Suchergebnisse

The papers in this theme issue seek to advance our understanding of the roles of networks and partnerships in the multilevel governance of climate change and related issues in the urban context. In particular, the papers examine the roles of nontraditional actors and apply emerging theoretical approaches such as sustainability transitions theory to gain a greater understanding of the variety of approaches being employed around the world, as well as the transformative potential of these approaches. We discuss the role of the state relative to the roles of local leadership, knowledge systems, and community-wide collaborative engagement in bringing about sustainability transitions.

NEET is a government acronym for people currently "not in education, employment, or training". People under the designation are called NEETs (or Neets). In the United Kingdom, the classification comprises people aged between 16 and 24 (some 16-year-olds are still of compulsory school age); the subgroup of NEETs aged 16–18 is frequently of particular focus. The "NEET group" is not a uniform set of individuals. This literature review explores some of the risk factors that are known to contribute towards NEET status in young people and looks at the interventions that have been implemented to address these risks. It also explores the specific demographics of Fenland in relation to NEET figures and offers an overview of the background and circumstances of young people and their families in that district which might be linked to the development of NEET status.

While some jurisdictions are demonstrating leadership on climate change, it is clear that sufficient mitigation of climate change is not occurring. This highlights the importance of innovative approaches that bolster politically fraught international treaties and voluntary networks with strategies that exploit the strengths of a variety of traditional and nontraditional actors. With this paper we examine just such an innovation in the form of a multisector and multilevel network linking together the regional authority Metro Vancouver in the Canadian province of British Columbia, several municipal governments, a social enterprise, and a large number of small and medium-sized enterprises to act on climate change. This case demonstrates that while complementarity of actions across levels and sectors is not always achieved, it is nonetheless likely to contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emission reductions in the urban context. Interview and survey data also highlight that each sector and level of governance can provide what it is good at or capable of in order to enable others to contribute their share. Whether this is done on an ad hoc basis or in the form of partnerships, networks or agreements may vary from case to case, and further research is needed to understand what forms of multilevel and multisector partnerships, networks, and agreements are most conducive to achieving desired outcomes.

Canada is embarking on a low-carbon energy transition that will involve the diffusion of innovations and the reconfiguration of energy systems. This article examines the potential contribution that transition experiments can make to this process. Transition experiments can be understood as deliberate interventions that test novel configurations of social and technical elements that could lead to substantial low-carbon change. The analysis suggests that transition experiments can provide four primary benefits that might be leveraged to open low-carbon pathways for Canada: learning, capacity building, de-risking, and public education and engagement.

This article builds on Yohe's seminal piece on mitigative capacity, which elaborates 'determinants' of mitigative capacity, also reflected in the IPCC's third assessment report. We propose a revised definition, where mitigative capacity is a country's ability to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions or enhance natural sinks. By ''ability'' we mean skills, competencies, fitness, and proficiencies that a country has attained which can contribute to GHG emissions mitigation. A conceptual framework is proposed, linking mitigative capacity to a country's sustainable development path, and grouping the factors influencing mitigative capacity into three main sets: economic factors, institutional ones, and technology. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors is presented, showing how these factors vary across countries. We suggest that it is the interplay between the three economic factors—income, abatement cost and opportunity cost—that shape mitigative capacity. We find that income is an important economic factor influencing mitigative capacity, while abatement cost is important in turning mitigative capacity into actual mitigation. Technology is a critical mitigative capacity, including the ability to absorb existing climate-friendly technologies or to develop innovative ones. Institutional factors that promote mitigative capacity include the effectiveness of government regulation, clear market rules, a skilled work force and public awareness. We briefly investigate such as high abatement cost or lack of political willingness that prevent mitigative capacity from being translated into mitigation.

International audience ; This article builds on Yohe's seminal piece on mitigative capacity which elaborates 'determinants' of mitigative capacity, also reflected in the IPCC's third assessment report. We propose a revised definition, where mitigative capacity is a country's ability to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions or enhance natural sinks. By "ability" we mean skills, competencies, fitness, and proficiencies that a country has attained which can contribute to GHG emissions mitigation. A conceptual framework is proposed, linking mitigative capacity to a country's sustainable development path, and grouping the factors influencing mitigative capacity into three main sets: economic factors, institutional ones, and technology. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors is presented, showing how these factors vary across countries. We suggest that it is the interplay between the three economic factors - income, abatement cost and opportunity cost - that shape mitigative capacity. We find that income is an important economic factor influencing mitigative capacity, while abatement cost is important in turning mitigative capacity into actual mitigation. Technology is a critical mitigative capacity, including the ability to absorb existing climate friendly technologies or to develop innovative ones. Institutional factors that promote mitigative capacity include the effectiveness of government regulation, clear market rules, a skilled work force and public awareness. We briefly investigate such as high abatement cost or lack of political willingness, that prevent mitigative capacity from being translated into mitigation. ; Cet article s'intéresse aux déterminants de la capacité à atténuer le changement climatique. Ceux-ci ont été élaborés initialement dans un papier de Yohe puis dans le troisième rapport d'évaluation du GIEC. Après avoir revisité la définition de la capacité à atténuer le changement climatique, nous identifions trois groupes de facteurs influençant de façon croisée cette ...

International audience ; This article builds on Yohe's seminal piece on mitigative capacity which elaborates 'determinants' of mitigative capacity, also reflected in the IPCC's third assessment report. We propose a revised definition, where mitigative capacity is a country's ability to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions or enhance natural sinks. By "ability" we mean skills, competencies, fitness, and proficiencies that a country has attained which can contribute to GHG emissions mitigation. A conceptual framework is proposed, linking mitigative capacity to a country's sustainable development path, and grouping the factors influencing mitigative capacity into three main sets: economic factors, institutional ones, and technology. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors is presented, showing how these factors vary across countries. We suggest that it is the interplay between the three economic factors - income, abatement cost and opportunity cost - that shape mitigative capacity. We find that income is an important economic factor influencing mitigative capacity, while abatement cost is important in turning mitigative capacity into actual mitigation. Technology is a critical mitigative capacity, including the ability to absorb existing climate friendly technologies or to develop innovative ones. Institutional factors that promote mitigative capacity include the effectiveness of government regulation, clear market rules, a skilled work force and public awareness. We briefly investigate such as high abatement cost or lack of political willingness, that prevent mitigative capacity from being translated into mitigation. ; Cet article s'intéresse aux déterminants de la capacité à atténuer le changement climatique. Ceux-ci ont été élaborés initialement dans un papier de Yohe puis dans le troisième rapport d'évaluation du GIEC. Après avoir revisité la définition de la capacité à atténuer le changement climatique, nous identifions trois groupes de facteurs influençant de façon croisée cette capacité : des facteurs économiques, technologiques et institutionnels. Au niveau économique, ce sont à la fois le revenu, le coût de réduction des émissions et le coût d'opportunité lié aux réductions qui forgent la capacité d'atténuation. Du côté technologique, c'est la capacité à absorber ou à développer des technologies peu émettrices de gaz à effet de serre qui est déterminante. Enfin, au niveau institutionnel, l'efficacité de la régulation gouvernementale, la transparence des règles de marché, une main d'œuvre qualifiée et une sensibilisation de la population sont des éléments clés. Notre analyse est menée à la fois qualitativement et quantitativement. Elle permet de montrer comment les facteurs influençant la capacité d'atténuation varient d'un pays à l'autre