Function of value characterization used by large organizations in environmental decisions: a study of the major hydroelectric projects in Colombia
Caracterización de la función de valor empleada en las decisiones ambientales por las grandes organizaciones: Estudio de los grandes proyectos hidroeléctricos en Colombia.;
Caracterização da função de valor empregada pelas grandes organizações nas decisões ambientais: um estudo dos grandes projetos hidroelétricos na Colômbia
| dc.creator | Garcia Sierra, Rodolfo | |
| dc.creator | Sarmiento, Álvaro Zerda | |
| dc.date | 2017-11-08 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-12-15T18:18:59Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-12-15T18:18:59Z | |
| dc.identifier | https://revistas.unimilitar.edu.co/index.php/rfce/article/view/1884 | |
| dc.identifier | 10.18359/rfce.1884 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/5356379 | |
| dc.description | This research offers an explanation of one of the generating sources of high levels of conflict, currently predictable among local communities and the construction of hydroelectric megaprojects in Colombia, through an endogenous view of large organizations, specifically in their process of taking of environmental decisions based on expert judgment. In this case the analysis is applied to the construction of hydroelectric megaprojects (> 350 MW) in Colombia during the period 2010 to 2020. The research uses the cumulative prospective theory (CPT). It begins by determining the use of the heuristic of availability and its quantification, based on the criteria of ease of recall and answers deliberation time. Next step, the function of preferences of the experts is characterized, determining the dimensions in which there are zones of aptitudes of gain (highs and lows) and zones of aptitudes of losses (lows and highs). Its application to organizations according to the simulations carried out, allows to improve the influence of local communities in environmental decisions, taking into account the results on the aptitudes of losses experienced by decision makers, in response to external requests in the technological and environmental dimensions. | en-US |
| dc.description | Esta investigación ofrece una explicación sobre una de las fuentes generadoras de los altos niveles de conflictividad, actualmente predecibles entre las comunidades locales y la construcción de megaproyectos hidroeléctricos en Colombia, a través de una mirada endógena de las grandes organizaciones, específicamente en su proceso de toma de decisiones ambientales basado en juicio de expertos. En este caso el análisis se aplica a la construcción de megaproyectos hidroeléctricos (>350 MW) en Colombia durante el período 2010 al 2020. La investigación emplea la teoría prospectiva acumulativa (Cumulative Prospect Theory - CPT). Se inicia determinando el uso de la heurística de disponibilidad y su cuantificación, a partir de los criterios de facilidad de recordación y tiempo de deliberación de las respuestas. Paso siguiente, se caracteriza la función de preferencias de los expertos, determinando las dimensiones en las que se presentan zonas de aptitudes de ganancia (altas y bajas) y zonas de aptitudes de pérdidas (bajas y altas). Su aplicación a las organizaciones según las simulaciones realizadas, permite mejorar la influencia de las comunidades locales en las decisiones ambientales, teniendo presente los resultados sobre las aptitudes de pérdidas que han experimentado los tomadores de decisiones, ante peticiones externas en las dimensiones tecnológicas y ambientales. | es-ES |
| dc.description | Esta pesquisa oferece uma explicação sobre uma das fontes geradoras de altos níveis de conflito, atualmente previsíveis, entre as comunidades locais e a construção de megaprojetos hidroelétricos na Colômbia, através de um olhar endógeno sobre as grandes organizações, especificamente em seu processo de toma de decisões ambientais, baseado em julgamento por parte de peritos. Neste caso a análise aplica-se à construção de megaprojetos hidroelétricos (>350 MW) na Colômbia durante o período de 2010 a 2020. A pesquisa emprega a teoria prospectiva acumulativa (Cumulative Prospect Theory - CPT). Inicia-se determinando o uso da heurística de disponibilidade e sua quantificação, a partir dos critérios de facilidade de recordação e tempo de deliberação das respostas. Passo seguinte, caracteriza-se a função de preferências dos peritos, determinando as dimensões nas que se apresentam zonas de aptidões de ganho (altos e baixos) e zonas de aptidões de perdas (baixas e altas). Sua aplicação às organizações segundo as simulações realizadas, permite melhorar a influência das comunidades locais nas decisões ambientais, considerando os resultados sobre as aptidões de perdas que têm experimentado os que tomam as decisões, ante petições externas nas dimensões tecnológicas e ambientais. | pt-BR |
| dc.format | application/pdf | |
| dc.format | application/xml | |
| dc.language | spa | |
| dc.publisher | Universidad Militar Nueva Granada | es-ES |
| dc.relation | https://revistas.unimilitar.edu.co/index.php/rfce/article/view/1884/2671 | |
