Recent orders
Environmental Conservation Trans-boundary Report
Environmental Conservation Trans-boundary Report
Introduction
Natural resources come as sources of power and wealth to governments, individuals, entities and even regions. This explains the intensity of the competition for ownership and jurisdiction of these resources within the public sector, as well as in relations between the government and the private sector. Needless to say, natural resources are encompassed in numerous conflicts between the stakeholders. This is especially in instances where the resources are shared between different countries, communities, states, regimes and even agencies. In most cases, the governing of natural resources is problematic thanks to the fact that they are subject to different or varying agency or organizational interests, property regimes, as well as local, indigenous, state and national jurisdictions. Four reasons have been cited for the conflicts in instances where there are diverse jurisdictions. First, the different entities or stakeholders come with varying value and ideological perspectives pertaining to the relationship between human beings and nature (Margerum, 2008, pp. 489). Second, there exists data uncertainty pertaining to the resource base considering the deficiency of information on the ecological characteristics and the potential human impacts. Third, as much as scientists see biosphere in a holistic manner, the management of natural resources is characterized by hydra-headed planning, as well as bureaucratic fiefdoms (Diamond, 2005, pp. 38). Lastly, every policy decision will incorporate an element of tradeoff between the stakeholders or even the current and the future generations, which may be quite difficult to reach considering that the political arena is characterized more by short-term expediency than intergenerational equity (Margerum, 2008, pp. 489). Any efforts for conservation of natural resources or the environment would only be feasible in instances where certain preconditions are met. First, it is imperative that there exists an explicit recognition of the varying motivations and values, as well as willingness for discourse pertaining to such matters. In addition, it is imperative that participants are willing to share all necessary information pertaining to the resources, as well as engage in joint fact-finding so that they bargain and come up with strategies that are based on similar facts and information. Lastly, it is imperative that the stakeholders accept mediations through some final arbiter or neutral intermediary (Diamond, 2005, pp. 38). Nevertheless, the challenges posed to the efforts for the conservation of the environment and natural resources vary between the different resources, their geographical locations and the societies within which they are situated. Indeed, conservation efforts are immensely hindered by political, social and physical variations in the stakeholders on whose jurisdictions the natural resources fall. All these, however, relate to the unwillingness of the political stakeholders especially governments to cooperate in the conservation efforts.
Political barriers
Politics is primarily concerned with the distribution of resources. It determines the individuals that get a certain thing or right and the manner in which such a right or item is acquired. This explains why the distribution of responsibilities in the conservation of natural resources becomes problematic. Various political barriers have been standing in the way of acquiring a middle ground in the conservation of natural resources. First, countries that have their natural resources located at the border will almost always have difficulties trusting each other. This is especially considering the fact that every country will be striving to maximize the utility and benefits that it derives from any natural resource (Paulson & Gezon, 2005, pp. 121). It goes without saying that the maximization of benefits for one country would essentially result in a loss for the other country. In most cases, countries will be unwilling to cooperate or even share information pertaining to these natural resources, simply because of this mistrust (Alexander & McGregor, 2000, pp. 615). This is the case that has been happening in South Africa with regard to the Transboundary Natural Resource Management and especially the involvement of Zimbabwe in the flagship that is the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park that spans three countries including Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa (Sandwith & Besancon, 2010, pp. 27). This flagship has been facing numerous competing agendas and points of conflict. Scholars have noted that the project has been immensely hindered by the perception prevalent in Zimbabwe and especially within the government circles that the conservation process is driven by the South African state alongside the top-down external agenda pertaining to foreign donors, as well as international NGOs (Africa Wildlife Foundation, 2000, pp. 45). This is especially disorienting especially considering that the current political climate that is governed by ZANU (PF) sees all things that seem to interfere with its national sovereignty as imperialist and potentially neo-colonial (Katerere et al, 2001, pp. 19). On the same note, technocrats and politicians in the country have been particularly resentful of the manner and the speed at which South Africans hurried in signing the intergovernmental agreement pertaining to TFCA (Alexander & McGregor, 2000, pp. 613). Indeed, the Zimbabweans have been concerned that the economic benefits emanating from the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park would not be equitably distributed and that South Africa would be benefiting more than the other countries (Duffy, 2000, pp. 29). These concerns potentially confound the likelihood of any cooperation and symbiosis between the stakeholders in the conservation of the natural resources as they breed tensions between the stakeholders.
