Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
Backlash against Environmentalists Case
1. 20 September 2012
antiEnvironmental Backlash
and New Approaches
Carnegie Mellon University
Adelaide Group 2:
THIEN HUONG Do
MINH THUAN Nguyen
THI TAM Duong
2. 2
Outline
1. Executive summary
2. Summary of Decisions
3. Description of Context
4. Stakeholder Analysis
5. Decision Criteria and Metrics
6. Data/Facts/Modelling
7. Analysis of Alternatives
8. Recommendations
9. Sensitivity Analysis
CMU Australia. Adelaide 2012. Class Materials, for Educational purposes only.
3. 3
Executive Summary
• Different approaches that antienvironmentlists applied
to attack environmental regulations.
• Recommendations: Policy makers should seriously
consider incentives
• Implication: Balance the economic development and
environmental issues for different stakeholders
What sorts of approaches should environmentalists be considering?
CMU Australia. Adelaide 2012. Class Materials, for Educational purposes only.
4. 4
Summary of Decisions
• Anti-environmentalists applied wide range of tactics to enhance
its impact on policymaking and implementation of environmental
regulations at state and national levels and against
environmentalists including:
• Anecdotes, compelling stories to mobilize public
• Grassroots organizing activities
• Policy conflicts and litigation
• Violence and intimidation
• Government’s response to the anti-environmentalism
• Environmentalists consider new approaches to deal with changes
CMU Australia. Adelaide 2012. Class Materials, for Educational purposes only.
5. 5
Timeline
1.Private Property
Rights Act was passed
Success of anti- 2.Clean Water Act
environmentalist at rewritten
Initial activities of anti- defining environmental 3.Endangered species
environmentalism regulations Act reformed
1980s 1994
1970s 1990s 1995
Widespread Anti-
recognition of environmentalist
Property rights and derailed a bill to a
Wise Use cabinet-level
movements department
CMU Australia. Adelaide 2012. Class Materials, for Educational purposes only.
6. 6
Stakeholder Analysis
STAKEHOLDERS ISSUES GOALS
Government Coping with growing intensity of • Job stabilization
environmental issues
• Protect environment
Response to anti/environmental • Neutralize/balancing between two flows
activism
• Defuse controversial debates thru polls
Citizens • Living in a sustainable environment
Concerned about health, ecology
and environment • Job and business
Worried about job opportunity
CMU Australia. Adelaide 2012. Class Materials, for Educational purposes only.
7. 7
Stakeholder Analysis
STAKEH ISSUES GOALS OBJECTIVES CRITERIA
OLDERS
• Fierce attacks from • Enhance the • Draw more close • 1995 Gained support from
anti-environmentalists environmental attentions of citizens though “Earth day”
• Possibilities of losing regulations politicians campaign
supporters from • Mobilize public • Demonstrating the • 1998 environmental activity attack
Environmentalists
citizens interests public opinions 105th Congress in New York Times
• Government would • Consider to take • Form new alliances • Received support from Clinton
change the legal new approaches • Mobilizing President
environmental to protect supporters
regulations environment • Utilize the media
•Conflicts with • Eliminate • Wise Use: Remove • Eliminated restrictions on
regulation of land and environmental environmental wetlands development
AntiEnvironmentalists
natural resource use
Media: regulations restrictions from • Compensated for Property owners
• Restricts of affecting both public lands • Opened all public lands
environmental private and public • Property Rights • Attached anti-environmental
regulations affect land Movement riders to the fiscal 1996
economic activities • Pursuing policy • Restricted definition of ‘harm in
• Mobilize public change through the ESA
interest budget • Received favor from Bush
president in 2002
CMU Australia. Adelaide 2012. Class Materials, for Educational purposes only.
8. 8
Decision Criteria & Metrics
Apply Cohen’s Framework
• Local understanding
• Diverse participants
• Ethical values
• Balancing between group's main interests
• Communications and Media
• Political dimension
• Environmental Policy and Management
CMU Australia. Adelaide 2012. Class Materials, for Educational purposes only.
