This study presents an application of the contingent valuation method for valuing medal winning success on a transnational basis to test whether more medals won equates to more utility. To achieve this aim, a research project was set up in five countries: Belgium, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Respondents were asked to state their willingness to pay to avoid a large-scale reduction in government funding for elite sport, resulting in a 50% reduction in medals won at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. Results show that willingness to pay for avoiding reduced medal winning performance differs significantly between countries with the more successful countries reporting higher willingness to pay values than the relatively less successful countries. This finding indicates that more medals won appears to be linked with more utility. The validity tests on the regression models were generally consistent with the theoretical expectations. Implications are discussed in terms of how governments can promote elite sport development while being conscious of the public's acceptability of such investment.
DOCUMENT
Biodiversity, including entire habitats and ecosystems, is recognized to be of great social and economic value. Conserving biodiversity has therefore become a task of international NGO’s as well as grass-roots organisations. The ‘classical’ model of conservation has been characterised by creation of designated nature areas to allow biodiversity to recover from the effects of human activities. Typically, such areas prohibit entry other than through commercial ecotourism or necessary monitoring activities, but also often involve commodification nature. This classical conservation model has been criticized for limiting valuation of nature to its commercial worth and for being insensitive to local communities. Simultaneously, ‘new conservation’ approaches have emerged. Propagating openness of conservation approaches, ‘new conservation’ has counteracted the calls for strict measures of biodiversity protection as the only means of protecting biodiversity. In turn, the ’new conservation’ was criticised for being inadequate in protecting those species that are not instrumental for human welfare. The aim of this article is to inquire whether sustainable future for non-humans can be achieved based on commodification of nature and/or upon open approaches to conservation. It is argued that while economic development does not necessarily lead to greater environmental protection, strict regulation combined with economic interests can be effective. Thus, economic approaches by mainstream conservation institutions cannot be easily dismissed. However, ‘new conservation’ can also be useful in opening up alternatives, such as care-based and spiritual approaches to valuation of nature. Complementary to market-based approaches to conservation, alternative ontologies of the human development as empathic beings embedded in intimate ethical relations with non-humans are proposed. https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
DOCUMENT
This article discusses the possibility of integrating deep ecology (DE) and animal rights (AR) perspectives within environmental education (EE) and education for sustainable development (ESD). The focus of this article is on three questions: why are DE and AR not currently central to EE/ESD debates? What is the probability that DE and AR will be central within EE/ESD? What can be gained if they were? Different ethical frameworks in relation to non-humans are examined. Both non-consequentialist and utilitarian approaches suggest that DE and AR could be linked to the conception of underlying duty as well as consideration of utilitarian value. From cultural relativism and subjectivism perspectives, DE and AR could be central to EE, but this possibility is contingent on socio-political and cultural context within which educational practices are embedded. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2014.09.001 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
Abstract: There is growing evidence for the beneficial effects of starting oral health prevention early in life. Preventing dental caries in very young children requires considerable investment from parents. Therefore, this cross-sectional study aimed to explore parents’ willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to invest in time (WTIT) for primary oral health prevention in preschool children and describe whether these are related to the parents’ demographic, socio-economic and behavioural characteristics. In a convenience sample of parents of preschool children aged six months to four years (n = 142), data were collected with questionnaires. On average, parents were willing to pay EUR15.84 per month, invest time for 1.9 dental visits per year, and spend 2.4 min per day brushing their child’s teeth. A higher education level of the mother and having a child older than two were associated with a higher WTIT in brushing minutes per day (p = 0.03). In addition, parents who brushed their child’s teeth more frequently were also more willing to invest in brushing minutes (p < 0.01) and money (p < 0.01). Findings emphasise the importance of early oral health interventions and the need to increase awareness of primary prevention’s importance in maintaining healthy teeth and reducing possibly oral health inequalities.
DOCUMENT
Wat is de rol van prijs in duurzaam consumentengedrag? ‘Omdat het te duur is’ is een veelgehoord argument wanneer mensen wordt gevraagd waarom ze geen duurzame producten kopen. Maar is dat werkelijk zo, of is dit een makkelijk alibi van mensen om niet hun gedrag te hoeven veranderen? We zijn over het algemeen niet bepaald armlastig in de westerse wereld, dus is het werkelijk een gebrek aan geld, of is er een andere oorzaak van dit gedrag? Om daar een uitspraak over te kunnen doen, hebben we de literatuur onderzocht op de relatie tussen prijs en duurzaamheid. Overall conclusie: een bepaalde groep mensen geeft in onderzoeken aan best bereid te zijn om meer te betalen voor duurzamere oplossingen, tot wel 29%. Maar sociale wenselijkheid speelt daarbij waarschijnlijk een grote rol. Want gezien het nog geringe marktaandeel van duurzame producten is de realiteit weerbarstiger. De meerderheid van de mensen is kennelijk nog niet zodanig overtuigd van de meerwaarde dat ze er ook extra geld voor over hebben. Dit document is opgedeeld in twee secties: 1. sectie 1 beschrijft een analytische beschouwing van de literatuur. Dit onderzoek schetst de ontwikkeling van de artikelen die tot dusverre gepubliceerd zijn over bereidheid van consumenten om een meerprijs te betalen voor duurzame producten; 2. sectie 2 beschrijft een inhoudelijke beschouwing van een selectie van de literatuur: specifiek artikelen die (experimenteel) onderzoek beschrijven naar de willingness to pay voor duurzame producten en diensten.
