COVID-19 and beliefs about tobacco use: an online cross-sectional study in Iran

Environmental Science and Pollution Research - There is mixed evidence surrounding the relationship between tobacco use and COVID-19 infection/progression. The current study investigates beliefs...     

Legacy and alternative halogenated flame retardants in Lake Geneva fish

Environmental Science and Pollution Research - Legacy (i.e., polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD)) and alternative halogenated flame retardants (HFRs) were...     

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) photodegradation on WO3-TiO2-SBA-15 nanostructured composite

Environmental Science and Pollution Research - A current environmental problem is the uncontrolled use of various pesticides that are harmful to the environment and public health. The herbicide...     

The place of nature in conservation conflicts

Conservation conflicts are gaining importance in contemporary conservation scholarship such that conservation may have entered a conflict hype. We attempted to uncover and deconstruct the normative assumptions behind such studies by raising several questions: what are conservation conflicts, what justifies the attention they receive, do conservation-conflict studies limit wildlife conservation, is scientific knowledge stacked against wildlife in conservation conflicts, do conservation-conflict studies adopt a specific view of democracy, can laws be used to force conservation outcomes, why is flexibility needed in managing conservation conflicts, can conservation conflicts be managed by promoting tolerance, and who needs to compromise in conservation conflicts? We suggest that many of the intellectual premises in the field may defang conservation and prevent it from truly addressing the current conservation crisis as it accelerates. By framing conservation conflicts as conflicts between people about wildlife or nature, the field insidiously transfers guilt, whereby human activities are no longer blamed for causing species decline and extinctions but conservation is instead blamed for causing social conflicts. When the focus is on mitigating social conflicts without limiting in any powerful way human activities damaging to nature, conservation-conflict studies risk keeping conservation within the limits of human activities, instead of keeping human activities within the limits of nature. For conservation to successfully stop the biodiversity crisis, we suggest the alternative goal of recognizing nature's right to existence to maintenance of ecological functions and evolutionary processes. Nature being a rights bearer or legal person would imply its needs must be explicitly taken into account in conflict adjudication. If, even in conservation, nature's interests come second to human interests, it may be no surprise that conservation cannot succeed.     

Toward harmonizing prospective effectiveness assessment for road safety: Comparing tools in standard test case simulations

Abstract

Objective: With the overall goal to harmonize prospective effectiveness assessment of active safety systems, the specific objective of this study is to identify and evaluate sources of variation in virtual precrash simulations and to suggest topics for harmonization resulting in increased comparability and thus trustworthiness of virtual simulation-based prospective effectiveness assessment.

Methods: A round-robin assessment of the effectiveness of advanced driver assistance systems was performed using an array of state-of-the-art virtual simulation tools on a set of standard test cases. The results were analyzed to examine reasons for deviations in order to identify and assess aspects that need to be harmonized and standardized. Deviations between results calculated by independent engineering teams using their own tools should be minimized if the research question is precisely formulated regarding input data, models, and postprocessing steps.

Results: Two groups of sources of variations were identified; one group (mostly related to the implementation of the system under test) can be eliminated by using a more accurately formulated research question, whereas the other group highlights further harmonization needs because it addresses specific differences in simulation tool setups. Time-to-collision calculations, vehicle dynamics, especially braking behavior, and hit-point position specification were found to be the main sources of variation.

Conclusions: The study identified variations that can arise from the use of different simulation setups in assessment of the effectiveness of active safety systems. The research presented is a first of its kind and provides significant input to the overall goal of harmonization by identifying specific items for standardization. Future activities aim at further specification of methods for prospective assessments of the effectiveness of active safety, which will enhance comparability and trustworthiness in this kind of studies and thus contribute to increased traffic safety.     

Mainstreaming human and large carnivore coexistence through institutional collaboration

Achieving coexistence between large carnivores and humans in human-dominated landscapes (HDLs) is a key challenge for societies globally. This challenge cannot be adequately met with the current sectoral approaches to HDL governance and an academic community largely dominated by disciplinary sectors. Academia (universities and other research institutions and organizations) should take a more active role in embracing societal challenges around conservation of large carnivores in HDLs by facilitating cross-sectoral cooperation to mainstream coexistence of humans and large carnivores. Drawing on lessons from populated regions of Europe, Asia, and South America with substantial densities of large carnivores, we suggest academia should better embrace the principles and methods of sustainability sciences and create institutional spaces for the implementation of transdisciplinary curricula and projects; reflect on research approaches (i.e., disciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary) they apply and how their outcomes could aid leveraging institutional transformations for mainstreaming; and engage with various institutions and stakeholder groups to create novel institutional structures that can respond to multiple challenges of HDL management and human–large carnivore coexistence. Success in mainstreaming this coexistence in HDL will rest on the ability to think and act cooperatively. Such a conservation achievement, if realized, stands to have far-reaching benefits for people and biodiversity.     

Fishing‐gear restrictions and biomass gains for coral reef fishes in marine protected areas

Considerable empirical evidence supports recovery of reef fish populations with fishery closures. In countries where full exclusion of people from fishing may be perceived as inequitable, fishing‐gear restrictions on nonselective and destructive gears may offer socially relevant management alternatives to build recovery of fish biomass. Even so, few researchers have statistically compared the responses of tropical reef fisheries to alternative management strategies. We tested for the effects of fishery closures and fishing gear restrictions on tropical reef fish biomass at the community and family level. We conducted 1,396 underwater surveys at 617 unique sites across a spatial hierarchy within 22 global marine ecoregions that represented 5 realms. We compared total biomass across local fish assemblages and among 20 families of reef fishes inside marine protected areas (MPAs) with different fishing restrictions: no‐take, hook‐and‐line fishing only, several fishing gears allowed, and sites open to all fishing gears. We included a further category representing remote sites, where fishing pressure is low. As expected, full fishery closures, (i.e., no‐take zones) most benefited community‐ and family‐level fish biomass in comparison with restrictions on fishing gears and openly fished sites. Although biomass responses to fishery closures were highly variable across families, some fishery targets (e.g., Carcharhinidae and Lutjanidae) responded positively to multiple restrictions on fishing gears (i.e., where gears other than hook and line were not permitted). Remoteness also positively affected the response of community‐level fish biomass and many fish families. Our findings provide strong support for the role of fishing restrictions in building recovery of fish biomass and indicate important interactions among fishing‐gear types that affect biomass of a diverse set of reef fish families.