9. 9
Data Summary: Objectives Tree
• Conduct CBA and risk assessment Enhance
• Careful interpretation and use of
environmental
Public polls
• Draw more attentions from media to regulations
gain supports from audiences Protect
• Lobby politicians to maintain the core environment
value s of environmental regulations and neutralize
Effectively response stakeholders’
to backlash interest
• Form new alliances
Mainstream
• Mainstream cultures, economic,
technology and ethical values environmentalists
CMU Australia. Adelaide 2012. Class Materials, for Educational purposes only.
10. 10
Values and Alternatives
Methodology: compared
three alternative approaches Determined Assigned scores
to community restoration: weight of to each
(1) Incentive-based each Means alternative
Selected the
policies toward based on their approach with
(2) Community-based satisfying estimated the highest
decision making the decision success at total score
(3) Ecosystem-based criteria achieving the
given Means
management
CMU Australia. Adelaide 2012. Class Materials, for Educational purposes only.
11. 11
Cohen’s Framework Analysis
(1) (2) (3) Satisfied Justifications
Incentive Community- Ecosystem- Score
Criteria -based based based
policies decision management
making
Local understanding 3 5 4 5 Community-base approach has big
advantages regarding to local
understandings
Diverse participants 4 5 2 5 Community-base approach has the
advantages to explore its variaty of its
participants
Ethical values 4 6 6 6 Both Community-based and Ecosystem
based approaches have high credit for
ethics, while Incentives has the
potential to ignore this
Communications and 7 5 5 8 Incentive-base has the most strategic
Media and tactical media plan
Ecosystem is the weakest in terms of
communications and media
Balancing between 9 7 5 10 Incentive-based policies has the
group's main interests potential to be most effective regarding
CMU Australia. Adelaide 2012. Class Materials, for Educational purposes only. interests.
profits and
12. 12
Cohen’s Framework Analysis
Criteria (1) (2) (3) Satisfied Justifications
Incentive Community- Ecosystem- Score
-based based based
policies decision managerment
making
Environmental Policy 9 8 9 10 Incentive –based policy and Ecosystem-
and Management based management are strongly
affected by environmental regulations
Political dimension 10 8 5 10 Incentive-based policies approach
involves the intensive attention of
politician.
TOTAL 44 36 / 54 Incentive based policies has the highest
46 score among the three.
CMU Australia. Adelaide 2012. Class Materials, for Educational purposes only.
13. 13
Recommendations
• We strongly recommend environmentalists to consider the first approach –
Incentive based policies to deal with the growingly intensive activities of anti-
environmental movement.
• Focus on diversifying participants, especially high profile figures
• Proactively involve the media of different channels
• Considering incentive-based policies as the laying cornerstone for the long
term approach of Ecosystem Based Management
CMU Australia. Adelaide 2012. Class Materials, for Educational purposes only.
14. 14
Sensitivity Analysis
• As the total score of Community based decision making approach is 42,
which is quite close to Incentive Based Policies approach, it may trigger the
internal debates between environmentalists.
• The Incentive based policies approach can be manipulated or driven by the
influential entrepreneurs to serve their own interests.
• Possible backlash may emerge due to the inefficiency of policy making and
implementation.
CMU Australia. Adelaide 2012. Class Materials, for Educational purposes only.
15. 15
Thank you
CMU Australia. Adelaide 2012. Class Materials, for Educational purposes only.
Notes de l'éditeur
1970s:Environmentalism began to encounter resistance.1980s:Widespread wiseuse and recognition of property rights movementsUsing idealto mobilize support - Formation of the 2 think tanksLegal theory and litigationHarrasment and intimidation1991: 400 Right-Use and Property rights groups joined forces to form the Alliance for America1995: Pass private Property Rights
Criteria:Eliminating restrictions on wetlands development-Property rights are paramount. Property owners ought to be compensatedOpening all public lands (national parks, wilderness areas, mineral and energy production...) Using Public Relations tool (anecdotes)Attaching anti-environmental riders to the fiscal 1996