Suchergebnisse

Vorbemerkung -- I. Die Diskontinuität der Geschichte und die Kontingenz der Kommunikation -- 1. Textualismus, Kontextualismus, Funktionalismus: Die theoretischen Einsichten von Quentin Skinner und Thomas Nipperdey -- 2. Kommunikation als Differenz: Der Kommunikationsbegriff Niklas Luhmanns -- 3. Literaturhistoriographische Schlußfolgerungen -- II. Fallstudie: Die Goethe-Rezeption des Jungen Deutschland -- 1. Zur Kritik am methodischen Ansatz einiger repräsentativer Untersuchungen zum Jungen Deutschland -- 2. Heines Goethe-Rezeption in der Romantischen Schule und Ludwig Börne. Eine Denkschrift -- 3. Goethe in der Romantischen Schule -- 4. Goethe in Ludwig Börne. Eine Denkschrift -- 5. Schlußfolgerungen: Heine als Chamäleon? -- III. Ausblick.

1: Self-Staging: Aura and Appearance -- 2: Corruption and Money -- 3: Enemies, Scapegoats, and Conspiracy Theories -- 4: The Establishment, the Elite, and the Experts -- 5: Identity and Negative Myths -- 6: Leadership Style -- 7: Speeches, Lies, and Narrative (Un-)Truth.

Metadata only record ; Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs based on the Farmer Field School approach are being implemented in many countries. Their benefits have been recognized by a broad range of stakeholders, including farming communities, local and national governments, NGOs and donors, who are now supporting such programs. Substantial investment in this approach calls for comprehensive documentation of its impact and sustainability. This study reviews twenty-five impact studies and discusses the overall results. Most of the ongoing programs have conducted impact evaluations of a kind. These varied in focus, approach, methodology and robustness. Results, however, commonly remained buried in project reports. Impact evaluation of the IPM Farmer Field School has proven to be complex because of methodological obstacles, because of the range of immediate and developmental impacts, and because of different perspectives of stakeholders. Consequently, there is no agreed conceptual framework for measuring impact. ; Available in SANREM office, FS

Vorbemerkung -- Zwischen Dekonstruktionismus und Konstruktivismus. Zu einem systemtheoretisch fundierten Ansatz von Textverstehen -- Die Ereignishaftigkeit des Textes -- Kunstgeschichte der modernen Kunst: Periodisierung oder Codierung? -- Jenseits von Empirie und Hermeneutik. Systemtheorie, (Literatur-)Geschichtsschreibung und die Konvergenz von Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften -- Ästhetische Debatten im Literatursystem der Nachkriegszeit -- Kommunikation und Bewußtsein. Zur systemtheoretischen Rekonstruktion einer literarischen Bestätigung der Systemtheorie -- Lyrik und Systemtheorie -- Die Ausdifferenzierung der Kunst als Problem der Ästhetik -- "Dadaistische Gartenzwerge" versus "Staatsdichter". Ein Blick auf das Ende der DDR-Literatur mit systemtheoretischer Optik -- Literaturwissenschaft, Systemtheorie und der Begriff der Beobachtung -- Variationen im Metakontrapunkt. Eine systemtheoretische Analyse musikalischer Interaktionsprozesse -- Phänomene, Systeme, Episteme. Zur aktuellen Diskussion systemtheoretischer Ansätze in der Literaturwissenschaft -- Auswahlbibliographie zum Thema Systemtheorie und Kunst -- Die Autoren.

For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later twentieth and early twenty-first centuries prioritized unfettered individual action over the collective, and many rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements, networks and federations have emerged to support transitions towards sustainability and equity. Here, we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally formed collaborative groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on: (1) integrated pest management; (2) forests; (3) land; (4) water; (5) pastures; (6) support services; (7) innovation platforms; and (8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the number of groups has grown from 0.50 million (in 2000) to 8.54 million (in 2020). The area of land transformed by the 170–255 million group members is 300 Mha, mostly in less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups could now support further transitions towards policies and behaviours for global sustainability.

Pesticide lifecycle management encompasses a range of elements from legislation, regulation, manufacturing, application, risk reduction, monitoring, and enforcement to disposal of pesticide waste. A survey was conducted in 2017–2018 to describe the contemporary global status of pesticide lifecycle management, to identify where the gaps are found. A three-tiered questionnaire was distributed to government entities in 194 countries. The response rate was 29%, 27% and 48% to the first, second and third part of the questionnaire, respectively. The results showed gaps for most of the selected indicators of pesticide management, suggesting that pesticide efficacy and safety to human health and the environment are likely being compromised at various stages of the pesticide lifecycle, and at varying degrees across the globe. Low-income countries generally had the highest incidence of gaps. Particular shortcomings were deficiencies in pesticide legislation, inadequate capacity for pesticide registration, protection against occupational exposure to pesticides, consumer protection against residues in food, and environmental protection against pesticide contamination. Policy support for, and implementation of, pesticide use-reduction strategies such as integrated pest management and integrated vector management has been inadequate across regions. Priority actions for structural improvement in pesticide lifecycle management are proposed, including pesticide use-reduction strategies, targeted interventions, and resource mobilization.

Non-technical summary Until the past half-century, all agriculture and land management was framed by local institutions strong in social capital. But neoliberal forms of development came to undermine existing structures, thus reducing sustainability and equity. The past 20 years, though, have seen the deliberate establishment of more than 8 million new social groups across the world. This restructuring and growth of rural social capital within specific territories is leading to increased productivity of agricultural and land management systems, with particular benefits for those previously excluded. Further growth would occur with more national and regional policy support. Technical summary For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later twentieth and early twenty-first centuries prioritized unfettered individual action over the collective, and many rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements, networks and federations have emerged to support transitions towards sustainability and equity. Here, we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally formed collaborative groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on: (1) integrated pest management; (2) forests; (3) land; (4) water; (5) pastures; (6) support services; (7) innovation platforms; and (8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the number of groups has grown from 0.50 million (in 2000) to 8.54 million (in 2020). The area of land transformed by the 170–255 million group members is 300 Mha, mostly in less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups ...

For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later 20th and early 21st centuries prioritised unfettered individual action over the collective, and many rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements, networks and federations have emerged to support transitions toward sustainability and equity. Here we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally-formed collaborative groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on 1) integrated pest management; 2) forests; 3) land; 4) water; 5) pastures; 6) support services; 7) innovation platforms; 8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the number of groups has grown from 0.5M (at 2000) to 8.54M (2020). The area of land transformed by the 170-255M group members is 300 Mha, mostly in less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups could now support further transitions towards policies and behaviours for global sustainability.

Non-technical summary Until the past half-century, all agriculture and land management was framed by local institutions strong in social capital. But neoliberal forms of development came to undermine existing structures, thus reducing sustainability and equity. The past 20 years, though, have seen the deliberate establishment of more than 8 million new social groups across the world. This restructuring and growth of rural social capital within specific territories is leading to increased productivity of agricultural and land management systems, with particular benefits for those previously excluded. Further growth would occur with more national and regional policy support. Technical summary For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later twentieth and early twenty-first centuries prioritized unfettered individual action over the collective, and many rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements, networks and federations have emerged to support transitions towards sustainability and equity. Here, we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally formed collaborative groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on: (1) integrated pest management; (2) forests; (3) land; (4) water; (5) pastures; (6) support services; (7) innovation platforms; and (8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the number of groups has grown from 0.50 million (in 2000) to 8.54 million (in 2020). The area of land transformed by the 170–255 million group members is 300 Mha, mostly in less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups ...