Clarifying The Imperative of Integration Research For Sustainable Environmental Management

Published online by ICAAP Journal of Research Practice
http://www.icaap.org 1(2), Article M1, 2005
Journal of Research Practice

Volume 1, Issue 2, Article M1, 2005
Main Article:
Clarifying the Imperative of Integration Research
for Sustainable Environmental Management
Stephen Dovers
Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University,
Canberra ACT 0200, AUSTRALIA
[email protected]
Abstract
This paper discusses why integration is important in doing research for developing policy
and practice of sustainable environmental management. The imperative of integration
includes environmental, social, economic, and other disciplinary considerations, as well as
stakeholder interests. However, what is meant by integration is not always clear. While the
imperative is being increasingly enunciated, the challenges it presents are difficult and
indicate a long term pursuit. This paper clarifies the different dimensions of integration, as
an important preliminary step toward advancing mutual understanding and the development
of approaches. The paper identifies the driving forces for integration, discusses when
integration is required, categorises forms of integration, and proposes principles to inform
research programs and projects.
Keywords: integration; interdisciplinary; environment; sustainability; research; policy
Suggested Citation: Dovers, S. (2005). Clarifying the imperative of integration research for
sustainable environmental management. Journal of Research Practice, 1(2), Article M1.
Retrieved [date of access], from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/11/30
http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/11/30 Page 1 of 19
1. Introduction
It is widely perceived that integrative approaches are required to address problems in

environmental management so as to achieve sustainable development. Reference is regularly
made to integration among disciplines, institutional systems, policies, organisations, and
interventions. However, there is little consensus over how to do integration, even what
integration means, or when and why it should be pursued. This should not surprise, as the
integration imperative inherent in the idea of sustainability is relatively recent.
This paper clarifies what we mean by integration research, why and when is it needed, and
how and by whom it might be undertaken. The aim is to enhance mutual understanding,
rather than advocate or further develop particular integrative approaches. Section 2 notes the
major claims for integration, viewed against the characteristics of sustainability problems,
and comments on the current state-of-play regarding integrative policy and research. Section
3 delves deeper into the different purposes and kinds of integration, to allow a clearer view
of the integration imperative. Section 4 concludes by proposing some guiding principles.
First, though, initial qualifications are required. This paper does not argue that integrated or
interdisciplinary strategies are always needed. Integrative thinking is a response to the
inadequacies of the non-integrative approaches. If some single-sector policy or single-
discipline research has been poorly implemented, then arguing for an integrated approach
may be an unnecessary diversion. Integration and interdisciplinarity are terms already in
danger of becoming mere buzzwords in workshops and funding applications. To counter this
danger and to ensure rigour, the problem definition phase in both policy and research is
crucial. The problem definition should make it clear why integration must be preferred over
the non-integrative alternatives.
Also, the choice is rarely binary, but rather about degrees of integration. Integration of
environmental, social, and economic considerations is not always feasible or desirable.
Depending on the problem, partial integration may be more appropriate. Additive (as
opposed to integrative) multi-disciplinary research may be sufficient, as may be partial
integration of community views in a policy process, or social scientists’ input to the initial
phases of a biophysical research project (or vice versa). For some policy challenges, modest
involvement of another portfolio or agency may be sufficient. In other cases, deeper and
more sustained patterns of integration may be required.
2. The Integration Imperative
The following extracts from key international documents state the need for integration:
35.9 The scientific and technological means include the following: (a)
Supporting new scientific research programmes, including their socio-
economic and human aspects, at the community, national, regional and global
levels, to complement and encourage synergies between traditional and
conventional scientific knowledge and practices and strengthening
interdisciplinary research related to environmental degradation and
rehabilitation... (United Nations [UN], 1992)
109. Improve policy and decision-making at all levels through, inter alia,
improved collaboration between natural and social scientists, and between
scientists and policy makers, including through urgent actions at all levels to:
(a) Increase the use of scientific and technological knowledge, and increase
the beneficial use of local and indigenous knowledge in a manner respectful
of the holders of that knowledge and consistent with national law; (b) Make
greater use of integrated scientific assessments, risk assessments and
interdisciplinary and intersectoral approaches... e) Establish partnerships
between scientific, public and private institutions, and by integrating
scientists’ advice into decision-making bodies in order to ensure a greater
role for science, technology development and engineering sectors. (UN,
2002)
Such global pronouncements open up several possibilities, and indicate different purposes
and approaches--some of these are discussed in this paper.
The imperative of integration stems from recognition of the interdependence of human and
natural systems, expressed in the research and policy agendas of sustainability. International
and national policy and law state the “policy integration principle”--environmental, social,
and economic considerations must be integrated in decision making processes to advance the
higher-order social goal of an ecologically sustainable, socially desirable, and economically
viable future (Berkhout, Leach, & Scoones, 2002; Elliott, 2004; Page & Proops, 2003; UN,
1992). The integration of environmental, social, and economic considerations is a challenge
that requires the development of methods, processes, data streams, and so on to create
integrative capacity. The intellectual challenge is extended by the emerging realisation that
development of integrative capacity demands a sophisticated understanding of the
interactions between highly complex, non-linear, and often closely interdependent human
and natural systems. So, integration has two aspects: integration in research, to combine
disciplinary perspectives and integration in policy making, cutting across previously
disparate agencies, issues, and sectors. These aspects indicate two different yet often related
intents of integration: informative, to create knowledge that may inform policy and decisive,
to formulate policy and management directions.
2.1. Different Integration Imperatives
The policy integration principle mentioned above, is only one element of the integration
imperative. The nature of sustainability problems suggests several other elements, as
described below (Dovers, 1997):
• Integration in space: Critical natural systems operate and must be managed over
extended spatial scales (e.g., whole catchment systems, landscape-wide ecological
functions, and nutrient cycles). Sustainability problems cut across political, legal,
and administrative boundaries, requiring at least coordination if not integration or
renegotiation of human system boundaries.
• Integration in time: This is necessary to address extended and variable temporal

