Multicriteria analysis as a tool to investigate compatibility between conservation and development on Salina Island,Aeolian Archipelago,Italy

Several multicriteria evaluation techniques have been developed since the 1970s. The need to compare different territorial policies has justified their introduction into environmental research. These methods are based on the numerical manipulation of heterogeneous information, which varies in terms of reference scale and type of measure (continuous, ordinal, qualitative, binary, etc.). During recent years, diverse investigations have focused on general conditions on Salina, the “green island” of the Aeolian archipelago. Such studies, within an interdisciplinary project, aimed to explore the possibility of implementing conservation strategies that are compatible with human needs, landscape preservation, and sustainable economic development. Three different evaluation techniques are applied, namely multicriteria weighted concordance and discordance analysis and a qualitative procedure. They are used to compare four alternative plans for the socioeconomic development of Salina Island. These plans lie between extreme alternatives: total protection of natural resources and maximizing economic development based on tourism. The plans are compared to each other on the basis of 14 criteria that reflect the socioenvironmental perception of Salina's inhabitants. The approach used in this research seems particularly fruitful because of its flexibility: it offers decision makers the chance to manage heterogeneous data and information that is not easily quantifiable. Such “soft” information helps to evaluate environmental conditions more precisely, and to make a less damaging choice among alternative development plans.     

安全等级特征量及其计算方法

指出了目前用模糊评价法确定系统的安全等级所存在的问题和不足之处。分别运用模糊随机变量理论和模糊集理论而提出了安全等级模糊随机特征量和安全等级模糊特征量的概念及其计算方法。安全等级特征量及安全等级变量,均为安全等级取值论域上的模糊子集,而并非是一个确定的点。还给出了安全等级的绝对可能性和相对可能性的计算方法。实例表明,笔者所提出的安全等级特征量及可能性的计算方法是科学的、合理的     

Enhanced learning from multi-stakeholder partnerships: Lessons from the Enabling Rural Innovation in Africa programme

Despite increasing interest and support for multi‐stakeholder partnerships, empirical applications of participatory evaluation approaches to enhance learning from partnerships are either uncommon or undocumented. This paper draws lessons on the use of participatory self‐reflective approaches that facilitate structured learning on processes and outcomes of partnerships. Such practice is important to building partnerships, because it helps partners understand how they can develop more collaborative and responsive ways of managing partnerships. The paper is based on experience with the Enabling Rural Innovation (ERI) in Africa programme. Results highlight the dynamic process of partnership formation and the key elements that contribute to success. These include: (i) shared vision and complementarity, (ii) consistent support from senior leadership; (iii) evidence of institutional and individual benefits; (iv) investments in human and social capital; (v) joint resources mobilization. However, key challenges require coping with high staff turnover and over‐commitment, conflicting personalities and institutional differences, high transaction costs, and sustaining partnerships with the private business sector. The paper suggests that institutionalizing multi‐stakeholder partnerships requires participatory reflective practices that help structure and enhance learning, and incrementally help in building the capacity of research and development organisations to partner better and ultimately to innovate.     

Evaluating the impacts of global environmental assessments

There are currently no widely accepted procedures for comparing the performance of global environmental assessments (GEAs) and this may be a barrier to improving their methodology. To encourage greater self-reflection within the GEA community, it is proposed to introduce consistent evaluation approaches. Two elements from current evaluation practice are reviewed here that could be particularly useful for evaluating GEAs. The first are logic models which provide a transparent visual mapping of how activities in a GEA are intended to have impacts on policies. The second are performance metrics. It is proposed that GEAs adopt two kinds of metrics: (i) A common generic set for use in all GEAs to provide a basis for comparing the performance of GEAs, and (ii) a specific set of measureable metrics for each particular GEA derived from/linked to the generic set. Although many issues arise in applying these and other elements from evaluation theory and practice to GEAs, the potential benefits are greater comparability of GEA performance and new knowledge about how to improve them. This Short Communication is part of a Special Issue on solution-oriented GEAs.     

A framework for evaluating flood risk governance

Calls to strengthen flood risk governance are echoed across Europe amidst a growing consensus that floods will increase in the future. Accompanying the pursuit of societal resilience, other normative agendas relating legitimacy (e.g. accountability and public participation), and resource efficiency, have become attached to discussions concerning flood risk governance. Whilst these represent goals against which ‘success’ is socially and politically judged, lacking from the literature is a coherent framework to operationalise these concepts and evaluate the degree to which these are achieved. Drawing from cross-disciplinary and cross-country research conducted within the EU project STAR-FLOOD, this paper presents a framework for evaluating the extent to which flood risk governance arrangements support societal resilience, and demonstrate efficiency and legitimacy. Through empirical research in England, this paper critically reflects on the value of this approach in terms of identifying entry points to strengthen governance in the pursuit of these goals.     