On the same note, there are instances where the countries involved are combating considerable dynamics within their own boundaries, which affect their capacity to enter into such pacts. In the case of the Great Limpopo Park, perhaps the biggest obstacle would be the politically charged and highly volatile land question in Zimbabwe that drew the world’s attention in 2000 (Alexander & McGregor, 2000, pp. 616). The emotive nature of the land question emerged in the run up to the 2000 General Election when varied coalition actors gathered as “war veterans” and steeped up campaigns on the occupation of the commercial firms and state-owned land. Political parties, especially ZANU (PF) quickly capitalized on these deep-seated grievances pertaining to the land issue and campaigned under the slogan of “Land is the Economy and the Economy is Land” (Reid, 2001, pp. 140). Upon winning the elections farm invasions and “land reforms” gained momentum, with the invasions being underlined by a policy focus on the importance of small-scale peasant agriculture over the white-dominated commercial agriculture and, particularly, the wildlife industry. Even more contentious was the idea of having the Save Valley Conservancy and varied other privately-owned game ranches to a bigger transfrontier conservation area, especially considering the political situation (Hughes, 2001, pp. 56). These conservancies have, in fact, been targeted in highly publicized farm invasions followed by widespread poaching, tree-felling, ploughing up land and burning of trees. On the same note, parts of the Gonarezhou National Park have been invaded and formally resettled in the course of signing up or ratification of the Transfrontier Agreement (Paulson & Gezon, 2005, pp. 46). Indeed, Mozambican and South African governments alongside other fundamental donors have been questioning the capacity and willingness of Zimbabwe to honor the agreement considering the prevailing political context. This has forced the two governments to pursue more bilateral agendas.
Social barriers
The importance of the cooperation between the communities surrounding the natural resources or conservation areas cannot be gainsaid as far as the success of the conservation efforts is concerned. Recent times have, in fact, seen an increase in the inclusion and participation of the communities in conservation efforts of varied areas both within and in shared boundaries. However, cooperation between the communities is always hard to come by as was the case for Cross-border protection in Borneo, as these communities would have different social values and interests. As much as the communities that immediately surrounded the protected areas were cooperating in a considerably commendable manner, the communities that were further away did not do the same (Koontz & Johnson, 2004, pp. 198). The increased richness of the parks compared to the surrounding areas in terms of plants and game ignited the problem of poaching. The rapid modification of Borneo has increased the pressure on protected areas leaving them considerably isolated (Rosen, 2013; McNeely, 2003, pp. 39). On the same note, the two countries had have variations in their socio-economic conditions, as well as the laws governing them, in which case practical cooperation has been considerably elusive and impossible.
In addition, there are numerous instances where the communities surrounding the conservation areas are persistently fighting over resources, recognition, territories and even cases of conflicts over the boundaries. This is especially in instances where the communities in question are initially a single community with the national boundaries, which were usually set by the colonial powers, separating them (McNeely, 2003, pp. 39). Such separated or divided communities will always be warring in an effort to regroup, which weighs down on any promises or possibilities of cooperation between the communities. A case in point regarding conflicts between communities would be the Balkan Park Project, which blended historically contentious but ecologically connected territories of Southeastern Montenegro, Northern Albania and Kosovo (Marincic, 2003, pp. 19). The park was primarily aimed at improving regional interactions and increasing dialogue between the conflicting states via concentration on the reversal of the damage done and striving regionally to come up with a sustainable program for the management of the natural resource (Hozic, 2009, pp. 29). However, the Balkans, who are commonly known as Southeastern Europe or even the “Powderkeg of Europe” have been occupying an immense share of international spotlight in the recent times thanks to its being a place of concentrated instability, a region that invokes a unique ambience of perpetual or even inevitable bloodshed and conflict (Marincic, 2003, pp. 19; West et al, 2006, pp. 267). Since the early 90s when Yugoslavia was dissolved and, practically, hundreds of years before the dissolution, the historically but intermittently antagonistic ethnic groups, societies and religions that live in the peninsula started a rapid process for increased entrenchment and division between the distinct entities (Duffy, 2007, pp. 39). Currently, the Balkans are home to varied distinct but politically recognized states that resulted from a notoriously bloody regional war after persistent secessions from what was the Yugoslav entity (Kennard, 2009, pp. 37; Mazower, 2000, pp. 34). These territoriality conflicts and group identities of the past have resulted into increasingly interstate conflicts that are currently experienced in the region today, which have hampered the possibility of coming up with a long-term peaceful solution (Koontz & Johnson, 2004, pp. 198). Indeed, the conflicts have resulted in mistrust and differences in motives for any cooperation, which have essentially worked down any possibility of success in the transboundary conservation efforts pertaining to the Balkan Park Project.
Physical Barriers
Transboundary conservation efforts have also had a hard time picking up thanks to the numerous boundaries that have either been erected by the national governments or even ones that come naturally. Natural barriers, in this case would revolve around the immense distances that make it extremely expensive for some countries to even think of undertaking conservation efforts to these natural resources (Dietz et al, 2003, pp. 45; Hammill & Besancon, 2007, pp. 36). However, the key physical barriers that have been hindering transboundary conservation efforts are primarily erected by the governments. There have been instances where countries have been forced to erect fences in an effort to protect their own interests. This has been seen in the case of the United States and Mexico.
The United States and Mexico have, since time immemorial been conflicting, thanks to a number of reasons including border crossing and illegal immigration, as well as illegal trafficking of drugs or even trade (Fox. 1999, pp. 34). Initially, the United States responded by putting in place numerous border patrol officers who would be patrolling a large part of the border (Diener & Hagen, 2010, pp. 19; Ramutsindela, 2007, pp. 75). However, the September 11 attacks revealed the importance of safeguarding the Mexican border especially considering that the terrorists were deemed to have entered the United States illegally through the Mexican border (Diener & Hagen, 2010, pp. 19). This forced the United States to undertake the construction of a steel fence in an effort to curb smuggling and illegal crossing by immigrants (Dietz et al, 2003, pp. 45). This physical barrier has further divided the two countries that have been so closely related in terms of territory and history (Jardin et al, 2003, pp. 67). While this may have been a necessary step in curbing instances of terrorism, it has weighed down heavily on the possibility of ever coming up with a transboundary conservation park that would connect the Big Bend national park in the United States and the Canon de Santa Elena Protection and the Madera Del Carmen areas in Mexico (Lombard et al, 2010 pp. 7; Chester & Sifford, 2007, pp. 210). Indeed, the barriers have only increased the mistrust between the two nations, as well as between the communities at the borders, further hampering efforts at transboundary conservation.
In conclusion, natural resources have formed crucial aspects for different nations in the globe. They come as sources of wealth and power, especially considering the diversity of flora and fauna that they hold. This underlines the increased importance of conservation of these resources. However, a large number of natural resources cut across different states, regions and even communities. This often brings problems with regard to the conflicting jurisdictional mandates of the entities in question. The conservation of these entities often requires the cooperation of the stakeholders. Nevertheless, this cooperation has been hard to come by especially due to social, political and physical barriers. In the political front, there is bound to be mistrust among the stakeholders, as well as conflicting motives and laws, which would impede any transboundary conservation efforts as is the case for Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park. Social issues, on the other hand, would entail varying motives and values that often result in conflict and non-cooperation on the matters of conservation as was the case in the Balkan Park project and Cross-border protection in Borneo. On the same note, physical barriers erected, whether manmade or natural have been standing in the way of such conservation efforts, as is the case for the erection of the steel fence along the Mexican border in the United States. However, all these factors underline the unwillingness of the political players to cooperate thanks to differing interests.
Bibliography
FOX. C. F (1999). The fence and the river : culture and politics at the U.S.-Mexico border. Minneapolis, MN. University of Minnesota Press, 1999.
