Intro -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Preface -- Author -- 1. We Manage What We Measure -- Defining Success -- References -- 2. A History of 20th-Century Safety Metrics -- Birth of a Recordkeeping Standard -- OSHA Changes the Formula -- The Abuse of the System -- 3. The Body Count Dilemma -- Failure of the Management Systems Approach in Recognizing the Scope of Risk -- The Expanded Role of the New Safety Professional -- Warehouse Incident: Part I -- References -- 4. Using Data Properly: Avoiding Garbage In, Garbage Out -- Pareto Charts, Pie Charts, Histograms, Run Charts, Control Charts ... ET AL. -- An Upper Manager's View of the World -- Is Any Data Bad Data? -- The Data Barrage -- Normalizing Data -- Data Streams -- Black Magic Data -- The Four-to-One Ratio -- National Data -- References -- 5. Leading Indicators: What Are They, and How to Use Them -- The Role of Leading Indicators in Demonstrating Management Support -- The Good, The Bad, The Ugly -- Selecting Good Leading Indicators -- Aligning Expectations with Management -- Using Leading Indicators Effectively -- Safety Business Plans -- Employee Surveys -- Selecting Questions for a Survey -- Surveys and Measurement -- Leading Indicators for Upper Management Reporting -- Practicality and Sensibility Test: Part I -- Management Leadership -- Worker Participation -- MOC -- Contractor Safety -- Incident Investigation -- References -- 6. Results-Based Measures -- aka Lagging Indicators -- Traditional Lagging Indicators -- The Change in Incident Case Management -- Using Comparative Data, Understanding BLS, NAICs and SIC Data -- Using NAICs Rates to Set Goals -- Multiple Site Reporting -- Gary's Pharmaceutical Plant -- The Merit Review System -- Practicality and Sensibility Test Part II -- Worker Suggested Lagging Indicators -- Risk Assessments -- Continuous Improvement.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Pluralism is a political belief that acknowledges individuals' rights to pursue their interests, but requires society to resolve differences where they infringe upon each other. This guide shows how pluralism helps people to value social differences and provides clear principles and rules about how to coordinate those differences. The guide reviews pluralism's origins, key elements and strengths and weaknesses. It examines how people think about differences, including the psychological obstacles that cause us to exclude or ignore others. Practices are examined with examples drawn from forest-related contexts: legal pluralism, multistakeholder processes and diversity in work teams. Questions are provided to help the reader assess and practice pluralism in their own settings. The guide concludes that understanding the political assumptions and principles of pluralism can enrich our understanding of current practices to develop fundamentally new approaches to forest decision-making.
Ecuador is facing several threats to its food and water security, with over a tenth of its population currently undernourished and living in poverty. As a response, its government is incorporating new patterns of land use and developing regional water infrastructure to cope with the related challenges. In this study, we assess to what point these efforts contribute to integrated water and food security in the country. We investigated the period 2004–2013 in the most productive agricultural region - the Guayas river basin district (GRBD) - and analysed the impacts of different scenarios of agricultural change on local water security. Our approach integrates MuSIASEM (Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Societal and Ecosystem Metabolism) with the hydrological SWAT model. Freshwater allocation is evaluated within all the water cycle from its source (natural systems) to the final users (societal systems). Water security is assessed spatiotemporally in terms of water stress for the population living in poverty. Water productivity is obtained in relation to agricultural production and nutrition. The multi-scale analysis shows that whereas at river basin district level the median annual streamflow has a similar magnitude than rainfall stored in soil, these two parameters differ spatiotemporally at subbasin level. The study finds the greatest challenge in achieving water security is the south-east and central part of the GRBD, due to water scarcity and a larger population living in poverty. However, these areas are also simultaneously, where the greatest crop water productivity is found. We conclude that food production for both domestic consumption and market-oriented exports can be increased while meeting ecosystem water demands in all the GRBD regions except for the east. Our integration of methods provides a better approach to inform integrated land and water management and is relevant for academics, practitioners and policymakers alike.
Innovations are central instruments of sustainability policies. They project future visions onto technological solutions and enable win-win framings of complex sustainability issues. Yet, they also create new problems by interconnecting different resources such as water, food, and energy, what is known as the "WEF nexus." In this paper, we apply a new approach called Quantitative Storytelling (QST) to the assessment of four innovations with a strong nexus component in EU policy: biofuels, shale gas, electric vehicles, and alternative water resources. Recognizing irreducible pluralism and uncertainties, QST inspects the relationships between the narratives used to frame sustainability issues and the evidence on those issues. Our experiences outlined two rationales for implementing QST. First, QST can be used to question dominant narratives that promote certain innovations despite evidence against their effectiveness. Second, QST can offer avenues for pluralistic processes of co-creation of alternative narratives and imaginaries. We reflect on the implementation of QST and on the role played by different uncertainties throughout these processes. Our experiences suggest that while the role of nexus assessments using both numbers and narratives may not be instrumental in directly inducing policy change, they are valuable means to open discussions on innovations outside of dominant nexus imaginaries. ; This research has been funded by: the European Union's H2020 project MAGIC: Moving Towards Adaptive Governance in Complexity (MAGIC GA No. 689669); European Union's FP7 project IANEX: Integrated Assessment of the Nexus: the case of hydraulic fracturing, Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship GA No. 623593; Spanish Ministry of Science' Juan de la Cierva Fellowship IJC2019-038847-I/ AEI / 10.13039/501100011033; Maria de Maetzu CEX2019-000940-M. The present work reflects only the authors' view and the funding Agencies cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey – an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trust in governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 39 countries and regions worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 47 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available.
The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis.
