Conventional systems of government have not been very successful in resolving coastal management problems. This lack of progress is partially attributable to inadequate representation in governance processes of the variety of knowledges present on the coast. In particular there has been a struggle to engage effectively with climate science and its implications. There has also been a broader failure to capture the complexity of voices, interests, values, and discourses of coastal users. We argue here that coastal governance challenges are not likely to be resolved by singular solutions; rather, interaction and collaboration will generate improvements. We suggest that a co-requisite for progress in coastal management is the development of institutions and processes that enable different knowledges to have a bearing on governance processes. This paper examines a selection of the many opportunities available to broaden and enhance the use of knowledge in decision-making for the coast. A description is provided of emerging elements of coastal governance from an Australian perspective, together with new types of institutions, processes, tools and techniques that may help to achieve an improved coastal knowledge-governance interaction.
Wasserstoff ist ein Schlüsselelement, um Klimaneutralität zu erreichen. Besonders für die Dekarbonisierung der Industrie und bestimmter Verkehrssektoren stellt er eine wichtige Ergänzung zur direkten Elektrifizierung dar. Um die künftig hohen Bedarfe zu decken, werden Importe nötig sein. Es gilt, aus der Vergangenheit zu lernen und Abhängigkeiten zu minimieren. Die ESYS-Fachleute zeigen in einer Analyse Transportoptionen und ihre Vor- und Nachteile auf und beschreiben Hemmnisse und Herausforderungen für den Aufbau von Transportketten und Wasserstoffkooperationen.
In 2020 the world was hit by the COVID-19 pandemic putting entire governments and civil societies in crisis mode. Around the globe unprecedented shortages of equipment and qualified personnel were reported in hospitals and diagnostic laboratories. When a crisis is global, supply chains are strained worldwide and external help may not be readily available. In Switzerland, as part of the efforts of the Swiss National COVID-19 Science Task Force, we developed a tailor-made web-based tool where needs and offers for critical laboratory equipment and expertise can be brought together, coordinated, prioritized, and validated. This Academic Resources for COVID-19 (ARC) Platform presents the specialized needs of diagnostic laboratories to academic research groups at universities, allowing the sourcing of said needs from unconventional supply channels, while keeping the entities tasked with coordination of the crisis response in control of each part of the process. An instance of the ARC Platform is operated in Switzerland (arc.epfl.ch) catering to the diagnostic efforts in Switzerland and sourcing from the Swiss academic sector. The underlying technology has been released as open source so that others can adopt the customizable web-platform for need/supply match-making in their own relief efforts, during the COVID-19 pandemic or any future disaster.
Context: Place-based transdisciplinary research involves multiple academic disciplines and non-academic actors. Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) platform is one concept with ~ 80 initiatives globally. Objectives: As an exercise in learning through evaluation we audited (1) the siting, construction and maintenance of individual LTSER platforms, and (2) them as a distributed infrastructure for place-based transdisciplinary research with focus on the European continent. Methods: First, we defined a normative model for ideal performance at both platform and network levels. Second, four surveys were sent out to the 67 self-reported LTSER platforms officially listed at the end of 2016. Third, with a focus on the network level, we analyzed the spatial distribution of both long-term ecological monitoring sites within LTSER platforms, and LTSER platforms across the European continent. Fourth, narrative biographies of 18 platforms in different stages of development were analyzed. Results: While the siting ofLTSER platforms represented biogeographical regions well, variations in land use history and democratic governance were not well represented. Platform construction was based on 2.1 ecological monitoring sites, with 72% ecosystem and 28% social system research. Maintenance of a platform required three to five staff members, focused mostly on ecosystem research, was based mainly on national funding, and had 1–2 years of future funding secured. Networking with other landscape approach concepts was common. Conclusions: Individually, and as a network, LTSER platforms have good potential for transdisciplinary knowledge production and learning about sustainability challenges. To improve the range of variation of Pan-European social–ecological systems we encourage interfacing with other landscape approach concepts. ; Peer reviewed
Context Place-based transdisciplinary research involves multiple academic disciplines and non-academic actors. Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) platform is one concept with similar to 80 initiatives globally.Objectives As an exercise in learning through evaluation we audited (1) the siting, construction and maintenance of individual LTSER platforms, and (2) them as a distributed infrastructure for place-based transdisciplinary research with focus on the European continent.MethodsFirst, we defined a normative model for ideal performance at both platform and network levels. Second, four surveys were sent out to the 67 self-reported LTSER platforms officially listed at the end of 2016. Third, with a focus on the network level, we analyzed the spatial distribution of both long-term ecological monitoring sites within LTSER platforms, and LTSER platforms across the European continent. Fourth, narrative biographies of 18 platforms in different stages of development were analyzed.ResultsWhile the siting of LTSER platforms represented biogeographical regions well, variations in land use history and democratic governance were not well represented. Platform construction was based on 2.1 ecological monitoring sites, with 72% ecosystem and 28% social system research. Maintenance of a platform required three to five staff members, focused mostly on ecosystem research, was based mainly on national funding, and had 1-2years of future funding secured. Networking with other landscape approach concepts was common.ConclusionsIndividually, and as a network, LTSER platforms have good potential for transdisciplinary knowledge production and learning about sustainability challenges. To improve the range of variation of Pan-European social-ecological systems we encourage interfacing with other landscape approach concepts. ; Peer reviewed
In: Angelstam , P , Manton , M , Elbakidze , M , Sijtsma , F , Adamescu , M C , Avni , N , Beja , P , Zyablikova , I , Cruz , F , Bretagnolle , V , Diaz-Delgado , R , Ens , B , Fedoriak , M , Flaim , G , Gingrich , S , Lavi-Neeman , M , Medinets , S , Melecis , V , Muñoz-Rojas , J , Schäckermann , J , Stocker-Kiss , A , Setälä , H , Stryamets , N , Taka , M , Tallec , G , Tappeiner , U , Törnblom , J & Yamelynets , T 2019 , ' LTSER platforms as a place-based transdisciplinary research infrastructure : learning landscape approach through evaluation ' , Landscape ecology , vol. 34 , no. 7 , pp. 1461-1484 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0737-6 , https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0737-6 ; ISSN:0921-2973
Context Place-based transdisciplinary research involves multiple academic disciplines and non-academic actors. Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) platform is one concept with similar to 80 initiatives globally.Objectives As an exercise in learning through evaluation we audited (1) the siting, construction and maintenance of individual LTSER platforms, and (2) them as a distributed infrastructure for place-based transdisciplinary research with focus on the European continent.MethodsFirst, we defined a normative model for ideal performance at both platform and network levels. Second, four surveys were sent out to the 67 self-reported LTSER platforms officially listed at the end of 2016. Third, with a focus on the network level, we analyzed the spatial distribution of both long-term ecological monitoring sites within LTSER platforms, and LTSER platforms across the European continent. Fourth, narrative biographies of 18 platforms in different stages of development were analyzed.ResultsWhile the siting of LTSER platforms represented biogeographical regions well, variations in land use history and democratic governance were not well represented. Platform construction was based on 2.1 ecological monitoring sites, with 72% ecosystem and 28% social system research. Maintenance of a platform required three to five staff members, focused mostly on ecosystem research, was based mainly on national funding, and had 1-2years of future funding secured. Networking with other landscape approach concepts was common.ConclusionsIndividually, and as a network, LTSER platforms have good potential for transdisciplinary knowledge production and learning about sustainability challenges. To improve the range of variation of Pan-European social-ecological systems we encourage interfacing with other landscape approach concepts.
In March 2019, German-speaking scientists and scholars calling themselves Scientists for Future, published a statement in support of the youth protesters in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (Fridays for Future, Klimastreik/Climate Strike), verifying the scientific evidence that the youth protestors refer to. In this article, they provide the full text of the statement, including the list of supporting facts (in both English and German) as well as an analysis of the results and impacts of the statement. Furthermore, they reflect on the challenges for scientists and scholars who feel a dual responsibility: on the one hand, to remain independent and politically neutral, and, on the other hand, to inform and warn societies of the dangers that lie ahead.
In March 2019, German-speaking scientists and scholars calling themselves Scientists for Future, published a statement in support of the youth protesters in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (Fridays for Future, Klimastreik/Climate Strike), verifying the scientific evidence that the youth protestors refer to. In this article, they provide the full text of the statement, including the list of supporting facts (in both English and German) as well as an analysis of the results and impacts of the statement. Furthermore, they reflect on the challenges for scientists and scholars who feel a dual responsibility: on the one hand, to remain independent and politically neutral, and, on the other hand, to inform and warn societies of the dangers that lie ahead.