CHESTER, C. & SIFFORD, B. (2007). “Bridging Conservation across La Frontera: An Unfinished Agenda for Peace Parks along the US-Mexico Divide.” Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution. Ed. Saleem H. Ali. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 205- 225.
PAULSON, S., & L. L. GEZON. 2005. Political ecology across spaces, scales, and social groups. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press
MAZOWER, M. (2000). The Balkans: A Short History. New York: Random House.
MCNEELY, J. A. (2003). Conserving Forest Biodiversity in Times of Violent Conflict. Cambridge University Press 37:2:142-152.
HAMMILL, A., & C. BESANCON. (2007). Measuring Peace Park Performance: Definitions and Experiences. In Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution, ed. S. H. Ali, 23–40. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
HOZIC , A. A. (2009). The paradox of sovereignty in the Balkans. In The state of sovereignty : Territories, laws, populations, ed. D. Howland and L. White, 210. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
KENNARD, A. (2009). The Balkans Peace Park Project as a Paradigm for Transboundary Conflict Resolution. Paper presented at: Conflict and Reconciliation Symposium, June 2009, Trondheim, Norway:
MARINCIC, S. (2003). Conservation without Frontiers: Towards a new Image for the Balkans, A Strategic Plan for the IUCN South-Eastern European Programme. IUCN: The World Conservation Union; EURONATUR,
DIENER, A. C., & J. HAGEN. (2010). Borderlines and borderlands : political oddities at the edge of the nation-state. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
REID, H. (2001) ‘Contractual National Parks and the Makuleke Community’, Human Ecology 29(2): 135-155.
SANDWITH, T. & BESANCON, C. (2010). Making Peace: Protected Areas Contributing to Conflict Resolution. In: Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. (Eds.), Arguments for Protection. Multiple benefits for conservation and use. UK and USA: Earthscan.
DUFFY, R. (2007). Peace Parks and Global Politics: The Paradoxes and Challenges of Global Governance. In Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution, ed. S. H. Ali, 55. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
HUGHES, D.M. (2001) ‘Rezoned for business: how eco-tourism unlocked black farmland in Eastern Zimbabwe’, Journal of Agrarian Change 1 (4): 576-599.
LOMBARD, A.T., COWLING, R.M., VLOK, J.H.J. & FABRICIUS, C. (2010). Designing Conservation Corridors in Production Landscapes: Assessment Methods, Implementation Issues, and Lessons Learnt. Ecology & Society 15(3): 7.
KATERERE, Y., HILL, R. & MOYO, S. (2001) ‘A critique of Transboundary Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa’. IUCN-ROSA Transboundary Natural Resources Management Paper 1, IUCN-ROSA, Harare.
DUFFY, R. (2000) Killing for Conservation: Wildlife Policy in Zimbabwe. James Currey, Oxford.
DIAMOND, J.M. (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking.
DIETZ, T., E. OSTROM & P.C. STERN. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 1907-1912.
KOONTZ T. M, & JOHNSON EM. (2004). One size does not fit all: Matching breadth of stakeholder participation to watershed group accomplishments. Policy Sciences 37(2):185–204.
ALEXANDER, J., & MCGREGOR, J. (2000) ‘Wildlife and politics: CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe’. Development and Change 31 (3): 605-627.
AFRICA WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (2000) ‘Report on the heartlands conservation planning for Limpopo-Lowveld Transfrontier Conservation Area, Malilangwe Traning Centre, Chiredzi, Zimbabwe, 13-15 June 2000’, Africa Wilidlife Foundation, CESVI, SELCC.
MARGERUM RD. (2008). A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environmental Management 41(4):487–500.
WEST, P., J. IGOE, AND D. BROCKINGTON. 2006. Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology 35:251-277
RAMUTSINDELA, M. (2007). Scaling Peace and Peacemakers in Transboundary Parks: Understanding Glocalization. In Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution, ed. S. H. Ali, 69-81. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
PAULSON, S., AND L. L. GEZON. (2005). Political ecology across spaces, scales, and social groups. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
JARDIN, M., FALL, J., AND THIRY, E. (2003). Five Transboundary Biosphere Reserves in Europe. Biosphere Reserves Technical Notes. UNESCO, Paris.
