{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03563941299790356, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.282894736842105, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Decisions, Uncertainty, and the Brain: The Science of Neuroeconomics

(e.g., scenic and ecotourism values). Because such costs are usually long term, removed, indirect, or delayed, they are seldom factored into economic or environmental policy making. The problem "How much biodiversity can a society afford to conserve (or to lose)?" requires an optimizing rather than a maximizing approach. In biodiversity conservation, the optimizing approach would seek to allocate available funds to produce the highest return. Cost-effectiveness evaluation provides such an optimization procedure, a systematic method for finding the best use of funds to reach stated objectives. Cost-effectiveness evaluation allows comparison of programs having more than one objective and reveals desirable trade-offs and choices among these programs. We must ask, in line with Steiner: Who pays and why, for more of what, where, and at what sacrifice of other goods and values?