SSM

Soft System Methodology

Soft System Methodology

Context

The magnitude and possible irreversible environmental change induced by environmental risks have created an unprecedented interest in this topic in the late 20th century. Recently, the issue of climate change and the resulting exacerbation of risks from natural hazards has been the focus of many debates, both for the general public and the politicians, as the latest severe weather examples from New Zealand testify. Solutions are urgently sought to address the consequences of those events.

Issues

The integrated, co-operative environmental planning and risk management practice have proven to be highly complex, and controversial, political and management issues in New Zealand. In the last fifteen years a significant body of research has been generated on the topic, with a particular accent being placed on natural hazards, since a number of reports (May et al. 1996; PCE, 2000; Kerr et al. 2002; Ericksen et al. 2003; CAE, 2004; Mamula-Seadon, 2007) drew attention to shortcomings in practice. The overall conclusion has been that most planning and emergency management instruments across the country did not provide clear explanations and links of how the legislation's purpose is translated to the local physical and social conditions.

Complexity and Soft Systems Methodology

The above identified shortcomings in the practice of integrated planning and risk management demonstrate challenges when developing and implementing policy in the face of uncertainty and complexity. The additional difficulties are the ever-changing requirements on practice. Adaptivity is necessary to deal with the constant changes of legislative environment, such as the changes to the RMA 1991, the CDEMA 2002 and the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002, whose frameworks underpin integrated risk management and planning. In addition, adaptivity is essential in delivering on requirements for negotiated outcomes for sustainability, as widely recognized in practice (for example Byrne, 2003; Mazmanian and Craft, 1999).

The research has also revealed a number of ambiguities in policy caused by the limited understanding of risk by both professionals and the public, compounded by underlying differences in the worldview and resulting epistemology (e.g. risk managers vs. planners; scientists vs. community). Trans-boundary approaches, allowing for multiple stakeholder participation across different areas of 'expertise', from lay to narrowly professional, are necessary if those differences are to be addressed. Building a shared understanding and capacity for dialogue that would lead to better relationship management in the environment where the political realities of regulatory agencies are not going to change substantially will allow for influence over the aspect that can be relatively easily influenced - the quality of the decision making process. How decisions are made and based on what input, and with what understanding, is crucial in addressing the weaknesses in practice (CAE, 2004; Mamula-Seadon, 2007).

It has been argued that complexity and systems theory may provide a possible vehicle for coalescence of positivist and rational thinking on the one hand, and post-positivist and constructivist thinking on the other, allowing for integration of science with the social practice of planning as a dialogical process (Byrne, 2003).

This work takes the approach that the application of ...