ROSEN, T (2013). Cross-border Protection in Borneo. Web retrieved from HYPERLINK “http://www.tbpa.net/page.php?ndx=60” http://www.tbpa.net/page.php?ndx=60
Environmental Catastrophe the Dead Sea
Environmental Catastrophe: the Dead Sea
The Dead Sea is known for having salty water and it is found in three regions. They include; the West bank, Israel and Jordan. It is known for attracting millions of tourists from all over the world. This is mostly because of its religious significance upheld by Christians. Unfortunately the Dead Sea is facing extinction, and this is a serious matter. The water levels are on a daily basis declining and something needs to be done. Otherwise, there is a possibility of it being literary dead (Mitchell, 2004, 89).
This paper seeks to give an analysis on the Dead Sea, which is on the verge of extinction. The environmental phenomenon needs to be known as well as its causes.
Analysis of the Dead Sea Environmental Catastrophe
The changes taking place at the Dead Sea are being noticed now, when it is almost too late to do anything, concerning the matter. The level of water at the sea has reduced to great lengths. If one visits the Dead Sea, they will notice that the shoreline has declined .The Dead Sea is famous all over the world, and is known for its ecological as well as cultural significance. The sea has many problems and it is described as dying (Mitchell, 2004, 89). Research has found out that almost 80feet of water has reduced in approximately 50years. The size of the sea has also been affected, in that its size is less than a third of what it used to be. The reason why this is occurring is because River Jordan is drying up. There are more problems, which will come about, due to this matter. Nothing can be done to save the Dead Sea according to scientists, and the levels will drop by at least 60 feet (Yehouda, 2006, 56).
The decline in sea levels has been taking place since the 1970’s, as during this time, the levels dropped on a daily basis. It is estimated that each year, three feet of the Dead Sea water disappeared. As a result, a domino has been created, which is greatly affecting Israel. Wildlife as well as plant life is being affected, since they are found near the Dead Sea shore line. There is an annual migration for birds that total 500 million, and the Dead Sea is important to them. The reason is that this is where they rest after traveling far distances to reach Africa from Europe. Israel’s infrastructure is being affected by the Dead Sea crisis, as most buildings and roads are bound to collapse (Anderson, 2011, 1). This is due to the sinkholes, which exist and have been caused by mud flats. People’s lives are in danger if the infrastructure is to collapse. The Israel government has responded to these problems by barricading this part of the region. Jordan shares a border with Israel and is also affected by this problem.
As the years progress, the sinkholes are expected to increase in size, and the consequences will be disastrous. Stream erosion will be the cause of the destruction of infrastructure. The eco- system will be affected due to the low water levels, according to the person in charge of Israel’s environmental policy. The future of the Dead Sea is already causing a lot of problems. According to experts of the Dead Sea, human activities are the main cause of the problems facing the Dead Sea (Anderson, 2011, 1). This is because water from the sea is being diverted and being used for agriculture as well as for drinking by human beings. The Dead Sea has salty water and is the largest of that kind in the world. Originally the water level above sea was 1371 feet and this is no more.
Also, the rate of evaporation is extremely high and thus the fast rate of water evaporation from the sea. Industries in Jordan and Israel are involved in chemical extraction, which leads to the loss of gallons of water, as much as 180 million. This means that every year, the water, which is full of minerals, loses about 66 billion gallons. It is believed that the many uses of the Dead Sea water leads to shortage of water (Anderson, 2011, 1). Human beings living in Israeli regions such as Negev and Tel Aviv believe that they cannot live without water. Unfortunately, the water they are consuming is coming from the Dead Sea.
Attempts to revive the Dead Sea are not yielding any results, according to experts from Israel. For example, there were attempts to pump the Mediterranean water using the canal known as Med-Dead. The composition of the Dead Sea can be altered if it mixed with water from the sea. Certain biological and chemical reactions will take place and the Dead Sea’s color will be affected. The color will become either red or white, from its original color blue. The other risk factor, which exists, is that the reactions may cause the production of gases which are poisonous. According to research for the around 150 years the levels will decline further to three feet annually. It will become drastic to the point whereby, the water will be extremely saturated. This means that the Dead Sea will reduce to about 434 feet than it currently is (Anderson, 2011, 1).
