DOCSLIB.ORG

Integrating Ecological Risk Assessment and Economic Analysis in Watersheds: a Conceptual Approach and Three Case Studies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integrating Ecological Risk Assessment and Economic Analysis in Watersheds: a Conceptual Approach and Three Case Studies EPA/600/R-03/140R September 2003 Integrating Ecological Risk Assessment and Economic Analysis in Watersheds: A Conceptual Approach and Three Case Studies National Center for Environmental Assessment Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH DISCLAIMER This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ABSTRACT This document reports on a program of research to investigate the integration of ecological risk assessment (ERA) and economics, with an emphasis on the watershed as the scale for analysis. In 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency initiated watershed ERA (W- ERA) in five watersheds to evaluate the feasibility and utility of this approach. In 1999, economic case studies were funded in conjunction with three of those W-ERAs: the Big Darby Creek watershed in central Ohio; the Clinch Valley (Clinch and Powell River watersheds) in southwestern Virginia and northeastern Tennessee; and the central Platte River floodplain in Nebraska. The ecological settings, and the analytical approaches used, differed among the three locations, but each study introduced economists to the ERA process and required the interpretation of ecological risks in economic terms. A workshop was held in Cincinnati, OH in 2001 to review progress on those studies, to discuss environmental problems involving other watershed settings, and to discuss the ideal characteristics of a generalized approach for conducting studies of this type. Based on the workshop results, a conceptual approach for the integration of ERA and economic analysis in watersheds was developed. The objectives of this document (by chapter) are as follows: • describe the rationale, limitations, and contributions of the document (Chapter 1) • create a context for understanding by a diverse, technical audience (Chapter 2) • present a conceptual approach for integrating ERA and economics in the context of watershed management (Chapter 3) • present and critically evaluate the methods and findings of the three watershed case studies (Chapters 4-6) • identify research needed to improve the integration of ERA and economic analysis in watersheds (Chapter 7). This report is unique in its focus on the problem of ERA-economic integration and the watershed management context and in its presentation of case studies. The conceptual approach is used as a basis of discussion of each case study to illustrate how its particular methodological advances and insights could be used to fullest advantage, both in the watershed studied and in future integration efforts. Preferred citation: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2003) Integrating ecological risk assessment and economic analysis in watersheds: A conceptual approach and three case studies. Prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/R-03/140R. Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, PB2004-101634; and <http://www.epa.gov/ncea>. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ ix LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................xv PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. xviii AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTERS AND REVIEWERS ................................................................ xix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... xxvii 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF INTEGRATED, WATERSHED-LEVEL ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 GENESIS OF THIS DOCUMENT ..................................................................... 1-5 1.3 OBJECTIVES AND ORGANIZATION............................................................. 1-7 1.3.1 Create a context for understanding by a diverse, technical audience (Chapter 2)................................................................................ 1-7 1.3.2 Present a conceptual approach for integrating ERA and economics in the context of watershed management (Chapter 3) ........... 1-8 1.3.3 Present and critically evaluate the methods and findings of three case studies (Chapter 4-6)............................................................... 1-8 1.3.4 Identify research needed to improve the integration of ERA and economic analysis in watershed (Chapter 7) ........................................... 1-8 1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING USEPA GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS.......... 1-9 1.4.1 USEPA Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment ............................... 1-9 1.4.2 USEPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses ........................... 1-9 1.4.3 USEPA Framework for Economic Assessment of Ecological Benefits................................................................................................... 1-10 1.5 LIMITATIONS.................................................................................................. 1-10 1.5.1 Lack of complete integration ................................................................. 1-10 1.5.2 Specificity to a watershed context ......................................................... 