DOCUMENT
The Convention on Biodiversity has developed the concept of ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘natural resources’ in order to describe ways in which humans benefit from healthy ecosystems. Biodiversity, conceived through the economic approach, was recognized to be of great social and economic value to both present and future populations. According to its critics, the economic capture approach might be inadequate in addressing rapid biodiversity loss, since many non-human species do not have an economic value and there may thus be limited grounds for prohibiting or even restricting their destruction. This article aims to examine the concept of biodiversity through competing discourses of sustainability and to discuss the implications for education for sustainable development (ESD). https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408213495606 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
Through the commodification of nature, the framing of the environment as a ‘natural resource’ or ‘ecosystem service’ has become increasingly prominent in international environmental governance. The economic capture approach is promoted by international organizations such as the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) through Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). This paper will inquire as to how forest protection is related to issues of social and ecological justice, exploring whether forest exploitation based on the top-down managerial model fosters an unequitable distribution of resources. Both top-down and community-based approaches to forest protection will be critically examined and a more inclusive ethical framework to forest protection will be offered. The findings of this examination indicate the need for a renewed focus on existing examples of good practice in addressing both social and ecological need, as well as the necessity to address the less comfortable problem of where compromise appears less possible. The conclusion argues for the need to consider ecological justice as an important aspect of more socially orientated environmental justice for forest protection. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000436 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
Biodiversity preservation is often viewed in utilitarian terms that render non-human species as ecosystem services or natural resources. The economic capture approach may be inadequate in addressing biodiversity loss because extinction of some species could conceivably come to pass without jeopardizing the survival of the humans. People might be materially sustained by a technological biora made to yield services and products required for human life. The failure to address biodiversity loss calls for an exploration of alternative paradigms. It is proposed that the failure to address biodiversity loss stems from the fact that ecocentric value holders are politically marginalized and underrepresented in the most powerful strata of society. While anthropocentric concerns with environment and private expressions of biophilia are acceptable in the wider society, the more pronounced publicly expressed deep ecology position is discouraged. “Radical environmentalists” are among the least understood of all contemporary opposition movements, not only in tactical terms, but also ethically. The article argues in favor of the inclusion of deep ecology perspective as an alternative to the current anthropocentric paradigm. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2012.742914 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
DOCUMENT
Anthropology is traditionally broken into several subfields, physical/biological anthropology, social/cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, archaeology, and sometimes also applied anthropology. Anthropology of the environment, or environmental anthropology, is a specialization within the field of anthropology that studies current and historic human-environment interactions. Although the terms environmental anthropology and ecological anthropology are often used interchangeably, environmental anthropology is considered by some to be the applied dimension of ecological anthropology, which encompasses the broad topics of primate ecology, paleoecology, cultural ecology, ethnoecology, historical ecology, political ecology, spiritual ecology, and human behavioral and evolutionary ecology. However, according to Townsend (2009: 104), “ecological anthropology will refer to one particular type of research in environmental anthropology—field studies that describe a single ecosystem including a human population and frequently deal with a small population of only a few hundred people such as a village or neighborhood.” Kottak states that the new ecological anthropology mirrors more general changes in the discipline: the shift from research focusing on a single community or unique culture “to recognizing pervasive linkages and concomitant flows of people, technology, images, and information, and to acknowledging the impact of differential power and status in the postmodern world on local entities. In the new ecological anthropology, everything is on a larger scale” (Kottak 1999:25). Environmental anthropology, like all other anthropological subdisciplines, addresses both the similarities and differences between human cultures; but unlike other subdisciplines (or more in line with applied anthropology), it has an end goal—it seeks to find solutions to environmental damage. While in our first volume (Shoreman-Ouimet and Kopnina 2011) we criticized Kottak’s anthropocentric bias prioritizing environmental anthropology's role as a supporter of primarily people's (and particularly indigenous) interests rather than ecological evidence. In his newer 2 publication, Kottak (2010:579) states: “Today’s ecological anthropology, aka environmental anthropology, attempts not only to understand but also to find solutions to environmental problems.” And because this is a global cause with all cultures, peoples, creeds, and nationalities at stake, the contributors to this volume demonstrate that the future of environmental anthropology may be more focused on finding the universals that underlie human differences and understanding how these universals can best be put to use to end environmental damage. This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge/CRC Press in "Environmental Anthropology: Future Directions" on 7/18/13 available online: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203403341 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
This article reflects on implications of presenting nature as a social construction, and of commodification of nature. The social construction of nature tends to limit significance of nature to human perception of it. Commodification presents nature in strict instrumental terms as ‘natural resources’, ‘natural capital’ or ‘ecosystem services’. Both construction and commodification exhibit anthropocentric bias in denying intrinsic value of non-human species. This article will highlight the importance of a deep ecology perspective, by elaborating upon the ethical context in which construction and commodification of nature occur. Finally, this article will discuss the implications of this ethical context in relation to environmental education (EE) and education for sustainable development (ESD). https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.146931 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
