The recent shift towards the interdisciplinary study of the human-environment relationship is largely driven by environmental justice debates. This article will distinguish four types of environmental justice and link them to questions of neoliberalism and altruism. First, environmental justice seeks to redress inequitable distribution of environmental burdens to vulnerable groups and economically disadvantaged populations. Second, environmental justice highlights the developed and developing countries’ unequal exposure to environmental risks and benefits. Third, temporal environmental justice refers to the issues associated with intergenerational justice or concern for future generations of humans. In all three cases, environmental justice entails equitable distribution of burdens and benefits to different nations or social groups. By contrast, ecological justice involves biospheric egalitarianism or justice between species. This article will focus on ecological justice since the rights of non-human species lags behind social justice debates and discuss the implications of including biospheric egalitarianism in environmental justice debates. https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-6434-1-8 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
This manifesto presents 10 recommendations for a sustainable future for the field of Work and Organizational Psychology. The manifesto is the result of an emerging movement around the Future of WOP (see www.futureofwop.com), which aims to bring together WOP-scholars committed to actively contribute to building a better future for our field. Our recommendations are intended to support both individuals and collectives to become actively engaged in co-creating the future of WOP together with us. Therefore, this manifesto is open and never “finished.” It should continuously evolve, based on an ongoing debate around our professional values and behavior. This manifesto is meant, first of all, for ourselves as an academic community. Furthermore, it is also important for managers, decision makers, and other stakeholders and interested parties, such as students, governments and organizations, as we envision what the future of WOP could look like, and it is only through our collective efforts that we will be able to realize a sustainable future for all of us.
MULTIFILE
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
Bij de ontwikkeling van kinderen speelt de omgeving waarin zij opgroeien en de wijze waarop zij zich verbonden voelen met hun buurt een belangrijke rol (Owens, 2004; 2016). Om als basisschool goed bij te kunnen dragen aan de ontwikkeling van kinderen is het van belang dat scholen de omgeving en de buurt waarin hun leerlingen opgroeien kennen en kunnen benutten voor hun onderwijs. In het bijzonder gaat het daarbij om de betekenis die deze omgeving voor hun leerlingen heeft. Voor basisscholen in wijken met een grote diversiteit aan inwoners kan de betekenis van eenzelfde omgeving voor verschillende leerlingen ook zeer verschillend zijn. Naar de wijze waarop kinderen zich verbonden voelen met de fysieke en sociale ruimte is nog weinig onderzoek gedaan (Tani, 2016). Naast inzicht in de bestaande verbinding van kinderen met hun omgeving is het voor het onderwijs belangrijk om inzicht te verkrijgen in de wijze waarop kinderen in staat kunnen worden gesteld om zich te binden aan een plek en om deze plek te benutten bij hun ontwikkeling. De capability approach (Nussbaum, 2014) en een perspectief op de veerkracht van kinderen (Enthoven, 2007) bieden een kader om naar dit vraagstuk te kijken. Het onderzoek richt zich op wat het primair onderwijs kan doen om de aan de omgeving gerelateerde vermogens van kinderen te ontwikkelen. Onderwijs waarin de leefomgeving van kinderen wordt betrokken of waarin de leefomgeving op enige wijze een rol speelt kan hiertoe een middel zijn. Dit vanuit de notie dat door het ontwikkelen van een ‘sense of place’ (Dolan, 2016) de kennis, persoonlijke verbondenheid en verantwoordelijkheid voor de lokale omgeving versterkt kunnen worden. Het onderzoek zal na een verkennende fase een ontwerpgericht karakter krijgen, waarbij op onderzoeksmatige wijze materiaal wordt ontwikkeld dat bruikbaar is op basisscholen en lerarenopleidingen basisonderwijs.
This book discusses whether, and if so, how facility management (FM) can contribute toeducational achievements at Dutch higher education institutions. Although there is increasingevidence that the quality of the lecturer is decisive for the performance and development ofstudents (Marzano 2007; Mourshed, Chijioke and Barber 2010), and in addition, educationalleadership can shape the necessary boundary conditions for these primary actors to succeed,nowadays this must be considered as a too narrow conception of what good education is allabout. Up to date, in literature there is a lively debate about the effective use of facilitydesign, as a mixture of designed features of physical facilities and services, to contribute toeducation as well. We have seen many examples of the so-called human factor beingnegatively influenced by seemingly fringe events, but that suddenly appears to beprecondition for education. Too warm, too cold, too crowded, too loud, too messy, and noidea why this device doesn’t work are phrases that come to mind. We now know that the builtschool environment and facility services that are offered are among the elements that caninfluence good education. The evidence comes from a multiple disciplines, such asenvironmental-psychology (Durán-Narucki 2008; Hygge and Knez 2001), medicine(Hutchinson 2003), educational research (Blackmore et al. 2011; Oblinger 2006; Schneider2002; Temple 2007), and real estate and facility management (Daisey, Angell and Apte 2003;Duyar 2010; Barrett et al. 2013). Considering all the above, there seems to be a scientificblack box with respect to the relatively new scientific discipline of FM. Deeply rooted inpractice, the abstractions that have existed until now have hardly led to a fundamentalunderstanding of the contribution of FM to education. Therefore, the main objective of thisbook is as follows.
