ISSN:
1432-1009
Keywords:
Chemicals
;
Cost-benefit analysis
;
Environment
;
Environmental impact assessment
;
Judgment
;
Land use planning
;
Objective
;
Regulation
;
Subjective
;
Toxicity
Source:
Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
Topics:
Energy, Environment Protection, Nuclear Power Engineering
Notes:
Abstract Objective judgments, external to the judge, are compared with subjective, internal judgments. This analysis is made in the context of reaching regulatory decisions affecting the human environment. Examples given include evaluating the potential risk of industrial chemicals and comparing the potential effects of short- and long-term changes in land use. The analysis deals not with the decisions themselves, but rather with the kinds of questions that must be posed in orderto reach such decisions. Decision makers may spuriously distinguish objective from subjective types of judgment, though these are rarely wholly separate. Judges can hardly dispute about objective statements, if truly identical definitions are used. But subjective statements can reasonably be voted upon. Scientists, engineers, and economists represent logical or objective decision makers, tending to work in groups. Subjective thinkers include artists and performers, and others who often work alone. Moral and aesthetic aspects of questions, usually seen as intangible, are treated as if subjective. Financial decisions, usually viewed as tangible, are handled as objective problems. This mechanism for making decisions is well-established in environmental assessment. Though objective questions can be treated well in the monetary terms of cost-benefit analysis, subjective ones cannot. Mathematical and other variants are discussed in relation to the comparison of alternative types of tests.
Type of Medium:
Electronic Resource
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01871430
Permalink
