Introduction
Although environmental problems have existed since humans began to roam the earth, “the environment” only became a focus of politics and policy in the 1960s. Despite more than five decades of environmental politics and policy, societies everywhere are struggling to come to terms with the environmental challenge. In many countries and around the world, environmental problems and conditions have worsened to the point that there is growing recognition of an environmental crisis and even the possibility of the extinction of the human species. Yet many people and governments fail to recognise the fundamental nature of this challenge and continue to address it half-heartedly and ineffectively. This page aims to explain the nature of the problem and the scale of the challenge it poses.
Human environmental impacts over time
Humans inevitably impact their environment. From the time they climbed out of the trees and began using tools to meet their needs for food and shelter, they began to affect other species and parts of the natural environment. Rather than simply following genetically determined patterns of behaviour, humans began to use their capacity for thought as the basis for their actions and interactions. Through trial and error, learning, thinking, and communication, and probably a good deal of luck, they developed more effective tools, including the use of fire and cooperative hunting techniques, which significantly increased their impact on the environment. For instance, as Elizabeth Kolbert points out in The Sixth Extinction,[1] scientific evidence is increasingly pointing to the view that humans played a major role in the extinction of the so-called mega-fauna, including Australia’s giants around 40,000 years ago and the American mastodon some 13,000 years ago, relatively shortly after the arrival of humans. The idea that early humans lived in harmony with nature is more a product of Romantic thinking than of fact. While some societies no doubt learned from their mistakes, others did not, and even if they did, that did not mean they did not make new ones. As Jared Diamond has shown in his book Collapse,[2] throughout history, the failure of societies to take the environment into account has often been a major factor in their demise. Environmental history is replete with examples of humanity behaving like the proverbial bull in a China shop. The main difference between early and recent history is that the bull and the damage have grown much larger.
There is no shortage of information, data, reports, and analyses indicating that the environment is not in good health. Rather, over the past 50 years or so, the number of reports on worsening environmental conditions and problems has become something of a flood. Almost daily, there are new reports about the acceleration of global heating and its disastrous effects around the world, the ongoing decline of biodiversity, forests, and fisheries, the degradation of water and soils, and the continuous stream of pollution of all kinds and from numerous sources, some of which (like pollution from microplastics) have only recently been discovered. While the situation is worse in some countries than in others, no country is immune to the adverse effects of environmental deterioration, which is increasingly seen as a global problem.
What is the problem?
When asked about the environmental problem, most people will likely cite the specific issues mentioned above. People may compile different lists depending on their views of which problems affect them, their community, or their country, and how serious they are, as well as for the world at large. Thus, many people, as well as governments, view the environmental problem as a (large) collection of problems that have already (more or less clearly) manifested themselves. These are problems that people either experience themselves or that are frequently reported in the media, often after events, incidents or accidents. However, while understandable, this way of depicting and approaching the environmental problem is highly problematic.
The environmental challenge is much more than a (large) collection of particular environmental issues. It goes much, much deeper, as a range of environmental thinkers, scientists, and advocates pointed out many years ago. Environmental problems are interconnected, both because “the environment” is one indivisible whole and because the impacts of human actions reverberate throughout the system, bouncing back on any efforts people make to address perceived problems. Thus, human actions aimed at environmental problems affect the entire environmental network, not just the targeted ones. This fundamental truth implies that all human actions that (potentially) significantly impact the environment need to be considered in their totality. Furthermore, this implies that the (potential) impacts of human actions and behaviour need to stay within environmental limits or boundaries that, if transgressed, have consequences for the functioning of that system, often springing “unpleasant surprises” on human societies.
Thus, dealing with environmental problems poses a major challenge that has grown ever larger as the number, scale, and nature of human activities affecting the environment have increased. In principle, human environmental impacts were more easily manageable in small societies that used low-tech means to meet their basic material needs with a limited range of goods. Controlling the effects of complex high-tech production systems that produce an endless flow of essentially unnatural goods and services for millions or billions of consumers is quite a different story. Unless one is willing to return to largely local production systems aimed at meeting the basic needs of local or regional populations and to forego most of the trappings of a high-tech society (including cars, computers, mobile phones, and the rest of it), relying primarily on local and regional environmental management systems (indigenous or modern) won’t do. Somehow, that whole production and consumption system must be controlled and changed to make it environmentally manageable and sustainable.
This may seem impossible given the task’s scale and complexity. Yet the fundamental truth remains that all human actions have a (potentially significant) effect on the environment and thus need to be considered in their totality. Furthermore, we need to assess these total and cumulative effects against what we know about environmental limits or boundaries, which, if transgressed, have consequences for the functioning of ecological systems. But as people are not, and can’t be, all-knowing, and as they are highly divided socially and politically, the idea that humanity can effectively manage the environmental effects of its actions seems highly unrealistic. This seems to be confirmed by the ineffectiveness of global environmental protection efforts.
Thus, unless we abandon that idea and continue business as usual, we need to seek realistic and effective ways to address the environmental challenge. On the one hand, we must move beyond the reactive and fragmented approach to individual environmental problems. On the other hand, we need to find practical ways to integrate environmental concerns into our thinking, behaviour, actions, and systems (of production, consumption, energy, transport, and other areas). In fact, over the past 50 years, governments and businesses have already developed and used many such ways (and tools). The problem is that these environmental integration tools and efforts have been minimally effective, for various reasons I have analysed in Environmental Integration: Our Common Challenge.[3]
It is often said that the key to tackling big problems and tasks is to break them down into smaller ones. This also applies to the environmental integration challenge. However, we need to ensure that these smaller tasks, actions, and means add up, are at least compatible, and preferably support each other (create synergies) and work towards the same goals. If this is not the case, the effectiveness of these efforts is likely to be limited and temporary, as problems are shifted or new ones created, and the sources or drivers of environmental problems are ignored.
Where do we start to ensure that environmental integration efforts add up and become more effective? In the first instance, I suggest that this requires a closer examination of the concept of environmental management. I use this concept broadly to encompass how people interact with the environment. Two concepts are integral to this notion and must be unpacked if we want to find a more integrated (if not totally comprehensive) way of managing the environment: environment and management.
What is the environment?
The notion of “the environment” came into vogue in the 1960s largely because it was recognised that many, if not all, of the problems affecting different aspects of nature (such as the threat to and extinction of species, deforestation, soil degradation, and chemical pollution) that had hitherto been treated as separate issues were interconnected. Environmental scientists and thinkers, including Rachel Carson and Barry Commoner, played an important role in this growing awareness of the environment as a system.
As Barry Commoner pointed out, the environment is a complex, interconnected biophysical system encompassing everything on Earth (and even beyond). This complex of interacting living and non-living systems has also been referred to as the ecosphere (or biochemical or biophysical environment). In the ecosphere, “everything is connected to everything else,” a widely accepted statement that was formulated by Barry Commoner as the first law of ecology to reflect “the existence of the elaborate network of interconnections in the ecosphere: among different living organisms, and between populations, species, and individual organisms and their physicochemical surroundings”.[4]
Individually and as a population, humans are integral to this network. They are constituted by nature (cells) and depend on billions of microbes for bodily function. Directly or indirectly, humans are affected by everything that surrounds them, and everything they do affects the ecological network, as Rachel Carson pointed out in Silent Spring regarding the use of pesticides.[5] Although the term environment is often defined as everything that surrounds people, from an ecological or biophysical perspective, it also includes humans. Yet, there is merit in this definition as long as the biophysical interconnectedness between humans and their surroundings is kept in mind. It is the biophysical impacts of human actions and behaviour on their surroundings that can adversely affect their own well-being as well as the systems on which they depend for their well-being or for the survival of the species.
Environmental problems arise from human actions that alter the biophysical environment in ways that adversely affect humans and the biophysical systems on which they depend. Although human actions aimed at meeting their needs inevitably impact the environment, the harm they cause depends on the scale and nature of these actions. Even premodern societies sometimes caused environmental harm (hunting species to extinction, deforestation by fire, and the abuse and overuse of local resources) that also contributed to their own decline or demise. However, over time, notably with the rise of industrialisation and the development of modern technology, the scale and nature of human impact began to affect the global functioning of the biophysical environment, as illustrated by climate change. This also led to the proliferation of environmental problems of all kinds. Thus, the way the environment has been treated (even if not by everyone) has come back to bite humanity as a whole.
It is often argued that the concept of the environment is all-encompassing and thus too broad to be a practical basis for human or societal decision-making and action. Indeed, if the environment is everything, it is plausible that the concept would lose its practical usefulness, as this would imply managing it as a single entity. Obviously, it is necessary to be more specific about what falls under the environment if its management is to become practicable. There are several ways to do this.
One way is to classify environmental problems. Rather than treating them all separately as stand-alone problems, we can cluster them by common characteristics. Specifically, we can distinguish three main categories, each representing a dimension of the environment. I label these the ecological, resource and human-environment dimensions. These dimensions overlap, to some extent, with the three dimensions commonly associated with sustainability or sustainable development. Thus, this classification is not new and has been widely accepted, albeit subjected to many different and often conflicting interpretations. For this reason, I aim to define these dimensions clearly.
Environment dimensions
| Environment dimensions | Description |
| Ecological | The biophysical environment encompasses all ecosystems, from local to global |
| Resource | Biophysical elements (potentially) of use to humans, including animals, land, water, forests, and minerals |
| Human environment | The biophysical environment shaped by humans, including the built environment, agricultural land, modified landscapes, and human-made products |
The ecological dimension
The ecological dimension concerns ecosystems. Although the ecosystem concept has not provided the scientific basis for environmental management that some initially hoped for, few now deny the importance of considering ecological or biophysical conditions, processes, and interconnections in environmental management. Early efforts towards integrated management began when attempts to protect animals were expanded to encompass their habitats. Protecting natural areas, parks, and reserves was a step towards more encompassing environmental protection. More recently, the need to protect ecosystems, whether or not they have been set aside as parks or reserves, has been incorporated into the concept of integrated environmental management. In short, the ecological dimension of environmental management refers to the protection of ecological systems and biophysical processes, not only for the sake of humans (as the unravelling of ecosystems will cause all kinds of potentially severe problems for the well-being or even survival of humans and societies) but also for the sake of other species and the incredible beauty and sophistication of nature, which beats everything that humans can create.
The resource dimension
The resource dimension overlaps with the biophysical dimension because humans also use animals, plants, and ecosystems as resources. The term “resource” is defined here from an anthropocentric perspective, as anything potentially useful to humans, whether living or non-living. In many parts of the world, the decline, depletion or degradation of resources, including land, forests, and water, has long drawn concern. In 1972, concerns about resource depletion reached the global level with the publication of the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth report.[6] Although there have always been sceptics who deny the seriousness of problems of this nature, or who have unlimited faith in human ingenuity to overcome any such issues if they arise, few people reject the desirability or importance of the judicious management of resources. Rational, science-based resource management emerged as a crucial branch of environmental management in the 19th century. More recently, the need to manage resources (such as soil, water, plants, and animals) in a more integrated way has become an important plank of resource management. In brief, the resource dimension of environmental management concerns protecting the natural resource base on which humans depend for their well-being and survival.
Because economics focuses on allocating scarce resources, this dimension of the environment is often referred to as the economic dimension. I prefer to use the term ‘resource’ dimension, as resources are substantive (biophysical) elements of the environment, whereas the economic dimension, as used in the sustainable development discourse, has come to refer to non-environmental concerns, such as economic growth, competitiveness, and profits. Thus, discussing the economic dimension of environmental management shifts attention from concerns about physical or natural resources and their long-term availability, in both quantitative and qualitative respects, towards monetary issues. This has led to the management of resources, foremost, as abstract economic entities rather than biophysical environmental ones.
