Suchergebnisse

This article aims at comparing family policy in Lithuania and the Netherlands and to research its accessibility. Article presents research results of interviews with experts, participating in family policy formation; specialists who provide services for families; and families themselves. Authors provide recommendations for family policy and its accessibility improvement in Lithuania based on the long-term experience in the Netherlands. Research results revealed that family policy in Lithuania is mainly oriented towards social risk families, the development of family policy is fragmented, policy tools are provided based on categorical principle and inter-institutional cooperation is underdeveloped. In the Netherlands the means of family policy are oriented towards all families, inter-institutional cooperation in the sphere of family policy is close and long-term and services are usually provided on voluntary basis. The main focus in family policy development should be oriented towards the creation and implementation of maintenance tools.

This article aims at comparing family policy in Lithuania and the Netherlands and to research its accessibility. Article presents research results of interviews with experts, participating in family policy formation; specialists who provide services for families; and families themselves. Authors provide recommendations for family policy and its accessibility improvement in Lithuania based on the long-term experience in the Netherlands. Research results revealed that family policy in Lithuania is mainly oriented towards social risk families, the development of family policy is fragmented, policy tools are provided based on categorical principle and inter-institutional cooperation is underdeveloped. In the Netherlands the means of family policy are oriented towards all families, inter-institutional cooperation in the sphere of family policy is close and long-term and services are usually provided on voluntary basis. The main focus in family policy development should be oriented towards the creation and implementation of maintenance tools.

This article aims at comparing family policy in Lithuania and the Netherlands and to research its accessibility. Article presents research results of interviews with experts, participating in family policy formation; specialists who provide services for families; and families themselves. Authors provide recommendations for family policy and its accessibility improvement in Lithuania based on the long-term experience in the Netherlands. Research results revealed that family policy in Lithuania is mainly oriented towards social risk families, the development of family policy is fragmented, policy tools are provided based on categorical principle and inter-institutional cooperation is underdeveloped. In the Netherlands the means of family policy are oriented towards all families, inter-institutional cooperation in the sphere of family policy is close and long-term and services are usually provided on voluntary basis. The main focus in family policy development should be oriented towards the creation and implementation of maintenance tools. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ppaa.13.1.6495 ; Straipsnyje siekiama palyginti Lietuvos ir Nyderlandų socialinės politikos priemones, skirtas šeimai, ir ištirti jų preinamumą. Pristatomi tyrimo rezultatai, kurio metu atlikti interviu su Lietuvos ir Nyderlandų ekspertais, formuojančiais šeimos politiką, specialistais, suteikiančiais paslaugas šeimoms, ir pačiomis šeimomis. Remiantis Nyderlandų patirtimi šeimos politikos srityje, siekiama pateikti pagrįstas rekomendacijas šeimos politikos priemonių prieinamumui gerinti. Tyrimo rezultatai parodė, kad Lietuvoje šeimos politika ir jos priemonės pirmiausia orientuojamos į socialinės rizikos šeimas, politikos priemonių kūrimas yra fragmentiškas, priemonės teikiamos kategoriniu principu, o tarpinstitucinis bendradarbiavimas yra neišplėtotas. Nyderlanduose paramos šeimai priemonės orientuotos į visas šeimas, tarpinstitucinis bendradarbiavimas teikiant šeimos politikos priemones yra glaudus ir ilgametis, paslaugos dažniausiai yra ...

This article aims at comparing family policy in Lithuania and the Netherlands and to research its accessibility. Article presents research results of interviews with experts, participating in family policy formation; specialists who provide services for families; and families themselves. Authors provide recommendations for family policy and its accessibility improvement in Lithuania based on the long-term experience in the Netherlands. Research results revealed that family policy in Lithuania is mainly oriented towards social risk families, the development of family policy is fragmented, policy tools are provided based on categorical principle and inter-institutional cooperation is underdeveloped. In the Netherlands the means of family policy are oriented towards all families, inter-institutional cooperation in the sphere of family policy is close and long-term and services are usually provided on voluntary basis. The main focus in family policy development should be oriented towards the creation and implementation of maintenance tools.

This article aims at comparing family policy in Lithuania and the Netherlands and to research its accessibility. Article presents research results of interviews with experts, participating in family policy formation; specialists who provide services for families; and families themselves. Authors provide recommendations for family policy and its accessibility improvement in Lithuania based on the long-term experience in the Netherlands. Research results revealed that family policy in Lithuania is mainly oriented towards social risk families, the development of family policy is fragmented, policy tools are provided based on categorical principle and inter-institutional cooperation is underdeveloped. In the Netherlands the means of family policy are oriented towards all families, inter-institutional cooperation in the sphere of family policy is close and long-term and services are usually provided on voluntary basis. The main focus in family policy development should be oriented towards the creation and implementation of maintenance tools.