The Dead Sea is shared by the West bank, Jordan and Israel and its length is about 250 miles. There is a need to know the reason behind the drying up of the Dead Sea. The Sea of Galilee is the origin of the loss of the Dead Sea water. It is found on the bottom part of River Jordan. On a daily basis, raw sewage is drained about 720000 gallons approximately. It an extremely painful site to see what the Dead Sea has become (Anderson, 2011, 1) .It is common to see litter all over the shore line, white foam, plastic, among other items. The air is filled with the stench of human waste and there are warning signs almost everywhere. People are being warned against drinking the water, which is contaminated.
Sewage flows freely from River Jordan to the Dead Sea and there will never be clean water. The ‘river is of importance to Christians as it where Jesus Christ’s baptism took place. The Dead Sea obtains it water from the river. Now that the river has raw sewage, the Dead Sea is contaminated. As much as one pint three billion cubic meters flows to the Dead Sea annually. Only a quarter of the Dead Sea’s water is obtained from other sources. The Dead Sea crisis is affecting everything in its environ. Wildlife and plants do not obtain the needed nourishment as there is no fresh water (Anderson, 2011, 1). The underground salt deposits are engulfing the freshwater thus causing the formation of sinkholes. In the latest news a trailer parks and a camp for the military has been closed down due to this matter.
One of the largest parks in Israel is being affected by changes in the ecosystem, brought about by the decline of water in the Dead Sea. The park known as Ein Gedi Reserve, houses many vital animal and plant life biodiversity. The issue facing River Jordan is the one responsible for the receding of the Dead Sea (Abelson, 2006, 250). It is simply a case whereby, nature is competing with human beings. According to a man who has lived in the Dead Sea region for a long time, there were 6000 inhabitants in the year 1935. Right now, the figure has increased and there are 6 million inhabitants. In the region of Masada, which is in the south of the Dead Sea, water is drained by large pumps. The water is highly sought after, because it is believed to have many essential minerals. Hotels in the region are involved in actions to ensure the Dead Sea does not completely dry out. Walls are being built to ensure that it is possible to control the water levels. Many claims exist regarding the real cause of the Dead Sea decline of water levels. Some believe that it is due to the evaporation ponds, while to others, it is as a result of River Jordan. A company known as Dead Sea Works is involved in projects, which will benefit the Dead Sea. Recently, it invested $70 million, in order to ensure the regions ecological standards are raised (Anderson, 2011, 1).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Dead Sea is facing a major catastrophe, and a solution needs to be found urgently. The people who live in the Dead Sea region do not know that they are the reason behind the Dead Sea problem. It seems that in the next few decades, the Dead Sea will no longer exist, as its water levels are declining at a high rate. More research should be done to ensure that the Dead Sea is saved from extinction.
Work Cited
Abelson, M. et al. “Evolution of the Dead Sea Sinkholes”, in New Frontiers in Dead Sea Pale environmental Research, Geological Society of America, 401, (2006) :241–253.
Mitchell, Allana. Dancing at the Dead Sea: Tracking the World’s Environmental Hotspots. New York: Key Porter Books. 2004. Print.
Anderson, John. For Dead Sea, a Slow and Seemingly Inexorable Death. The Washington Post. Web. 19 May 2005. Retrieved 16 August 2011 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/18/AR2005051802400.html
Yehouda, Enzel. New Frontiers in Dead Sea Pale environmental Research, New York: Geological Society of America, 2006.Print.
Environmental behavior is the perception people have on how to cater to the environment and conserve it consciously, for exam
Environmental behavior is the perception people have on how to cater to the environment and conserve it consciously, for example, recycling. Pro-environmental behavior is the mannerism meant to reduce the impact human activities have on nature and the built world, for example, a company going green in order to improve the sustainability of the workplace. Goal-directed pro-environmental behavior is adopting ways of reducing environmental damage by focusing on certain areas, for example, afforestation or minimizing greenhouse gases.