The human environment dimension
The human environment dimension offers the most scope for confusion, as it can be interpreted to encompass all aspects of human life and society, or to refer to the highly elastic notion of “quality of life.” Here, I use it to refer to biophysical environmental conditions that humans have shaped. For many people, the environment is foremost about the human environment, the environment shaped by humans, including cities and modified landscapes. Many, if not most, environmental problems have come to be recognised as such because of the effects on people of human-induced biophysical changes, such as pollution, urban sprawl, traffic congestion, noise, the decline of natural areas for recreation, and the physical conditions in which people work and live. Environmental management includes the management of these modified environments, and their further modification, for their (potential) impacts on human health and well-being. Admittedly, this dimension centres foremost on humans rather than the other two dimensions of the environment.
More recently, the concept of quality of life has become an increasingly important topic in environmental and sustainable development discourse. Governments have incorporated quality of life as a concern into their environmental plans and sustainable development strategies, and quality-of-life indicators are increasingly adopted in environmental reporting systems. Nonetheless, the notion of quality of life is commonly interpreted very broadly to include the extent to which people are affected by crime, unemployment, insufficient income, social breakdown, family abuse, and other socio-economic conditions. Although such issues are important, they are, in my view, social and economic issues that need to be addressed, in the first instance, by social and economic policies rather than environmental ones.
As stated above, the approach advocated here defines the human environment dimension as human-induced biophysical phenomena. Pollution, the built environment, noise generated by human activity or machinery, food manufactured by humans, sewage disposal practices, access to and the quality of drinking water, housing conditions, and waste disposal practices are among the most obvious biophysical conditions and processes that affect people’s well-being, many of which have long been targets of environmental management. There is no doubt that transport, urban development, and housing are policy areas that have, or should have, a strong environmental component, as they create or affect biophysical conditions that impinge on human well-being, ecosystems, and resources. But while improving the biophysical conditions that affect people’s well-being can help reduce crime and other social problems, we should avoid defining all human problems as environmental problems, as this risks making the concept of the environment all-encompassing again, thereby rendering it meaningless and unmanageable. Crime, alienation, youth problems, care for the elderly, family breakdown, unemployment, and insufficient income are social and economic issues that are or should be addressed by social and economic policies and institutions.
Ultimately, where to draw the line around these three environmental dimensions is a matter of judgment. It must be emphasised that these are dimensions of a single, indivisible biophysical reality, not separate areas that can or should be managed independently. All environmental management must consider the linkages among them. However, clustering environmental problems and issues into these categories provides a starting point for examining their similarities and connections, as well as their shared underlying sources, causes, and drivers. This approach also facilitates thinking about how they can be addressed through a more comprehensive, overarching policy with shared goals.
How environmental issues can or should be dealt with is commonly referred to as a matter of environmental management.
What is “management”?
A second part of the effort to make the interconnected environmental challenge more manageable focuses on the concept of “management”. Broadly speaking, management concerns how humans interact with their (social and biophysical) environment. Again, this is a potentially all-encompassing notion that includes physical (hands-on) actions, monitoring, analysis, decision-making, planning, consultations, financial and staff management, PR and media communications, or even “doing nothing”. To make this concept practicable for environmental management, it is helpful to identify some key dimensions.
I focus on three integral dimensions of all management efforts. These are the cognitive, policy (or practical), and institutional dimensions or domains. The cognitive dimension concerns the ideas, assumptions, knowledge and views on which management is based. The policy dimension concerns what people do (or deliberately do not do) based on decisions, courses of action and the choice and use of means and technologies. The institutional dimension concerns the rules and organisations that influence or guide the practical or policy dimensions.
All three aspects of management are intricately interwoven and interdependent: policies, decisions and actions are grounded in cognitive (management) frameworks and are supported or guided by (formal and informal) rules and organisations, which may themselves be based on cognitive frameworks. However, in practice, at a higher (political) level, the three dimensions are often treated as distinct “domains”, operating within their own frameworks and staffed by specialised personnel. The degree to which management is coherent and consistent within and across these three domains varies. Different ideas or ideologies may compete for dominance as the cognitive framework on which policies and practices are based and by which institutions are or should be shaped. Policies are remarkably inconsistent and incoherent, especially between policy areas or sectors. Not all organisations and rules use the same script as a basis, and tensions or conflicts between mandates and interpretations of (formal and informal) rules are common. It hardly needs to be said that, as a result of their treatment as “silos” and the lack of coherence within these domains, developing a coherent, consistent management approach across the three domains presents a major challenge.