In the modern world, risks are complex and systemic, and their effects are interconnected with the transformations in different layers of social systems. Global issues are not necessarily reflected in local contexts, and public perceptions of risks may differ significantly from expert assessments. The aim of the article is to reveal the differences between the opinions of the Lithuanian population and experts on economic, environmental, technological, geopolitical and social risks, and to compare the differences between the opinions of local experts and Lithuanian public and the assessments of experts from the Global Risk Reports. The article presents the results of a representative survey of the Lithuanian population and an online survey of municipal experts. The results of the study show that expert and population perceptions quite often coincide, especially in the case of social and economic threats. The biggest discrepancies, when the experts assessed the risks as higher than the population, were revealed in the cases of COVID-19, floods, forest fires, energy disruptions, and the mines from war legacy. Public identified higher risks than experts in the case of traffic accidents, illegal tracking of persons, illegal use of bank accounts/cards, Astravets NPP, and increase in prices. In the perception of risks of Lithuanian population and municipal experts in 2020–2021 economic and social risks dominated, and global risks with long-term effects, such as ecological or geopolitical, were not reflected in the local perceptions.

This article aims at analysing public perceptions and mass-media discourse of climate change in Lithuania. Global discourse on climate change stretches from alarmist to sceptical discourses, reaching far behind political and scientific agendas. The empirical evidence, presented in this article, is based upon representative public opinion survey and mass-media monitoring. The results identify, that public discourses on climate change in Lithuania are prevailed by reproducing of knowledge and opinions of foreign sources. That leads to social perceptions of climate change as more threatening to the world in general than to Lithuania in specific. The urgency of climate change problem is situated as least important among other social and economic problems in public consciousness. The debates on climate change in mass media in Lithuania is lacking the critical discussions on climate change causes and effects on the one side, and the issues of social consequences and adaptation to climate change on the other side. Climate change remains as a minor issue of concern both in public perceptions and in mass media discourse.

This article aims at analysing public perceptions and mass-media discourse of climate change in Lithuania. Global discourse on climate change stretches from alarmist to sceptical discourses, reaching far behind political and scientific agendas. The empirical evidence, presented in this article, is based upon representative public opinion survey and mass-media monitoring. The results identify, that public discourses on climate change in Lithuania are prevailed by reproducing of knowledge and opinions of foreign sources. That leads to social perceptions of climate change as more threatening to the world in general than to Lithuania in specific. The urgency of climate change problem is situated as least important among other social and economic problems in public consciousness. The debates on climate change in mass media in Lithuania is lacking the critical discussions on climate change causes and effects on the one side, and the issues of social consequences and adaptation to climate change on the other side. Climate change remains as a minor issue of concern both in public perceptions and in mass media discourse. ; Straipsnyje siekiama atskleisti klimato kaitos – kaip nūdienio aktualaus globalaus socialinio ir politinio klausimo – suvokimą Lietuvos visuomenėje pastaraisiais metais. Tyrimu siekiama atsakyti į klausimus: kokios Lietuvos gyventojų nuostatos, požiūriai į klimato kaitą, jos priežastis bei sprendimo galimybes; koks diskursas artikuliuojamas Lietuvos žiniasklaidoje klimato kaitos tematika; kaip žiniasklaidos diskursas siejasi su Lietuvos gyventojų viešąja nuomone. Sociologinė pastarųjų klausimų analizė nagrinėjama rizikos ir aplinkosaugos sociologijos teorijų kontekste, interpretacijas pagrindžiant visuomenės nuomonės apklausos, atliktos VMSF remiamo projekto RINOVA 2008 m. duomenimis ir analogiško laikotarpio žiniasklaidos turinio monitoringo tyrimų rezultatais. Straipsnio išvadose konstatuojama, kad nors pasauliniame kontekste klimato kaitos klausimai yra socialinio ir politinio diskurso centre, Lietuvoje globalias rizikas užgožia vietos problemos, o klimato kaitos klausimai, ypač žiniasklaidoje, neretai paliekami paraštėse.

