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
Our world is dealing with several pressing sustainability problems. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives seem to have failed: despite the actions firms have taken over the years to contribute to a better world in an ecological and social sense through directing their resources and competencies towards this goal, the world has been degrading on many important sustainability-related indicators. By implication, firms need to resort to other ways of integrating societal goals into their strategies, organizational architecture, and decision-making processes. Sustainability-oriented business models (SOBMs) may present a way to turn the tides. Adding to the developing discourse on this topic, this chapter identifies three generations of SOBMs and their limitations in realizing sustainable development as well as by presenting an interpretation of fourth generation SBOMs. In doing so, it integrates insights from evolutionary psychology and identifies three types of ‘sustainability intelligence’ firms need to develop in order to be successful in developing SOBMs.
LINK
Although stressors are frequently linked to several negative health outcomes, experiencing stressors may be necessary for enhancing performance. At present, the literature is lacking a unified, comprehensive framework that accounts for both positive and negative outcomes following stressors. Therefore, we introduce the framework of hormesis, which has been applied in biological research for decades. According to hormesis, small-to-medium doses of a stressor can stimulate an organism's response, while large doses cause detrimental effects. In this article, we argue that these dose-response dynamics can be found in various domains of performance psychology (i.e., eustress and distress, psychological momentum, emotions, motivation, confidence, cognitive performance, training, skill acquisition, adversity, and trauma). Furthermore, hormesis also accounts for the inter- and intra-individual variability commonly found in responses to stressors. Finally, from an applied perspective, leveraging hormesis may stimulate new psychological interventions that mimic the well-known effects of (toxic) vaccinations at the level of behavior.
