implications may be noted here.

Raymond L. Bryant and Geo€ A. Wilson 323 First, the state has long sought to manage the environment based on the assumption that the `environment' can be divided into discrete entities for management purposes (Hays, 1987; Mitchell, 1989; Williams, 1989; Roche, 1990; Wilson, 1992b; Bryant, 1997). As part of a wider functional definition of the state, environmental management was defined in relation to selected commercial resources: timber, fish, minerals or agricultural products. The state's environmental management role was particularly elaborated during the 1960s and 1970s in response to a growing range of pollution problems linked to industrialization and the adoption of potentially hazardous new technologies (Beck, 1992; Mould, 1992). Yet the recognition that many environmental problems are interconnected has not led to a modification of the state's functional approach to environmental management in keeping with, say, the `holistic' prescriptions of writers such as Devall and Sessions (1985) and Lovelock (1995). Rather, such a recognition has only prompted further specialization as new agencies are created to deal with `new' environmental problems (Hays, 1987; MacAndrews, 1994). Secondly, environmental management has been widely understood to be synonymous with the development of large bureaucracies and an associated `top-down' approach to environmental problems (Barratt and Fudge, 1981; Hogwood and Gunn, 1984; Mitchell, 1989). In this view, environmental management is a service provided by the state, but which needs to be imposed (by force if necessary) on people living in a defined territory. The corollary of this view is that environmental management is not a practice associated with nonstate professionals (see below), but is rather predicated on the `rational' actions of state bureaucracies (cf. Weber, 1968; Murphy, 1988). Environmental management is thus seen to be largely a matter of the formulation and implementation of environmental laws, policies and regulations by officials acting with the legal and coercive backing of the state (Hurrell, 1994; Johnston, 1996). Thirdly, the traditional view sees environmental management as a process in which state-affiliated `experts' trained in western positivist science apply their `expertise' to the attempted resolution of selected environmental problems (Petak, 1981; Miller, 1984; 1985; Moffat, 1990; for a critique, see Park, 1997). Such science is involved in all stages of the environmental management process ± from problem definition and investigation to policy formulation and implementation. Environmental problems cannot even be conceived without reference to scientific methods and principles: scientists diagnose the nature and causes of environmental problems and prescribe solutions in keeping with these diagnoses (cf. Miller, 1994; Pickering and Owen, 1994; O'Riordan, 1995). Environmental management in this traditional view is a scientific process that is largely defined and manipulated by experts linked directly or indirectly to the state (e.g., Petak, 1980; 1981). Fourthly, environmental management is seen to be a `problem-solving' endeavour in which scientific expertise and the latest technology are applied to a specific environmental problem. What O'Riordan (1981) terms `technocentrism' imbues the attitudes of the vast majority of state environmental managers and is often also reflected in ensuing management practices (Petak, 1981; Nath et al., 1993). The assumption is that environmental problems are amenable to technological resolution without any need to modify substantially broader political, economic or social forces. In this view, environmental management is seen as a process designed gradually and selectively to alter the status quo so as to solve environmental problems, but without upsetting prevailing political or economic interests (cf. Dorney, 1987; Turner, 1988; Atchia and Tropp, 1995). This traditional understanding of environmental management is the subject of growing criticism. To begin with, critics frequently question the capacity of the state to reconcile

324

Rethinking environmental management

environmental exploitation and conservation through its policies and practices (Sachs, 1993; Redclift, 1987; 1994; Johnston, 1996). On the one hand, `top-down' environmental management is condemned as being incompatible with the needs and interests of a heterogeneous group of `grassroots' actors comprising, notably, farmers, fishers, nomadic pastoralists or shifting cultivators (actors, in turn, differentiated by class, gender, race or age) (Wilson and Bryant, 1997). Most officials are physically distant from the localities in which their policies are implemented such that they rarely (if ever) experience directly the effects of their decision-making. Further, the interests of officials and many grassroots actors (especially the poor) are frequently incompatible (Rush, 1991; Hurrell, 1994). Indeed, some critics allege that the two sets of interests are inherently antithetical ± that state decision-making invariably favours `nonlocal' over `local' interests (e.g., Shiva, 1991; Sachs, 1993). On the other hand, many states often do not possess the physical capacity to enforce environmental policies in the territories nominally under their control. Rather, these states must acquiesce as powerful transnational corporations (TNCs) or local `bosses' pursue environmental management activities that make a mockery of the law (Migdal, 1988; Ribot, 1993; Bryant and Bailey, 1997). While the problem of `weak states' is most evident in parts of the third world, it is by no means confined to countries in Asia, Africa or Latin America (Marchak, 1995; The Ecologist, 1996). A further criticism of traditional understandings of environmental management relates to the question of potentially divergent ways of understanding the environment by state and nonstate actors (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Bryant, 1996; Wilson, 1996). Thus, there is held to be a discrepancy between the environmental attitudes of trained scientists working for the state and the environmental attitudes of many grassroots actors who may possess a `nonscientific' yet detailed knowledge of local ecological conditions (Shiva, 1991; Sachs, 1993; Pretty, 1995; Wilson, 1997). Typically, the former are considered to adhere to technocentric attitudes informed by western positivist science, while the latter frequently adopt ecocentric attitudes linked to long-standing `holistic' visions of human±environmental interaction (Miller, 1984; 1985; Denslow and Padoch, 1988; Harvey, 1993; Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1996). Such a classification is, however, simplistic, and does not allow for the heterogeneity of environmental attitudes among actors (Murdoch and Clark, 1994). Yet, there may be a disjuncture between the attitudes of many state officials dealing with the environment, and those attitudes held by many grassroots actors who are often mindful of the pitfalls of implementing state-held notions about the `appropriate' way to manage the environment. Recurrent conflict over how to manage the environment often ensues from such attitudinal differences (Shiva, 1991; Peluso, 1992; Mitchell, 1995; Bryant, 1997). Perhaps the most severe criticism, though, concerns the problem-solving nature of the traditional approach to environmental management (Miller, 1985). By adopting a perspective focused on the environmental problem at hand, this approach is accused of failing to integrate discrete problems into the wider political, economic and social context (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987). As Redclift (1994: 133) notes, `the environmental consequences of development are separated from the social and economic ones'; the all-but-inevitable result is that management prescriptions do not address human± environment interaction in view of the contextual forces that condition such interaction. Yet interconnected social and environmental problems require much more than the `offthe-shelf' techniques favoured by scientific experts. Indeed, a major reason why the conventional approach often falters at the implementation stage is because the input of many nonstate actors (including poor grassroots actors), critical to effective

Raymond L. Bryant and Geo€ A. Wilson 325 environmental decision-making, is excluded by `knowledgeable' state officials who dominate that process (Sachs, 1993).