The use of geospatial analytical tools has recently advanced risk perception research, with growing interest in spatial dimension. Available reviews of risk perception studies usually focus on specific types of risk or look at various socio-psychological, cognitive and cultural factors, and there are no systematic reviews of empirical research analysing the effect of proximity on risk perception. This article synthesizes the evidence from 81 empirical studies that investigate the significance of proximity on subjective risk perception. The systematic review focused on summaries of research methods, samples, geographic coverage, measurements and direction of influence of proximity variables on risk perception and types and sources of risk. The majority of the studies analysed implemented quantitative research. The most popular data collection methods were face-to-face interviews and postal surveys, but only half had representative samples. Studies looking into the effect of proximity on risk perception most often analysed environmental and technological risks. Two-thirds of the empirical studies found a significant impact of proximity on risk perception; the majority of these showed a positive correlation, with respondents living closer to hazards having higher risk perceptions. Negative correlations of risk perception with proximity are more characteristic of nuclear risks. Co-occurrence analysis of sources-of-risk and objects-at-risk has identified three most frequent clusters: impact of floods on economic properties; impact of other natural hazards on economic properties and impact of industrial facilities on health and lives.

Analysing COVID-19 threat researchers drew attention to the different demographic and socio-economic characteristics of populations that hold different risk perceptions and have different experiences with the risks of the infection. This article analyses the subjective perception of COVID-19 risks, as perceived by the Lithuanian population, and the objective factors determining the spread and morbidity of Covid-19. The article focuses on the factors associated with social vulnerability. The results of the survey data show that men, working age people and entrepreneurs are the least concerned about the threat of COVID-19. At the same time, statistics show that economically active people and those living in more crowded households are the most vulnerable to the spread of infection. The results of this study point to the greatest discrepancies between objectively assessed and subjectively perceived vulnerabilities, thus helping decision-makers to optimise their efforts and manage the risk of COVID-19 more effectively, prioritising those areas where vulnerabilities are the highest.

This article discusses the concept of environmental compensation and provides the examples of environmental compensation practices in various European Union countries. The principle of environmental compensation is to avoid, minimize, restore or compensate the damage to the biodiversity due to human activities, however in practice it is almost impossible to achieve no net loss to the biodiversity. European Union has issued Directive that established the principles of environmental compensation already in 2004, however until now the practices of environmental compensation in European Union countries are very fragmented. The implementation of environmental compensation principles in urban development is constrained mainly by factors such as lack of space, and the complexity of environments that are affected. There is a lack of integrated approach towards the strategies how environmental compensation should be implemented in the planning of various projects that have impact upon biodiversity. Furthermore, there is a lack of holistic approach towards the nature in legislation and practices of environmental compensation, as usually focus of instruments is on specific parts of natural environment. Ideally, the principles of environmental compensation should be an integral part of national strategies of sustainable development.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ppaa.15.3.16616 ; Autoriai pateikia ekologinio kompensavimo sampratą. Ekologinis kompensavimas siekia atstatyti žmogaus veiklos pažeistą bioįvairovę, tačiau praktikoje beveik neįmanoma pasiekti, kad nesumažėtų atkurtos gamtinės aplinkos vertė. Straipsnyje analizuojama, kaip Europos Sąjungos (ES) teisėje yra reguliuojamas ekologinis kompensavimas, pateikiami ekologinio kompensavimo praktikų įvairiose ES šalyse pavyzdžiai. Detaliau analizuojamas šio principo įgyvendinimas Lietuvoje ir Švedijoje. ES dar 2004 m. išleido direktyvą, kuria įtvirtinami ekologinio kompensavimo principai, tačiau įvairių ES šalių ekologinio kompensavimo praktikos vis dar gana ...

This article discusses the concept of environmental compensation and provides the examples of environmental compensation practices in various European Union countries. The principle of environmental compensation is to avoid, minimize, restore or compensate the damage to the biodiversity due to human activities, however in practice it is almost impossible to achieve no net loss to the biodiversity. European Union has issued Directive that established the principles of environmental compensation already in 2004, however until now the practices of environmental compensation in European Union countries are very fragmented. The implementation of environmental compensation principles in urban development is constrained mainly by factors such as lack of space, and the complexity of environments that are affected. There is a lack of integrated approach towards the strategies how environmental compensation should be implemented in the planning of various projects that have impact upon biodiversity. Furthermore, there is a lack of holistic approach towards the nature in legislation and practices of environmental compensation, as usually focus of instruments is on specific parts of natural environment. Ideally, the principles of environmental compensation should be an integral part of national strategies of sustainable development.