11:373:101 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Love Canal, Occupational Safety And Health, Diazepam
7 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Introduction to Human Ecology
Review Sheet for Final Exam
11:374:101:01-08
Spring, 2018
Following is a bit about the key points of the articles in the last section. Also look at the film questions and book
outlines and review what was discussed in recitation. Although the final examination is not cumulative, you should
consider all we’ve done this semester and think about how materials in the last part of the course interrelate. The exam for
the 2:30 lecture (Sections 1-4) is on Friday, May 4th at 9 a.m. in the Food Science Auditorium. Students from the 4:10
lecture (Sections 5-8) have their exam at noon in the Food Science Auditorium on Friday, May 4th – students from the early
lecture should note that we agreed to start at 9 instead of 8, though you still may have as long as you wish. Students can
make alternative arrangements with me individually by mutual agreement. The exam will be similar in length and format
to the first two and should not take three hours (although you can have three hours if you need).
Clifford: Deal is Reached to Save California Redwood Forest: Clifford’s article describes the deal that settled the
Headwaters case seen in “The Last Stand”. What do you think of this deal? Who “won” and who “lost” among the parties
– Hurwitz and Pacific Lumber, loggers, environmentalists, the redwoods and animal species, and the general public? Was
it a fair compromise, or unfair to some?
Dove: A Revisionist View of Tropical Deforestation and Development: Dove describes the “poverty theory” of tropical
deforestation and the “rain-forest crunch thesis” that he criticizes in this piece. While he sees the benefits of this approach,
he is also critical of it for “helping” tropical forest dwellers at the expense of masking the larger socio-economic forces at
work. He outlines how he thinks this process works, and why it’s problematic. In turn, he suggests that larger forces create
the deforestation that impoverishes rain-forest dwellers, not that their poverty creates deforestation (as the rain-forest
crunch thesis assumes). He also discusses what he considers to be the “wrong” questions we ask and what “right”
questions we should be asking. See what you make of his case, his suggestions, and how they relate to the Headwaters
situation in its implications.
Shiva, et al: Social Forestry for Whom?: The authors discuss a re-forestation program in India unique in that it wants to
benefit both the natural environment and the people who live there. Although “social forestry” seems a good idea, in this
case it fails. See what the authors blame for its failure and think about whether or not this sort of program could be
improved or fixed, or whether it seems to you doomed to fail.
Rudel: Organizing for Sustainable Development: Conservation Organizations and the Struggle to Protect Rain Forests in
Esmeraldes, Ecuador: Rudel discusses the notion of “biological triage” and how many observers suggest abandoning
rainforest “hot spots” – those that are being deforested quickly and facing overwhelming deforestation pressures – in favor
of saving “cold spots” – those where deforestation is less extensive and under less pressure. He describes encompassing
conservation organizations and approaches in relation to success in generating sustainable development, including both the
introduction of new (appropriate) technologies and fostering change in line with existing social structures. He suggests that
even “hot spots” may be saved sometimes. You can think about this article in relation to both Dove’s and to the
Headwaters case.
Power & Rauber: The Price of Everything:: The authors describe a trendy approach to environmental problems – e.g., in
pollution – “free market environmentalism”. This approach claims to use the economic system to solve environmental
problems via market mechanisms – creating pollution permits that can be bought, sold, traded, and retired. In theory, this
accomplishes an environmental goal – capping a pollutant – without what some call “command and control” or
“overregulation”. In practice, there are potential problems with this policy; see what the authors think of it and how you
evaluate it.
Dixon: Putting a Value on Environmental Quality: He discusses an older economics idea – benefit-cost analysis – and
how it might be applied to environmental-economic clashes. Many environmental issues come down to economics vs.
environment arguments; CBA is one approach to resolving them in a rational framework. Some say we already do this, just
without this label. Many environmentalists see it as a biased framework that’s anti-environment. See what the author
thinks and what you think. Also imagine if it were applied to cases such as Headwaters; how might it have turned out
differently?
Rosenbloom: Solution or Mess? A Milk Jug for a Green Earth: This article covers the re-design of the familiar gallon
jug, the benefits of this new design, and the potential reluctance of consumers to adapt to it. See what lessons you draw
from the author’s discussion.
Wandersman & Hallman: Are People Acting Irrationally? Understanding Public Concerns About Environmental
Threats: This article covers the perception of risk generally and public perception of risk in relation to cancer more
specifically. It is important to make the distinction between “perceived” risk and “actual” or “real” risk, especially because
environmental policy is often made on the basis of both, not just the latter. The authors discuss how understanding this
distinction, and recognizing that public perceptions also influence policy must be considered in hopes of improving policy
in the future. They suggest how psychologists in particular, but by extension human ecologists in general, can play a
constructive role in helping policy address “real” risk to a greater extent and to make public perceptions of risk more in line
with actual risk.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Following is a bit about the key points of the articles in the last section. Also look at the film questions and book outlines and review what was discussed in recitation. Although the final examination is not cumulative, you should consider all we"ve done this semester and think about how materials in the last part of the course interrelate. The exam for the 2:30 lecture (sections 1-4) is on friday, may 4th at 9 a. m. in the food science auditorium. Students can make alternative arrangements with me individually by mutual agreement. The exam will be similar in length and format to the first two and should not take three hours (although you can have three hours if you need). Clifford: deal is reached to save california redwood forest: clifford"s article describes the deal that settled the. Who won and who lost among the parties.