The advantages of using values such as protecting the environment in environmental, psychological research include provision of economically efficient tools for understanding diversity between cultures, individuals, and groups. Values also help in predicting behavior and attitude of different people. Consequently, it is easy to influence change of behavior towards the environment. The disadvantage of using values is that it may not be fully effective because it requires a combined effort to achieve change in behavior towards the environment.
Social norms are set rules in given societies that determine the appropriate or unacceptable beliefs, behavior, attitudes, and values. Injunctive social norms are the approved behavior in the society by a majority of the people, for example, lowering the voice in the library. Descriptive norms, by contrast, are the views of people’s behavior in the society, regardless of whether they are acceptable or not, for example, clapping after a performance in a theatre.
The theory of material possession states that everything in the world is considered matter, disregarding intellectual and spiritual wealth. The theory considers giving preference to one’s material wealth and being obsessed with them that one gets distracted from the intellectual and spiritual well-being.
There are two main defining characteristics of social dilemmas. The first is that an individual’s social payoff for defecting behavior is higher than that of cooperating behavior despite the actions of other members of the society. For example, the choice to drive rather than ride bicycles during pollution alerts because an individual car’s contribution to the pollution is negligible, yet they all contribute to the problem by driving. The second defining characteristic is that all people in the society receive a lower social payoff when they defect than when they cooperate. For example, soldiers on the battlefield are better off not taking any risks despite what their comrades do.
The planned behavior theory indicates that individuals’ behavior highly relies on their intentions, which are influenced by the subjective norm and attitude. Only certain attitudes towards a given behavior will be significant in determining the behavior in question.
Variability and repetition are the two factors that mainly characterize habitual behavior. When one is used to doing the same thing repeatedly, they gain habitual behavior of doing something. Repetitive disposal of garbage correctly and conservatively is an example of positive environmental behavior. On the contrary, the daily use of carbon fuels to cook is an example of a negative environmental behavior.
Mountains, glaciers, plateaus, and volcanoes are the main geographical features of the Latin American region. The region also has a rich biodiversity characterized by the largest gene pool in the world. The Amazon forest is also a significant feature of the region.
A university willing to implement a recycling program would be advised to introduce compulsory recycling of disposables such as plastic bags and tins. It can also adopt a collection point of recyclable material in the school compound where students dispose of the recyclables.
Some behavior act as natural reinforcers towards behavior, for example, awarding a child for exemplary performance is essential in motivating the child naturally. Artificial reinforcement involves the use of outside forces to get the work done. For example, offering a bribe to a player will not be as efficient as when he or she plays voluntarily out of passion.
The use of persuasive technology such as EconoMeter can be necessary in encouraging people to drive their cars economically; thus, reducing pollution levels in the country. Creation of pollution alerts is an example of pro-environmental behavior that aims at reducing pollution levels caused by motorists. Persuasive technology serves in decision making at the community level, creating awareness of a product or service to members of the society, and persuading people towards accepting a certain behavior or norms.
It is essential to study the acceptability of environmental policies so that one can easily adapt to the environmental policies and adjust their environmental behavior for sustainability. Acceptance of the environmental policies will be useful in encouraging people to respect the environment by observing the set policies and guidelines.
Kurt Lewin describes the human aspect of change in three stages. The unfreezing stage prepares people to get ready for change by accepting that change is necessary and inevitable. Transition is the second stage where people make the necessary changes, which is a process and not an event. Refreezing is the final stage, which involves accepting and adjusting to the changes made since they are the new norms.
Examples of emergent phenomena that have affected population behavior towards the environment include industrialization, civilization, and agriculture. Agricultural activities will cause people to clear land, causing deforestation; setting up of industries leads to global warming and pollution, and civilization will lead to the manufacture of cars that emit hazardous gases to the environment.
Encouraging and educating people on ways of conserving the environment are fundamental tools of environmental psychology used in solving environmental problems. For example, encouraging recycling, using public transport instead of self-drives, using alternative energy resources, and using biodegradable packaging materials are some of the solutions to environmental problems in developing countries.