How this edition was made, and whose work it is

One work, two degrees

This is a single integrated work, parts of which were submitted for two different degrees. Stating it that way is both the honest description and the more interesting one.

1996, Hampshire College. An Integrative Approach to Environmental Management in the Suva Barrier Reef, Fiji and the Port of Honduras, Belize — submitted to the School of Natural Science for the degree of Bachelor of Arts. Committee: Brian Schultz (chair) and Herb Bernstein. 243 pages, written in three months. This is the source of the two field studies that became Chapters Three and Four, and much of Chapters One, Two and Five.

2005, University of Oregon. An Integrative Argument for Public Participation in Environmental Policy: The Cases of Latvia, Fiji, and Belize — the title page calls it a final paper submitted to the School of Psychology for the degree of Master of Science. Committee: Paul Slovic (chair) and Sara Hodges. Not an MA, despite years of casual shorthand.

Slovic read and approved the whole work. Hodges stated that she was reviewing only the decision-science portion — Chapters Six, Seven and Nine — and that only that portion should be called the master's thesis. The abridgement in circulation exists because of that request. Slovic thought the position an odd one.

So: the field chapters were submitted for the BA; the decision-science and Latvia chapters were the portion formally reviewed for the M.S.; and the integrative framing, Chapter Eight, and the Chapter Ten cross-analysis are what make the three cases one argument. No claim is made that the whole document was awarded either degree. The point of publishing it is precisely that the whole was never read as a whole by anyone but its chair and its author.

The source files

The base text is ZMAFINALrevised.DOC, dated 29 March 2005 — the complete manuscript, recovered from a family archive drive. A later file dated 23 May 2005 contains revisions to Chapters Six, Seven and Nine, but it is the standalone extract prepared for the narrower review, not a better manuscript: an eight-word-shingle comparison of all 643 substantial sentences found 513 verbatim identical and essentially no new content. Its one worthwhile change is adopted below.

What was done to the text

The 34 MB Word file resisted every ordinary conversion — macOS's own converter drops every picture, and Word itself stalls on the file. The text here was rebuilt by combining Word's plain-text export (which preserves the expanded table of contents, and so the exact heading list) with an HTML conversion (which preserves paragraph boundaries), then matching one against the other. The figures were read directly out of the binary.

One systematic repair was applied throughout: the file's typographic characters had been written as Windows-1252 and decoded as MacRoman, so every curly quote, apostrophe and dash had become a stray accented letter. Those are restored to the characters the author typed.

Beyond that, the words are not edited. Every change to the author's text is listed here in full, and the build fails if any listed change cannot be found — so this table cannot quietly fall out of date.

As written	As published	Why
Finucane (in press)	Finucane (2002)	Finucane et al. had been published by the time the work was completed; the author's own later revision made this same correction.
Sarah Hodges	Sara Hodges	Committee member's name is spelled Sara on the title page; the acknowledgments misspell it.

Spelling, punctuation, citation style and the occasional infelicity of a document written across nine years are left as they are. It is a thesis, not a new book.

The data

The 1994–96 field spreadsheets and the 260-respondent Latvian survey file all still open. That is what makes the re-opened data section honest: the charts there are drawn from the original numbers, not traced from images of the original charts. The figures as submitted are reproduced separately, exactly as they appeared.