Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Figures, Tables, and Maps -- Acknowledgments -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Gender and the Body -- 3. Marriage Encounters -- 4. Marital Relations -- 5. Sexual Attitudes and Concepts -- 6. Sexual Crimes -- 7. Duties and Responsibilities -- 8. Household and Community -- 9. Rebellious Women -- 10. Conclusion -- Glossary -- Notes -- References -- Index

Doutoramento em Ciências e Engenharia do Ambiente ; Triggered by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, among other seminal publications, ecosystem services research has experienced an almost exponential growth over the past two decades. Since then, ecosystem services have become widespread and the concept has been used in different disciplines, separately and in collaboration, to address complex socioecological problems. These efforts were accompanied at political level with a number of international and European initiatives, such as the creation of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the adoption of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Driving the uptake of ecosystem services is the argument that its integration can lead to better environmental decision-making. Moreover, by emphasizing the ecosystems' central role on human well-being it provides anthropocentric-oriented argumentation for biodiversity and nature conservation. This is particularly relevant for coastal regions which are complex socialecological systems with high ecological value but simultaneously under significant pressure. This challenges traditional forms of management and calls for a more integrative, adaptive, inclusive, and ecosystem-based management. Despite of the growing body of work, the actual uptake of ecosystem services into policy and decision-making processes is still limited and challenging. On this basis, and considering the constraints when putting ecosystem services into practice, this research aims to: i) develop and discuss a managementoriented approach to identify, classify and map the ecosystem services provided by a complex social-ecological system; ii) develop an in-depth study of the ecosystem services present in Ria de Aveiro coastal region, as well as the main pressures and potential impacts; iii) explore the potential of integration of the ecosystem services on spatial planning process, ...

This article synthesizes and compares environmental governance theories. For each theory we outline its main tenets, claims, origin, and supporting literature. We then group the theories into focused versus combinatory frameworks for comparison. The analysis resonates with many types of ecosystems; however, to make it more tangible, we focus on coastal systems. First, we characterize coastal governance challenges and then later link salient research questions arising from these challenges to the theories that may be useful in answering them. Our discussion emphasizes the usefulness of having a diverse theoretical toolbox, and we argue that if governance analysts are more broadly informed about the theories available, they may more easily engage in open-minded interdisciplinary collaboration. The eight theories examined are the following: polycentricity, network governance, multilevel governance, collective action, governmentality (power / knowledge), adaptive governance, interactive governance theory (IGT), and evolutionary governance theory (EGT). Polycentricity and network governance both help examine the links or connections in governance processes. Polycentricity emphasizes structural configurations at a broader level, and network governance highlights agency and information flow within and between individuals or organizations. Collective action theory is helpful for examining community level governance, and helps analyze variables hindering or enabling self-organization and shared resource outcomes. In contrast, multilevel governance helps understand governance integration processes between localities, regions, and states across administrative, policy, or legal dimensions. Governmentality is helpful for understanding the role of discourse, power, knowledge, and narratives in governance, such as who creates them and who becomes governed by them with what effect. Adaptive governance helps analyze the links between context, change, and resilience. IGT helps examine the interdependencies between the systems being governed and the governing systems. EGT is helpful for unpacking how coevolutionary processes shape governance and the options for change.

Coastal and marine cultural heritage (CMCH) is at risk due to its location and its often indefinable value. As these risks are likely to intensify in the future, there is an urgent need to build CMCH resilience. We argue that the current CMCH risk management paradigm narrowly focuses on the present and preservation. This tends to exclude debates about the contested nature of resilience and how it may be achieved beyond a strict preservationist approach. There is a need, therefore, to progress a broader and more dynamic framing of CMCH management that recognises the shift away from strict preservationist approaches and incorporates the complexity of heritage's socio-political contexts. Drawing on critical cultural heritage literature, we reconceptualise CMCH management by rethinking the temporality of cultural heritage. We argue that cultural heritage may exist in four socio-temporal manifestations (extant, lost, dormant, and potential) and that CMCH management consists of three broad socio-political steering processes (continuity, discontinuity, and transformation). Our reconceptualisation of CMCH management is a first step in countering the presentness trap in CMCH management. It provides a useful conceptual framing through which to understand processes beyond the preservationist approach and raises questions about the contingent and contested nature of CMCH, ethical questions around loss and transformation, and the democratisation of cultural heritage management.

Coastal and marine cultural heritage (CMCH) is at risk due to its location and its often indefinable value. As these risks are likely to intensify in the future, there is an urgent need to build CMCH resilience. We argue that the current CMCH risk management paradigm narrowly focuses on the present and preservation. This tends to exclude debates about the contested nature of resilience and how it may be achieved beyond a strict preservationist approach. There is a need, therefore, to progress a broader and more dynamic framing of CMCH management that recognises the shift away from strict preservationist approaches and incorporates the complexity of heritage's socio-political contexts. Drawing on critical cultural heritage literature, we reconceptualise CMCH management by rethinking the temporality of cultural heritage. We argue that cultural heritage may exist in four socio-temporal manifestations (extant, lost, dormant, and potential) and that CMCH management consists of three broad socio-political steering processes (continuity, discontinuity, and transformation). Our reconceptualisation of CMCH management is a first step in countering the presentness trap in CMCH management. It provides a useful conceptual framing through which to understand processes beyond the preservationist approach and raises questions about the contingent and contested nature of CMCH, ethical questions around loss and transformation, and the democratisation of cultural heritage management.

This article shares the experiences, observations, and discussions that occurred during the completing of an ecosystem services (ES) indicator framework to be used at European Union (EU) and Member States' level. The experience base was drawn from 3 European research projects and 14 associated case study sites that include 13 transitional-water bodies (specifically 8 coastal lagoons, 4 riverine estuaries, and 1 fjord) and 1 coastal-water ecosystem. The ES pertinent to each case study site were identified along with indicators of these ES and data sources that could be used for mapping. During the process, several questions and uncertainties arose, followed by discussion, leading to these main lessons learned: 1) ES identification: Some ES that do not seem important at the European scale emerge as relevant at regional or local scales; 2) ES indicators: When direct indicators are not available, proxies for indicators (indirect indicators) might be used, including combined data on monitoring requirements imposed by EU legislation and international agreements; 3) ES mapping: Boundaries and appropriate data spatial resolution must be established because ES can be mapped at different temporal and spatial scales. We also acknowledge that mapping and assessment of ES supports the dialogue between human well-being and ecological status. From an evidence-based marine planning-process point of view, mapping and assessment of marine ES are of paramount importance to sustainable use of marine natural capital and to halt the loss of marine biodiversity. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:726-734. © 2016 SETAC.

The dataset presented in this article contains information about marine Area-Based Management Tools (ABMTs) used to assess their contribution to the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Following the scope of the analysis, ABMTs were identified by scrutinizing international and regional legal sources related to ocean management in the fields of marine conservation, fisheries, deep sea bed mining, underwater natural and cultural heritage, environmental conservation, and marine spatial planning. Legal sources were screened to depict the following characteristics of individual ABMTs: i) management objectives; ii) authorities responsible for delivering such objectives; iii) the system of management and planning entailed in the ABMT including the zoning type; and iv) the specific spatial scope and domain each ABMT refer to in vertical depth and horizontal domain. Data were generated through an internal expert elicitation. Experts, initially trained in the data analysis and related protocol, contributed to the data production because of their specific knowledge and experience in ocean management. This dataset represents a unique source of information for advancing research about monitoring and assessment of the achievement of sustainable development goals that encompasses different types of ABMTs. ; This research was conducted in the framework of COST action on "Ocean Governance for Sustainability - challenges, options and the role of science", CA15217, within the Working Group 2 "Area Based Management" activities. We would like to thank COST for the funding that made the cooperation amongst the authors, and thus this article, possible. EG partially acknowledges also funding from PORTODIMARE "geoPORtal of TOols & Data for sustaInable Management of coAstal and maRine Environment" (2018–2020), Adriatic-Ionian Programme INTERREG V–B Transnational 2014–2020, grant no. 205, and funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement ...