Objective: Drink-driving represents a critical issue on international organizations’ agendas as one of the key behavioral risk factors in road traffic safety, alongside speed and nonuse of motorcycle helmets, seat belts, and child restraints. Changing road user behaviors regarding these 5 factors is a critical component in reducing road traffic injuries and casualties. The objective of this study is the identification of drivers who are more likely to contribute to crashes in the UK while impaired by alcohol to design targeted drink drive compliance campaigns.
Method: To profile drivers with the factor “impaired by alcohol” assigned in collisions, an extensive data set is used, including all reported injury collisions between 2011 and 2015 in the UK (police records), merged with the Experian Mosaic Database. A multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression is conducted, utilizing the hierarchical nature of the data (drivers within Mosaic types).
Results: Using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression analysis, the finding is that some driver profiles are more likely to contribute to crashes and are assigned the contributory factor “impaired by alcohol.” Drink-related crashes are more common in some circumstances or for some crash-involved driver groups than others. For instance, alcohol-related crashes are more likely to occur on single carriageways and among males and 25- to 35-year-olds. Drink-drive-related crashes are found to be strongly associated with dark lighting conditions and, more specifically, with late night hours (the interval between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. accounts for a third of the drink-drive-related collisions). Using the Experian Mosaic Database which divides the UK population into 66 types based on demographic, lifestyle, and behavior characteristics, the finding is that, among crash-involved drivers, some Mosaic types are significantly more likely (e.g., pocket pensions, dependent greys, streetwise singles) and others are significantly less likely (e.g., crowded kaleidoscope, cultural comfort, penthouse chic) to contribute to a drink-related crash.
Conclusions: The outcome is a more nuanced understanding of drivers contributing to drink-related crashes in the UK. The study concludes by discussing the implications for governments and other interested bodies for better targeting and delivery of public education campaigns and interventions. 相似文献
Payments to compensate landowners for carrying out costly land‐use measures that benefit endangered biodiversity have become an important policy instrument. When designing such payments, it is important to take into account that spatially connected habitats are more valuable for many species than isolated ones. One way to incentivize provision of connected habitats is to offer landowners an agglomeration bonus, that is, a bonus on top of payments they are receiving to conserve land if the land is spatially connected. Researchers have compared the cost‐effectiveness of the agglomeration bonus with 2 alternatives: an all‐or‐nothing, agglomeration payment, where landowners receive a payment only if the conserved land parcels have a certain level of spatial connectivity, and a spatially homogeneous payment, where landowners receive a payment for conserved land parcels irrespective of their location. Their results show the agglomeration bonus is rarely the most cost‐effective option, and when it is, it is only slightly better than one of the alternatives. This suggests that the agglomeration bonus should not be given priority as a policy design option. However, this finding is based on consideration of only 1 species. We examined whether the same applied to 2 species, one for which the homogeneous payment is best and the other for which the agglomeration payment is most cost‐effective. We modified a published conceptual model so that we were able to assess the cost‐effectiveness of payment schemes for 2 species and applied it to a grassland bird and a grassland butterfly in Germany that require the same habitat but have different spatial‐connectivity needs. When conserving both species, the agglomeration bonus was more cost‐effective than the agglomeration and the homogeneous payment; thus, we showed that as a policy the agglomeration bonus is a useful conservation‐payment option. 相似文献
In the Anthropocene, coupled human and natural systems dominate and only a few natural systems remain relatively unaffected by human influence. On the one hand, conservation criteria based on areas of minimal human impact are not relevant to much of the biosphere. On the other hand, conservation criteria based on economic factors are problematic with respect to their ability to arrive at operational indicators of well‐being that can be applied in practice over multiple generations. Coupled human and natural systems are subject to economic development which, under current management structures, tends to affect natural systems and cross planetary boundaries. Hence, designing and applying conservation criteria applicable in real‐world systems where human and natural systems need to interact and sustainably coexist is essential. By recognizing the criticality of satisfying basic needs as well as the great uncertainty over the needs and preferences of future generations, we sought to incorporate conservation criteria based on minimal human impact into economic evaluation. These criteria require the conservation of environmental conditions such that the opportunity for intergenerational welfare optimization is maintained. Toward this end, we propose the integration of ecological–biological thresholds into decision making and use as an example the planetary‐boundaries approach. Both conservation scientists and economists must be involved in defining operational ecological–biological thresholds that can be incorporated into economic thinking and reflect the objectives of conservation, sustainability, and intergenerational welfare optimization. 相似文献
Non‐native species cause changes in the ecosystems to which they are introduced. These changes, or some of them, are usually termed impacts; they can be manifold and potentially damaging to ecosystems and biodiversity. However, the impacts of most non‐native species are poorly understood, and a synthesis of available information is being hindered because authors often do not clearly define impact. We argue that explicitly defining the impact of non‐native species will promote progress toward a better understanding of the implications of changes to biodiversity and ecosystems caused by non‐native species; help disentangle which aspects of scientific debates about non‐native species are due to disparate definitions and which represent true scientific discord; and improve communication between scientists from different research disciplines and between scientists, managers, and policy makers. For these reasons and based on examples from the literature, we devised seven key questions that fall into 4 categories: directionality, classification and measurement, ecological or socio‐economic changes, and scale. These questions should help in formulating clear and practical definitions of impact to suit specific scientific, stakeholder, or legislative contexts. Definiendo el Impacto de las Especies No‐Nativas 相似文献
Conservation and development practitioners increasingly promote community forestry as a way to conserve ecosystem services, consolidate resource rights, and reduce poverty. However, outcomes of community forestry have been mixed; many initiatives failed to achieve intended objectives. There is a rich literature on institutional arrangements of community forestry, but there has been little effort to examine the role of socioeconomic, market, and biophysical factors in shaping both land‐cover change dynamics and individual and collective livelihood outcomes. We systematically reviewed the peer‐reviewed literature on community forestry to examine and quantify existing knowledge gaps in the community‐forestry literature relative to these factors. In examining 697 cases of community forest management (CFM), extracted from 267 peer‐reviewed publications, we found 3 key trends that limit understanding of community forestry. First, we found substantial data gaps linking population dynamics, market forces, and biophysical characteristics to both environmental and livelihood outcomes. Second, most studies focused on environmental outcomes, and the majority of studies that assessed socioeconomic outcomes relied on qualitative data, making comparisons across cases difficult. Finally, there was a heavy bias toward studies on South Asian forests, indicating that the literature on community forestry may not be representative of decentralization policies and CFM globally. 相似文献