In March 2019, German-speaking scientists and scholars calling themselves Scientists for Future, published a statement in support of the youth protesters in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (Fridays for Future, Klimastreik/Climate Strike), verifying the scientific evidence that the youth protestors refer to. In this article, they provide the full text of the statement, including the list of supporting facts (in both English and German) as well as an analysis of the results and impacts of the statement. Furthermore, they reflect on the challenges for scientists and scholars who feel a dual responsibility: on the one hand, to remain independent and politically neutral, and, on the other hand, to inform and warn societies of the dangers that lie ahead. ; ISSN:0940-5550
Background: Sepsis and severe focal infections represent a substantial disease burden in children admitted to hospital. We aimed to understand the burden of disease and outcomes in children with life-threatening bacterial infections in Europe. Methods: The European Union Childhood Life-threatening Infectious Disease Study (EUCLIDS) was a prospective, multicentre, cohort study done in six countries in Europe. Patients aged 1 month to 18 years with sepsis (or suspected sepsis) or severe focal infections, admitted to 98 participating hospitals in the UK, Austria, Germany, Lithuania, Spain, and the Netherlands were prospectively recruited between July 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2015. To assess disease burden and outcomes, we collected demographic and clinical data using a secured web-based platform and obtained microbiological data using locally available clinical diagnostic procedures. Findings: 2844 patients were recruited and included in the analysis. 1512 (53·2%) of 2841 patients were male and median age was 39·1 months (IQR 12·4–93·9). 1229 (43·2%) patients had sepsis and 1615 (56·8%) had severe focal infections. Patients diagnosed with sepsis had a median age of 27·6 months (IQR 9·0–80·2), whereas those diagnosed with severe focal infections had a median age of 46·5 months (15·8–100·4; p<0·0001). Of 2844 patients in the entire cohort, the main clinical syndromes were pneumonia (511 [18·0%] patients), CNS infection (469 [16·5%]), and skin and soft tissue infection (247 [8·7%]). The causal microorganism was identified in 1359 (47·8%) children, with the most prevalent ones being Neisseria meningitidis (in 259 [9·1%] patients), followed by Staphylococcus aureus (in 222 [7·8%]), Streptococcus pneumoniae (in 219 [7·7%]), and group A streptococcus (in 162 [5·7%]). 1070 (37·6%) patients required admission to a paediatric intensive care unit. Of 2469 patients with outcome data, 57 (2·2%) deaths occurred: seven were in patients with severe focal infections and 50 in those with sepsis. Interpretation: Mortality in children admitted to hospital for sepsis or severe focal infections is low in Europe. The disease burden is mainly in children younger than 5 years and is largely due to vaccine-preventable meningococcal and pneumococcal infections. Despite the availability and application of clinical procedures for microbiological diagnosis, the causative organism remained unidentified in approximately 50% of patients.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine hospital services globally. This study estimated the total number of adult elective operations that would be cancelled worldwide during the 12 weeks of peak disruption due to COVID-19. Methods: A global expert response study was conducted to elicit projections for the proportion of elective surgery that would be cancelled or postponed during the 12 weeks of peak disruption. A Bayesian β-regression model was used to estimate 12-week cancellation rates for 190 countries. Elective surgical case-mix data, stratified by specialty and indication (surgery for cancer versus benign disease), were determined. This case mix was applied to country-level surgical volumes. The 12-week cancellation rates were then applied to these figures to calculate the total number of cancelled operations. Results: The best estimate was that 28 404 603 operations would be cancelled or postponed during the peak 12 weeks of disruption due to COVID-19 (2 367 050 operations per week). Most would be operations for benign disease (90·2 per cent, 25 638 922 of 28 404 603). The overall 12-week cancellation rate would be 72·3 per cent. Globally, 81·7 per cent of operations for benign conditions (25 638 922 of 31 378 062), 37·7 per cent of cancer operations (2 324 070 of 6 162 311) and 25·4 per cent of elective caesarean sections (441 611 of 1 735 483) would be cancelled or postponed. If countries increased their normal surgical volume by 20 per cent after the pandemic, it would take a median of 45 weeks to clear the backlog of operations resulting from COVID-19 disruption. Conclusion: A very large number of operations will be cancelled or postponed owing to disruption caused by COVID-19. Governments should mitigate against this major burden on patients by developing recovery plans and implementing strategies to restore surgical activity safely.