In 1974 an article appeared in Science magazine with the dry-sounding title “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases” by a pair of psychologists who were not well known outside their discipline of decision theory. In it Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman introduced the world to Prospect Theory, which mapped out how humans actually behave when faced with decisions about gains and losses, in contrast to how economists assumed that people behave. Prospect Theory turned Economics on its head by demonstrating through a series of ingenious experiments that people are much more concerned with losses than they are with gains, and that framing a choice from one perspective or the other will result in decisions that are exactly the opposite of each other, even if the outcomes are monetarily the same. Prospect Theory led cognitive psychology in a new direction that began to uncover other human biases in thinking that are probably not learned but are part of our brain’s wiring.

Thinking fast and slow.

「脆弱性(Vulnerability)」とは何か

In Art as Experience, Dewey brings together the deep and enduring connection between art and human experience. Art is understood not as a commodity or solitary object but as an intensely meaningful...

Art as experience

Historically, management theory has ignored the constraints imposed by the biophysical (natural) environment. Building upon resource-based theory, this article attempts to fill this void by proposing a natural-resource-based view of the firm—a theory of competitive advantage based upon the firm's relationship to the natural environment. It is composed of three interconnected strategies: pollution prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable development. Propositions are advanced for each of these strategies regarding key resource requirements and their contributions to sustained competitive advantage.

A natural resource-based view of the firm

The 1990s may be the last decade during which constructive and creative decisions, activities, and investments can be made to ensure that many of the world's species and ecosystems are maintained, examined for their material and ecological value, and promoted for sustainable use to support new and innovative approaches to development. The combination of maintaining the maximum possible biological and cultural diversity, and the greatest possible scientific endeavor seems the most sensible approach toward dealing with the dynamic future facing humanity. The elements now exist that will reverse the trend toward the biotic impoverishment of the world. New partners in conservation need to be found, involving all ministries, departments, and private institutions that are directly dependent on biological resources. For example, national parks departments should be joined in habitat management by a wide range of other institutions to represent all interests. Furthermore, other line agencies need to develop the capacity to manage biodiversity of particular relevance to their respective missions. Actions taken in the next few years will determine whether we take a road toward a chaotic future characterized by overexploitation and abuse of our biological resources, or take the road toward maintaining greater biological diversity and resource sustainability.

Conserving the World's Biological Diversity

https://www.alces.ca/references/download/33/Scenario%20Analysis%20in%20Environmental%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf

Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: Improving explorations of the future

Cumulative effects assessment (CEA) in Canada is in dire straits. Despite a huge amount of talk and a flurry of developmental activity associated with CEA concepts, it has not lived up to its glowing promise of helping to achieve sustainability of diverse valued ecosystem components. This article aims to articulate that failure, to examine it in terms of six major problems with CEA, and to propose solutions. The six problem areas include (1) application of CEA in project-level environmental impact assessments (EIAs), (2) an EIA focus on project approval instead of environmental sustainability, (3) a general lack of understanding of ecologic impact thresholds, (4) separation of cumulative effects from project-specific impacts, (5) weak interpretations of cumulative effects by practitioners and analysts, and (6) inappropriate handling of potential future developments. We advocate improvements not only within the purview of project-specific EIAs, but also mainly in the domain of region-scale CEAs and regional environmental effects frameworks (or perhaps land use planning). Only then will the CEA begin to approach the promise of securing sustainability of valued ecosystem components.

Peter N. Duinker

Papers

Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: Improving explorations of the future

The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for redeployment.

An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment in canada.

An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment

An analysis of urban forest management plans in Canada: Implications for urban forest management