We all have been there. Slowly the train comes to a halt. You press the button and with a PSHHHHH the door pushes an opening for you to get off the train. As soon as the door opens, a wall of people appears. We now have a very clear example of conflicting interests:
- I want to get off the train -> <- The wall of people wants to get in the train.
I take the first step to the outside of the train, hoping that the wall of people notices that I would like to get out. The wall of people does not move. I try to make eye contact with the wall of people. The wall looks back at me, and starts to move towards me. They seem to be in hurry, which I can imagine. The conductor will blow his whistle in a minute. However, I need to be off the train in time, since staying on the train means that I will see the train doors close from the inside, meaning I will miss my destination. Then the wall breaks. One or two people squeeze out of the wall, quickly jumping in the train. One of them bumps into my shoulder; train doors are not dimensioned for two people entering and one person getting off at the same time. More people squeeze out of the wall and enter the train, and I feel that if I don't throw myself into the wall, hoping that I will break through, I will be stuck in this train for the rest of my life. I lunge myself in the crowd. People react agressively, pushing me to the left and right. I firmly put my feat on the floor and push through. I pop out of the wall, like a zit that is pressed out with brute force.
Now, the puzzle here is: What is the cause for this seemingly inefficient behaviour to happen?
I have three possible explanations for this.
1.
Education. Maybe people are not educated well enough on how we can effectively hop on and off the train. Parents could give wrong examples, where children adopt these. In Singapore, I've seen an attempt in education:
2.
Stress and comfort. Morning traffic in Holland is hectic. Recently, the president of the Nederlandse Spoorwegen stated in an interview that delays are something that are becoming normal when traveling with the NS; one cannot expect trains to run perfectly on time anymore. One cannot expect to have a seat anymore as well. Therefore, having a seat in the morning is a luxury. This is why people may want to rush in the train; they are stressed and they seek comfort.
3.
Anonimity. Especially in big cities, public transport is used by so many travellers that one can remain anonymous within the mob. The more anonymous, the easier to commit a crime, the less the risk someone will personally prosecute you. This makes bad behaviour easier to commit as well. "I don't care if these people think I am an ***hole, I want my seat in the train". When people recognize you, this becomes more difficult.
Now you may wonder, how is this an industrial ecology puzzle? In line with this course, we could see the use of a train as a social system, just as how we can see a community, city or country as a social system. In the social system train, I see a certain solution to a multi-actor problem (me and the wall of people). We have conflicting interests, and there is little time to try and see how other actors see the same problem, and what their goals and interests are. This seems to be an issue in Industrial Ecology as well. Most Industrial Ecology problems involve many actors with many different goals and interests.
As for the 3 explanations above, maybe these explanations apply in real industrial ecology problems as well? Why does the management of a large factory with a lot of waste heat not use this heat in a symbiosys?
1. Maybe the management has not been educated/informed about the consequences of heat loss, or the efficiency we could reach when heat is used
2. Maybe a large intervention in the factory causes stress for the management, who are constantly pushed to achieve greater profit.
3. Maybe the management does not need to engage in a symbiosis because their factory is not dependant on a good image anyway, it is an anonymous factory.
To conclude, both small and big problems seem to be ruled by actor behaviour. How can this behaviour be changed for the good? And then what is the good?
I like your comparison. Train access isn´t an expected IE puzzle, but for sure the use of this public transport involves industry and is a great showcase to observe human ecology.
BeantwoordenVerwijderenGoing deeper on your reasons, I consider the third (Anonimity) more as a component of the scenery than a reason to act uncivilized. Most people understand that to enter the train must first let out, but as you mentioned, there are not enough seats and there is even the chance to “miss your destination”. If there were cameras all over to I.D. people´s behavior I still think the problem would continue, as this is a basic response to a situation of scarcity of resources (space, comfort). I come from a place in which this situation replicates but at a worse level, so I can tell user education softens such stressful encounters. Nonetheless your expected level of civilization won´t be shown if goals are reached through a competitive environment, no matter where you are.
About the application of these reasons to IE puzzles, I agree that ignorance and the urge for profits are dangerous and common existing combinations. Industries shouldn´t and cannot be as anonymous as individuals though. Industries are run by people and should reflect so. To start, no matter the goods or services offered, there should be a unified good, part of every mission and vision in which we can provide ourselves with a healthy environment and with plenty of space for reward.
Hi Diana,
VerwijderenThanks again for your feedback. I agree with you that Anonimity comes from the environment in which this phenomenon takes place. Actually there is an interaction between stress and anonimity (factor 2 & 3). I also agree that cameras will not be the solution. I have heard of the following: you know how people have to check in and out of the bus/train etc in Holland? What if the check in machine says "welcome mr. van Staveren". I think this would decrease anonomity greatly, but I think I will also feel uncomfortable.
I really enjoy reading your comparison. I think everywhere people experience the same problem with public transports, especially during peak hours.
BeantwoordenVerwijderenI agree with the second and third explanations you gave but I don't really think education or information is important in this case. I believe people behave inapproprately because, as you say in the further explantions, they choose to. They prefer pursue their goals (enter the train, find a seat) without taking into account the consequences of their actions towards others persons. They choose to be selfish. I think this is also what often happens with industries' approaches to environmental issues. In my opinion most of the environmental problem are generally well-known, and every industry is informed about. So what often happend is that they act selfish, only caring about their goals and their profit.
In the end I also think there is somehow a lack of information, but it is above all about the solutions (tools and strategy to improve their sustainability) more than about the enviromental problems.
Thanks again for your feedback! You are right that education may not be a solution. The same goes for littering, we al know that littering is bad, our parents thought us this. However, if the environment offers the right circumstances (no people around, no trash can, already littered environment) people may litter because they choose too.
VerwijderenI agree on the lack of information. I wrote this text in quite a hypothetical tense, where I did not back up my statements with literature. This is ofcourse a nogo in industrial ecology. I am also a bit confused what Frank Boons really wants concerning this.