This also applies to the environment, which is seen as only one of the many “areas” of management. Consequently, the effectiveness of environmental management is likely to suffer if it is subject to different and often conflicting ideas about what “the problem” is (the cognitive dimension), about what must or should be done (the practical or policy dimension), and if it occurs within an incoherent framework of rules and organisations, each supporting their own, often conflicting, aims and interests. The table below summarises the three dimensions of management with regard to the environment and presents some examples of the issues involved.
Environmental management dimensions
| Dimension | Description | Examples of issues |
| Cognitive | The ideas, knowledge, interpretations and frameworks that guide human interactions with the environment | Nature seen as a (mere) pool of resources; humans being above, at the centre of, or part of nature; inadequate knowledge of and disagreement over environmental problems, what causes them and how they can, should or must be addressed |
| Policy | Intentional courses of action affecting the environment (if by governments: public policy) | Aims, objectives and practices, including choice of technology and other means, associated with agriculture, mining, energy use, transport, building, fishing, and manufacturing |
| Institutional | Formal and non-formal rules and organisations that guide actions, behaviour and practices affecting the environment | Taboos on (access to or use of) parts of nature; environmental laws and regulations; rules guiding businesses, government agencies; weak environmental agencies |
Thus, integrated management requires building bridges among the cognitive, policy, and institutional dimensions to ensure they are at least compatible and do not undermine or negate one another (“add up”), and preferably support one another to achieve shared or common goals.
Therefore, to pursue more effective environmental management, we must strengthen the status of environmental imperatives across all management domains. Environmental concerns or imperatives must be incorporated into all three management dimensions of all “areas” that significantly impact the environment. This includes, for instance, the cognitive frameworks, policies, and institutions of economic management, energy, transport, agriculture, and most, if not all, other areas that have traditionally been the concern of governments, as well as relatively new ones (such as the ICT sector, biotechnology, and AI). We must strengthen the status of environmental imperatives in each management domain of each area of collective concern. Environmental considerations need to receive (much) greater attention and priority and be integrated into each area’s cognitive, policy, and institutional dimensions. This need is what I call the environmental integration challenge. The environmental integration page discusses how this challenge can and should be tackled. How this challenge has been addressed in practice is discussed on the environmental performance pages.
Conclusion
Although environmental problems have been on public and government agendas for more than fifty years, little, if any, progress has been made in tackling them. In large measure, this can be attributed to two things: First, environmental problems have been interpreted and approached as single issues once they have become evident and severe, with their interconnected, deeper nature ignored. Second, government efforts to tackle environmental issues have been based on traditional management practices that operate in silos and have failed to integrate environmental concerns and imperatives coherently and consistently across all management dimensions (cognitive, policy, and institutional).
This page proposes ways to make the potentially all-encompassing nature of the environmental challenge more manageable and effective. These ideas provide the basis for constructing an environmental integration matrix to analyse governments’ environmental integration efforts and to explore better ways to advance integration. Yet although such approaches can be regarded as essential for tackling the environmental challenge more effectively, significant obstacles stand in the way of their adoption, some of which are discussed on other pages of this website.
[1] Kolbert, Elizabeth (2014), The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History. London: Bloomsbury.
[2] Diamond, Jared M. (2005), Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking.
[3] Bührs, Ton (2009), Environmental Integration: Our Common Challenge. Albany: SUNY Press.
[4] Commoner, Barry. (1972), The Closing Circle. New York: Alfred Knopf, 16.
[5] Carson, Rachel (1962), Silent Spring. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
[6] Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jörgen Randers, William W. Behrens (1972), The Limits to Growth. A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. (1974 2nd ed.). New York: New American Library.