2

Bringing nonstate actors in

The conventional understanding of environmental management as a process has, thus, come under growing attack as critics challenge what they see as being the state-centric and positivist basis of that understanding (Moffat, 1990; Pretty, 1995; Park, 1997; Wilson and Bryant, 1997). As noted below, this critique has had implications for perceptions of environmental management as a field of study with some critics content to dismiss environmental management as a `bygone' research area (Centre for Science and the Environment, 1992; Sachs, 1993; Shiva, 1993). However, this is tantamount to `throwing out the baby with the bath water'. A more reflective approach is required that seeks to rethink the basic premises of environmental management as a process, so as to accommodate the criticisms noted above. By developing an inclusive understanding of environmental management as a process, the utility of the field itself may be affirmed. A full discussion of the nature and implications of an inclusive understanding of environmental management as a process is beyond the remit of this article. Rather, it is useful to sketch briefly the possible contours of such an understanding as part of a wider case for rethinking environmental management as a field of study. A useful starting point, and the basis for discussion here, is a recognition that both state and nonstate actors participate actively in the environmental management process. This point is not as innocuous as it might at first seem. It follows from such a recognition, for instance, that to understand environmental management as a process it is imperative not only to explain selected state activities but also to assess the actions of a wide range of nonstate actors who are also involved in this process. Nonstate actors certainly appear regularly in conventional accounts. Yet, they do so usually as objects of state attention ± to be consulted or manipulated by state environmental managers in keeping with official policies. Thus, for example, many social forestry policies in the third world incorporate public `participation' in a context of ongoing state control (Poffenberger, 1990; Rush, 1991; Peluso, 1992; Bryant, 1997). An alternative understanding, in contrast, views nonstate actors as purposive agents (i.e., `subjects') involved in environmental management in their own right ± and hence as actors in need of independent study and appreciation (Denslow and Padoch, 1988; Ingold et al., 1988; Murdoch and Marsden, 1995; Pretty, 1995). To re-evaluate environmental management as a process is to begin by reassessing the identity of those who manage the environment, thereby breaking with a long-standing state-centric tradition. The utility of this reassessment becomes apparent when attention is given to the diverse types of nonstate actors involved in environmental management. One such group falls into the category of `grassroots' environmental actors: farmers, fishers, shifting cultivators, nomadic pastoralists or hunter-gatherers, for example. This heterogeneous group encompasses a large number of individual actors, representing a broad range of interests and activities, that are amply reflected in diverse environmental management practices (Hong, 1987; Bassett, 1988; Denslow and Padoch, 1988; Agarwal and Narain, 1992; Khasiani, 1992; Pretty, 1995; Wilson, 1992a; 1996). It is true that most, if not all, of these actors find that their activities are affected by the policies and practices of state agencies (Murdoch and Marsden, 1995; Bryant and Bailey, 1997). These activities are none the less not determined by the latter, but also reflect the attitudes, interests and decisions of actors operating

326

Rethinking environmental management

individually and/or as groups (e.g., common property regimes ± see Ostrom, 1990). Yet, the potential importance of the attitudes, interests and practices of these actors is frequently played down in traditional accounts (cf. MacNeill, 1971; Dorney, 1987; Turner, 1988; Buckley, 1991; Nath et al., 1993; O'Riordan, 1995). If grassroots actors appear at all in the latter, it is typically as objects to be managed along with the environment, and whose `participation' may be solicited by state officials as part of a broader policy approach in which these local actors play little or no part (Guha, 1989; Peluso, 1992; Bryant, 1997). To re-evaluate environmental management is also to appreciate the role that other nonstate environmental actors play in shaping human±environmental interaction. Many TNCs, for instance, have assumed prominence today as actors that shape livelihoods and environmental conditions around the world (Buchholz, 1993; Eden, 1994; Welford, 1996). The ability of these actors to shift capital from place to place has important, if yet poorly understood implications for environmental management at all scales (Pearson, 1987; Korten, 1995; The Ecologist, 1996). Not only are many TNCs important environmental managers in their own right but also their immense size and economic clout mean that they also condition the actions of other actors including state agencies (Buchholz, 1993; Moody, 1996; Welford, 1996). The global role of international financial institutions (IFIs) such as the World Bank or International Monetary Fund illustrates that an inclusive understanding of environmental management also needs to account for the environmental management activities of actors that also may not fit the image of a `hands-on' environmental manager. The record of IFIs indicates the importance of actors whose role is largely (if not exclusively) an indirect one (World Bank, 1992; Asian Development Bank, 1995). Thus, IFIs derive power and influence as a result of their loan provision policies that may be linked directly or indirectly to the perpetuation of environmental management practices by other actors that may have critical implications for the direction of human±environment interaction generally (Rich, 1994; Serrano, 1994a). In recent years, the rise of environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) has marked the advent of a new type of environmental manager. Environmental NGOs derive their raison d'eÃtre from public anxiety over environmental problems, and often call to account other actors (i.e., states, TNCs, IFIs) which are accused of being behind the creation of many of those problems (McCormick, 1995; Wapner, 1995). It is the `moral' character of environmental NGOs as `representatives' of civil society that helps to explain the willingness of the media, official policy-makers and the public-at-large to pay attention to the campaigns of these actors (Princen and Finger, 1994; Serrano, 1994b; Alegre, 1996). The nonstate actors briefly noted above may be sharply differentiated according to environmental attitudes and interests. Yet one thing they share in common is that they usually only feature in traditional views of environmental management in so far as they interact with state agencies. A re-evaluated understanding, however, would accord them `subject' status, thereby necessarily entailing an investigation of how the attitudes, interests and decisions of nonstate actors affect environmental management generally. To reconsider environmental management is also to appreciate the role of the state in a different light. That role is undoubtedly an important one (Johnston, 1996), but it is necessary to appreciate what is distinctive about the state in comparison with nonstate actors. It is well known that state power is derived from this actor's formal monopoly on the means of coercion within a defined territory (Mann, 1986). This formal power may be related to environmental management in at least two ways. On the one hand, the state has often played an important direct role as an environmental manager in a wide range

Raymond L. Bryant and Geo€ A. Wilson 327 of socioecological contexts. To take but one example, many states have retained direct control over forest management creating large state forest reserves, usually containing commercially valuable species in countries as diverse as New Zealand (Memon and Wilson, 1993), Burma (Bryant, 1997), Germany (Heske, 1938) or Indonesia (Peluso, 1992). In this regard, the state is not too dissimilar to many other nonstate actors involved in environmental management. On the other hand, states also seek to influence nonstate actors through indirect means centred on the regulatory process. In many cases, this indirect state role can be more important than its direct environmental management activities, in so far as it may have a broader impact on a wide range of environmental management practices in civil society. For example, states seek to regulate the ability of farmers to degrade valuable wildlife habitats on their own land through legislation such as the Resource Management Act 1991 in New Zealand (Memon and Wilson, 1993) or the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 in the UK (Winter, 1996). Similarly, states use their regulatory powers to control industrial emissions in the quest for better air quality; in the USA, for example, this task falls notably to the federal Environmental Protection Agency (Hays, 1987; Rees, 1990). It is thus the regulatory capacity of the state in environmental management which singles it out from nonstate actors. Yet, as highlighted above, this does not justify the exclusion of nonstate actors from an understanding of the environmental management process, but rather an altered appreciation of the distinctive role of the state in that process. Rethinking environmental management as a process along the lines sketched above is a necessary precursor to considering how environmental management may be reconceived as a field of study. This section has suggested the need for an inclusive understanding of environmental management as a process centred on a recognition that both state and nonstate actors can be `subjects' at the heart of this process. The remainder of the article considers the implications of this discussion for the understanding of environmental management as a field of study.

II

Rethinking environmental management as a ®eld of study

The traditional perspective of environmental management as a field of study has closely reflected the ways in which scholars have viewed environmental management as a process. A reassessment of the latter necessitates inevitably a re-evaluation of the former. This section makes the general case for an alternative understanding of environmental management as a field of study in light of a critique of conventional thinking.

1

A positivist legacy

The traditional state-centrism of environmental management as a field of study can be seen in the concerns that prompted the development of the field. As with other environmental research fields, environmental management originated with the growing public and official concern about environmental degradation that was rife in the late 1960s and early 1970s in Europe and North America (Nath et al., 1993; McCormick, 1995; O'Riordan, 1995). Unlike a number of counterpart research fields, however, environmental management was established with the premise that it should concern itself largely with the `practical' task of accumulating knowledge for use by state officials linked to the environmental sector (MacNeill, 1971; Buckley, 1991; Atchia and Tropp, 1995). Thus,