scales (e.g., climate, evolutionary processes, long-lived wastes, species population
viability, etc., versus political or economic time scales). Besides, environmental
issues are often cumulative over time.
• Integration of disciplines and policy sectors: The substantive issues of

environmental management involve inter-connected problems (e.g., salinity,
water quality, and vegetation; catchment management and fisheries), requiring
knowledge from different specialised disciplines. Similarly, policies made in
different sectors (e.g., public health, environmental protection, industry policy,
etc.) have inter-connected effects on the environment.
• Integration across social systems: Systemic causes of environmental degradation

are embedded in patterns of production, consumption, settlement, and
governance. Therefore, integration across social systems is required in order to
develop a corrective rather than antidotal response to unsustainable behaviour
(Boyden, 1987). An example of corrective response would be refashioning legal
and economic incentives that have led to an unsustainable land management
practice, rather than simply banning it.
• Integration of information: The process of policy design and implementation

needs to assimilate information about natural systems, economic drivers, legal
and institutional contexts, and social and psychological factors.
• Integration of knowledge systems: In order to involve traditional and local

communities in natural resource management and, more broadly, to establish
partnerships among the private, public, and community sectors, the knowledge of
government, civil society, indigenous peoples, etc.
2.2. Main Players and Their Motivations
While many agree that integration is required, one can notice many different notions and
motivations concerning integration. For example, integrated catchment management is a
familiar approach bringing together different aspects of resource management--vegetation,
agricultural practices, soils, water, etc.--closely connected but traditionally managed through
separate agencies and policies. The following analysis identifies the main players involved
in this and the diversity of their notions and motivations.
• Natural scientists, with some understanding of one aspect of the biophysical

system (e.g., landscape ecology, geomorphology, and hydrology), perceive
interconnections that characterise resource management problems. Aquatic
ecologists and hydrologists address riparian (river bank) and stream biodiversity
as affected by flow regimes; geomorphologists and agronomists address
interactions between vegetation and salinity recharge; ecologists join with
economists to develop methods for ecosystem valuation; etc.
• Social scientists seek to incorporate social, legal, and economic dimensions into
resource management, which they perceive as unduly dominated by natural
science. Rural sociologists explore community understanding of biophysical
issues and seek to integrate this with analyses of other disciplines. “Black-letter”
lawyers (i.e., those dealing with undisputed legal principles) explore issues of
non-compliance; “law in context” researchers examine regulatory
implementation. Economists employ game theory and agent-based modelling to
understand land managers’ behaviour, and promote tradable water rights as a
policy instrument. Natural and social scientists also vary in terms of theoretical
interests and applied interests. (Note: The humanities are not covered here for
reasons of space, but are highly relevant too; see for example cases of history
informing policy, reported in Dovers, 2000.)
• National government policy makers, interested in program delivery and

expenditure of public funds, pursue the development of a generic model for
integrating salinity, water quality, and biodiversity issues and targets, to be
implemented at regional or catchment scale, through accredited plans.
• State/provincial and local governments, seeking to balance environmental

objectives with regional development and employment issues, development of
agricultural industries, and maintenance of downstream water supply and
quantity, emphasise trade-offs between these imperatives through locally-based
negotiation processes and enhanced coordination among agencies.
• Rural landholders, focused on farm viability and maintenance of the key elements
of the natural resource base, concentrate on involvement at the district level
community-based groups engaged in management and restoration activities, and
on tax incentives for resource conservation work.
• Urban residents, concerned with regional economic viability, seek ways of

reconciling tensions between maintenance of agricultural production, luring light
industry into towns, and protection of rural and natural areas for tourism.
• Some research funding agencies seek to invest in integrative research to produce

integrated management strategies, although the proposed integrative approaches
are contestable and the obstacles before integration are many.
While there are overlaps among such interpretations and motivations, there are also
significant differences that need to be understood and negotiated if coordinated efforts are to
be possible.
2.3. Nature of the Integration Task
The catchment context is a reasonably familiar one, yet the preceding analysis indicates that,
even there, integration is difficult. Integration in environment and sustainability will be
significantly more difficult, both intellectually and practically, than non-integrated
approaches to research, policy, and management. It calls for a significant enlargement of
intellectual and institutional resources.
There are many current integrative initiatives. Interdisciplinary endeavours such as

environmental history and ecological economics operate at theoretical and applied levels,
globally and locally, producing integrative methods. International programs such as the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and International Human Dimensions Program
have integrative agendas. The European Union’s recent strategic environmental assessment
directive seeks integration of environmental considerations into other policy sectors, and
legislative provisions exist for such assessment in a range of jurisdictions. The United
Nations Commission on Sustainable Development cuts across other areas of United Nations’
work, and over 70 countries have established national councils for sustainable development
to drive policy integration and stakeholder communication. Jurisdictions have established
“whole of government” mechanisms such as commissioners for environment or central
sustainability policy units. An increasing number of interdisciplinary research programs
have emerged. None of these can be said to have succeeded--witness criticism of the poor
incorporation of social sciences in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, low
impact of the Commission on Sustainable Development within the larger United Nations
system, marginal status of most national councils for sustainable development, and slow
implementation of strategic environmental assessment (for further discussion, see Connor &
Dovers, 2004).
Sustainability, the agenda that created the integration imperative, is a higher-order social
goal akin to democracy, justice, or equity. Such goals and any related methods are long
term, pervasive, and contestable in nature. Perhaps, universally accepted integrative metrics
capable of guiding decisions will never exist. Integrative approaches are not likely to obviate
the necessity for difficult political choices, but may identify, describe, or even develop
connections allowing informed trade-offs.
3. Purpose, Methods, and Processes of Integration
This section will seek to clarity the ends and means of integration, so as to facilitate
development of new integrative initiatives and evaluation of past ones. The following topics
will be discussed to bring about this clarity: the purpose of integration, methods and
processes of integration, participation as an integrative strategy, the challenge of multiple
spatial and temporal scales, and mechanisms of learning.
3.1. Why Integrate: Defining Purpose
The following purposes of integration can be gleaned from the current debates concerning
natural resource management.
1. Integration of ecological, social, and economic factors, accepting that the pursuit
of sustainability cannot be significantly advanced while these factors are
considered separately. This has two components:
(a) understanding the interdependencies within and between natural and human
systems, and
(b) informing the policy processes and institutional settings to enhance integrative
capacity.
2. Implementation of integrated policy and management, through specific,

operational prescriptions for policy instruments, institutional reform, or
management interventions.
3. Integration of differing interests through community participation and stakeholder

involvement in research, policy, and management.
3.2. How to Integrate: Methods and Processes
The following means for pursuing the above purposes will be discussed below:
interdisciplinary research, methodological development, applied problem-solving, policy
and institutional re-design, and communication for integration.
3.2.1. Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Research and Development
Research that goes beyond disciplinary boundaries is core to understanding linked

phenomena, and to informing policy and management settings. A history of increasing
disciplinary specialisations, each with their epistemological commitments (Schoenberger,
2001), theories, methods, data requirements, etc., has contributed to specialist knowledge,
but can work against integrated understanding.
Disciplinary research remains crucial, as does additive multidisciplinary research not

questioning disciplinary theory and methods, or disciplinary inquiry which increases its
grasp on a problem by incorporating knowledge from another discipline without questioning
its assumptions or approach. Compared to these, interdisciplinary research with a
transformative potential for the participating disciplines is harder.
Since sustainability problems appear to challenge the existing understanding and policy
approaches (e.g., Becker & Jahn, 1999; Dovers, 1997; Dryzek, 1987), there is a prima facie
case that disciplines and related professional fields, where such understanding and
approaches have developed, may be deficient. Interdisciplinary research demands critical
questioning of the available theories and methods. Such questioning has been a feature of
some interdisciplinary activities, such as in ecological economics (e.g., Common, 1995).
Assumptions in neoclassical economics regarding rational utility-maximising behaviour and
consumer sovereignty have received critical attention by non-economists such as
psychologists and philosophers. Other disciplines and their assumption sets (e.g., ecology,
law, and public policy) have received less scrutiny. The need for transparency and critical
evaluation entails that integration of disciplinary perspectives cannot be a matter of simple
summation of the results, but must be core to problem definition and research design.
The potential or actual contribution of different disciplines depends on the problem context.
In resource and environmental management some disciplines have been prominent in
integrative projects, such as economics, rural sociology, hydrology and ecology; others such
as public policy, demography, and psychology less so. Any best possible combination of
disciplines cannot be prescribed without reference to the specific context. Even the kind and
degree of integration will depend on the context. It may be sufficient for, say, a lawyer or
economist to be briefly involved in the problem-framing and research design of a primarily
biophysical research project, so as to ensure relevance of the work to the institutional setting.
Alternatively, sustained involvement of multiple disciplines may be required, generating
new theory and method. Some disciplines, such as ecology, geography, and public policy,
are already somewhat interdisciplinary in being theoretically and methodologically diverse.
Natural scientists might be expected to connect more easily with other natural scientists than
with, say, qualitative social scientists, and vice versa. Connections across major disciplinary
divides--social and natural sciences, humanities--might be expected to be more difficult, but
it is precisely across those divides where sustainability-oriented “interdisciplines” have
developed. Ecological economics is the most prominent example, although this field is
dominated by economists and neo-classical theory, informed by a very partial contribution
from ecology and lacking methodological development (Dovers, Stern, & Young, 2003).
The mere naming of an interdiscipline does not equal integration. Ecology has been adapted
most often, for example, political ecology, social ecology, and the longest-standing of all,
human ecology (Barnett, Ellemor, & Dovers, 2003). Yet the contribution of ecology’s
evolving understanding of the structure and function of ecological systems is not always
apparent in these fields.
There are key differences between disciplines and these must be confronted for effective
interaction. One is the spatial and temporal scale implicit in theory and method. Another is
whether approaches to natural systems assume linear and deterministic versus non-linear and
stochastic processes. Some disciplines more readily comprehend whole-system approaches
and systems thinking than others who more naturally embrace reductionism. Assumptions
about motivations for human behaviour vary, as do views of the social construction of
knowledge. Some differences may be terminological. For example, systems analysts use
terms such as path-dependency, feedback loops, state variables, and thresholds, which might
sound too specialised; but when the ideas behind these are translated, many political
scientists or historians, for example, might find them unremarkable, everyday parts of their
own understanding of the world. The issue in such cases may be mutual comprehension
rather than radical re-learning.
Two other differences warrant noting here. One is the degree to which disciplines are policy-
oriented, and thus the contribution they offer to policy-relevant research. Disciplines such as
economics, public policy, and law are closely oriented to policy processes and issues, and
have mature approaches to policy. The natural sciences and some social sciences, and
humanities do not: it is not their topic. There is a paradox here. Policy-oriented disciplines
may have much to say about policy, but if the existing policy approaches and the disciplines
that wield them are indeed deficient, then the contribution of traditional economics, law, or
public policy (for example) might be viewed with suspicion. Moreover, a broader
conceptualisation of the policy process that captures what comes before and after the policy
statement--problem framing and policy monitoring and evaluation through social debate and
environmental monitoring, for example--emphasises the role of disciplines and other
knowledge systems that are not policy-oriented, such as ecology, other natural sciences,
sociology, philosophy, and community knowledge (Dovers, 2005).
The second is the quantitative-qualitative divide, where expressions of incomprehension and