| dc.relation | https://revistas.unimilitar.edu.co/index.php/rfce/article/view/1884/2709 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Alos-Ferrer, C., & Strack, F. (2014). From dual processes to multiple selves: Implications for economic behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 41, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.12.005 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Angner, E., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Behavioral Economics. En M. Uskali, Handbook of the philosophy of science: Philosophy of Economic. 5, p. 641-690. Amsterdam: Elsevier. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Ansar, A., Flyvbjerg, B., Budzier, A., & Lunn, D. (March de 2014). Should We Build More Large Dams? The Actual Costs of Hydropower Megaproject Development. Energy Policy, 1-14. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1970). The dynamics of action. New York: Wiley. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Atkinson, R., & Crawford, L. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. International Journal Project Management, 687-698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.09.011 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Bakka, J. F., & Lindkvist, L. (1999). Organisationsteori: struktur, kultur, processer (3 ed.). Malmø, Sweden: Liber AB. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Barnard, C. I. (1968). The Functions of the Executive (30 ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Becker, G. S. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Birnbaum, M. H. (2008). New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychological Review, 115(2), 453–501. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.463 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What Are Ecosystem Services? The Need for Standardized Environmental Accounting Units. Ecological Economics, 63, 616–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Brighton, H., & Gigerenzer, G. (2015). The bias bias. Journal of Business Research, 68(8), 1772-1784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.061 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Bromiley, P., & Rau, D. (2014). How Would Behavioral Strategy Research Lead to Prescription? Journal of Business Economics, 84, 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-013-0689-x | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Bui, T. (2009). Prospect theory and functional choice. Bielefeld: Bielefeld University, Germany; The University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne, France. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Burghart, D., Glimcher, P. W., & Lazzaro, S. (2013). An Expected Utility Maximizer Walks Into A Bar. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 215-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-013-9167-7 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision Field Theory: A dynamic cognition approach to decision making. Psychological Review, 432–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.432 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Busenitz, L. A., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-makin. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(96)00003-1 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Camerer, C. F., & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 7–42. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007850605129 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Censi, M., Corradini, M., Feduzi, A., & Ghenoa, A. (2015). Half-full or half-empty? A model of decision making under risk. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 68-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2015.06.006 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Imas, A. (2013). Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 87, 43– 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.023 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Conesa, F. V. (1997). Guía metodológica para la evaluación del impacto ambiental. (Tercera ed.). Madrid Espa-a: Ediciones Mundi-Prensa. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/DellaVigna, S. (2009). Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field. Journal of Economic Literature, 315–372. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.315 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 522–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Earle, T., & Siegrist, M. (2008). Trust, Confidence and Cooperation model: a framework for understanding the relation between trust and Risk Perception. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 8, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGENVI.2008.017257 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Protocol Analysis and Expert Thought: Concurrent Verbalizations of Thinking during Experts' Performance on Representative Tasks. En N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, R. R. Hoffman, & K. A. Ericsson, The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (págs. 223-231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/ESI. (2005). Environmental Sustainability Index. Appendix B Country Profiles. New Haven: Yale University's, Center for Environmental Law and Policy. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Flyvbjerg, B. (March de 2007). Policy and Planning for Large-Infrastructure Projects: Problems, Causes, Cures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34(4), 578-597. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. S., & Soren, L. (2005). How (In)accurate Are Demand Forecasts in Public Works Projects? The Case of Transportation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 131-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976688 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Garcia, R., & Zerda, A. (2016). Tesis de Grado No Publicada: Toma de decisiones por grandes organizaciones en condiciones de Incertidumbre: Estudio de las grandes hidroeléctricas en Colombia 2010-2020. Bogota: UN Publicaciones. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Gigerenzer, G. (2015). Simply rational: Decision making in the real world. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199390076.001.0001 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Gigerenzer, G., Hertwig, R., & Pachur, T. (2011). Heuristics: The foundations of adaptive behavior. New York: Oxford. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. W., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Glockner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008). Do people make decisions under risk based on ignorance? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.02.003 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2012). Decisions beyond boundaries: When more information is processed faster than less. Acta Psychologica, 139, 532-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.01.009 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Goodwin, J., & Jasper, J. M. (1999). Caught in a Winding, Snarling Vine: The Structural Bias of Political Process Theory. Sociological Forum, 14, 27-92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021684610881 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Hansson, S. O. (1994). Decision Theory, a brief introduction. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Hausman, D. M. (2012). Preference, value, choice, and welfare. New York: Cambridge University Press. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Heath, C., Larrick, R. P., & Klayman, J. (01 de 01 de 1998). CiteSeerx. Recuperado el 17 de 10 de 2015, de Cognitive repairs: How organizational practices can compensate for individual shortcomings (1998): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.110.5562 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul: West Pub. Co. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Hoffman, R. R. (1992). The Psychology of expertise: Cognitive research and empirical AI. New York: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9733-5 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Holmes Jr., R., Bromiley, P., Devers, C., Holcomb, T., & McGuire, J. (July de 2011). Management theory applications of prospect theory: Accomplishments, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Management, 37 (4), 1069-1107. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Hsu, A., Emerson, J., Levy, M., Sherbinin, A. d., Johnson, L., Malik, O., y otros. (2014). The 2014 Environmental Performance Index. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Jawahar, I. M., & McLaughlin, G. L. (2001). Toward a Descriptive Stakeholder Theory: An Organizational Life Cycle Approach. The Academy of Management Review, 26, 397–414. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64, 515-526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Kirkebøen, G. (2009). Decision behaviour – Improving expert judgement. En W. T.W., S. K., & S. K.J., Making essential choices with scant information : front-end decision making in major projects. (págs. 169-194). New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Klaes, M., & Sent, E.-M. (2005). A Conceptual History of the Emergence of Bounded Rationality. History of Political Economic, 37, 27-59. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-37-1-27 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Köbberling, V., & Wakker, P. P. (2003). Preference Foundations for Nonexpected Utility: A Generalized and Simplified Technique. Mathematics of Operations Research, 28, 395-423. https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.28.3.395.16390 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Kreps, D. M., & Porteus, E. L. (1979). Dynamic Choice Theory and Dynamic Programming. Econometrica, 47, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912348 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (First ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Kumar, R. (2005). Research Methodology-A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners (Second ed.). Singapore: Pearson. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal, 92, 805–824. https://doi.org/10.2307/2232669 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (July de 2003). Delusions of success: how optimism undermines executives' decisions. Harvard Business Review, 56-63. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/March, J. G. (1994). Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York: NY: Free Press. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/McCormick, S. (2006). The Brazilian anti-dam movement: knowledge, contestation as communicative action. Organizational & Environment, 19(3), 321-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026606292494 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Mieg, H. (2009). Two factors of expertise? Excellence and professionalism of environmental experts. High Ability Studies, 20, 91-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130902860432 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Mieg, H. A. (2014). The organisational embedding of expertise: Centres of excellence. Talent Development and Excellence, 6, 71-93. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Théorêt, A. (1976). The Structure of 'Unstructured' Decision Processes. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 21, 246-275. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392045 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Moritz, L., & Gieri, H. (September de 2015). Heuristics in organizations: A review and a research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 68 (9), 2027-2036. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Neumann, J. v., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press . | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/NU. CEPAL. (2015). The United Nations regional commissions and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development: Moving to deliver on a transformative and ambitious agenda. Santiago de Chile: ECLAC. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Odum, H. (1996). Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. New York: John Wiley and Sons. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Plous, S. (1993). The availibility heuristic. The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 206–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022874 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Rosso, M., Bottero, M., Pomarico, S., Ferlita, S. L., & Comino, E. (April de 2014). Integrating multicriteria evaluation and stakeholders analysis for assessing hydropower projects. Energy Policy, 67, 870-881. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Rubenstein, A. (2013). Response time and decision making: An experimental study. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 540-551. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Shackle, G. (1972). Epistemics & Economics: A Critique of Economic Doctrines. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Shmelev, S. E. (2012). Ecological Economics: Sustainability in Practice. Oxford, UK: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1972-9 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization (Third ed.). London: Collier Macmillan Publishers. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Sovacool, B., & Cooper, C. (2013). The Governance of Energy Megaprojects: Politics, Hubris, and Energy Security. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781952542 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Sovacool, B., S.E., R., P.C., S., Janda, K., Rochlin, G., Spreng, D., y otros. (March de 2015). Integrating social science in energy research. Energy Research & Social Science, 6, 95-99. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Stone, R. (2011). Hydropower. The legacy of the Three Gorges Dam. . Science, 333, 817. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.333.6044.817 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Thaler, R. H., & Benartz, S. (2004). Save More Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112, 164–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/380085 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science(185), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions. The Journal of Business, 251-278. https://doi.org/10.1086/296365 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/UN, EC, IMF, OECD and World Bank. (2014). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Central Framework - final System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Central Frameworkic Accounting. New York: United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and World Bank. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Unidad de Planeación Minero Energética - UPME. (2014). PLAN DE EXPANSION DE REFERENCIA EN GENERACION. En U. d. UPME, Plan de Expansión de Referencia Generación – Transmisión (págs. 188-220). Bogotá Colombia: UPME (eds.). | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and Decision-Making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wrc8r | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Wakker, P. P. (2010). Prospect Theory: For Risk and Ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779329 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Yaari, M. (1987). The Dual Theory of Choice Under Risk. Econometrica, 55, 95-115. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911158 | |
| dc.relation | /*ref*/Yüksel, İ. (2012). Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL. International Journal of Business and Management, 7 (24), 52 - 66. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n24p52 | |
| dc.rights | Derechos de autor 2017 Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas | es-ES |
| dc.rights | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 | es-ES |
| dc.source | Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Vol. 26 No. 1 (2018); 69-91 | en-US |
| dc.source | Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Vol. 26 Núm. 1 (2018); 69-91 | es-ES |
| dc.source | Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; v. 26 n. 1 (2018); 69-91 | pt-BR |
| dc.source | 1909-7719 | |
| dc.source | 0121-6805 | |
| dc.subject | Cumulative prospective theory | en-US |
| dc.subject | expert judgment | en-US |
| dc.subject | decision making | en-US |
| dc.subject | megaprojects | en-US |
| dc.subject | hydroelectric | en-US |
| dc.subject | Teoría prospectiva acumulativa | es-ES |
| dc.subject | juicio experto | es-ES |
| dc.subject | toma de decisiones | es-ES |
| dc.subject | megaproyectos | es-ES |
| dc.subject | hidroeléctricas | es-ES |
| dc.subject | Teoria prospectiva acumulativa | pt-BR |
| dc.subject | julgamento perito | pt-BR |
| dc.subject | toma de decisões | pt-BR |
| dc.subject | megaprojetos | pt-BR |
| dc.subject | hidroelétricas | pt-BR |
| dc.title | Function of value characterization used by large organizations in environmental decisions: a study of the major hydroelectric projects in Colombia | en-US |
| dc.title | Caracterización de la función de valor empleada en las decisiones ambientales por las grandes organizaciones: Estudio de los grandes proyectos hidroeléctricos en Colombia. | es-ES |
| dc.title | Caracterização da função de valor empregada pelas grandes organizações nas decisões ambientais: um estudo dos grandes projetos hidroelétricos na Colômbia | pt-BR |
| dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | |
| dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |