ENV Quiz 3

benefit cost analysis

comparing total expected benefits of an action against the total expected costs

risk

an indicator to the level of harm that is likely to occur in choosing a particular action over another

objective risk

relies on hard science, separation of personal bias, draws relationship between probability of harm and magnitude of harm

risk assessment

qualitative and quantitative characterization of risks, how science is used to objectively identify potential risks

quantification methods

how information from risk assessment is used to set limits on the amount of risk we are willing to accept, involves developing a set of priorities and the steps taken in risk assessment

hazard identification

can exposure have adverse health effects?

dose-response assessment

what is the relationship between the amount and the response?

exposure assessment

how often are individuals exposed?

risk characterization

leads to risk management

probability of harm and magnitude of harm are

inversely related

which is easier to get correct? magnitude of harm or probability of harm?

magnitude of harm

precautionary approach

approaching risk with caution and assuming worst case scenario

challenges of precautionary approach

lack of complete info on new technology may hinder development, lack of objective info can present too many choices

common set of priorities in quantification method

human health, human wellbeing, ecosystem wellbeing, aesthetic considerations (order can change depending on situation)

human health

historical and practical reasons for prioritizing human health, environmental laws develop as solution to disease outbreaks

human wellbeing

expansion of human health, involves quality of life, some actions can impact health without impacting wellbeing

ecosystem wellbeing

connected to total valuation technique, indirect or provisioning services

aesthetic considerations

speak towards the aspects of life that make it more appealing, often becomes relevant as tipping variable when other variables have been considered

quantification steps taken in risk assessment

1. hazard identification

2. dose response assessment

3. exposure assessment

4. risk characterization

questions to ask during risk assessment

1. what is the nature of the risk?

2. what is the likelihood of the risk?

3. what is the extent of the risk?

types of dose responses

linear, exponential, threshold, hermetic

linear dose response

one unit change in dose consistently results in x unit change in response, ex: alcohol

hermetic dose response

small dose shown to be beneficial, but large dose has negative effects at a certain level and begins to resemble linear, ex: exersise

exponential dose response

response doubles (or triples, quadruples, etc) for each one unit increase in dose, ex: radiation

threshold dose response

response is not notable until it passes a certain threshold, ex: lead exposure, ibuprofen

subjective values

make environmental decision making more difficult, not based on scientific methodology or dose response

confirmation bias

finding evidence/information sources to support what you already believe

Dunning-Kruger effect

thinking that we know more about an issue than we really do

cognitive dissonance

rejecting new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, behavior does not align with beliefs

emotion

how risk is identified and quantified by humans in the lack of objective scientific-type information

public outrage

while objective risk is termed “hazard”, subjective risk is termed “public outrage” (irrational)

risk =

hazard + outrage

relationship between coercion and risk

if someone is coerced to do something, perceived risk increases, ex: forcing someone to go skydiving

ways that risk is communicated can affect how it is perceieved

familiarity, coercion, control, knowledge

relationship between familiarity and risk

if risk is familiar, it is perceived as less risky, ex: smoking

relationship between who is controlling the risk and risk

if someone else is controlling the risk, perceived risk increases, ex: driving your own car vs getting into a plane piloted by someone else

relationship between knowledge and risk

less knowledge about risk leads to greater perception of riskiness, ex: climate change

not in my backyard (NIMBY)

people don’t want things in their local area but don’t really care about other areas, offers perspective on how subjective attitudes influence values and decisions

principled bargaining

achieving resolution that can help in decision making, focus on outcome and common areas of interests

positional bargaining

individuals take a position and defend it, regardless of info

harvard principles of negotiation

1. separate party from issue

2. negotiate interests

3. develop criteria

4. develop options

can someone’s professional and personal beliefs differ

yes

ways to overcome strong perceptions

framing the matter in a new way, focus on true concerns rather than position they are defending

sound decision making is based on

1. Good information

2. Consistency in interpreting this information

3. Knowledge of variables in decision-making process

4. Objectivity

5. Rationality

factors that influence individual decision making

criteria and cost

criteria

condition by which an act is judged, ex: What does sustainability mean to you and how did you come to this meaning of sustainability?

cost

weighing the positive and negative benefits of an action, Strength of belief can determine weight placed on positive or negative benefits

free rider mentality

individual interests diverge from group interests especially where the benefits are distributed equally among all members of a group regardless of merit or participation, ex: groups sharing common area

tragedy of the commons

public spaces are considered common property, no one can be excluded, and people can enjoy benefits without having to work for them

high divisibility, low excludability

common pool resources, ex: air, ocean

divisibility

degree to which a shared resource can be easily divided or partitioned among users

low divisibility, low excludability

public good, ex: gravity, national defense

low divisibility, high excludability

toll good, ex: private club, zoo

high divisibility, high excludability

private good, ex: homes, consumer goods

belief learning

one forms a belief of the world and uses that belief to make decisions

reinforce beliefs

learning based on experience