The effects of perceived conflict,resource scarcity,and information bias on emotions and environmental decisions

The failure to anticipate the public's response to environmental problems can lead to expensive delays, bad public relations, and litigation, as well as environmental decisions that do not represent public values and preferences. This study examines the influence of conflict between management goals, perceived resource scarcity, and information bias on evaluations of the importance of management goals; the perception of conflicts among the goals; and the emotions evoked in an urban forest management problem. Environmental problem scenarios were systematically manipulated as to the level of conflict between development and natural preservation goals, the scarcity of urban nature, and the bias of the presented information. Evaluations of the importance of urban nature and economic development were susceptible to manipulations of scarcity. The importance of urban nature was also higher when information was biased toward pro-preservation issues. Negative emotions were associated with high conflict and scarcity and with the propreservation information bias. Both evaluations of goal importance and conflict among goals appeared to be based on an underlying economics-versus-amenity dimension. These results are similar to previous studies of environmental decision making with regard to nonurban environmental problems. This research offers a beginning in understanding and anticipating the way members of the public may respond to information about environmental problems.     

A joint climate and nature cure: A transformative change perspective

Climate change has considerably dominated science-policy dialogue, public debate, and subsequently environmental policies since the three “Rio Conventions” were born. This has led to practically independent courses of action of climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation actions, neglecting potential conflicts among outcomes and with missed opportunities for synergistic measures. Transformative governance principles have been proposed to overcome these limitations. Using a transformative governance lens, we use the case of the Norwegian "Climate Cure 2030" for the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector to, first, illustrate the mechanisms that have led to the choice of climate mitigation measures; second, to analyze the potential consequences of these measures on biodiversity and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; and, third, to evaluate alternative measures with potential positive outcomes for biodiversity and GHG emissions/removals. We point to some mechanisms that could support the implementation of these positive actions.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13280-021-01679-8.     

基于ANP的建筑安全管理绩效评价框架研究

基于政府A部门提供的502起建设工程事故调查报告,综合应用比较分析、数据挖掘、网络层次分析法(ANP)和超级决策(SD)决策软件,建立建筑安全管理绩效评价框架,包括6个一级指标和24个二级指标;通过分析各因素之间的关系,修正各个因素的权重,得出事故致因的传递路径。根据和其他偏定性研究的比较还可以发现,基于数据挖掘的ANP和SD的综合运用,更利于对真实情况进行研究模拟,在应对较大建设工程事故风险时更具有针对性和前瞻性。     

INFLUENCE OF WELL WATER QUALITY VARIABILITY ON SAMPLING DECISIONS AND MONITORING1

ABSTRACT: Local governmental agencies responsible for decisions in ground water quality management need not only data on ground water quality but they also must understand the relationship of accuracies and risks associated with this data as related to the number of wells to sample. In this report we address this problem by using the philosophical doctrines of probabilism and relativism with simple statistical procedures. This requires a reasonable estimate of the population variance in a quality parameter for a given management-unit area, and requires that the decisionmaker formulate constraints with an acceptable standard error of the sample mean and be willing to accept some level of probability of being Wrong. This technique is illustrated using a 21-year data base of well water chemical data in a 653 km² ground water quality study area in the San Joaquin Valley of California.     

Evaluating the impact of ecosystem service assessments on decision-makers

Ecosystem services support human livelihoods and economies but are declining in many places. Ecosystem service assessments estimate the benefits that nature provides to people and can be used to evaluate trade-offs in impacts and changes resulting from land use decisions. Such assessments can affect the capacity of decision-makers to make sustainable land use decisions, but the actual impact of such projects on decision-maker attitudes is almost entirely unstudied. We addressed this knowledge gap by evaluating the impact of an ecosystem service assessment on decision-makers in California. We asked how decision-makers’ understanding of and attitudes about ecosystem services changed “pre-” and “post-” assessments and between treatment groups where ecosystem services were assessed and a comparison group where ecosystem services were not assessed. Mixed methods included regression models to estimate the treatment effect of the assessment (using a difference-in-differences approach), as well as interviews and direct observations to further understand how decision-makers responded to the assessment. Regression results showed small increases relative to the comparison group in decision-maker understanding of ecosystem services and perceived relevance of ecosystem services to their work. Interviews confirmed that decision-makers learned specific ways that they could use ecosystem services in conservation and development decisions and believed that doing so would improve outcomes. These results demonstrate how ecosystem services assessments can facilitate a conceptual shift in the minds of decision-makers, which is a necessary ingredient for subsequent policy impact. Impact evaluation studies of this type − that estimate a counterfactual and explore rival explanations for observed outcomes − are needed to truly understand whether ecosystem service projects impact decision-makers and, ultimately, produce outcomes for environmental and human well-being.     

低碳产品、定向广告与供应链营销投资策略演化

在对定向广告影响低碳产品制造商、零售商的供应链营销投资策略及其竞争关系分析基本上,建立制造商主导的Stackelberg博弈模型,给出制造商、零售商不同投资策略组合下的支付矩阵,构建以促进低碳产品销售为目标的演化博弈模型,根据产品低碳度、差异化低碳产品,分析不同低碳产品供应链定向广告投资策略演化路径及稳定性,并利用Netlogo进行博弈双方策略演化仿真,揭示消费者低碳偏好度、广告效应因子、价格敏感系数对策略演化路径的影响规律.研究发现,在制造商、零售商有限理性下,成本共担契约不能促成双方定向广告投资合作;产品低碳度不同,低碳供应链演化均衡策略存在差异;与制造商相比,零售商投资定向广告可催生更大市场需求,更有利于低碳产品的普及和推广;对低碳度较高产品,消费者低碳偏好度、价格敏感系数与零售商投资意愿正相关,广告效应因子对零售商投资意愿的影响存在峰值,当广告效应因子在合适范围内时,零售商投资意愿最大.据此,提出了相应的管理启示和决策建议.     

Implementing Participatory Decision Making in Forest Planning

Forest policy decisions are often a source of debate, conflict, and tension in many countries. The debate over forest land-use decisions often hinges on disagreements about societal values related to forest resource use. Disagreements on social value positions are fought out repeatedly at local, regional, national, and international levels at an enormous social cost. Forest policy problems have some inherent characteristics that make them more difficult to deal with. On the one hand, forest policy decisions involve uncertainty, long time scales, and complex natural systems and processes. On the other hand, such decisions encompass social, political, and cultural systems that are evolving in response to forces such as globalization. Until recently, forest policy was heavily influenced by the scientific community and various economic models of optimal resource use. However, growing environmental awareness and acceptance of participatory democracy models in policy formulation have forced the public authorities to introduce new participatory mechanisms to manage forest resources. Most often, the efforts to include the public in policy formulation can be described using the lower rungs of Arnstein’s public participation typology. This paper presents an approach that incorporates stakeholder preferences into forest land-use policy using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). An illustrative case of regional forest-policy formulation in Australia is used to demonstrate the approach. It is contended that applying the AHP in the policy process could considerably enhance the transparency of participatory process and public acceptance of policy decisions.