1-11 1.6 UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS........................................................................... 1-12 1.7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 1-13 iii 2. BACKGROUND: ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS IN WATERSHEDS AND THE NEED FOR INTEGRATION.................. 2-1 2.1 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Framework and methods for ecological risk assessment......................... 2-2 2.1.2 Critiques of ecological risk assessment ................................................. 2-11 2.1.3 Watershed applications of ecological risk assessment........................... 2-14 2.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 2-17 2.2.1 Welfare economics................................................................................. 2-17 2.2.2 Economic value...................................................................................... 2-20 2.2.3 Cost-benefit analysis.............................................................................. 2-25 2.2.4 Complementary analyses ....................................................................... 2-26 2.2.5 Game theory........................................................................................... 2-28 2.2.6 Ecological economics ............................................................................ 2-30 2.2.7 Applications of ecological economics ................................................... 2-31 2.3 ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS................................................................................. 2-33 2.3.1 Water quality standards and ecological risk assessment........................ 2-34 2.3.2 Water quality standards and economic analysis .................................... 2-38 2.4 THE NEED FOR INTEGRATION ................................................................... 2-41 2.5 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 2-44 APPENDIX 2-A: DISCUSSION OF STATED PREFERENCE METHODS USED IN TWO CASE STUDIES........................................................................... 2-59 APPENDIX 2-B: USING MULTIMETRIC INDICES TO DEFINE THE INTEGRITY OF STREAM BIOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES AND INSTREAM HABITAT...................................................................... 2-64 3. A CONCEPTUAL APPROACH FOR INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 EXISTING FRAMEWORK FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT................ 3-1 3.2 GUIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR AN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROCESS .............................................................................. 3-2 3.3 DIAGRAMING AN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROCESS.................. 3-7 3.3.1 Assessment planning.............................................................................. 3-10 3.3.2 Problem formulation .............................................................................. 3-11 iv 3.3.3 Analysis and characterization of baseline risk....................................... 3-14 3.3.4 Formulation of alternatives.................................................................... 3-16 3.3.5 Consultation with extended peer community ........................................ 3-18 3.3.6 Analysis and characterization of alternatives ........................................ 3-18 3.3.7 Comparison of alternatives .................................................................... 3-20 3.3.8 Decision ................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Measure of Risk Tolerance Based on Economic Theory
    A Measure Of Risk Tolerance Based On Economic Theory Sherman D. Hanna1, Michael S. Gutter 2 and Jessie X. Fan3 Self-reported risk tolerance is a measurement of an individual's willingness to accept risk, making it a valuable tool for financial planners and researchers alike. Prior subjective risk tolerance measures have lacked a rigorous connection to economic theory. This study presents an improved measurement of subjective risk tolerance based on economic theory and discusses its link to relative risk aversion. Results from a web-based survey are presented and compared with results from previous studies using other risk tolerance measurements. The new measure allows for a wider possible range of risk tolerance to be obtained, with important implications for short-term investing. Key words: Risk tolerance, Risk aversion, Economic model Malkiel (1996, p. 401) suggested that the risk an to describe some preliminary patterns of risk tolerance investor should be willing to take or tolerate is related to based on the measure. The results suggest that there is the househ old situation, lifecycle stage, and subjective a wide variation of risk tolerance in people, but no factors. Risk tolerance is commonly used by financial systematic patterns related to gender or age have been planners, and is discussed in financial planning found. textbooks. For instance, Mittra (1995, p. 396) discussed the idea that risk tolerance measurement is usually not Literature Review precise. Most tests use a subjective measure of both There are at least four methods of measuring risk emotional and financial ability of an investor to tolerance: askin g about investment choices, asking a withstand losses.
