Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- value (3) (remove)
Institute
This paper argues first that Armstrong is led to see natural resources primarily as objects of consumption. But many natural resources are better seen as objects of enjoyment, where one person’s access to a resource need not prevent others from enjoying equal access, or as objects of production, where granting control of a resource to one person may produce collateral benefits to others. Second, Armstrong’s approach to resource distribution, which requires that everyone must have equal access to welfare, conceals an ambiguity as to whether this means equal opportunity for welfare, or simply equal welfare – the underlying issue being how far individuals (or countries) should be held responsible for the use they make of the resources they are allocated. Third, when Armstrong attacks arguments that appeal to ‘improvement’ as a basis for claims to natural resources, he treats them as making comparative desert claims: if country A makes a claim to the improved resources on its territory, it must show that their comparative value accurately reflects the productive deserts of its members compared to those of countries B. But in fact, A needs only to make the much weaker claim that its members have done more than others to enhance the value of its resources. Overall, Armstrong’s welfarist approach fails to appreciate the dynamic advantages of allocating resources to those best able to use them productively.
The dissertation studied reused Roman coins (AD 100 – 400) that were found in medieval cemeteries (AD 400 – 1400) in the territory of Serbia. The evaluation process was traced through three different periods and cultural contexts: (1) in the period of Roman domination in the central Balkans (AD 1 – 400), i.e. the “primary context” of their use and circulation; (2) in the time of transition from the late antiquity to early medieval period (AD 400 – 700); and (3) in the high and late Middle Ages (AD 900 – 1400), where the last two were considered to be a “secondary context” in which the Roman coins were no longer a valid currency.
It was observed that the reused Roman coins, as a distinctive category of archaeological finds, impose a necessity for reconsideration of the relationship between the disciplines of archaeology and numismatics; encouraging a greater cooperation and discussion between the two. Considering the use and evaluation of Roman coins in their “primary context”, it is possible to presume that the strength of the political Roman system was the crucial factor in the formation and maintaining the stability of the value of Roman coins. The act of reuse should not be automatically equalized with recycling; implying only to use value, but at the same time it was not possible to assume that the value was formed only on a purely symbolical level. The (re)use of Roman coins in the funeral practices from c. AD 400 to 700 was considered to be a part of wider and occasional practice of incorporating older Roman issues in the coin pool by the “barbarian” or Byzantine authorities. It could be then concluded that the value of Roman coins was understood more as a potential attribute than as a fixed category; enabling one to simultaneously “overvalue “ and “undervalue” these objects. In the period from c. AD 900 to 1400, the reuse of Roman coins was detected only within the cemeteries of the peasantry and in a context of gradual increase of general coin use in the central Balkan communities of the Middle Ages. This was understood as an indicator that the Roman coins were not perceived as particularly valuable per se, but since the were recognized as category of objects that became more important in defining social relationships they were then incorporated in the funeral rituals and reinterpreted by the medieval population.
The number of invasive alien species is increasing and so are the impacts these species cause to the environment and economies. Nevertheless, resources for management are limited, which makes prioritization unavoidable. We present a prioritization framework which can be useful for decision makers as it includes both a scientific impact assessment and the evaluation of impact importance by affected stakeholders. The framework is divided into five steps, namely 1) stakeholder selection and weighting of stakeholder importance by the decision maker, 2) factual description and scoring of changes by scientists, 3) evaluation of the importance of impact categories by stakeholders, 4) calculation of weighted impact categories and 5) calculation of final impact score and decision making. The framework could be used at different scales and by different authorities. Furthermore, it would make the decision making process transparent and retraceable for all stakeholders and the general public.