Browse by title

You are looking at 31 - 40 of 85,327 items

You do not have access to this content

Robert A. LaFave and Jennifer L. Dunn

Policy makers and scientists play critical roles in environmental governance. Partnerships between these two groups have been identified as offering beneficial solutions to environmental management problems, yet these groups often talk past each other. This is an important issue because transdisciplinary research groups must incorporate policy actors to create greater change. This chapter looks at the intersection between complex environmental problems, policymakers, scientists and solutions. The term “policymakers” is defined and interactions between researchers and policy actors are showcased within the framework of the Clean Water Act. Barriers to effective research teamwork that includes policy makers and scientists, including professional, institutional and political barriers, are discussed to help gain an understanding of why collaborations between policy makers and scientists sometimes fail, but also how they can succeed. A key element of successful collaboration between policy makers and scientists is engagement, specifically early engagement, which can overcome organizational constraints and increase trust between group members.

You do not have access to this content

Advanced Imagineering

Designing Innovation as Collective Creation

Edited by Diane Nijs

Articulating and illustrating how experience design can unlock experience innovation, this book offers a fresh perspective on effectuating corporate, public, social and whole system innovation by design. The book makes several contributions to the fields of innovation and design thinking by taking complexity science as its scientific point of reference. As such this is a highly provocative book for scholars, practitioners and students in the field of change and innovation.
You do not have access to this content

Diane Nijs

You do not have access to this content

Robert Beckman and Phan Duy Hao

On November 23, 2013, China declared an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea. This ADIZ overlaps with the existing ADIZs of Japan, Korea and Taiwan. The Chinese ADIZ raised concerns from various governments and commentators in the region. First, does this ADIZ violate the principle of freedom of overflight in areas beyond territorial sea? Second, can China use the ADIZ to strengthen its claim to sovereignty over disputed islands? Third, does the declaration of an ADIZ strengthen China’s argument that foreign military aircraft have no right to engage in surveillance and reconnaissance activities in the airspace above its exclusive economic zone? Fourth, does China intend to declare an ADIZ in the airspace above the South China Sea, and if so, would this exacerbate existing disputes over sovereignty claims and maritime claims in the South China Sea? This chapter attempts to answer some of these questions. First, the chapter looks at two major principles of international law governing airspace, the principle of national air sovereignty and the principle of freedom of overflight. Second, the chapter examines the status of ADIZ under international law and provides an overview of State practice with regard to ADIZ. Third, it examines China’s ADIZ in the East China Sea and the reactions of other States to China’s East China Sea ADIZ. Fourth, it discusses the implications of a possible Chinese ADIZ in the South China Sea, especially in light of the Arbitral Award issued on 12 July 2016 in the Philippines/China South China Sea disputes. Although it has been alleged that the Chinese ADIZ is contrary to the practice of other States the practice of States that have declared ADIZs is neither uniform nor consistent. The chapter therefore recommends that interested States discuss the development of “rules of the road” for ADIZs based on best international practice in order to minimize the risk of collisions or other incidents.

You do not have access to this content

Peter Groenewegen

The entry focuses on the relationship between Keynes and Alfred Marshall (1842–1924). It distinguishes four relevant stages: (1) Marshall’s long friendship with his parents, John Neville and Florence Ada Keynes; (2) Marshall as Keynes’s main teacher of economics at Cambridge; (3) collegial debates from the beginning of Keynes’s economics lecturing at Cambridge starting after Marshall’s retirement in 1908 until his death; and (4) the posthumous stage of association from Keynes’s masterful obituary memoir and his edition of Marshall’s Official Papers to his critique in the General Theory that Marshall’s economics was lacking a theory of effective demand

You do not have access to this content

Roger E. Backhouse

Alvin Harvey Hansen (1887–1975) was a business cycle theorist who, in the late 1930s, became one of the leading exponents of Keynesian thinking, seeing the Keynes’s multiplier as providing a missing link in his earlier, dynamic theory of the cycle. After moving from Minnesota to Harvard in 1937, together with John Williams, he ran the Fiscal Policy Seminar, which was an important forum in which young economists debated Keynesian ideas. His Guide to Keynes offered the canonical statement of what became known as the IS–LM model.

You do not have access to this content

Robert W. Dimand

Keynes’s address to the Liberal Summer School, “Am I a Liberal?” (reprinted in Essays in Persuasion), outlined his social and political philosophy. Speaking in the wake of the Liberal Party’s disastrous losses in the 1924 British general election, Keynes called on Liberals to turn from nineteenth-century shibboleths to economic and, especially, social issues relevant to twentieth-century Britain.

You do not have access to this content

Fernando Lusa Bordin

Reasoning by analogy is one of the techniques to which the legal profession turns to tackle the problems of uncertainty that every legal system poses. As a decentralized legal order which comprises neither a legislator nor a system of courts with compulsory jurisdiction, international law provides a fertile ground for the drawing of analogies. This contribution provides an overview of ways in which analogies have been used to shape international law, and of some of the resulting normative questions.

You do not have access to this content

Edited by Charles A. Ingene, James R. Brown and Rajiv P. Dant

You do not have access to this content

Brad Barnett, Emily W. Prehoda, Abhilash Kantamneni, Richelle L. Winkler and Chelsea Schelly

Community solar programs are promoted as an effective strategy to reduce economic, technological and social barriers preventing households and businesses from accessing the benefits of photovoltaic solar electricity. More recently, community solar has been identified as a tool to address the challenge of energy poverty facing low-to-moderate income households. However, many community solar programs fail to achieve high participation rates from this population. This chapter reflects on utilizing the transdisciplinary research process to design a viable community solar program using an on-going case study in a remote rural community with a high proportion of low-to-moderate income households in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Our research team, comprising university scientists and local public policy practitioners, gained access to social, technical and political context which helped to shape a more socially acceptable community solar program. Utilizing a transdisciplinary research approach, our current study suggests that program designers should consider community-scale criteria when considering participation, such as the retention of energy generation in the community, the opportunity for community-level decision-making and to benefit local non-profit organizations, and community pride that stems from innovation and leadership. The work offers additional support to previous findings that suggest that trusted technical experts, such as institutions of higher learning and local leaders, can assist in sociotechnical transitions like renewable energy adoption.