Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
A Biomimetic Lodge District for Manaus: A Demand Side Analysis
Biomimetic Lodge District
Demand Side Analysis
|Issue Date: ||2013-07-01 17:11:32 (UTC+8)|
|Abstract: ||Emerging environmental designs have reacted toward a new environmental scope and agenda to provide a better understanding of functionality and sustainability. Biomimicry is a recent environmental approach that mimics nature for improving processes and structures design. This has important consequences for urban development and planning. The most relevant for us is that these new structures help us to breakdown the false dichotomy between landscape and architecture and therefore are ideal to integrate urban planning and to rethink environmental standards within ongoing development.
The main objective of this study is to determine the feasibility of building a peripheral district in Manaus using biomimicry designed lodges. Our main interest is to identify the types of customers that could be involved in this urban development project. This study analyzes the willingness of customers to go for a biomimicry lodge. The analyzed information will come from a survey of a non-randomized population. Our target group are mature postmodern societies -sorted out by country of residence and willingness to travel-. The sample tested different attitudes, values and beliefs on environment which will help us to break down patterns of consumption using the literature review as reference. The study uses ordinary least squares (OLS) to determine significant predictors for different types of customers.
This survey might help environmental activists, local authorities and social entrepreneurs with data for successfully developing alternative environmental designs. Our direct clients are real estate developers, social entrepreneurs and the business community in general. However, these results have also an indirect effect on the actual state of environmental design trends and on policy making. Local authorities might consider these results for agenda setting and as well for mobilizing civil society for better ecological practices.
1. Introduction 1
2. Literature Review 4
2.1. Environmental Designs 4
2.2. Biomimicry Design 15
2.3. Values, Attitudes and Beliefs on Environmentalism 22
3. Methodology 26
4. Data 36
5. Analysis of Results 44
6. Concluding remarks 50
|Reference: ||1. Bawa, K. S., Rai, N., Sodhi, N. S. (2011). Rights, governance and conservation of biological diversity. Conservation Biology 25, 639-41.
2. Balmford, A., A. Brunner, P. Cooper, et. al. (2002). Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297, 950-3.
3. Balmori, D. & J. Sanders (2011). Groundwork: Between landscape and architecture. Monacelli Press, 7-36, New York, US.
4. Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The potentials and pitfalls, vol. 2, Washington, D.C.: World Wildlife Fund.
5. Brarnwell, B. & B. Lane (1993). Sustainable tourism: an evolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1(1), 6-16.
6. Browder, J. (1988). Public policy and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon," in R. Repetto & U. Gillis. Public policies and misuse of forest resources, Boston: Cambridge University Press.
7. Brulle, R. J. (2000). Agency, Democracy, and Nature: U.S. environmental movements from a critical theory perspective. MIT Press, Cambridge , MA.
8. Brulle, R. J & J.C. Jenkins, (2005). Foundations and the environmental movement: Priorities, strategies, and impact" in D. Faber & D. McCarthy, Foundations for Social Change: Critical Perspectives on Philanthropy and Popular Movements, Rowman & Littlefield.
9. Cater, E. and G. Lowman (1994). Ecotourism: A sustainable option?, Chichester: Royal Geographical Society and John Wiley.
10. Chomitz, K., P. Buys, G. de Luca, T. Thomas & S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff (2007). At loggerheads? Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical forests. World Bank Research Papers, 10-22, Washington, DC.
11. Chomitz, K., E, Brenes & L. Constantino (1998). Financing Environmental Services: The Costa Rican experience and its implications. World Bank Research Papers, 5-11, Washington, DC.
12. Cox, P., R. Betts, M. Collins, P. Harris, C. Huntingford, C. Jones (2004). Amazonian forest dieback under climate fossil cycle projections for the 21st century. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 78(1–3), 137–56.
13. de Kadt, E. (1992). Making the alternative sustainable: Lessons from development for tourism, in V. Smith and W. Eadington, eds. Alternative Tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 47-75.
14. Dryzek, J. (1998). The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses", Human Ecology Review 5(1), 65-6.
15. Fahey, T. J., Hart, C. M. (2010). Wildlands and woodlands: A vision for the New England landscape. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
16. Feng, H., L.A. Kurkalova, C.L. Kling, P.W. Gassman (2006). Environmental conservation in agriculture: land retirement vs. changing practices on working land. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52, 600–14.
