The use of Graphic
Visualization in Environmental Problem Solving
Graphic
visualization can be critical to an effective discussion of environmental
systems, phenomena, or problems. Graphics help to orient participants in the
discussion to the various points and relationships within the system. A graphic
can provide an understanding of process flow, with the advantage of helping to
highlight where points of failure might occur or the circumstances and practices
surrounding a failure.
Use of a
graphic to understand an environmental issue has the advantage of helping users
to define the system and the boundaries that they will draw around the issue at
hand. This can have several positive effects, like helping to understand the
underlying and/or existential factors that help to bring about an environmental
problem, and may serve to highlight how structural change may address a problem
in a better or more comprehensive way than a simple quick fix or “band-aid”
solution would. Sometimes a direct resolution to a problem is only a partial
solution, and a graphic can help identify the proximate or ultimate factors
that help construct the situation and may be central to addressing it in
totality.
I had a
professor in my undergraduate studies that taught about communication in
organizations. His class was essentially an indictment of the traditionalist
“paternal hierarchy” of the majority of Western businesses, NGOs, and even
governments. His critique was a powerful one because hierarchy tends to beget
hierarchy; if there is a problem within a system, the traditional model demands
creation of a new rule, law, structure, bureau, department, or administrator
with the explicit responsibility of addressing the newly perceived problem. The
crux of this critical view of hierarchy is that adding more hierarchy to solve
a problem that was the result of the existing hierarchy rarely serves to
actually address and resolve the issue. It demands additional costs,
assumptions, structures, and efforts to address a problem that might not have
actually ever been a problem if the underlying structure is the cause of
contention. The bottom line is that the creation of new layers of
accountability and subordination weakens the competitiveness of the process,
business, or organization in question because of these extra costs. This leads
to the “top-heavy bureaucracy” that is so often bemoaned for its inefficiency.
This professor drew a critical comparison between Western modes of structuring
organization--with sometimes over a dozen layers of subordination under a
single figurehead--to Eastern modes of structuration which seek to minimize
hierarchy and often operate with only two or three layers of subordinates under
a central authority. The argument follows that Eastern businesses were more
competitive and offered lower prices, at least in part, to this simplified
structure. Graphic depiction of an environmental problem as a multi-layered
structure can serve to highlight the weakness or true need for adding yet
another layer of accountability to the hierarchy.
A graphic
visualization approach can also have important inherent limits. While a
conversation led without the aid of graphic depiction might wander aimlessly
for a time, it may well wander into areas of observation or criticism that a
graphic depiction would exclude from the discussion entirely. I think this is
the most significant weakness of a graphic model approach to discussing
environmental problems. Once you construct your graphic depiction or model, it
will often limit the discussion within the boundaries of that model. Related to
this is the danger of committing errors in building the graphic representation,
and the possibility of invalidating your conclusions due to an error in the
conceptualization of the model. Additionally, there are increased costs in
energy, time, and expertise involved in constructing a complete graphic model
and simultaneously trying to avoid the sorts of omissions or errors of
attribution or causation that might have snuck into the graphic depiction of
the problem.