328

Rethinking environmental management

while such fields as environmental history, cultural ecology and environmental politics probed the social bases of environmental change and conflict, scholars working in environmental management produced mainly technical information, the ultimate aim of which was to generate specific policy recommendations for the state (Bowonder, 1987; Dorney, 1987). Largely eschewing social theory, environmental management developed as an applied field of study firmly linked to state policy-making (Garlauskas, 1975; Lorrain-Smith, 1982; Buckley, 1991). The `applied' and `practical' nature of environmental management as a field of study was manifested in the content and targeted audience of publications associated with the field. MacNeill (1971), for example, explored basic precepts of environmental management in the context of broad-based advice to the Canadian government. His goal was to explain key environmental issues and problems so as `to identify the range of strategies that governments may need to employ . . . at the urban, provincial, national and international levels' (MacNeill, 1971: v). The launch in 1973 of the Journal of Environmental Management signalled the growing coherence of the field orientated around a state-centred theme (Jeffers, 1973; Garlauskas, 1975). The journal Environmental Management was established in the USA in 1976, dedicated ± as with the Journal of Environmental Management ± to the discussion of `professional' concerns of the largely state-centred environmental research and policy community (DeSanto, 1976; Sandhu, 1977; Alexander, 1985). Research by scholars in these and related journals (e.g., Australian Journal of Environmental Management, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Environmental Impact Assessment Review) has tended to focus on the specification of ways and techniques in which state environmental managers can seek to resolve environmental conflicts and address environmental problems (e.g., Birch, 1973; Hirst, 1984; Bowonder, 1986; Freeman and Frey, 1986; Dieter, 1992; Born and Sonzogni, 1995). Notable in this regard has been the preoccupation with environment impact assessments by scholars and practitioners in the field, as part of a broader attempt to assist state environmental managers in their duties (e.g., Dixon and Fookes, 1995; Sankoh, 1996; Wen-Shan et al., 1996). The field of environmental management has also sought traditionally to understand human±environmental interaction in terms of western positivist science (Miller, 1985; Compton, 1993). Thus, there has been an emphasis on the acquisition of quantitative data relating to environmental processes and human impacts on the environment (for example, see Miller, 1994; Pickering and Owen, 1994; O'Riordan, 1995). The data are then `processed' through statistical and modelling techniques that aim to generate explanations as to causation and likely trends (e.g., Wigley and Raper, 1992; Warrick et al., 1993). This approach forms part of a wider belief ± long influential in the west ± in the attributes of the positivist scientific method (Adas, 1989; Pretty, 1995). It also not coincidentally reinforces linkages to the state which, itself, claims to operate in keeping with western science. The centrality of western positivist science in traditional approaches to environmental management thus resonates well with the modus operandi of the state in so far as the approach generates tangible data amenable to interpretation consonant with official policy-making (Boehmer-Christiansen, 1994; Harvey, 1996; Redclift, 1996). Quantitative data are notably manipulated through statistical means (e.g., timeseries analysis; modelling using a variety of computer models) to convey aggregate environmental trends and impacts that, in turn, may be used by state environmental managers as the basis for policy action. The pre-eminence of positivist science in traditional environmental management has also meant that certain disciplines or subdisciplines have been seen to play a more

Raymond L. Bryant and Geo€ A. Wilson 329 prominent role in the development of the field than others. Not surprisingly, environmental management has been strongly influenced over the years by the natural sciences, notably by physical geography and the environmental sciences. In this regard, work by Park (1980), Trudgill (1991) or Cooke and Doornkamp (1993), for example, has explored the possible contributions of physical geography to research in environmental management, while Cunningham and Saigo (1992), O'Riordan (1995) and Trudgill and Richards (1997), among others, have discussed potential linkages between environmental science and environmental management. Selected social sciences have also been influential in the development of environmental management as a field of study. Work by O'Riordan (1971), Birch (1973), Rees (1990) and Mitchell (1989; 1995), for example, has emphasized the long-standing human geography concern with the spatial development and ramifications of natural resource use. Research in urban and rural planning, economics, and psychology, meanwhile, has sought to clarify other social and economic factors that might be conducive to `effective' environmental management (e.g., Miller, 1985; Bromley, 1995; Williams, 1996). Such research has usually applied scientific methods and techniques drawn from the natural sciences to help explain social processes (i.e., quantitative research on environmental attitudes ± see Gray, 1985; Ajzen, 1988; 1991; Eagly and Chaiken, 1992). Environmental management thus developed as a research field based on the input of selected natural and social sciences with a shared faith in positivist science. Disciplinary influence in the development of environmental management was notably linked to the `rigour' of the disciplines in question ± understood in terms of their ability to deliver to state environmental managers practical `results' (e.g., models, quantitative data). Yet, as environmental management developed into a research field predicated on positivism, it also became a field seemingly incapable of addressing important research issues not amenable to quantitative or statistical treatment (Harvey, 1996).

2

Shifting towards the social sciences

This perception is the basis of an intensifying critique of the traditional approach (Miller, 1985; Sachs, 1993; Redclift, 1996; Wilson and Bryant, 1997). Thus, for instance, growing attention is being paid to the ways in which the field's long-standing state-centrism precludes a meaningful discussion of nonstate actors involved in environmental management. As the likes of Agarwal and Narain (1992), Sachs (1993) or Pretty (1995) suggest, the traditional approach results in a one-sided and distorted understanding of environmental management as a process. By equating `environmental management' largely with `state environmental management', scholars adhering to the traditional view inevitably fail to appreciate the environmental management capabilities of a wide array of nonstate actors, and are thus incapable of producing comprehensive accounts of the subject-matter. Indeed, traditional accounts may reinforce the prejudices of state officials concerning many nonstate actors (especially poor grassroots actors) inasmuch as those accounts affirm simultaneously the supremacy of the state as `society's environmental manager' and the subordination of nonstate actors (Sachs, 1993). The traditional approach is also criticized for a reliance on positivist science that was noted above. Critics emphasize two issues in this regard. First, they argue that the full breadth of human±environmental interaction cannot be captured by positivist scientific approaches alone, but rather entails an inclusive approach that may combine qualitative techniques like oral history, participant observation or focus groups with quantitative

330

Rethinking environmental management

methods like questionnaire surveys or census data analysis (e.g., Burgess et al., 1988a; 1988b; Cloke et al., 1996; Goss and Leinbach, 1996; Park, 1997). Clearly, different techniques will be appropriate in different research contexts; there is thus no standard research model. The point here, though, is that to obtain a well rounded understanding of environmental management issues, it may be the case that qualitative methods are most appropriate in selected contexts ± the use of oral history and participant observation to elicit the environmental management activities of shifting cultivators or huntergatherers, for example (Philippine Association for Inter-Cultural Development, 1993; Walpole et al., 1993; Peluso, 1995; Pretty, 1995). Secondly, critics argue that the field of environmental management requires an altered mix of disciplines so as to eliminate its positivist bias. If research is to be undertaken on the environmental management practices of nonstate actors, perhaps using selected qualitative methodologies in the process, then scholars will need to draw upon research in specific fields or subfields hitherto seen as being marginal to environmental management. For example, they will likely need to link their work to relevant theoretical and empirical advances in human geography, sociology, politics, anthropology or economics to a greater extent than has been the case before. In contrast, greater emphasis on the contribution of the social sciences to environmental management involves a reduced role for the natural sciences in the field, especially as the division of labour between environmental management and environmental science is clarified (see below). Such criticism of the field of environmental management has resulted in a growing crisis of identity and purpose that may now threaten the viability of the field itself. On the one hand, there are fears that `there is a danger that the term environmental management could lose its specific meaning and become a surrogate for applied environmental science in general' (Compton, 1993: 13). Others, meanwhile, perceive environmental management as a jargon-laden field largely disengaged from the day-today realities of the process of environmental management. In a context of worsening environmental problems, `environmental managerialism', for some, is part of the problem, and not the solution (e.g., Sachs, 1993; Redclift, 1994). The critical interventions noted above possess considerable merit. Yet, it is the argument of this article that calls for the demise of the field of environmental management are misplaced and counterproductive. Rather than dismiss the field altogether, it is the contention here that a more appropriate way forward is to reinterpret environmental management so as to take on board key criticisms of the field. The critique of the traditional approach, therefore, should serve as a precursor to a re-evaluated environmental management. Environmental management may yet serve as a useful means to develop an integrated approach to contemporary environmental problems in which co-operation among state and nonstate actors involved in the management of the environment is the norm. Ideally, the field ought to serve as a shared reference point for all actors and concerned scholars ± a discursive `common ground', as it were, where actors and scholars might debate the principles and conditions appropriate for comprehensive co-operation in the process of environmental management (cf. Redclift, 1996). Such an opportunity would not be present in a situation in which different actors become the focus of different sets of inquiry isolated from one other. Above all, a re-evaluated environmental management ought to retain what is useful in the traditional terminology ± notably the sense of purposive activity, dignity and responsibility that is attached to `environmental management' and `environmental managers' ± but to apply that terminology in a more inclusive manner consonant with considerations of social justice and equity.