Participation for understanding: an interactive method

INTRODUCTION: There are many available models that help evaluate the effectiveness of safety and health measures, but many are complex and require input from many departments within an organization. There is a need to develop a more user-friendly model. METHOD: A participative model was developed that involves face-to-face interviewers with workers, maintenance department, purchasing department and health and safety experts. They were asked about costs, efforts, benefits, and effects of gauging the effects of prevention efforts. RESULTS: Cost effectiveness analyses are essential in all cases and can include whatever the end-user requires, whether it is a small or lasting improvement. Having management participate helps validate the data. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations who collaborate with someone with at least some skill in cost-benefit evaluations will find that they will be able to establish policies and procedures from the data. The end result is a calculation that is understood by all involved.     

The potential-method--an economic evaluation tool

INTRODUCTION: Measuring the effect of safety and health on production is a difficult value to gauge. METHOD: This article introduces the Potential, which is an instrument for economic analysis that incorporates different changes in conditions. RESULTS: While there are a number of problems associated with methods to determine these calculations, this method is a good indicator of the effects of safety and health and produces more than 300 variables with much less input. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: Organizations can use this method effectively to determine how safety and health measure can improve their bottom line. A positive business case is highlighted.     

Realistic evaluation as a new way to design and evaluate occupational safety interventions

Recent debates regarding the criteria for evaluating occupational health and safety interventions have focused on the need for incorporating qualitative elements and process evaluation, in addition to attempting to live up to the Cochrane criteria. Reflecting fundamental epistemological conflicts and shortcomings of the Cochrane criteria in evaluating intervention studies, the debate challenges the traditional (quasi-) experimental design and methodology, which are often used within safety research. This article discusses a revised ‘realistic evaluation’ approach as a way to meet these challenges.Evidence from the literature as well as examples from an integrated (leader-based/worker-based) safety intervention study (2008-2010) in a large wood manufacturing company are presented, with focus on the pros and cons of using randomised-controlled-trials and a revised realistic evaluation model.A revised realistic evaluation model is provided which includes factors such as role behaviour, leader and worker motivation, underreporting of accidents/injuries, production pressure, unplanned organisational change and accounting for multilayer effects. These can be attained through qualitative and/or quantitative methods, allowing for the use of realistic evaluation in both large and small scale studies, as well as in systematic reviews. The revised realistic evaluation model offers a promising new way of designing and evaluating occupational safety research. This model can help safety science move forward in setting qualitative and/or quantitative criteria regarding context, mechanisms and processes for single studies and for reviews. Focus is not limited to whether the expected results appear or not, but include suggestions for what works for whom, under what circumstances, in what respects and how.     

Using the expert model PERPEST to translate measured and predicted pesticide exposure data into ecological risks

An important topic in the registration of pesticides and the interpretation of monitoring data is the estimation of the consequences of a certain concentration of a pesticide for the ecology of aquatic ecosystems. Solving these problems requires predictions of the expected response of the ecosystem to chemical stress. Up until now, a dominant approach to come up with such a prediction is the use of simulation models or safety factors. The disadvantage of the use of safety factors is a crude method that does not provide any insight into the concentration–response relationships at the ecosystem level. On the other hand, simulation models also have serious drawbacks like that they are often very complex, lack transparency, their implementation is expensive and there may be a compilation of errors, due to uncertainties in parameters and processes. In this paper, we present the expert model prediction of the ecological risks of pesticides (PERPEST) that overcomes these problems. It predicts the effects of a given concentration of a pesticide based on the outcome of already performed experiments using experimental ecosystems. This has the great advantage that the outcome is more realistic. The paper especially discusses how this model can be used to translate measured and predicted concentrations of pesticides into ecological risks, by taking data on measured and predicted concentrations of atrazine as an example. It is argued that this model can be of great use to evaluate the outcome of chemical monitoring programmes (e.g. performed in the light of the Water Framework Directive) and can even be used to evaluate the effects of mixtures.     

A botanical importance rating system for estuaries

In many semi-arid areas, estuaries are threatened because of freshwater impoundment. Estuaries are important sites for ecological diversity and, increasingly, for recreation. A system has been developed which rates estuaries according to their botanical importance. A formula allows a single numerical importance score to be calculated. The area cover of each estuarine plant community type (i.e. intertidal salt marsh, submerged macrophytes, reed/sedge swamps and supratidal salt marsh) and its importance in the estuary forms the basis of the score. The ‘ecological condition’ of the plant community and the community richness within the estuary are incorporated into the formula. The formula is effective in determining the botanical importance of estuaries. Further methods to determine the zoological, physical and socio-economic importance of estuaries need to be developed to allow the overall importance of estuaries to be determined.