Suchergebnisse

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages America's public lands for a multiplicity of uses and values. This effort requires difficult tradeoffs, because allowing one use, like oil drilling, will displace others, like recreation or wildlife habitat. Compensatory mitigation—the practice of requiring land users to offset their environmental harms—provides an important mechanism for addressing use conflicts, by enabling intensive development in designated areas, while conserving the ecological integrity of public lands as a whole. Despite its potential to balance competing interests in public lands, compensatory mitigation has come under fire. Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke described compensatory mitigation as "un-American" and "extortion," and under his leadership, the BLM disclaimed authority to require it, never mind that the agency had done so for decades. The policy has persisted under the leadership of Secretary David Bernhardt. This Article examines the history of public land law, the development of environmental mitigation policies across the federal government, and three interlocking provisions of Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976—the Multiple Use Mandate, the Land Use Planning Mandate, and the Anti-Degradation Mandate—to reveal that the BLM has ample authority to require compensatory mitigation. It then assesses the circumstances in which resource users can appropriately be required to offset the impacts of their uses.

AbstractEvaluation data from compensatory education programs are reanalyzed to obtain support for the hypothesis that conclusions about program effectiveness may be dependent on the time span over which the evaluation data are collected and on the particular standards applied.

Abstract. Compensatory health beliefs (CHBs), defined as belief that an unhealthy behavior can be compensated by engaging in another healthy behavior, are negatively predictive of health-behavior change intentions and behavior. However, CHBs have to be distinguished from compensatory health behavior (CBs), which is defined as compensatory behavior that an individual engages in. As it has not been investigated to date, the aim of this study was to systematically examine the distinction between CHBs and CBs in the context of alcohol consumption. The baseline sample consisted of 898 participants (mainly students, mean age = 23.57 years). For running exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses on CHBs and CBs, the split-half sample method was used. Moreover, the relationships of CHBs and CBs with health-related variables were assessed by regression analyses. The cross-sectional analyses supported the distinction between CHBs and CBs. In contrast to the CHBs, CBs were positively predictive of the intention to drink less alcohol and alcohol consumption. The consideration of CBs when investigating health behavior is highly relevant.

The Birds and Habitats Directives are the cornerstones of EU nature conservation law, aiming at the conservation of the Natura 2000 network, a network of protected sites under these directives, and the protection of species. The protection regime for these sites and species is not absolute: Member States may, under certain conditions, allow plans or projects that can have an adverse impact on nature. In this case compensatory measures can play an important role in safeguarding the Natura 2000 network and ensuring the survival of the protected species.This contribution analyses whether taking compensatory measures is always obligatory, and discusses the aim and the characteristics of compensatory measures, in relation to other kinds of measures such as mitigation measures, usual nature conservation measures, and former nature development measures, and to the assessment of the adverse impact caused by the plan or project and of the alternative solutions. The questions will be discussed in light of the contents of the legislation, the guidance and practice by the European Commission, (legal) doctrine and case law, mainly of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The Birds and Habitats Directives are the cornerstones of EU nature conservation law, aiming at the conservation of the Natura 2000 network, a network of protected sites under these directives, and the protection of species. The protection regime for these sites and species is not absolute: Member States may, under certain conditions, allow plans or projects that can have an adverse impact on nature. In this case compensatory measures can play an important role in safeguarding the Natura 2000 network and ensuring the survival of the protected species.This contribution analyses whether taking compensatory measures is always obligatory, and discusses the aim and the characteristics of compensatory measures, in relation to other kinds of measures such as mitigation measures, usual nature conservation measures, and former nature development measures, and to the assessment of the adverse impact caused by the plan or project and of the alternative solutions. The questions will be discussed in light of the contents of the legislation, the guidance and practice by the European Commission, (legal) doctrine and case law, mainly of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Why are people motivated to support social systems that claim to distribute resources based on hard work and effort, even when those systems seem unfair? Recent research on compensatory control shows that lowered perceptions of personal control motivate a greater endorsement of external systems (e.g., God, government) that compensate for a lack of personal control. The present studies demonstrate that U.S. citizens' faith in a popular economic ideology, namely the belief that hard work guarantees success (i.e., meritocracy), similarly increases under conditions of decreased personal control. We found that a threat to personal control increased participants' endorsement of meritocracy (Studies 1 and 2). Additionally, lowered perceptions of control led to increased feelings of anxiety regarding the future, but the subsequent endorsement of (Study 2) or exposure to (Study 3) meritocracy attenuated this effect. While the compensatory use of meritocracy may be a phenomenon unique to the United States of America, these studies provide important insight into the appeal and persistence of ideologies in general.

Why are people motivated to support social systems that claim to distribute resources based on hard work and effort, even when those systems seem unfair? Recent research on compensatory control shows that lowered perceptions of personal control motivate a greater endorsement of external systems (e.g., God, government) that compensate for a lack of personal control. The present studies demonstrate that U.S. citizens' faith in a popular economic ideology, namely the belief that hard work guarantees success (i.e., meritocracy), similarly increases under conditions of decreased personal control. We found that a threat to personal control increased participants' endorsement of meritocracy (Studies 1 and 2). Additionally, lowered perceptions of control led to increased feelings of anxiety regarding the future, but the subsequent endorsement of (Study 2) or exposure to (Study 3) meritocracy attenuated this effect. While the compensatory use of meritocracy may be a phenomenon unique to the United States of America, these studies provide important insight into the appeal and persistence of ideologies in general.

Why are people motivated to support social systems that claim to distribute resources based on hard work and effort, even when those systems seem unfair? Recent research on compensatory control shows that lowered perceptions of personal control motivate a greater endorsement of external systems (e.g., God, government) that compensate for a lack of personal control. The present studies demonstrate that U.S. citizens' faith in a popular economic ideology, namely the belief that hard work guarantees success (i.e., meritocracy), similarly increases under conditions of decreased personal control. We found that a threat to personal control increased participants' endorsement of meritocracy (Studies 1 and 2). Additionally, lowered perceptions of control led to increased feelings of anxiety regarding the future, but the subsequent endorsement of (Study 2) or exposure to (Study 3) meritocracy attenuated this effect. While the compensatory use of meritocracy may be a phenomenon unique to the United States of America, these studies provide important insight into the appeal and persistence of ideologies in general. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion