Suchergebnisse

Existential semiotics is a new paradigm which combines classical semiotics with continental philosophy. It does not mean a return to existentialism, albeit philosophers from Hegel and Kierkegaard to Heidegger, Jaspers and Sartre are its sources of inspiration. It introduces completely new sign categories and concepts to the field, recasting the whole of semiotics, communication and signification as integral to a transcendental art. The volume contains essays on music, the voice, silence, calligraphy, metaphysics, myth, aesthetics, entropy, cultural heritage, film, the Bible, among other subjects

Group work assessment is often described by teachers as complex and challenging, with individual assessment and fair assessment emerging as dilemmas. The aim of this literature review is to explore and systematize research about group work assessment in educational settings. This is an integrated research area consisting of research combining group work and classroom assessment. A database search was conducted, inspired by the guidelines of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The analysis and categorization evolved into a typology consisting of five themes: (a) purpose of group work assessment, (b) what is assessed in group work, (c) methods for group work assessment, (d) effects and consequences of group work assessment, and (e) quality in group work assessment. The findings reveal that research in the field of group work assessment notably focuses on social skills and group processes. Peer assessment plays a prominent role and teachers as assessors are surprising absences in the reviewed research.

The transition towards the bio-based economy in the future increases the demand for raw materials from the forests. This will increase the extraction of wood from the forests but may adversely affect its biodiversity and other ecosystem services (ESS). The growth rate of most tree species in Sweden is predicted to increase because of changing climate. It will however be counterbalanced by an increased risk of damage due to extreme weather events such as storms. Therefore, it is necessary to develop adaptive management measures that exploit the benefits of climate change while minimizing the damages on growing stock, ESS and biodiversity resulting from its risks. It is further important to consider the trends in the global development for studying the future trends of production and nature conservation in Sweden . The demand for wood varies among the global development scenarios and greenhouse gas emission pathways. The aims of this study are: (i) to identify the impacts of climate change, EU forest policies and associated wood demand on Swedish forests, (ii) how the combination of different scenarios of EU forest policies and climate affects the harvest levels, carbon sequestration and future occurrence of a set of forest-dwelling species in Sweden and (iii) to formulate optimal combinations of different management regimes for sustainably achieving the demand for different wood assortments and environmental goals in Sweden as stipulated in EU and national forest policy statements under changing climatic conditions. In this study the demand for different wood assortments in Sweden will be simulated assuming different global and EU policy scenarios using the GLOBIOM model. The three policy scenarios are baseline, bioenergy and global bioenergy. In the baseline scenario, the increase in global demand for wood stabilizes by 2020 whereas in others the increase in wood demand stabilizes only after 2050. In the global bioenergy scenario, mitigation measures are implemented globally resulting in higher wood demand in comparison to the bioenergy scenario where mitigation measures are confined only to EU. Assuming the different demand for wood assortments, we will propose adaptive management measures like delaying final felling, avoiding thinning and speeding up final felling, green tree retention, continuous cover forestry and unmanaged forest along with a current management scenario. The simulations of the Swedish forest landscape with different adaptive management regimes will be performed using the Heureka model. Optimization will be done for maximizing various objectives like net present value, carbon sequestration and biodiversity. Biodiversity will be accounted for in the form of different species distribution models. The time period of the simulations will be from 2010 to 2100. Two future climate scenarios, a business as usual scenario (RCP8.5) and an optimistic scenario (RCP4.5) are also considered in this study. ; peerReviewed

Background: In epidemiological studies, analyses are needed to investigate the consequences of non-response. Aims: To analyse the consequences of attrition in the second wave of the population-based PART study, which was performed three years after the first wave. Methods: Potential determinants for non-participation obtained from population registers and the first wave were analyzed. The relationships between potential determinants and reduced well-being or depressive mood in the first wave questionnaire were investigated separately for participants and non-participants in the second wave. Samples of respondents to the second wave questionnaire with reduced or not reduced well-being were summoned for interview regarding determinants of distress and disorder. The occurrence of potential determinants was compared between participants and non-participants in both groups Results: Low income, low education, non-Nordic origin, not being married and previous psychiatric diagnosis were associated with lower participation rates. These variables were similarly related to depressive mood and low psychological well-being in the first wave among participants and non-participants in the second wave. Potential determinants were not or only weakly related to participation in the interview groups. Conclusion: Although the true prevalence of distress and disorder is underestimated, the true associations between potential determinants and the outcomes seem reasonably well reproduced.

The demand for bioenergy is expected to increase rapidly in the EU, driven by policies aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through bioenergy. The downside of the increased use of bioenergy is the risk to biodiversity and ecosystem services, both within the EU but also outside the EU borders through indirect effects. Our study provides a spatially explicit analysis of biodiversity losses from land use, land-use change, and forestry under three different EU bioenergy policy scenarios in the detail of NUTS2 administrative units. The study combined methodologies for biodiversity impact assessment with a global high resolution economic land use model GLOBIOM. Potential loss of global species (PSLglo) was used as an indicator for biodiversity damage, and species loss was quantified using the countryside species area-relationships model (SARs). The Constant demand (CONST), the Baseline (BASE), and the Emission Reduction (EMIRED) scenarios were used for depicting different future biomass demands. All scenarios had similar biomass demand until 2020 but different targets afterwards, from keeping the demand for bioenergy constant (CONST) to a strong increase of bioenergy aiming to decrease GHG emissions by 80% in 2050 (EMIRED) and with the BASE scenario falling in between the other two. The total global biodiversity loss due to EU land use and related changes in net imports was found to reach 1% in 2050 in the BASE scenario. The biodiversity impacts were found to vary only little between the scenarios but instead increase considerably over time in all scenarios, due to increased bioenergy and food demand. The damage was found to increase by 26% from year 2000 to 2050 in the BASE scenario. The difference between scenarios increased over time and in the year 2050 impacts for the EMIRED are 2% larger than in the BASE, meanwhile in the CONST scenario, they are 1.7% lower than in the BASE. The land-use induced impacts on biodiversity were amplified in southern Europe, where the ecoregions are hosting more biodiversity than in the north. In all scenarios, the relative share of indirect impacts through EU imports is expected to increase over time. Imports accounted for 15% of total impacts in the year 2000, and increased to 24-26% in 2050, meaning that relatively more damage would be outsourced by the EU in the future. The main drivers of the direct damage for biodiversity were the increased amount of land used for perennial energy crops and the increased use of forests for biomass supply, while the indirect damage was driven by the increase of agricultural products imports. The expansion of perennial energy crops on agricultural cropland in the EU (especially in the EMIRED scenario) was found to outsource damage elsewhere, as agricultural products would then be increasingly imported from outside EU, partly from regions rich in biodiversity and hosting vulnerable species. This work is part of the Sumforest project Future BioEcon. ; peerReviewed

Background and Objectives: Under the Paris Agreement, the European Union (EU) sets rules for accounting the greenhouse gas emissions and removals from forest land (FL). According to these rules, the average FL emissions of each member state in 2021–2025 (compliance period 1, CP1) and in 2026–2030 (compliance period 2, CP2) will be compared to a projected forest reference level (FRL). The FRL is estimated by modelling forest development under fixed forest management practices, based on those observed in 2000–2009. In this context, the objective of this study was to estimate the effects of large-scale uptake of alternative forest management models (aFMMs), developed in the ALTERFOR project (Alternative models and robust decision-making for future forest management), on forest harvest and forest carbon sink, considering that the proposed aFMMs are expanded to most of the suitable areas in EU27+UK and Turkey. Methods: We applied the Global Forest Model (G4M) for projecting the harvest and sink with the aFMMs and compared our results to previous FRL projections. The simulations were performed under the condition that the countries should match the harvest levels estimated for their FRLs as closely as possible. A representation of such aFMMs as clearcut, selective logging, shelterwood logging and tree species change was included in G4M. The aFMMs were modeled under four scenarios of spatial allocation and two scenarios of uptake rate. Finally, we compared our results to the business as usual. Results: The introduction of the aFMMs enhanced the forest sink in CP1 and CP2 in all studied regions when compared to the business as usual. Conclusions: Our results suggest that if a balanced mixture of aFMMs is chosen, a similar level of wood harvest can be maintained as in the FRL projection, while at the same time enhancing the forest sink. In particular, a mixture of multifunctional aFMMs, like selective logging and shelterwood, could enhance the carbon sink by up to 21% over the ALTERFOR region while limiting harvest leakages.

Background and Objectives: Under the Paris Agreement, the European Union (EU) sets rules for accounting the greenhouse gas emissions and removals from forest land (FL). According to these rules, the average FL emissions of each member state in 2021–2025 (compliance period 1, CP1) and in 2026–2030 (compliance period 2, CP2) will be compared to a projected forest reference level (FRL). The FRL is estimated by modelling forest development under fixed forest management practices, based on those observed in 2000–2009. In this context, the objective of this study was to estimate the effects of large-scale uptake of alternative forest management models (aFMMs), developed in the ALTERFOR project (Alternative models and robust decision-making for future forest management), on forest harvest and forest carbon sink, considering that the proposed aFMMs are expanded to most of the suitable areas in EU27+UK and Turkey. Methods: We applied the Global Forest Model (G4M) for projecting the harvest and sink with the aFMMs and compared our results to previous FRL projections. The simulations were performed under the condition that the countries should match the harvest levels estimated for their FRLs as closely as possible. A representation of such aFMMs as clearcut, selective logging, shelterwood logging and tree species change was included in G4M. The aFMMs were modeled under four scenarios of spatial allocation and two scenarios of uptake rate. Finally, we compared our results to the business as usual. Results: The introduction of the aFMMs enhanced the forest sink in CP1 and CP2 in all studied regions when compared to the business as usual. Conclusions: Our results suggest that if a balanced mixture of aFMMs is chosen, a similar level of wood harvest can be maintained as in the FRL projection, while at the same time enhancing the forest sink. In particular, a mixture of multifunctional aFMMs, like selective logging and shelterwood, could enhance the carbon sink by up to 21% over the ALTERFOR region while limiting harvest leakages.

Background In 2018, the European Union (EU) adopted Regulation 2018/841, which sets the accounting rules for the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector for the period 2021–2030. This regulation is part of the EU's commitments to comply with the Paris Agreement. According to the new regulation, emissions and removals for managed forest land are to be accounted against a projected forest reference level (FRL) that is estimated by each EU Member State based on the continuation of forest management practices of the reference period 2000–2009. The aim of this study is to assess how different modelling assumptions possible under the regulation may influence the FRL estimates. Applying the interlinked G4M and WoodCarbonMonitor modelling frameworks, we estimate potential FRLs for each individual EU Member State following a set of conceptual scenarios, each reflecting different modelling assumptions that are consistent with the regulation and the technical guidance document published by the European Commission. Results The simulations of the conceptual scenarios show that differences in the underlying modelling assumptions may have a large impact on the projected FRL. Depending on the assumptions taken, the projected annual carbon sink on managed forest land in the EU varies from −319 MtCO2 to −397 MtCO2 during the first compliance period (2021–2025) and from −296 MtCO2 to −376 MtCO2 during the second compliance period (i.e. 2026–2030). These estimates can be compared with the 2017 national GHG inventories which estimated that the forest carbon sink for managed forest land was −373 MtCO2 in 2015. On an aggregated EU level, the assumptions related to climate change and the allocation of forest management practices have the largest impacts on the FRL estimates. On the other hand, assumptions concerning the starting year of the projection, stratification of managed forest land, and timing of individual management activities are found to have relatively small impacts on the FRL estimates. Conclusions We provide a first assessment of the level of uncertainty associated with the different assumptions discussed in the technical guidance document and the LULUCF regulation, and the impact of these assumptions on the country-specific FRL. The results highlight the importance of transparent documentation by the EU Member States on how their FRL has been calculated, and on the underlying assumptions. Background

