Social-ecological connections across land, water, and sea demand a reprioritization of environmental management

Despite many sectors of society striving for sustainability in environmental management, humans often fail to identify and act on the connections and processes responsible for social-ecological tipping points. Part of the problem is the fracturing of environmental management and social-ecological research into ecosystem domains (land, freshwater, and sea), each with different scales and resolution of data acquisition and distinct management approaches. We present a perspective on the social-ecological connections across ecosystem domains that emphasize the need for management reprioritization to effectively connect these domains. We identify critical nexus points related to the drivers of tipping points, scales of governance, and the spatial and temporal dimensions of social-ecological processes. We combine real-world examples and a simple dynamic model to illustrate the implications of slow management responses to environmental impacts that traverse ecosystem domains. We end with guidance on management and research opportunities that arise from this cross-domain lens to foster greater opportunity to achieve environmental and sustainability goals.Peer reviewe

The Portland, Oregon ASAP : an evaluation of treatment effectiveness

The Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP), in accordance with its goals and directives, determined, in 1980, the need for an evaluation of its services. In response to that need, the present study was conducted between April and October, 1980. The initial step in this evaluation is a review of the relevant literature. The review includes literature in the areas of: treatment evaluation methodology, follow-up studies of alcohol treatment, and management of drunken drivers. In addition, the history and current organization of the Portland ASAP are discussed. The study employs a one group pretest-posttest design and utilizes the Oregon Quality of Life Questionnaire. A comprehensive description of study methodology is followed by discussion of study findings and implications for practice. Finally, with the intent of providing direction for future study, the methodology of the present study is critiqued

Stereotype content model across cultures: towards universal similarities and some differences

The stereotype content model (SCM) proposes potentially universal principles of societal stereotypes and their relation to social structure. Here, the SCM reveals theoretically grounded, cross-cultural, cross-groups similarities and one difference across 10 non-US nations. Seven European (individualist) and three East Asian (collectivist) nations (N=1,028) support three hypothesized cross-cultural similarities: (a) perceived warmth and competence reliably differentiate societal group stereotypes; (b) many out-groups receive ambivalent stereotypes (high on one dimension; low on the other); and (c) high status groups stereotypically are competent, whereas competitive groups stereotypically lack warmth. Data uncover one consequential cross-cultural difference: (d) the more collectivist cultures do not locate reference groups (in-groups and societal prototype groups) in the most positive cluster (high-competence/high-warmth), unlike individualist cultures. This demonstrates out-group derogation without obvious reference-group favouritism. The SCM can serve as a pancultural tool for predicting group stereotypes from structural relations with other groups in society, and comparing across societies

Stereotype content model across cultures: towards universal similarities and some differences

The stereotype content model (SCM) proposes potentially universal principles of societal stereotypes and their relation to social structure. Here, the SCM reveals theoretically grounded, cross-cultural, cross-groups similarities and one difference across 10 non-US nations. Seven European (individualist) and three East Asian (collectivist) nations (N=1,028) support three hypothesized cross-cultural similarities: (a) perceived warmth and competence reliably differentiate societal group stereotypes; (b) many out-groups receive ambivalent stereotypes (high on one dimension; low on the other); and (c) high status groups stereotypically are competent, whereas competitive groups stereotypically lack warmth. Data uncover one consequential cross-cultural difference: (d) the more collectivist cultures do not locate reference groups (in-groups and societal prototype groups) in the most positive cluster (high-competence/high-warmth), unlike individualist cultures. This demonstrates out-group derogation without obvious reference-group favouritism. The SCM can serve as a pancultural tool for predicting group stereotypes from structural relations with other groups in society, and comparing across societies

Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences

The stereotype content model (SCM) proposes potentially universal principles of societal stereotypes and their relation to social structure. Here, the SCM reveals theoretically grounded, cross-cultural, cross-groups similarities and one difference across 10 non-US nations. Seven European (individualist) and three East Asian (collectivist) nations (N 1⁄4 1; 028) support three hypothesized cross-cultural similarities: (a) perceived warmth and competence reliably differentiate societal group stereotypes; (b) many out-groups receive ambivalent stereotypes (high on one dimension; low on the other); and (c) high status groups stereotypically are competent, whereas competitive groups stereotypically lack warmth. Data uncover one consequential cross-cultural difference: (d) the more collectivist cultures do not locate reference groups (in-groups and societal prototype groups) in the most positive cluster (high-competence/high-warmth), unlike individualist cultures. This demonstrates out-group derogation without obvious reference-group favouritism. The SCM can serve as a pancultural tool for predicting group stereotypes from structural relations with other groups in society, and comparing across societies.UCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias Sociales::Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas (IIP