Raymond L. Bryant and Geo€ A. Wilson 331 What, then, are the possible contours of an alternative understanding of environmental management as a field of study attuned to the considerations outlined above? The discussion that follows does not aim to be comprehensive. Rather, and by focusing mainly on the question of the disciplinary bases and location of a re-evaluated environmental management, it attempts to suggest new lines of inquiry and thinking conducive to the development of a more `relevant' field of environmental management. Figure 1 maps selectively the possible disciplinary influences of a re-evaluated environmental management. It seeks to explain that field in relation to a wide array of disciplines and subdisciplines in the social and natural sciences. As Benton and Redclift

Figure 1 Disciplinary influences on environmental management c 1997 Source: Reproduced with kind permission of UCL Press *

332

Rethinking environmental management

(1994: 11) emphasize, `research on the environment occurs at different points of convergence between disciplines'. The objective here, then, is to focus on how different disciplines and subdisciplines potentially affect environmental management (with the strength of influence reflected in the thickness of the arrows). It needs to be noted that this figure does not address the obverse situation ± that is, the nature and extent of the influence of environmental management upon other disciplines and subdisciplines. Figure 1 suggests that there is a strong social science character to a re-evaluated environmental management. There is certainly an ongoing role for the natural sciences, especially physical geography and environmental science.1 However, the indicated social sciences ought to be central to research if a revitalized and socially relevant environmental management is to be developed. This point is a logical corollary of the suggested critical re-evaluation of environmental management as a process outlined above. If the latter is to emphasize the complex human interests and practices that shape environmental management activities, the field of environmental management itself must accord priority to social scientific research. Figure 1 departs from traditional understandings of environmental management predicated on a strong natural scientific basis and linked to positivist `problem-solving' approaches. It suggests that the influence of the natural sciences on environmental management be reduced while that of the social sciences be increased. This shift reflects the revised understanding of environmental management as a process noted above. However, it also reflects parallel developments in the field of environmental science. Just as environmental management may derive new vigour by strengthening its social science credentials, so too environmental science seems to be maturing into a research field largely given over to integrating diverse natural sciences around an ecological motif (see, for example, Cunningham and Saigo, 1992; Miller, 1994; Botkin and Keller, 1995; Ennos and Bailey, 1995). O'Riordan (1995) certainly illustrates that there are also important possible interactions between environmental management and environmental science, with the latter amenable to deployment in the aid of the former. As Trudgill and Richards (1997: 5) further suggest, environmental science may be an invaluable input to policy formulation in terms of `a dialogue between generalization and specific contexts' within which science-based policy must be grounded. Yet, no work to date has been able to bridge successfully the conceptual and philosophical divisions that exist between environmental science and environmental management (cf. Johnston, 1983; Gandy, 1996). There would appear to be good reasons for this failure of synthesis. A basic distinction needs to be emphasized: while environmental science is largely concerned to explain the physical bases of environmental change (i.e., it is a natural science), environmental management is focused increasingly on understanding how humans interact with the environment and with each other in their environmental management practices (i.e., it is essentially a social science). Thus, the latter takes largely as given explanations of the physical environment ± although needing all the while to remain sensitive to new understandings of that environment (Zimmerer, 1994). As such, a division of labour between environmental management and environmental science has been gradually reinforced, reflecting the differing concerns and training of scholars working in each area. The argument of this article would reinforce that separation. Above all, the suggestion that greater attention must be given to hitherto neglected social sciences in environmental management such as anthropology, cultural ecology or environmental politics would reinforce the argument that scholars in environmental management need to focus their efforts mainly on

Raymond L. Bryant and Geo€ A. Wilson 333 understanding the complex sociopolitical and economic factors influencing environmental decision-making (Redclift and Benton, 1994). This is not to deny the utility of selective linkages with environmental science (Compton, 1993; Shrader-Frechette and McCoy, 1994; O'Riordan, 1995; Trudgill and Richards, 1997). Yet, with our understanding of the complex human dimensions to environmental management still relatively limited, it is crucial that scholars in environmental management devote their full energies to developing a greater appreciation of the complexities of those dimensions. Environmental management's shift towards the social sciences is notably reflected in the field's changing links to physical and human geography. On the one hand, physical geography is losing its central place in environmental management in the measure that social concerns are taking priority over physical questions (Beck, 1992; Sachs, 1993; Redclift and Benton, 1994; Cronon, 1995). The work of such scholars as Park (1980), Trudgill (1991) and Cooke and Doornkamp (1993) notwithstanding, the critical questions that need to be answered in the field of environmental management are increasingly located in the social sphere. For example, the UK ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme has sought to boost the social science aspects to environmental research (Redclift and Benton, 1994; Parnwell and Bryant, 1996; Vogler and Imber, 1996). These questions notably pertain to understanding the attitudes, interests and activities of nonstate actors involved in the process of environmental management, and how different actors (including the state) interact over environmental issues (see also Wilson and Bryant, 1997). On the other hand, these questions also suggest the need for an enhanced role for human geography in the field of environmental management. It is true that human geography has long influenced this field, notably through contributions in the areas of planning and resource management (e.g., O'Riordan, 1971; Birch, 1973; Johnston, 1983; Rees, 1990; Selman, 1992; Slocombe, 1993; Mitchell, 1989; 1995; Williams, 1996). Some argue, for example, that `planning is absolutely basic to the function of environmental management since it involves the identifications of objectives and selections of the means of accomplishing them' (Compton, 1993: 20±21). Yet, this influence has been rather narrow in that environmental management has not benefited from the full breadth of concerns within human geography that might be related profitably to human management of the environment. Three examples will suffice to illustrate this point. First, work in a (broadly defined) economic geography by the likes of Corbridge et al. (1994) and Harvey (1996) explores the links between time, space and a rapidly mutating global capitalist economy. Such work might be able to shed new light on the changing dynamics of relations between actors involved in environmental management at various scales. What is the precise impact of accelerated information and capital flows around the world, for instance, on the power and management capabilities of diverse actors ± states, TNCs, farmers, IFIs or environmental NGOs? Have such economic changes altered the ways in which different actors pursue their goals and interests in environmental management? In contrast to such `macro economic' considerations, work by Amin and Thrift (1994) and Grabher and Stark (1996) probes `microeconomic'questions pertaining to individual firms or business sectors, and the ways in which the goals and practices of businesses may be `embedded' in political and economic networks ranging from the local to the global scale. This work may be helpful to attempts to understand the manner in which businesses involved in environmental management may adopt practices in light of the specific networks within which they are situated (Welford, 1996). To what extent, for example, is it accurate to understand

334

Rethinking environmental management

the environmental practices of firms in terms of local or regional business `cultures'? How might the interpenetration of business and state interests differentially affect the capacity of the state to act in the `common interest' as an environmental manager? Secondly, selected research in cultural geography would also appear to resonate well with a more inclusive environmental management. Thus, work by Cosgrove and Daniels (1988) and Simmons (1989; 1993) on the `iconography' and perception of landscape, for example, has sought to trace the changing human `imprint' on, and appreciation of, the natural environment. This work could be useful to understanding the historical origins and evolution of contemporary environmental management practices, and especially the possible interactions between environmental attitudes and management practices. Recent research by Harrison and Burgess (1994) and Cosgrove et al. (1996), for example, on the `social construction of nature' and `landscape and identity' elaborates questions surrounding popular consumption and perception of nature to assess contemporary environmental understandings. While this work is mainly concerned with the public at large, and not actors involved in environmental management per se, it may none the less help to clarify the social bases and dynamics of shifts in environmental attitudes, with important implications for understanding how broad social trends may be related to the attitudes and practices of diverse environmental actors. To what extent, for example, are the environmental attitudes and management practices of, say, state officials or farmers a reflection of broader changes in social mores about `appropriate' human use of the land (e.g., Carr and Tait, 1991; Wilson, 1996)? What happens when the interests of one actor involved in environmental management come into conflict with these changing social mores (e.g., the planned disposal of the Brent Spar oil rig in the North Sea) (cf. Princen and Finger, 1994)? Finally, developments in political geography may aid in the articulation of the links between political processes and environmental management. For instance, work by  'Tuathail (1996), among many others, explores the Agnew and Corbridge (1995) and O connections between power relations, space and territoriality, and in doing so eschews traditional understandings of political space in favour of a more inclusive appreciation of how state and nonstate actors interact in the creation and use of political space. Such work has clear implications for a re-evaluated environmental management in view of the close links between politics, territoriality and access to environmental resources (e.g., Peluso, 1995; Vandergeest and Peluso, 1995; Parnwell and Bryant, 1996; Bryant, 1997). Closer still to the concerns of environmental management is work in political ecology which seeks to understand the political economy of human±environmental interaction (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Bryant, 1992; Peet and Watts, 1996). Research questions here centre on exploring the political sources, conditions and ramifications of environmental change. How are various environmental resources appropriated and used by various actors, and what are the types of conflicts that may ensue from such environmental usage? How are power relations among actors reflected in unequal access to environmental resources, and how might environmental degradation differentially affect different groups in society? Political ecology is thus centrally concerned with appreciating how power relations may be `embodied' in changing environmental conditions (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Bryant and Bailey, 1997). Such concerns are certainly important to understand the interests and capabilities of diverse actors involved in environmental management. The preceding discussion illustrates a more general point concerning the relationship between the field of environmental management and the discipline of geography. The former draws upon diverse disciplinary influences, but the aims and objectives of a

Raymond L. Bryant and Geo€ A. Wilson 335 revitalized environmental management resonate most closely with those of geography. Above all, it is the question of space that helps to explain geography's centrality to environmental management. How are the environmental management policies and practices of diverse actors expressed spatially? Indeed, in what ways does space influence the pursuit of such policies and practices? As MacNeill (1971: 18) has pointed out, `space is an important characteristic of all environmental problems' and, consequently, the proposed solutions to those problems. Yet, if the field of environmental management has long acknowledged the importance of space, it has yet to assimilate fully the rich human geography literature addressing sociocultural, economic and political aspects to spatial questions (e.g., Doel, 1993; Murdoch and Marsden, 1995). While environmental management is, therefore, clearly linked to geography (Figure 1), it none the less also needs to draw upon other disciplinary sources. If spatial questions underscore the central role of geography in environmental management, the field also needs to incorporate, for instance, an appreciation of economic, political and cultural processes that is provided in some of the work conducted in economics, political studies and anthropology. For example, to understand the activities of actors in environmental management is to appreciate how power relations enable and constrain those activities, a central theme in the political studies literature (Hurrell, 1994; Garner, 1996). Similarly, work in economics may help to clarify the economic calculations behind the environmental strategies of diverse actors, and the ways in which environmental considerations may remain outside the realm of such calculations (Schramm and Warford, 1988; Barbier, 1989; Pearce et al., 1989; Bromley, 1995). Research in anthropology, meanwhile, can shed light on the cultural dimensions of environmental management, and the ways in which the specific policies and practices of actors may partly reflect cultural norms and `taboos' (Hooper, 1981; VanBeek and Banga, 1992; Head, 1993; Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1996). As Figure 1 suggests, it is selected `environmental' subdisciplines with which environmental management has potentially greatest affinity (although it needs to be reiterated here that not all possible affiliations are noted in the figure). Environmental politics, for instance, represents a useful (and so far underutilized) source of knowledge on the manner in which diverse environmental management problems and actors may relate to the political process (Boehmer-Christiansen, 1994; Garner, 1996). This subdiscipline of political studies provides insights inter alia on the changing nature of state environmental policies, the `greening' of party politics, the philosophical basis of green political thought (which may or may not influence the attitudes and interests of various actors), interstate relations over environmental issues, and green `civic politics' (Weale, 1992; Dobson, 1995; Wapner, 1995). Such research would be helpful in sharpening analysis in environmental management of the political interests and objectives of state and nonstate actors. Work in ecological economics, in contrast, provides insights into the ways in which economic systems contribute to social inequity and environmental degradation (Barbier et al., 1994). This subdiscipline assesses, among other things, the social and ecological damage caused by a globalized capitalist system, the thermodynamics of the `steady state', and the possible elements in general of a socially and ecologically sustainable form of human±environmental interaction (Martinez-Alier, 1987; Daly and Cobb, 1989; Ekins and Max-Neef, 1992; O'Connor, 1994). This work would be useful to scholars working in environmental management in that it would help to clarify how different actors involved in environmental management are differentially incorporated into the global capitalist system, and how their activities may contribute to sustainable or unsustainable forms of economic activity.

336

Rethinking environmental management

Cultural ecology (or ecological anthropology as it is also known) provides a final example of how subdisciplines contiguous to environmental management may enrich the analytical capacity of the latter. Cultural ecology has long studied the ways in which different cultures adapt to prevailing ecological conditions, and the environmental attitudes and belief systems that may underpin such adaptation (Bennett, 1976; Hardesty, 1977; Orlove, 1980). Recently, it has begun to interrogate the possible links between culture, attitudes and power relations, and in the process is accumulating a wealth of empirical evidence about the ways in which cultural factors impinge on environmental decision-making that ought to be of great interest to those working in environmental management (e.g., Croll and Parkin, 1992). Many other fruitful interactions between social science disciplines and subdisciplines could be mentioned (e.g., environmental history, environmental sociology), but these three examples suffice to illustrate the increasing importance of the social sciences to a reevaluated environmental management. Thus, and as Figure 1 suggests, environmental management should be a research field largely within the discipline of geography, but which none the less shares an affinity with other social science disciplines and their environmental subdisciplines (cf. Middleton, 1995). A central goal, therefore, in any effort to re-evaluate environmental management, ought to be to strengthen links to selected disciplines and subdisciplines in such a way as to encourage a more inclusive appreciation of environmental management and environmental managers. To revitalize environmental management is also to reassess the definition of this field's scholarly community. If environmental management is to be a more relevant field of study, then it follows that it ought to reach out to a wider group of scholars than has hitherto been the case. It is important to emphasize that this question has not even been an issue in most traditional approaches to environmental management ± it was simply understood that the community encompassed only those professional experts linked to the state (e.g., Dorney, 1987; Buckley, 1991; Atchia and Tropp, 1995). Those experts comprised mainly scholars working in the natural sciences and selected `hard' social sciences (e.g., psychology, see Williams, 1987). A revitalized environmental management must break with this traditionally narrow approach by opening itself to a much more inclusive set of researchers and activists, not necessarily linked to the state, and reflecting a wide range of disciplinary influences. The point here is not that `traditional' scholars are no longer relevant to a revitalized environmental management. Rather, it is that the contributions of other researchers hitherto excluded from the field need also to be accorded a place in the community. These researchers may work for various nonstate actors ± environmental NGOs, IFIs, TNCs or grassroots organizations (e.g., people's organizations) ± or work for themselves as independent scholars or consultants. To take but one example, Friends of the Earth routinely commissions critical research on environmental management issues ranging from local-level issues (e.g., highway construction, habitat protection) to global concerns (international mahogany trade). These studies examine the environmental management activities of state agencies, IFIs, businesses, grassroots actors and others and, in doing so, they contribute (at the moment still rather inadvertently!) to the development of the research field (e.g., Friends of the Earth, 1992; 1994). The adoption of a more inclusive understanding of `scholarly community' in this manner will reinforce over the long term a central message of this article ± namely that, whether understood as a process or as a field of study, environmental management ought not to be the exclusive preserve of state-linked `experts'.

