Search results

This thesis is about Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) practice in Sweden. Impact Assessment (IA) is expected to play a crucial role in enabling democratic and enlightened decision making. EIA practice seems however not to be in accordance with best IA practice norms and legislation in many countries. We therefore need a more thorough understanding of IA practice and its outcomes and about what is gained through EIA and thus also be able to suggest, on a more profound basis, how the practice can be improved. This thesis presents an analysis of the two cases EIA practice on cumulative effects and the final disposal for spent nuclear fuel. The methods and approaches used are qualitatively and include literature review, document analysis, individual interviews and focus group interviews. The results were analysed using social psychology theory and community of practice theory. The case of cumulative effects clearly demonstrated that a positive attitude towards including cumulative effects was in place, but the conditions to change the knowledge base were not. In the investigated case for a final disposal for spent nuclear fuel it was revealed that a shared practice and social learning over time might result in difficulties for the authority in mapping out a clear role and identity for itself in relation to the proponent. It also showed that the shared practice that has developed between the industry, and the competent authorities, has over time resulted in the adoption of a shared understanding and similar perspectives, concerning at least two points. The first concerns downgrading the need to more thoroughly investigate alternate technical methods to the main alternative, while the second concerns the need to avoid delays in the planning process. Communication and the shared practice that has developed over a long period of time, can have a significant and not necessarily positive impact on power relations and thus hamper knowledge production, diffusion of roles and identities.

The evaluation of organizational climate is a critical factor in business management, and its importance is even greater in military higher education institutions, due to the high motivation and commitment expected from their members. However, research on this topic in Ecuador is scarce. The present study validates a scale to measure organizational climate in Ecuadorian military higher education institutions. The instrument proposed by Hernández, Garrido & Rico (2016) was applied to an intentional sample of 44 Military Engineering School (ESINGM) members. Its reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, obtaining values above 0.960, indicating high internal consistency. The dimensions of the organizational climate present in the institution were identified, and the results of the first-level statistical validation were presented. It is concluded that the scale is valid and reliable for measuring the organizational climate in this institution. In addition, this study contributes to the understanding of the organizational climate in military higher education institutions in Ecuador and may have implications for the management and improvement of educational quality in the context of higher education in Ecuador.

Adaptation research and practice too often overlooks the wider social context within which climate change is experienced. Mainstream approaches frame adaptation problems in terms of the consequences that flow from biophysical impacts and as a result, we argue, ask the wrong questions. A complementary approach gaining ground in the field, foregrounding the social, economic and political context, reveals differentiation in adaptation need, and how climate impacts interconnect with wider processes of change. In this paper, we illustrate how this kind of approach frames a different set of questions about adaptation using the case of Nepal. Drawing on fieldwork and a review of literature, we contrast the questions that emerge from adaptation research and practice that take climate risk as a starting point with the questions that emerge from examination of contemporary rural livelihoods. We find that while adaptation efforts are often centred around securing agricultural production and are predicated on climate risk management, rural livelihoods are caught in a wider process of transformation. The numbers of people involved in farming are declining, and households are experiencing the effects of rising education, abandonment of rural land, increasing wages, burgeoning mechanisation, and high levels of migration into the global labour market. We find the epistemological framing of adaptation too narrow to account for these changes, as it understands the experiences of rural communities through the lens of climate risk. We propose that rather than seeking to integrate local understandings into a fixed, impacts-orientated epistemology, it is necessary to premise adaptation on an epistemology capable of exploring how change occurs. Asking the right questions thus means opening up adaptation by asking: 'what are the most significant changes taking place in people's lives?', along with the more standard: 'what are the impacts of climate change?' Viewing adaptation as occurring between and within these two perspectives has the potential to reveal new vulnerabilities and opportunities for adaptation practice to act upon.