Background In 2018, the European Union (EU) adopted Regulation 2018/841, which sets the accounting rules for the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector for the period 2021–2030. This regulation is part of the EU's commitments to comply with the Paris Agreement. According to the new regulation, emissions and removals for managed forest land are to be accounted against a projected forest reference level (FRL) that is estimated by each EU Member State based on the continuation of forest management practices of the reference period 2000–2009. The aim of this study is to assess how different modelling assumptions possible under the regulation may influence the FRL estimates. Applying the interlinked G4M and WoodCarbonMonitor modelling frameworks, we estimate potential FRLs for each individual EU Member State following a set of conceptual scenarios, each reflecting different modelling assumptions that are consistent with the regulation and the technical guidance document published by the European Commission. Results The simulations of the conceptual scenarios show that differences in the underlying modelling assumptions may have a large impact on the projected FRL. Depending on the assumptions taken, the projected annual carbon sink on managed forest land in the EU varies from −319 MtCO2 to −397 MtCO2 during the first compliance period (2021–2025) and from −296 MtCO2 to −376 MtCO2 during the second compliance period (i.e. 2026–2030). These estimates can be compared with the 2017 national GHG inventories which estimated that the forest carbon sink for managed forest land was −373 MtCO2 in 2015. On an aggregated EU level, the assumptions related to climate change and the allocation of forest management practices have the largest impacts on the FRL estimates. On the other hand, assumptions concerning the starting year of the projection, stratification of managed forest land, and timing of individual management activities are found to have relatively small impacts on the FRL estimates. Conclusions We provide a first assessment of the level of uncertainty associated with the different assumptions discussed in the technical guidance document and the LULUCF regulation, and the impact of these assumptions on the country-specific FRL. The results highlight the importance of transparent documentation by the EU Member States on how their FRL has been calculated, and on the underlying assumptions. Background

In this study, the potential global loss of species directly associated with land use in the EU and due to trade with other regions is computed over time, in order to reveal differences in impacts between the considered alternatives of plausible bioenergy policies development in the EU. The spatially explicit study combines a life cycle analysis (LCA) for biodiversity impact assessment with a global high resolution economic land use model. Both impacts of domestic land use and impacts through imports were included for estimating the biodiversity footprint of the member states of the (EU28). The analyzed scenarios assumed similar biomass demand until 2020 but differed thereafter, from keeping the growth of demand for bioenergy constant (CONST), to a strong increase of bioenergy in line with the EU target of decreasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80% by 2050 (EMIRED) and with the baseline (BASE) scenario falling between the other two. As a general trend, the increasing demand for biomass was found to have substantial impact on biodiversity in all scenarios, while the differences between the scenarios were found to be modest. The share caused by imports was 15% of the overall biodiversity impacts detected in this study in the year 2000, and progressively increased to 24% to 26% in 2050, depending on the scenario. The most prominent future change in domestic land use in all scenarios was the expansion of perennial cultivations for energy. In the EMIRED scenario, there is a larger expansion of perennial cultivations and a smaller expansion of cropland in the EU than in the other two scenarios. As the biodiversity damage is smaller for land used for perennial cultivations than for cropland, this development decreases the internal biodiversity damage per unit of land. At the same time, however, the EMIRED scenario also features the largest outsourcing of damage, due to increased import of cropland products from outside the EU for satisfying the EU food demand. These two opposite effects even out each other, resulting in the total biodiversity damage for the EMIRED scenario being only slightly higher than the other two scenarios. The results of this study indicate that increasing cultivation of perennials for bioenergy and the consequent decrease in the availability of cropland for food production in the EU may lead to outsourcing of agricultural products supply to other regions. This development is associated with a leakage of biodiversity damages to species-rich and vulnerable regions outside the EU. In the case of a future increase in bioenergy demand, the combination of biomass supply from sustainable forest management in the EU, combined with imported wood pellets and cultivation of perennial energy crops, appears to be less detrimental to biodiversity than expansion of energy crops in the EU.