Raymond L. Bryant and Geo€ A. Wilson 337

III

Whither environmental management?

This article outlined selected elements that, it was argued, would contribute to a muchneeded and long overdue re-evaluation of the field of environmental management. In suggesting likely disciplinary influences on a revitalized environmental management, the article has sought to underscore the potential utility of an alternative approach in which the research subject, methodology and community are recast. In terms of disciplinary influences and location, it was argued notably that, while environmental management has long been linked to geography, there has none the less been limited use made as yet of important theoretical and empirical developments in political, economic and cultural geography that might open up exciting new avenues of inquiry for the field. Indeed, greater attention to new trends in human geography ought to be matched by a greater emphasis on the social sciences generally, as environmental management becomes increasingly relevant as a largely social-science-based research endeavour. The scholarly community of environmental management also needs to change to incorporate the much-needed input of nonstate-linked researchers and activists. Whither, then, the field of environmental management? Two brief interventions will suffice here by way of conclusion. The first intervention relates to the issue of whether environmental management will develop from its present status as a research field into a fully-fledged subdiscipline of geography (cf. Colby, 1991). This question may be related to the issue of `paradigm shifts' (Popper, 1959; Kuhn, 1970) in research in so far as rapid changes in understandings of environmental problems, and their management, may lead to further expansion of the scholarly community involved in environmental management research. This process would arguably be facilitated by the adoption of a new approach to the subject-matter as briefly outlined in this article. The combination of a more `relevant' environmental management and intensifying environmental problems might be the basis for the field's elevation to subdisciplinary status in geography. Is it even possible that geography is moving into a new paradigm of which one of the major areas of inquiry will relate almost exclusively to the environment and how it is managed? Indeed, some authors have already applied the notion of a `paradigm shift' to changes that are occurring in other environmental subdisciplines such as resource management (Cortner and Moote, 1994) or rangeland management (Warren, 1995). Cortner and Moote (1994: 167) argue, for example, that `what is now required in public lands and water resources management is a radical revision of professional perspectives, values, and management practices, in other words, a paradigm shift'. The second intervention emphasizes the development of environmental management as a field of study in relation to other environmental research fields. Clearly, the evolution of environmental management is partly contingent on developments in contiguous research fields. As suggested in this article, an especially significant development may relate to the growing intellectual division of labour between environmental management and environmental science. Thus, as the latter focuses largely on explaining the physical and ecological dimensions to environmental change, the former is moving towards a greater emphasis on understanding the social aspects to such change (Shrader-Frechette and McCoy, 1994; O'Riordan, 1995; Wilson and Bryant, 1997). While the boundaries between these, and other environmental research fields, will undoubtedly remain in flux, it would seem likely that continued growth in environmental research in the years to come will only lead to a further intellectual clarification as environmental management, as well as contiguous fields, seek to carve out a distinctive niche for themselves in the

338

Rethinking environmental management

wider scholarly community. Thus, even if a paradigm shift were to occur with reference to environmental management, it is unlikely that such a shift would alter the need for ongoing interdisciplinary research exchanges. The meaning of environmental management ± both as a process and as a field of study ± needs to be urgently reassessed. It is environmental management's preoccupation with understanding how diverse state and nonstate actors seek to manage the environment that ought to be at the heart of the field's contribution to the wider literature on human±environmental interaction. Suitably re-evaluated in this manner, environmental management ought thereafter to play an indispensable role in the attempted resolution of the world's environmental problems.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the three anonymous referees for their productive comments and criticisms.

Note 1. `Resource management' has been omitted from the figure as it can effectively be seen as a subfield of environmental management (cf. O'Riordan, 1971; Birch, 1973; Rees, 1990; Westcoat, 1993; Mather and Chapman, 1995).

References Adas, M. 1989: Machines as the measure of men: science, technology, and ideologies of western dominance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Agarwal, A. and Narain, S. 1992: Towards a green world. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment. Agnew, J. and Corbridge, S. 1995: Mastering space: hegemony, territory and international political economy. London: Routledge. Ajzen, I. 1988: Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press. ÐÐ 1991: The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, 179±211. Alegre, A.G., editor, 1996: Trends and traditions, challenges and choices: a strategic study of Philippine NGOs. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs. Alexander, D. 1985: Introductory remarks from the new editor in chief. Environmental Management 9, 461. Amin, A. and Thrift, N.J., editors, 1994: Globalization, institutions and regional development in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Asian Development Bank 1995: The bank's policy on forestry. Manila: ADB. Atchia, M. and Tropp, S., editors, 1995: Environmental management: issues and solutions. Chichester: Wiley. Barbier, E.B. 1989: Economics, natural-resource scarcity and development. London: Earthscan. Barbier, E.B., Burgess, J.C. and Folke, C. 1994: Paradise lost? The ecological economics of biodiversity. London: Earthscan. Barratt, S. and Fudge, C. 1981: Policy and action: essays on the implementation of public policy. London: Methuen. Bassett, T.J. 1988: The political ecology of peasantherder conflicts in the northern Ivory Coast. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 78, 453±72. Beck, U. 1992: Risk society. London: Sage. Bennett, J.W. 1976: The ecological transition: cultural anthropology and human adaptation. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Benton, T. and Redclift, M. 1994: Introduction. In Redclift, M. and Benton, T., editors, Social theory

Raymond L. Bryant and Geo€ A. Wilson 339 and the global environment, London: Routledge, 1±27. Birch, J.W. 1973: Geography and resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 1, 3±11. Blaikie, P. and Brookfield, H. 1987: Land degradation and society. London: Methuen. Boehmer-Christiansen, S. 1994: Politics and environmental management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 37, 69±85. Born, S.M. and Sonzogni, W.C. 1995: Integrated environmental management: strengthening the conceptualization. Environmental Management 19, 167±82. Botkin, D. and Keller, E. 1995: Environmental science ± earth as a living planet. Chichester: Wiley. Bowonder, B. 1986: Environmental management problems in India. Environmental Management 10, 599±610. ÐÐ 1987: Integrating perspectives in environmental management. Environmental Management 11, 305±16. Bromley, D.W., editor, 1995: The handbook of environmental economics. Oxford: Blackwell. Bryant, R.L. 1992: Political ecology: an emerging research agenda in third world studies. Political Geography 11, 12±36. ÐÐ 1996: Romancing colonial forestry: the discourse of `forestry as progress' in British Burma. Geographical Journal 162, 169±78. ÐÐ 1997: The political ecology of forestry in Burma, 1824±1994. London: C. Hurst. Bryant, R.L. and Bailey, S. 1997: Third world political ecology. London: Routledge. Buchholz, R.A. 1993: Principles of environmental management: the greening of business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Buckley, R. 1991: Perspectives in environmental management. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Burgess, J., Limb, M. and Harrison, C.M. 1988a: Exploring environmental values through the medium of small groups: part one, theory and practice. Environment and Planning A 20, 309±26. ÐÐ 1988b: Exploring environmental values through the medium of small groups: part two, illustrations of a group at work. Environment and Planning A 20, 457±76. Carr, S. and Tait, J. 1991: Differences in the attitudes of farmers and conservationists and their implications. Journal of Environmental Management 32, 281±94. Centre for Science and the Environment 1992: Centre for Science and the Environment statement on global environmental democracy. Alternatives 17, 261±79.

Cloke, P., Milbourne, P. and Thomas, C. 1996: The English national forest: local reactions to plans for renegotiated nature±society relations in the countryside. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers 21, 552±71. Colby, M.E. 1991: Environmental management in development: the evolution of paradigms. Ecological Economics 3, 193±213. Compton, P. 1993: Introduction. In Nath, B., Hens, L., Compton, P. and Devuyst, D., editors, Environmental management. Vol. 1, Brussels: VUB Press, 13±26. Cooke, R.V. and Doornkamp, J.C. 1993: Geomorphology in environmental management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Corbridge, S., Martin, R. and Thrift, N., editors, 1994: Money, power and space. Oxford: Blackwell. Cortner, H.J. and Moote, M.A. 1994: Trends and issues in land and water resources management: setting the agenda for change. Environmental Management 18, 167±74. Cosgrove, D. and Daniels, S.J., editors, 1988: The iconography of landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cosgrove, D., Roscoe, B. and Rycroft, S. 1996: Landscape and identity at Ladybower Reservoir and Rutland Water. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers 21, 534±51. Croll, E. and Parkin, D., editors, 1992: Bush base: forest farms ± culture, environment and development. London: Routledge. Cronon, W., editor, 1995: Uncommon ground: toward reinventing nature. New York: W.W. Norton. Cunningham, W.P. and Saigo, B.W. 1992: Environmental science: a global concern. Dubuque, IA: Brown. Daly, H. and Cobb, J. 1989: For the common good. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Denslow, J.S. and Padoch, C., editors, 1988: People of the tropical rainforest. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. DeSanto, R.S. 1976: The journal's policy and objectives. Environmental Management 1, 3. Devall, B. and Sessions, G. 1985: Deep ecology: living as if nature mattered. Salt Lake City, UT: Peregrine Smith. Dieter, H.H. 1992: German drinking water regulations, pesticides, and axiom of concern. Environmental Management 16, 21±32. Dixon, J. and Fookes, T. 1995: Environmental assessment in New Zealand: prospects and practical realities. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 2, 104±11. Dobson, A. 1995: Green political thought (2nd edn). London: Routledge.

340

Rethinking environmental management

Doel, M.A. 1993: Proverbs for paranoids: writing geography on hollowed ground. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers 18, 377±94. Dorney, R.S. 1987: The professional practice of environmental management. New York: Springer. Eagly, A. and Chaiken, S. 1992: The psychology of attitudes. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Janovich. The Ecologist, editor, 1996: Globalization: changing landscapes of corporate control. The Ecologist 26, 123±94. Eden, S.E. 1994: Using sustainable development: the business case. Global Environmental Change 4, 160±67. Ekins, P. and Max-Neef, M., editors, 1992: Real life economics. London: Routledge. Ennos, A.R. and Bailey, S.E.R. 1995: Problem solving in environmental biology. London: Longman. Freeman, D.M. and Frey, R.S. 1986: Method for assessing the social impacts of natural resource policies. Journal of Environmental Management 23, 229±46. Friends of the Earth 1992: The rainforest harvest. London: FoE. ÐÐ 1994: Mahogany is murder. London: FoE. Gandy, M. 1996: Crumbling land: the postmodernity debate and the analysis of environmental problems. Progress in Human Geography 20, 23±40. Garlauskas, A.B. 1975: Conceptual framework of environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 3, 185±203. Garner, R. 1996: Environmental politics. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Goss, J.D. and Leinbach, T.R. 1996: Focus groups as alternative research practice: experience with transmigrants in Indonesia. Area 28, 115±23. Grabher, G. and Stark, D., editors, 1996: Restructuring networks in postsocialism: legacies, linkages and localities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gray, D.B. 1985: Ecological beliefs and behaviours. London: Greenwood. Guha, R. 1989: The unquiet woods: ecological change and peasant resistance in the Himalaya. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Hardesty, D.L. 1977: Ecological anthropology. New York: Wiley. Harrison, C.M. and Burgess, J. 1994: Social constructions of nature: a case study of conflicts over the development of Rainham Marshes. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers 19, 291±310.

Harvey, D. 1993: The nature of environment: the dialectics of social and environmental change. In Milliband, R. and Panitch, L., editors, Real problems ± false solutions: socialist register 1993, London: Merlin Press, 1±51. ÐÐ 1996: Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Oxford: Blackwell. Hays, S.P. 1987: Beauty, health and permanence: environmental politics in the United States, 1955± 1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Head, L. 1993: Unearthing prehistoric cultural landscapes: a view from Australia. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers 18, 481±99. Heske, F. 1938: German forestry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hirst, S.M. 1984: Applied ecology and the real world. II. Resource management and impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 18, 203±14. Hogwood, B. and Gunn, L. 1984: Policy making for the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hong, E. 1987: Natives of Sarawak: survival in Borneo's vanishing forests. Penang: Institut Masyarkat. Hooper, P. 1981: Our forests ± ourselves. Dunedin, New Zealand: McIndoe Press. Hurrell, A. 1994: A crisis of ecological viability? Global environmental change and the nation state. Political Studies 42, 146±65. Ingold, T., Riches, D. and Woodburn, J., editors, 1988: Hunters and gatherers. Vol. I. History, evolution and social change. Oxford: Berg. Jeffers, J.N.R. 1973: Editorial introduction. Journal of Environmental Management 1, 1±2. Johnston, R.J. 1983: Resource analysis, resource management and the integration of physical and human geography. Progress in Physical Geography 7, 127±46. ÐÐ 1996: Nature, state and economy: a political economy of the environment (2nd edn). Chichester: Wiley. Khasiani, S.A., editor, 1992: Groundwork: African women as environmental managers. Nairobi: African Centre for Technology Studies. Korten, D.C. 1995: When corporations rule the world. London: Earthscan. Kuhn, T.S. 1970: The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd edn). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Lorrain-Smith, R. 1982: The nature of environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 14, 229±36. Lovelock, J.E. 1995: Gaia: a new look at life on earth (3rd edn). New York: Oxford University Press.

Raymond L. Bryant and Geo€ A. Wilson 341 MacAndrews, C. 1994: The Indonesian Environmental Impact Management Agency (BAPEDAL): its role, development and future. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 30, 85±103. MacNeill, J.W. 1971: Environmental management. Ottawa: Information Canada. Mann, M. 1986: The sources of social power. I. A history of power from the beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marchak, M.P. 1995: Logging the globe. Montreal and Kingston: McGill and Queens University Press. Martinez-Alier, J. 1987: Ecological economics: energy, environment and society. Oxford: Blackwell. Mather, A.S. and Chapman, K. 1995: Environmental resources. London: Longman. McCormick, J. 1995: The global environmental movement (2nd edn). Chichester: Wiley. Memon, P.A. and Wilson, G.A. 1993: Indigenous forest. In Memon, P.A. and Perkins, H.C., editors, Environmental planning in New Zealand, Palmerston North: Dunmore, 97±119. Middleton, N. 1995: The global casino: an introduction to environmental issues. London: Edward Arnold. Migdal, J.S. 1988: Strong societies and weak states. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Miller, A. 1984: Professional collaboration in environmental management: the effectiveness of expert groups. Journal of Environmental Management 18, 365±88. ÐÐ 1985: Technological thinking: its impact on environmental management. Environmental Management 9, 179±90. Miller, G.T. 1994: Living in the environment: principles, connections, and solutions (8th edn). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mitchell, B. 1989: Geography and resource analysis. New York: Longman. ÐÐ 1995: Resource and environmental management in Canada: addressing conflict and uncertainty (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moffat, I. 1990: The potentialities and problems associated with applying information technology to environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 30, 209±20. Moody, R. 1996: Mining the world: the global reach of Rio Tinto Zinc. The Ecologist 26, 46±52. Mould, R.F. 1992: Chernobyl: the real story. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Murdoch, J. and Clark, J. 1994: Sustainable knowledge. Geoforum 25, 115±32. Murdoch, J. and Marsden, T. 1995: The spatialisation of politics: local and national actor-spaces in environmental conflict. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers 20, 368±80. Murphy, R. 1988: Social closure: the theory of

