Prerequisites for learning from accident investigations – A cross-country comparison of national accident investigation boards

In this paper railway accident investigation reports issued by the national accident investigation boards in three Scandinavian countries during a 2-year period have been systematically studied. Content analysis of attributed causes in these reports reveals a considerable emphasis on physical processes, actor activities and equipment (the microlevel). Much less attention is paid to organisational factors (the mesolevel) and conditions related to regulators, associations and government (the macrolevel). This means that lessons will primarily be learned about aspects at the lower of these levels. Interviews show that the factors emphasised in investigation reports typically reflect the competences and experiences of the investigators, i.e. they are inclined to focus on areas of their own expertise. Since failures at the microlevel in many cases merely are symptoms of trouble at higher levels, it is argued that competence among investigators that supplements entirely technical or operational backgrounds are necessary for enabling deeper understanding of the factors leading to accidents. One possible way for achieving this is the creation of multi-modal investigation boards that provide a number of potential advantages, such as increased access to specialist competences that are shared between different sectors. Although a multi-modal approach to some degree has been adopted in all three countries, interviews reveal that these positive effects do not emerge automatically. It can therefore be concluded that multi-modal investigation boards offer a number of possible advantages, but only when these synergies are fully exploited can they provide a potential for more effective learning from accidents.     

Effects of abiotic factors on growth and chemical defenses in cultivated clones of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Laurencia dendroidea</Emphasis> J. Agardh (Ceramiales,Rhodophyta)

Laurencia dendroidea shows high inter- and intrapopulation variability in the amount of the sesquiterpene elatol, caused by genetic variation as well as environmental factors. To test the independent effect of physical and nutritional conditions, the growth and the levels of elatol in L. dendroidea clones were evaluated under different conditions of temperature, salinity, irradiance, and culture medium in the laboratory. Growth of L. dendroidea was clearly affected by all these factors, but elatol levels were influenced only by temperature and salinity. Better conditions for growth did not produce a similar effect on elatol production in L. dendroidea, contradicting the carbon/nutrient balance and growth/differentiation balance models. On the contrary, severe conditions of temperature and salinity promoted a decrease in elatol levels, as predicted by the environmental stress model. Our results using clones indicated that abiotic factors clearly take part in fostering chemical variations observed in natural populations, in addition to genetic factors, and can promote differential susceptibility of plant specimens to natural enemies.     

A new approach of ecologically based life cycle assessment for biological wastewater treatments focused on energy recovery goals

Environmental Science and Pollution Research - The energy potential of high-organic loaded agro-industrial effluents receiving biological treatment is often neglected, particularly in emergent...     

Bridging the legitimacy gap—translating theory into practical signposts for legitimate flood risk governance

Legitimacy is widely regarded as a founding principle of ‘good’ and effective governance, yet despite intense academic debate and policy discourse, the concept remains conceptually confusing and poorly articulated in practice. To bridge this gap, this research performed an interpretive thematic analysis of academic scholarship across public administration, public policy, law, political science, and geography. Four core themes were identified in relation to representative deliberation, procedural and distributive equity and justice, and socio-political acceptability, with numerous sub-themes therein. In an attempt to clarify conceptual confusion, this paper grounds these theoretical debates in the context of flood risk governance where numerous legitimacy dilemmas exist. A number of questions are presented as conceptual ‘signposts’ to encourage reflexive governance in the future. Thus, more broadly, we assert the importance of bringing legitimacy to the forefront of contemporary flood risk governance discourse and practice, moving beyond the realm of academic reflection.

     

Governing trade-offs in ecosystem services and disservices to achieve human–wildlife coexistence

Sustaining wildlife populations, which provide both ecosystem services and disservices, represents a worldwide conservation challenge. The ecosystem services and Ostrom's social–ecological systems frameworks have been adopted across natural and social sciences to characterize benefits from nature. Despite their generalizability, individually they do not include explicit tools for addressing the sustainable management of many wildlife populations. For instance, Ostrom's framework does not specifically address competing perspectives on wildlife, whereas the ecosystem services framework provides a limited representation of the social and governance context wherein such competing perspectives are embedded. We developed a unified social–ecological framework of ecosystem disservices and services (SEEDS) that advances both frameworks by explicitly acknowledging the importance of competing wildlife perspectives embedded in the social and governance contexts. The SEEDS framework emulates the hierarchical structure of Ostrom's social–ecological systems, but adds subsystems reflecting heterogeneous stakeholder views and experiences of wildlife-based services and disservices. To facilitate operationalizing SEEDS and further broader analyses across human–wildlife systems, we devised a list of variables to describe SEEDS subsystems, such as types and level of services and disservices, cost and benefit sharing, and social participation of stakeholders. Steps to implement SEEDS involve engaging local communities and stakeholders to define the subsystems, analyze interactions and outcomes, and identify leverage points and actions to remedy unwanted outcomes. These steps connect SEEDS with other existing approaches in social–ecological research and can guide analyses across systems or within individual systems to provide new insights and management options for sustainable human–wildlife coexistence.