challenges to rigour abound. At the extremes, deeply quantitative researchers find it difficult
to accept that “rigour without numbers” (i.e., qualitative analysis) is possible, while they are
suspected of unnecessary mathematisation and making unrealistic assumptions for the sake
of algebraic tractability. Away from these extremes remain problems of reconciling
methods, data sources, and modes of analysis, and these require exploration before practical
aspects of interaction are negotiated.
It is crucial to also recognise intra-disciplinary variation, and not assume that assumptions,
theory, and method are in perfect harmony within a discipline. Often, the heterogeneity of
one’s own discipline is understood but not others’. For example, the sub-disciplines of
resource and environmental economics generally utilise neo-classical assumptions and
methods; ecological economists or institutional economists may not. Empirical ecologists
bring questions and modes of analysis to a project different from, say, ecosystem theorists,
and black letter lawyers approach legal questions differently from sociologists of law. The
choice of a collaborator from another discipline will influence problem-definition, methods,
data requirements, and findings, whether this is recognised or not.
Interdisciplinary research involves risks of failure, difficulty in publishing, and danger of not
prospering in institutions defined by disciplines. This is especially so for early career
researchers and post-graduates, yet such individuals are undertaking much innovative
interdisciplinary research. Many researchers do not have the time, resources, or mandate to
develop familiarity with other disciplines, or to work on methodological development, or
substantial empirical investigation. It should be emphasised that the new interdisciplines
such as ecological economics or environmental history, are marginal and lack influence
compared to, say, neoclassical economics or traditional historical research.
3.2.2. Methodological Development and Applied Problem Solving
Interdisciplinary collaborations may be driven by curiosity or by demand for decision- or

policy-support methods. Researchers may not only develop techniques but apply them in
partnership with agencies and stakeholder organisations. The process of application must
take on responsibilities and liabilities within the policy system. The political nature of policy
processes makes application more complicated than what is implied by the common
distinction bewteen basic and applied research.
Some integrative methods involve extending existing approaches, such as extended cost-
benefit analysis incorporating non-market valuation, or satellite physical resource accounts
appended to national economic accounts. Historians and natural scientists, separately or in
combination, may seek to meld documentary, oral, and scientific information to establish
original vegetation patterns or river morphology. Some methods stem from questioning of
existing approaches, such as multi-criteria analysis not relying on economic values as an
alternative to cost-benefit analysis, or integrated “green accounting” to correct perceived
deficiencies in national accounts. All have variations and can be used in informative or
prescriptive modes. For example, multi-criteria analysis may integrate factors to a preferred
option or be used in a heuristic fashion to assist, but not instruct, policy makers and
stakeholders.
Methods can be utilised without shared understanding of the epistemological and theoretical
ideas that underpin those methods. For example, contingent valuation, a non-market
valuation technique, may be used in an integrated assessment with participating scientists or
managers being unaware of the debates over its underlying assumptions (e.g., reliance on
willingness-to-pay rather than willingness-to-avoid). Any integrative initiative should seek
to make all proposals methodologically explicit and encourage exposure of the assumptions
that lie behind operational tools.
3.2.3. Policy Processes, Organisational Structures, and Institutional Settings
Integration also requires the creation of policy processes, institutional settings, and
organisational structures that enable integration of environmental, social, and economic
factors. Divisions of responsibilities and information across portfolios and agencies can be a
barrier to integration and thus sustainability.
Many policy, organisational, and institutional remedies to fragmentation exist or are

proposed; some examples follow (see Connor & Dovers, 2004; Gibson, Hassan, Holtz,
Tansey, & Whitelaw, 2005; Lafferty, 2004; Lenschow, 2002; Swanson, Pinter, Bregha,
Volkery, & Jacob, 2004). Strategic environmental assessment aims to embed environmental
concerns across policy sectors. Environmental officers in non-environmental agencies
(defence, water supply, etc.) serve a similar aim at operational management levels. Placing
production and conservation functions within one portfolio (e.g., a merged department of
conservation and agriculture) is a strategy tried in many jurisdictions. Integrated catchment
management authorities are a new organisational form to enhance integration. Cross-sectoral
policy (oceans, biodiversity, etc.) addresses integration, as does legislation allocating
responsibilities for such issues. Whole of government strategies include offices of
sustainability and commissioners for the environment, as well as environmental or
sustainability sub-committees of the cabinet. Many countries have established a multi-
stakeholder and multi-sector national councils for sustainable development. There has been
little empirical evaluation of these integrative strategies, and even little description of the
implementation experience.
3.2.4. Communication for Integration
Communication represents an integrative strategy, either in and of itself or as an ingredient

of another strategy. Straightforward communication among disciplines, professions, and
policy sectors can advance integration by facilitating mutual understanding. Communication
is also necessary for the success of other strategies. Interdisciplinary research,
methodological development, participation, and policy and institutional change, all involve
new groupings of people, and flows of information and knowledge. Designing of suitable
interactive contexts, and appropriate forms and channels of communication are necessary
components of an integrative approach.
3.3. Integration through Participation
The contemporary idea of sustainability places as much emphasis on participation by the

wider community as it does on environmental-social-economic integration. Key purposes of
participation and corresponding mechanisms for participation are suggested below
(discussed more fully in Dovers, 2005):
• To integrate community perspectives in policy debate and formulation, via

inquiries, inclusive policy processes, deliberative research methods,
representative membership in advisory committees, etc.
• To integrate community members into policy implementation, monitoring, and

evaluation, via mechanisms such as community-based land management groups,
honorary rangers or similar positions, co-management arrangements, etc.
• To integrate local or specific cultural knowledge with formal scientific

knowledge, such as through community-based monitoring groups, incorporation
of indigenous ecological knowledge, etc. This may involve two-way flows of
knowledge between community and formal knowledge systems or collaborative
(participatory) research.
Interdisciplinary research may not be participatory, and vice versa. A team of economists
and ecologists may develop a method for addressing conflicts between biodiversity
conservation and production on private land: although possibly interdisciplinary, it is not
participatory because other stakeholders were not involved. An ecologist might undertake
research on remnant vegetation ecology in close partnership with local landholders:
participatory but not interdisciplinary.
Also, participation in management or monitoring does not equal participatory research

unless the knowledge brought to the process by, for example, farmers or indigenous
landowners, is treated as part of a valid knowledge system along with formal disciplinary
knowledge. Recognition of a wider range of knowledge systems (or “epistemic
communities”) is a consequence of the current debates concerning sustainability (e.g.,
Dobson, 2003; Munton, 2002).
3.4. Scale and Integration
To understand and manage linked environmental, social, and economic systems, integration
must deal with interactions across spatial and temporal scales. Some elements of this are
well appreciated, such as (a) disjunctions between political and ecological, or hydrological
boundaries and (b) disjunctions between the temporal scales over which ecological, political,
and economic processes operate. Such disjunctions represent both research and management
challenges.
In interdisciplinary research the issue can be more subtle, as scales are embedded in the
theories and methods of disciplines. Disciplines may involve assumptions about scale that
determine method and data in ways not apparent to those outside, and even taken for granted
or half-forgotten by those within the discipline. For example, the spatial scale of law is
defined by jurisdiction; in anthropology it is culturally determined; in hydrology by
watersheds and in economics by individuals, firms, national economies, and trading systems.
The temporal scale of law is determined by enactment of statute or common law precedent;
for ecologists in multiple ways and differently again for historians. It is important to be
sensitive to these differences during problem definition and research design by assessing the
chosen or implicit scale against the problem at hand and to the degree to which methods or
findings can be transferred across scales.
3.5. Interconnections and Learning
There are important interconnections between the dimensions of integration. For example,
(a) theoretical inquiry may precede methodological development, especially if the latter is to
be informed by multiple disciplines, and (b) integration of community knowledge into
policy depends on the institutions and processes of policy development. The benefits of
recognising interconnections include the potential of achieving multiple objectives and a
reduced likelihood of poor problem framing. It is easy to identify the general relevance of
integrative research to policy, but harder to specify precisely how the connection can be
achieved, whether through research design or later communication.
Given differing purposes and forms of integration, multiple individuals and organisations
will be engaged in fragmented experiments over many years. This suggests the importance
of coordination and communication, and especially learning. A framework for understanding
the process of learning in ongoing integrative research and assessment is offered by
Siebenhuner (2002), drawing on the organisational learning literature and analysis of major
environmental assessment processes. The framework highlights three forms of learning:
1. Single-loop learning: The assimilation of new information to an already-held

theory of action, with no change to this theory of action.
2. Double-loop learning: Involving single-loop learning but also including existing

theories of action as open to revision, thus opening the possibility of change in the
framework of beliefs, norms, and objectives.
3. Deutero learning: Involving “learning about learning,” with improving the

capacity to learn and adapt being an explicit goal.
Integration is a long-term and uncertain project; therefore creating learning capacity should
be a priority. Siebenhuner’s framework reveals some of the issues involved in achieving
different types of learning.
4. Conclusion: Principles for Integration and Interdisciplinarity
There is no single path to integration, but rather multiple purposes and forms. The design of
integration research needs to be guided by principles that reflect this. Two sets of principles
will be presented below: principles for integration across disciplines and principles for
integration in policy and management. The following principles for integration across
disciplines are based on the work by Barnett, Ellemor, and Dovers (2003):
• A problem focus, whether the problems are applied, theoretical, or

methodological, would provide an external standpoint against which integrative
research can be assessed. Moreover, a problem focus would encourage early
consideration of the skills and perspectives required.
• Alertness against the possible dominance of any singular policy objective would
prevent the enterprise being swamped by the immediate agendas and anxieties of
the lead agency.
• Given the magnitude of the task and the uncertainties inherent in it, constant
evaluation of integrative initiatives is required, calling for a critical and reflexive
capacity. This includes recognition of the normative elements of theory and
practice. However, this needs to be balanced by ecological, economic, and
political realism.
• Openness to different theories, disciplines, fields of inquiry, methods, cognate

policy sectors, and knowledge systems would help us avoid being trapped in any
particular integrative approach.
• Appreciating intra-disciplinary variation, i.e., significant differences with respect

to implicit scale, theoretical preference, data requirements, etc., within individual
disciplines would help.
• A systems orientation would facilitate better appreciation of the interconnections

in our domains of study. This calls for a grasp of basic systems concepts such as
open and closed systems, feedback, path dependency, and time lag.
• The subject calls for a close appreciation of the spatial and temporal scales. This
includes a capacity to account for historical determinants of present situations.
• Interdisciplinary work requires personal and group qualities that facilitate border-
crossing interactions.
An additional set of principles is proposed for facilitating integration in policy and

management.
• Recognising the many purposes of integration, such as understanding linked

phenomena, informing policy design, improving management actions, and
promoting participation, would be required.
• Connecting the problem at hand to the various potential contributions of different

knowledge systems would be helpful. It would prevent narrow problem definitions
and facilitate policy integration.
• Recognising communication as central to the integration task would be crucial.

Communicating new knowledge to potential users would be as important as
communication among the multiple perspectives involved.
There is an evident integration imperative in pursuing sustainable environmental

management. It is clear that integration is required across research, policy, and management;
it is less clear to specify, what we should do about it. This paper has clarified different
purposes and means of integration, and proposed principles to guide future efforts.
Integration and interdisciplinarity are difficult, and we will be experimenting for some time
to come. We will also be learning how to judge the quality of integrative efforts. That
learning process will be accelerated if different experiments can be connected. Such
connections will need to bridge many different fields of inquiry, research and policy
organisations, professions, management and policy sectors, and stakeholder groups and civil
society. It suggests not only a better understood set of terms and concepts, the subject of this
paper, but also further strengthening of links between organisations and projects attempting
integration research--not just doing integration, but also organising the human and
institutional capital thus engaged.
Acknowledgements
This paper is drawn from a report commissioned by Land & Water Australia, an Australian
Government research and development corporation, to inform program development in
integrated research and development in the natural resource management domain. The
comments of anonymous referees, and those of the editors of the special issue of this
journal, helped clarify the content and intent of the paper.
References
Barnett, J., Ellemor, H., & Dovers, S. (2003). Interdisciplinarity and sustainability. In S.
Dovers, D. Stern, & M. Young (Eds). New dimensions in ecological economics:
Integrative approaches to people and nature (pp. 53-76). Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Becker, E., & Jahn, T. (Eds). (1999). Sustainability and the social sciences: A cross-
disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical
reorientation. London: Zed Books.
Berkhout, F., Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (Eds). (2002). Negotiating environmental change:
New perspectives from the social sciences. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Boyden, S. V. B. (1987). Western civilization in biological perspective: Patterns in

biohistory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Common, M. (1995). Sustainability and policy: Limits to economics. Melbourne:

Cambridge University Press.
Connor, R., & Dovers, S. (2004). Institutional change for sustainable development.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Dobson, A. (2003). Citizenship and the environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dovers, S. (1997). Sustainability: Demands on policy. Journal of Public Policy, 16, 303-
318.
Dovers, S. (2000). On the contribution of environmental history to current debate and

policy. Environment and History, 6, 131-150.
Dovers, S. (2005). Environment and sustainability policy: Creation, implementation,

evaluation. Sydney: Federation Press.
Dovers, S., Stern, D., & Young, M. (Eds). (2003). New dimensions in ecological
economics: Integrative approaches to people and nature. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Dryzek. J. S. (1987). Rational ecology: Environment and political economy. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Elliott, L. (2004). Global politics of the environment (2 nd edition). Hampshire: Palgrave

Macmillan.
Gibson, R. B., Hassan, S., Holtz, S., Tansey, J., & Whitelaw, G. (2005). Sustainability
assessment: Criteria, processes and applications. London: Earthscan.
Lafferty, W. M. (Ed.). (2004). Governance for sustainable development: The challenge of

adapting form to function. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Lenschow, A. (Ed.). (2002). Environmental policy integration. London: Earthscan.
Munton, R. (2002). Deliberative democracy and environmental decision-making. In F.

Berkhout, M. Leach, & I. Scoones, (Eds). Negotiating environmental change: New
perspectives from the social sciences (pp. 137-152). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Page, E., & Proops, J. (Eds). (2003). Environmental thought. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Schoenberger, E. (2001). Interdisciplinarity and social power. Progress in Human

Geography, 25, 365-382.
Siebenhuner, B. (2002). How do scientific assessments learn? Part 1: Conceptual

framework and case study of the IPPC. Environmental Science and Policy, 5, 411-
420.
Swanson, D., Pinter, I., Bregha, L., Volkery, A., & Jacob, K. (2004). National strategies
for sustainable development. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable
Development.
United Nations. (1992). Agenda 21: The United Nation’s programme of action from Rio.
New York: Author.
United Nations. (2002). Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. New
York: Author. Retrieved August 4, 2005, from http://
www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/131302_wssd_report
_reissued.pdf
Received 19 July 2004
Accepted 4 August 2005
Copyright © 2005 Journal of Research Practice and the author

Clarifying The Imperative of Integration Research For Sustainable Environmental Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clarifying The Imperative of Integration Research For Sustainable Environmental Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Published online by ICAAP Journal of Research Practice

http://www.icaap.org 1(2), Article M1, 2005

Journal of Research Practice

Keywords: integration; interdisciplinary; environment; sustainability; research; policy

It is widely perceived that integrative approaches are required to address problems in

2. The Integration Imperative

2.1. Different Integration Imperatives

• Integration in time: This is necessary to address extended and variable temporal

• Integration of disciplines and policy sectors: The substantive issues of

• Integration across social systems: Systemic causes of environmental degradation

• Integration of information: The process of policy design and implementation

• Integration of knowledge systems: In order to involve traditional and local

2.2. Main Players and Their Motivations

• Natural scientists, with some understanding of one aspect of the biophysical

• National government policy makers, interested in program delivery and

• State/provincial and local governments, seeking to balance environmental

on tax incentives for resource conservation work.

• Urban residents, concerned with regional economic viability, seek ways of

• Some research funding agencies seek to invest in integrative research to produce

2.3. Nature of the Integration Task

There are many current integrative initiatives. Interdisciplinary endeavours such as

3. Purpose, Methods, and Processes of Integration

3.1. Why Integrate: Defining Purpose

2. Implementation of integrated policy and management, through specific,

3. Integration of differing interests through community participation and stakeholder

3.2. How to Integrate: Methods and Processes

3.2.1. Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Research and Development

Research that goes beyond disciplinary boundaries is core to understanding linked

Disciplinary research remains crucial, as does additive multidisciplinary research not

The second is the quantitative-qualitative divide, where expressions of incomprehension and

3.2.2. Methodological Development and Applied Problem Solving

Interdisciplinary collaborations may be driven by curiosity or by demand for decision- or

3.2.3. Policy Processes, Organisational Structures, and Institutional Settings

Many policy, organisational, and institutional remedies to fragmentation exist or are

3.2.4. Communication for Integration

Communication represents an integrative strategy, either in and of itself or as an ingredient

3.3. Integration through Participation

The contemporary idea of sustainability places as much emphasis on participation by the

• To integrate community perspectives in policy debate and formulation, via

• To integrate community members into policy implementation, monitoring, and

• To integrate local or specific cultural knowledge with formal scientific

Also, participation in management or monitoring does not equal participatory research

3.4. Scale and Integration

3.5. Interconnections and Learning

1. Single-loop learning: The assimilation of new information to an already-held

2. Double-loop learning: Involving single-loop learning but also including existing

3. Deutero learning: Involving “learning about learning,” with improving the

4. Conclusion: Principles for Integration and Interdisciplinarity

• A problem focus, whether the problems are applied, theoretical, or

• Openness to different theories, disciplines, fields of inquiry, methods, cognate

• Appreciating intra-disciplinary variation, i.e., significant differences with respect

• A systems orientation would facilitate better appreciation of the interconnections

An additional set of principles is proposed for facilitating integration in policy and

• Recognising the many purposes of integration, such as understanding linked

• Connecting the problem at hand to the various potential contributions of different

• Recognising communication as central to the integration task would be crucial.

There is an evident integration imperative in pursuing sustainable environmental

Boyden, S. V. B. (1987). Western civilization in biological perspective: Patterns in

Common, M. (1995). Sustainability and policy: Limits to economics. Melbourne:

Dovers, S. (2000). On the contribution of environmental history to current debate and

Dovers, S. (2005). Environment and sustainability policy: Creation, implementation,

Elliott, L. (2004). Global politics of the environment (2 nd edition). Hampshire: Palgrave

Lafferty, W. M. (Ed.). (2004). Governance for sustainable development: The challenge of