monopolization and exclusion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nath, B., Hens, L., Compton, P. and Devuyst, D. 1993: Environmental management (3 vols). Brussels: VUB Press. O'Connor, M. 1994: Introduction: liberate, accumulate ± and bust? In O'Connor, M., editor, Is capitalism sustainable? Political economy and the politics of ecology, London: Guilford Press, 1±21. O'Riordan, T. 1971: Perspectives on resource management. London: Pion. ÐÐ 1981: Environmentalism. London: Pion. ÐÐ editor, 1995: Environmental science for environmental management. Harlow: Longman. Orlove, B.S. 1980: Ecological anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 9, 235±73. Ostrom, E. 1990: Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Â 'Tuathail, G. 1996: Critical geopolitics. London: O Routledge. Paehlke, R. and Torgerson, D., editors, 1990: Managing Leviathan: environmental politics and the administrative state. London: Behaven Press. Park, C.C. 1980: Ecology and environmental management. Dawson, CT: Westview Press. ÐÐ 1997: The environment: principles and applications. London: Routledge. Parnwell, M.J.G. and Bryant, R.L., editors, 1996: Environmental change in south-east Asia: people, politics and sustainable development. London: Routledge. Pearce, D., Marhandya, A. and Barbier, E. 1989: Blueprint for a green economy. London: Earthscan. Pearson, C.S., editor, 1987: Multinational corporations, environment, and the third world. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Peet, R. and Watts, M., editors, 1996: Liberation ecologies: environment, development and social movements. London: Routledge. Peluso, N.L. 1992: Rich forests, poor people: resource control and resistance in Java. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ÐÐ 1995: Whose woods are these? Counter-mapping forest territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Antipode 27, 383±406. Petak, W.J. 1980: Environmental planning and management: the need for an integrative perspective. Environmental Management 4, 287±96. ÐÐ 1981: Environmental management: a system approach. Environmental Management 5, 213±24. Philippine Association for Inter-Cultural Development 1993: Communal title: a valid option for land tenure for tribal Filipinos? Quezon City: PAFID.

342

Rethinking environmental management

Pickering, K.T. and Owen, L.A. 1994: An introduction to global environmental issues. London: Routledge. Poffenberger, M., editor, 1990: Keepers of the forest: land management alternatives in southeast Asia. West Hartford, CT: Kumerian Press. Popper, K.R. 1959: The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson. Powell, J.M. 1976: Environmental management in Australia 1788±1914. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Pretty, J.N. 1995: Regenerating agriculture ± policies and practice for sustainability and self-reliance. London: Earthscan. Princen, T. and Finger, M., editors, 1994: Environmental NGOs in world politics: linking the local and the global. London: Routledge. Redclift, M. 1987: Sustainable development: exploring the contradictions. London: Methuen. ÐÐ 1994: Development and the environment: managing the contradictions? In Sklair, L., editor, Capitalism and development, London: Routledge, 123±39. ÐÐ 1996: Wasted: counting the costs of global consumption. London: Earthscan. Redclift, M. and Benton, T., editors, 1994: Social theory and the global environment. London: Routledge. Rees, J. 1990: Natural resources: allocation, economics and policy (2nd edn). London: Routledge. Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 1996: The forest within: the world-view of the Tukano Amazonian Indians. London: Themis Books. Ribot, J.C. 1993: Market±state relations and environmental policy ± limits of state capacity in Senegal. In Lipschutz, R.D. and Conca, K., editors, The state and social power in global environmental politics, New York: Columbia University Press, 24±45. Rich, B. 1994: Mortgaging the earth: the World Bank, environmental impoverishment and the crisis of development. London: Earthscan. Roche, M.M. 1990: History of New Zealand forestry. Palmerston North: GP Publications. Rush, J. 1991: The last tree: reclaiming the environment in tropical Asia. New York: Asia Society. Sachs, W., editor, 1993: Global ecology: a new area of political conflict. London: Zed Books. Sandhu, H.S. 1977: A definition of environmental research. Environmental Management 1, 483. Sankoh, O.A. 1996: An evaluation of the analysis of ecological risks method in environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16, 183±88. Schramm, G. and Warford, J., editors, 1988:

Environmental management and economic development. Washington, DC: World Bank. Selman, P. 1992: Environmental planning ± the conservation and development of biophysical resources. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Serrano, I.R. 1994a: Pay now, not later: essays on environment and development. Quezon City: Philippines Rural Reconstruction Movement. ÐÐ 1994b: Civil society in the Asia-Pacific region. Washington, DC: Civicus. Shiva, V. 1991: Ecology and the politics of survival: conflicts over natural resources in India. London: Sage. ÐÐ 1993: The greening of the global reach. In Sachs, W., editor, Global ecology: a new arena of political conflict, London: Zed Books, 149±56. Shrader-Frechette, K.S. and McCoy, E.D. 1994: What ecology can do for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 41, 293±308. Simmons, I.G. 1989: Changing the face of the earth: culture, environment, history. Oxford: Blackwell. ÐÐ 1993: Environmental history: a concise introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Slocombe, D.S. 1993: Environmental planning, ecosystem science, and ecosystem approaches for integrating environment and development. Environmental Management 17, 289±304. Trudgill, S. 1991: Environmental issues. Progress in Physical Geography 15, 84±90. Trudgill, S. and Richards, K. 1997: Environmental science and policy: generalizations and context sensitivity. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers 22, 5±12. Turner, R.K., editor, 1988: Sustainable environmental management. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. VanBeek, W.E. and Banga, P.M. 1992: The dogon and their trees. In Croll, E. and Parkin, D., editors, Bush base: forest farms ± culture, environment and development, London: Routledge, 57±75. Vandergeest, P. and Peluso, N.L. 1995: Territorialization and state power in Thailand. Theory and Society 24, 385±426. Vogler, J. and Imber, M.F., editors, 1996: The environment and international relations. London: Routledge. Walker, K.J. 1989: The state in environmental management: the ecological dimension. Political Studies 37, 25±38. Walpole, P., Braganza, G., Ong, J.B., Tengco, G.J. and Wijanco, E. 1993: Upland Philippine communities: guardians of the final forest frontiers. Center for Southeast Asia Studies Research Network Report 4. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Raymond L. Bryant and Geo€ A. Wilson 343 Wapner, P. 1995: Politics beyond the state: environmental activism and world civic politics. World Politics 47, 311±40. Warren, A. 1995: Changing understandings of African pastoralism and the nature of environmental paradigms. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers 20, 193±203. Warrick, R.A., Barrow, E.M. and Wigley, T.M.L., editors, 1993: Climate and sea level change: observations, projections and implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weale, A. 1992: The new politics of pollution. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Weber, M. 1968: Economy and society: an outline of interpretative sociology (3 vols). New York: Bedminster Press. Welford, R., editor, 1996: Corporate environmental management: systems and strategies. London: Earthscan. Wen-Shan, L., Williams, W.P. and Bark, A.W. 1996: Development of an environmental impact assessment evaluation model and its application: Taiwan case study. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16, 115±33. Westcoat, J.L. 1993: Resource management: the long-term global trend. Progress in Human Geography 15, 81±93. Wigley, T.M.L. and Raper, S.C.B. 1992: Implications for climate and sea level of revised IPCC emissions scenarios. Nature 357, 293±300. Williams, M. 1989: Americans and their forests ± a historical geography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, R.H. 1996: European Union spatial policy and planning. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Williams, S.M. 1987: Metapsychology of the environment. Journal of Environmental Management 24, 359±64. Wilson, G.A. 1992a: A survey on attitudes of landholders to native forest on farmland. Journal of Environmental Management 34, 117±36. ÐÐ 1992b: The urge to clear the `bush': a study of forest clearance on farms in the Catlins District of New Zealand, 1861±1990. Christchurch: Canterbury University Press. ÐÐ 1996: Farmer environmental attitudes and ESA participation. Geoforum 27, 115±31. ÐÐ 1997 (in press): Assessing the environmental impact of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas scheme: a case for using farmers' environmental knowledge? Landscape Research. Wilson, G.A. and Bryant, R.L. 1997: Environmental management ± new directions for the 21st century. London: UCL Press. Winter, M. 1996: Rural politics: policies for agriculture, forestry and the environment. London: Routledge. World Bank 1992: World development report 1992: development and the environment. Washington, DC: World Bank. Zimmerer, K.S. 1994: Human geography and the `new ecology': the prospect and promise of integration. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84, 108±25.