    [Show full text]
  • Exposure and Vulnerability
    Determinants of Risk: 2 Exposure and Vulnerability Coordinating Lead Authors: Omar-Dario Cardona (Colombia), Maarten K. van Aalst (Netherlands) Lead Authors: Jörn Birkmann (Germany), Maureen Fordham (UK), Glenn McGregor (New Zealand), Rosa Perez (Philippines), Roger S. Pulwarty (USA), E. Lisa F. Schipper (Sweden), Bach Tan Sinh (Vietnam) Review Editors: Henri Décamps (France), Mark Keim (USA) Contributing Authors: Ian Davis (UK), Kristie L. Ebi (USA), Allan Lavell (Costa Rica), Reinhard Mechler (Germany), Virginia Murray (UK), Mark Pelling (UK), Jürgen Pohl (Germany), Anthony-Oliver Smith (USA), Frank Thomalla (Australia) This chapter should be cited as: Cardona, O.D., M.K. van Aalst, J. Birkmann, M. Fordham, G. McGregor, R. Perez, R.S. Pulwarty, E.L.F. Schipper, and B.T. Sinh, 2012: Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 65-108. 65 Determinants of Risk: Exposure and Vulnerability Chapter 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................67 2.1. Introduction and Scope..............................................................................................................69
    [Show full text]
  • Anthrozoology and Sharks, Looking at How Human-Shark Interactions Have Shaped Human Life Over Time
    Anthrozoology and Public Perception: Humans and Great White Sharks (Carchardon carcharias) on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA Jessica O’Toole A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Marine Affairs University of Washington 2020 Committee: Marc L. Miller, Chair Vincent F. Gallucci Program Authorized to Offer Degree School of Marine and Environmental Affairs © Copywrite 2020 Jessica O’Toole 2 University of Washington Abstract Anthrozoology and Public Perception: Humans and Great White Sharks (Carchardon carcharias) on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA Jessica O’Toole Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Dr. Marc L. Miller School of Marine and Environmental Affairs Anthrozoology is a relatively new field of study in the world of academia. This discipline, which includes researchers ranging from social studies to natural sciences, examines human-animal interactions. Understanding what affect these interactions have on a person’s perception of a species could be used to create better conservation strategies and policies. This thesis uses a mixed qualitative methodology to examine the public perception of great white sharks on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. While the area has a history of shark interactions, a shark related death in 2018 forced many people to re-evaluate how they view sharks. Not only did people express both positive and negative perceptions of the animals but they also discussed how the attack caused them to change their behavior in and around the ocean. Residents also acknowledged that the sharks were not the only problem living in the ocean. They often blame seals for the shark attacks, while also claiming they are a threat to the fishing industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Environment and Natural Resource Management POLICY
    Environment and natural resource management POLICY Resilient livelihoods through the sustainable use of natural assets Enabling poor rural people to overcome poverty IFAD ENRM core principles 10 Reduce Productive and IFAD’s environmental resilient livelihoods footprint Increase and ecosystems smallholder access to Promote role 9 green finance 8 of women and indigenous peoples Promote livelihood 7 diversification Improve 6 governance of natural assets Engage in value chains 5 that drive green growth Build 4 smallholder resilience to risk Promote climate-smart 3 rural Recognize development 2 values of natural assets Scaled-up 1 investment in sustainable agriculture Scaled-up investment in Improved governance of natural assets multiple-benefit approaches for for poor rural people by strengthening land tenure sustainable agricultural intensification and community-led empowerment Recognition and greater awareness Livelihood diversification to reduce vulnerability of the economic, social and cultural and build resilience for sustainable value of natural assets natural resource management ‘Climate-smart’ approaches Equality and empowerment for women to rural development and indigenous peoples in managing natural resources Greater attention to risk and resilience Increased access in order to manage environment- and by poor rural communities natural-resource-related shocks to environment and climate finance Engagement in value chains Environmental commitment through to drive green growth changing its own behaviour A full description of the core principles begins on page 28. Environment and natural resource management Policy Resilient livelihoods through the sustainable use of natural assets Enabling poor rural people to overcome poverty Minor amendments have been included in this document to reflect comments received during Board deliberations and to incorporate the latest data available.
    [Show full text]
  • How Corporate Boards Can Oversee Environmental, Social and Governance (Esg) Issues
    Running the Risk HOW CORPORATE BOARDS CAN OVERSEE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND GOVERNANCE (ESG) ISSUES November 2019 Acknowledgements Rebecca Henderson, John and Natty McArthur University Professor, Harvard Business School; board Report Authors: member, Amgen Inc.; board member, IDEXX Laboratories Veena Ramani, senior program director, Robert Herz, board member, Morgan Stanley; capital markets systems program, Ceres and board member, Federal National Mortgage Association Hannah Saltman, manager, governance, Ceres. (Fannie Mae); board member, Workiva Inc.; board member, Paxos Trust Company; board member, This project is generously funded by the Gordon Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and Betty Moore Foundation. Foundation; former chairman of the board, Financial We would also like to thank our colleagues at Ceres Accounting Standards Board (FASB); former member, who provided very useful assistance with this project, International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) including Blair Bateson, Jim Coburn, Margaret Fleming, Dan Hesse, board member, PNC Financial; Barbara Grady, George Grattan, Cynthia McHale, board member, Akamai; former president and Brian Sant, Sara Sciammacco, Alex Wilson and chief executive officer, Sprint Corporation Elise Van Heuven. Robert Hirth, senior managing director, Protiviti; former Project Contributors chairman, Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO); co-vice chair, Ceres would like to thank the following people for Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) contributing their valuable time and thoughtful feedback to this project and informing our recommendations. Steven Hoch, partner, Brown Advisory; former board The views expressed in this paper are Ceres’ alone and member, Nestle SA do not necessarily reflect those of these contributors. Sheila Hooda, chief executive officer, president & founder, Carol Browner, former administrator, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. EPA. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment
    EPA/630/R-92/001 February 1992 FRAMEWORK FOR ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Assessment Forum U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 DISCLAIMER This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ii CONTENTS Acknowledgments . ..............vi Foreword . ............ vii Preface . ............ix Contributors and Reviewers . ............. x Executive Summary . ............ xiv 1. INTRODUCTION . .......... 1 1.1. Purpose and Scope of the Framework Report . ... 1 1.2. Intended Audience . .... 2 1.3. Definition and Applications of Ecological Risk Assessment ..................... 2 l. 4. Ecological Risk Assessment Framework .................................... 2 1.5. The Importance of Professional Judgment ................................... 6 1.6. Organization .......................................................... 6 2. PROBLEM FORMULATION ....................................................... 9 2.1. Discussion Between the Risk Assessor and Risk Manager (Planning) ............. 9 2.2. Stressor Characteristics, Ecosystem Potentially at Risk, and Ecological Effects ..... 9 2.2.1. Stressor Characteristics ................................................. 11 2.2.2. Ecosystem Potentially at Risk ............................................ 11 2.2.3. Ecological Effects ..................................................... 12 2.3. Endpoint Selection
    [Show full text]
  • COSO) Oversight Representative COSO Chair John J
    Enterprise Risk Management — Integrated Framework Executive Summary September 2004 Copyright © 2004 by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. All rights reserved. You are hereby authorized to download and distribute unlimited copies of this Executive Summary PDF document, for internal use by you and your firm. You may not remove any copyright or trademark notices, such as the ©, TM, or ® symbols, from the downloaded copy. For any form of commercial exploitation distribution, you must request copyright permission as follows: The current procedure for requesting AICPA permission is to first display our Website homepage on the Internet at www.aicpa.org, then click on the "privacy policies and copyright information" hyperlink at the bottom of the page. Next, click on the resulting copyright menu link to COPYRIGHT PERMISSION REQUEST FORM, fill in all relevant sections of the form online, and click on the SUBMIT button at the bottom of the page. A permission fee will be charged for th e requested reproduction privileges. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) Oversight Representative COSO Chair John J. Flaherty American Accounting Association Larry E. Rittenberg American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Alan W. Anderson Financial Executives International John P. Jessup Nicholas S. Cyprus Institute of Management Accountants Frank C. Minter Dennis L. Neider The Institute of Internal Auditors William G. Bishop, III David A. Richards Project Advisory Council to COSO Guidance Tony Maki, Chair James W. DeLoach John P. Jessup Partner Managing Director Vice President and Treasurer Moss Adams LLP Protiviti Inc. E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company Mark S.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Modern Portfolio Theory Still Modern?
    A reprinted article from July/August 2020 Is Modern Portfolio Theory Still Modern? By Anthony B. Davidow, CIMA® © 2020 Investments & Wealth Institute®. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. JULY AUGUST FEATURE 2020 Is Modern Portfolio Theory Still Modern? By Anthony B. Davidow, CIMA® odern portfolio theory (MPT) This article addresses some of the identifies a few of the more popular assumes that investors are limitations of MPT and evaluates alter- approaches and the corresponding Mrisk averse, meaning that native techniques for allocating capital. limitations. For MPT and PMPT (post- given two portfolios that offer the same Specifically, it will delve into the follow- modern portfolio theory), the biggest expected return, investors will prefer ing issues: limitation is with respect to the robust- the less risky portfolio. The implication ness and accuracy of the data used to is that a rational investor will not invest A What are the various asset allocation optimize. Using only long-term histori- in a portfolio if a second portfolio exists approaches? cal averages of the underlying asset with a more favorable profile of risk A What are the limitations of each classes is a flawed approach.Long -term versus expected return.1 approach? data should certainly be considered—but A How should advisors evolve their what if the future isn’t like the past? MPT has a number of inherent limita- approaches? tions. Investors aren’t always rational— A What is the appeal of a goals-based The long-term historical annual return and they don’t always select the right approach? of the S&P 500 has been 10.3 percent portfolio.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Status of Animal-Assisted Interventions in Scientific Literature: a Critical Comment on Their Internal Validity
    animals Opinion Current Status of Animal-Assisted Interventions in Scientific Literature: A Critical Comment on Their Internal Validity Javier López-Cepero Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Sevilla, Camilo José Cela s/n, 41010 Sevilla, Spain; [email protected]; Tel.: +34-954-556-831 Received: 20 May 2020; Accepted: 4 June 2020; Published: 5 June 2020 Simple Summary: Animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) have been receiving ever-increasing attention from both practitioners (including psychologists, educators, social workers, and physicians) and clients alike. However, despite this interest, the literature does not provide an unanimous support for including dogs, horses, cats, or other animals in interventions. The present work analyzes whether or not this lack of support could be understood as the result of inconsistencies and/or biases present in the literature, analyzing the definition of AAIs, the role of animals in interventions, the relationship among AAIs and the way humans relate to non-human animals, and the way in which researchers study these phenomena. The present comment provides some clues on how to improve the development of the field, including the following: giving more prominence to cultural, anthrozoological aspects of AAIs; considering AAIs as modalities of well-known interventions, avoiding their representation as “alternative”, “new”, or “groundbreaking”; and making changes to the study and intervention of designs, thus making it easier to demonstrate the impact of human–animal interactions on improving outcomes. Abstract: Many meta-analyses and systematic reviews have tried to assess the efficacy of animal-assisted interventions (AAIs), reaching inconsistent conclusions. The present work posits a critical exploration of the current literature, using some recent meta-analyses to exemplify the presence of unattended threats.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Portfolio Theory
    Modern portfolio theory “Portfolio analysis” redirects here. For theorems about where Rp is the return on the port- the mean-variance efficient frontier, see Mutual fund folio, Ri is the return on asset i and separation theorem. For non-mean-variance portfolio wi is the weighting of component analysis, see Marginal conditional stochastic dominance. asset i (that is, the proportion of as- set “i” in the portfolio). Modern portfolio theory (MPT), or mean-variance • Portfolio return variance: analysis, is a mathematical framework for assembling a P σ2 = w2σ2 + portfolio of assets such that the expected return is maxi- Pp P i i i w w σ σ ρ , mized for a given level of risk, defined as variance. Its key i j=6 i i j i j ij insight is that an asset’s risk and return should not be as- where σ is the (sample) standard sessed by itself, but by how it contributes to a portfolio’s deviation of the periodic returns on overall risk and return. an asset, and ρij is the correlation coefficient between the returns on Economist Harry Markowitz introduced MPT in a 1952 [1] assets i and j. Alternatively the ex- essay, for which he was later awarded a Nobel Prize in pression can be written as: economics. P P 2 σp = i j wiwjσiσjρij , where ρij = 1 for i = j , or P P 1 Mathematical model 2 σp = i j wiwjσij , where σij = σiσjρij is the (sam- 1.1 Risk and expected return ple) covariance of the periodic re- turns on the two assets, or alterna- MPT assumes that investors are risk averse, meaning that tively denoted as σ(i; j) , covij or given two portfolios that offer the same expected return, cov(i; j) .
    [Show full text]
  • Developing and Promoting Agroecological Innovations Within Country Program Strategies to Address Agroecosystem Resilience in Production Landscapes: a Guide
    Developing and promoting agroecological innovations within country program strategies to address agroecosystem resilience in production landscapes: a guide Miguel A. Altieri University of California, Berkeley Empowered lives. Resilient nations. The Small Grants Programme The Small Grants Programme (SGP) is a corporate programme of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) implemented by the United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) since 1992. SGP grantmaking in over 125 countries promotes community-based innovation, capacity development, and empowerment through sustainable development projects of local civil society organizations with special consideration for indigenous peoples, women, and youth. In particular, SGP supports biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation and adaptation, prevention of land degradation, protection of international waters, and reduction of the impact of chemicals, while generating sustainable livelihoods. One of the strategic initiatives of the Sixth Operational Phase of the Small Grants Programme is Climate-Smart Innovative Agro-ecology. This initiative will target geographical areas that show declining productivity as a result of human induced land degrading practices and the impact of climate change by working in buffer zones of identified critical ecosystems, as well as in forest corridors. COMDEKS The “Community Development and Knowledge Management for the Satoyama Initiative (COMDEKS)” supports local community activities to maintain and, where necessary, rebuild socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS), and to collect and disseminate knowledge and experiences from successful on-the-ground actions for dissemination and adaptation to other smallholder organizations in other landscapes and regions of the world. Landscape strategies are developed with four outcomes, one of which addresses agroecosystem resilience, while aiming at improving food security and stabilizing and improving ecosystem services.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Ecology
    Human Ecology THE DEGREE FOR THE FUTURE Understanding the pressing environmental and social challenges of the 21st century and creating sustainable, resilient solutions to them requires an interdisciplinary, systems approach that considers the complex relationships between people and their social, technological and ecological environments. SUSTAINABILITY & THE PROGRAM CAREERS RESILIENCE Through small classes and hands-on The Human Ecology program equips In today’s turbulent world, demand for research, services and professional you with the skills to be a leader expertise in resilience, sustainability experience, your B.S. in Human in the 21st century. Graduates are and social-ecological systems thinking Ecology provides you with an equipped to be agents of positive is skyrocketing. Our program prepares understanding of the diverse ways change who are able to communicate you for a wide range of careers in the people relate to their environments; and analyze complex issues, such as public and private sector, including the webs of politics, power and global warming, across traditional ecology that shape contemporary disciplinary boundaries. They media, education, logistics, research, systems; and the latest sustainability, can find practical, transformative nonprofit advocacy, urban and resilience and adaptation approach solutions to our pressing social and environmental planning and policy, as for the age of climate change. environmental challenges. well as graduate studies. COLLEGE OF GRADUATE & UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES LIFE.edu CHOOSE YOUR FOCUS • Food Systems Sustainability • Environmental Planning and Policy • Climate Adaptation • Ecology of Health and Wellness • Urban Resilience + More! WHY HUMAN ECOLOGY? LEARN BY DOING • Expore how people have related to their environments in OUR CAMPUS: different times and places around the world.
    [Show full text]