17. Foster, S. (2002). Environmental justice in an era of devolved collaboration. Harvard Environmental Law Review 26.
18. Hardin J. & J. Hilbe (2012). Generalized linear models and extensions, Stata Press, Thrid Edition, 19-64, College Station, United States
19. Hayward, T. (2007). Human rights versus emissions rights: Climate justice and the equitable distribution of ecological space," Ethics and International Affairs, 21(4), 431–50.
20. Hecht S.B. (1985). Environment, development and politics: accumulation and the livestock sector in Eastern Amazonia. World Development 13, 663–684.
21. Isaacs, J. C. (2000). The limited potential of ecotourism to contribute to wildlife conservation. The Ecologist 28(1), 61-9.
22. Lemos, M. (1998). The politics of pollution control in Brazil: state actors and social movements cleaning up Cubatão. World Development 26, 75–87.
23. Lowry, W. (1998). Public provision of intergenerational goods: The case of preserved lands. American Journal of Political Science 42(4), 387-424.
24. Markell, D. (1994). Reinventing Government: A conceptual framework for evaluating the proposed superfund Reform Act of 1994's approach to intergovernmental relations. Environmental Law 24, 1055-96.
25. Mello-Théry, N.A. de (2005). Between conservation and development: Innovations and paradox in Amazon environmental policy, in: A. Hall, Global Impact Local Action: New environmental Policy in Latin America, London: Institute for the Study of the Americas, 74-80.
26. Nepstad, D.C., C.M. Stickler, B. Soares-Filho & F. Merry (2008). Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 363, 1737–46.
27. Nicholson, M. (1989). The New Environmental Age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: UK.
28. Passino, K. (2005). Biomimicry for Optimization, Control and Automation, Springer London, London: UK.
29. Pearce, D. & T. Seccombe-Hett (2000). Economic valuation and environmental decision-making in Europe. Environment Science & Technology 34, 1419-25.
30. Pearce, D. (2005). Paradoxes in biodiversity conservation. World Economics 6(3), 57-69.
31. ________ (1997). The political economy of the global environment. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 44(4), 462-83.
32. Perz, S. (2000). The rural exodus in the context of economic crisis, globalization, and reform in Brazil. The International Migration Review 34(3), 842-81.
33. Portela, R. & I. Rademacher (2001). A Dynamic Model of Patterns of Deforestation and Their Effect on the Ability of the Brazilian Amazonia to Provide Ecosystem Services. Ecological Modeling 143, 115-46.
34. Redekop, C. (2000). Creation and the Environment: An Anabaptist Perspective on a Sustainable World. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press.
35. Salzman, J. (2005). Creating markets for ecosystem services: Notes from the field. New York University Law Review 80, 870-961.
36. Salzman, J. & J.B. Ruhl (2007). The law and policy beginnings of ecosystem services. Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law 22, 157-72.
37. Schläpfer, F. (2006). Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics 57(3), 415-29.
38. Tendler, K. (1993). Tales of dissemination of small-farm agriculture: lessons for institution builders. World Development 21(10), 1567-82.
39. Wells, M. (1994). The global environment facility and prospects for biodiversity conservation. International Environmental Affairs 6(1), 69-97.
40. Zeppel, H. (2006). Indigenous Ecotourism: Sustainable development and management. CAB International, Cambridge: MA.
1. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (2012). Notícias Ambientais. <<http://www.ibama.gov.br/publicadas>>, Brasilia, Brazil.
2. Ministério do Meio Ambiente do Brasil (2012). Publicações no Desenvolvimento Rural – Ecoturismo. December 16, <<http://www.mma.gov.br/publicacoes/desenvolvimento-rural/category/74-ecoturismo>>, Brasilia, Brazil.
3. The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development (2002). September 4, <<http://www.housing.gov.za/content/legislation_policies/johannesburg.htm>>, Johnanesburg, South Africa.
4. World Tourism Organization (2010). International tourism on track to hit one billion by end of 2012. Press Release, September 12, << http://media.unwto.org/en/press-release/2012-09-12/international-tourism-track-hit-one-billion-end-2012>>.
|Source URI: ||http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1009330442|
|Data Type: ||thesis|
|Appears in Collections:||[國際經營管理英語碩士學程IMBA] 學位論文|
Files in This Item:
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.