Thinking of “intention” as a concept, I often think of very positive things. Words like helping, caring, and altruism come to mind immediately. Impact, however, is a different story. I frequently associate impact with much more negative connotations–ignorance, harmful, and unintended consequences. In learning more about activism, or service, or even personal interactions, I have come to realize that intention and impact don’t necessarily correspond in a way we would like. The truth is impact is never guaranteed by good intent.
In ENVS, many case studies we learn about are examples of this mismatch of intent versus impact. Preservationist policies that intend to protect a culturally-constructed idea of wilderness impact indigenous populations living and subsisting within the area. Risk communication typically intends to clearly outline hazards, but the style of communication has an impact on how this risk is perceived. Market-based solutions intend to resolve problems efficiently and without interference, but market failures often impact groups disproportionate to their part in the problem. In looking at examples of these issues, I have come to realize that the problem comes from an overly focused perspective. While the intent may have been noble, it was too rooted in just one lens, instead of considering many different ones.
This gap between intent and impact is a primary road block for me in considering solutions to environmental problems. I don’t want to start a project with good intentions, whatever those may be, if the impact of my project could be very detrimental to the place or people I am working with. At the same time, the impact of any action is unpredictable. I believe action is necessary nonetheless. Maybe one possible solution for this impasse is to have one aspect of intention for every action be a multifaceted approach or perspective? Is the key to intention critical analysis?