15,042 research outputs found

    Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: a review of indicator‐based sustainability assessments in agriculture

    Get PDF
    Several methods for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems have been developed. These methods do not fully: (i) take into account the multi‐functionality of agriculture; (ii) include multidimensionality; (iii) utilize and implement the assessment knowledge; and (iv) identify conflicting goals and trade‐offs. This paper reviews seven recently developed multidisciplinary indicator‐based assessment methods with respect to their contribution to these shortcomings. All approaches include (1) normative aspects such as goal setting, (2) systemic aspects such as a specification of scale of analysis, (3) a reproducible structure of the approach. The approaches can be categorized into three typologies. The top‐down farm assessments focus on field or farm assessment. They have a clear procedure for measuring the indicators and assessing the sustainability of the system, which allows for benchmarking across farms. The degree of participation is low, potentially affecting the implementation of the results negatively. The top‐down regional assessment assesses the on‐farm and the regional effects. They include some participation to increase acceptance of the results. However, they miss the analysis of potential trade‐offs. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches focus on a regional scale. Stakeholders are included throughout the whole process assuring the acceptance of the results and increasing the probability of implementation of developed measures. As they include the interaction between the indicators in their system representation, they allow for performing a trade‐off analysis. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches seem to better overcome the four shortcomings mentioned above

    Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: a review of indicator‐based sustainability assessments in agriculture

    Get PDF
    Several methods for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems have been developed. These methods do not fully: (i) take into account the multi‐functionality of agriculture; (ii) include multidimensionality; (iii) utilize and implement the assessment knowledge; and (iv) identify conflicting goals and trade‐offs. This paper reviews seven recently developed multidisciplinary indicator‐based assessment methods with respect to their contribution to these shortcomings. All approaches include (1) normative aspects such as goal setting, (2) systemic aspects such as a specification of scale of analysis, (3) a reproducible structure of the approach. The approaches can be categorized into three typologies. The top‐down farm assessments focus on field or farm assessment. They have a clear procedure for measuring the indicators and assessing the sustainability of the system, which allows for benchmarking across farms. The degree of participation is low, potentially affecting the implementation of the results negatively. The top‐down regional assessment assesses the on‐farm and the regional effects. They include some participation to increase acceptance of the results. However, they miss the analysis of potential trade‐offs. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches focus on a regional scale. Stakeholders are included throughout the whole process assuring the acceptance of the results and increasing the probability of implementation of developed measures. As they include the interaction between the indicators in their system representation, they allow for performing a trade‐off analysis. The bottom‐up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches seem to better overcome the four shortcomings mentioned above.sustainability assessment, indicator, agriculture, sustainability solution space, Agricultural and Food Policy, Community/Rural/Urban Development, Environmental Economics and Policy, Farm Management, International Development, Research Methods/ Statistical Methods,

    Built to Last or Built Too Fast? Evaluating Prediction Models for Build Times

    Full text link
    Automated builds are integral to the Continuous Integration (CI) software development practice. In CI, developers are encouraged to integrate early and often. However, long build times can be an issue when integrations are frequent. This research focuses on finding a balance between integrating often and keeping developers productive. We propose and analyze models that can predict the build time of a job. Such models can help developers to better manage their time and tasks. Also, project managers can explore different factors to determine the best setup for a build job that will keep the build wait time to an acceptable level. Software organizations transitioning to CI practices can use the predictive models to anticipate build times before CI is implemented. The research community can modify our predictive models to further understand the factors and relationships affecting build times.Comment: 4 paged version published in the Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 14th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) Pages 487-490. MSR 201

    A methodology for analysing and evaluating narratives in annual reports: a comprehensive descriptive profile and metrics for disclosure quality attributes

    Get PDF
    There is a consensus that the business reporting model needs to expand to serve the changing information needs of the market and provide the information required for enhanced corporate transparency and accountability. Worldwide, regulators view narrative disclosures as the key to achieving the desired step-change in the quality of corporate reporting. In recent years, accounting researchers have increasingly focused their efforts on investigating disclosure and it is now recognised that there is an urgent need to develop disclosure metrics to facilitate research into voluntary disclosure and quality [Core, J. E. (2001). A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(3), 441–456]. This paper responds to this call and contributes in two principal ways. First, the paper introduces to the academic literature a comprehensive four-dimensional framework for the holistic content analysis of accounting narratives and presents a computer-assisted methodology for implementing this framework. This procedure provides a rich descriptive profile of a company's narrative disclosures based on the coding of topic and three type attributes. Second, the paper explores the complex concept of quality, and the problematic nature of quality measurement. It makes a preliminary attempt to identify some of the attributes of quality (such as relative amount of disclosure and topic spread), suggests observable proxies for these and offers a tentative summary measure of disclosure quality

    Scientific progress despite irreproducibility: A seeming paradox

    Full text link
    It appears paradoxical that science is producing outstanding new results and theories at a rapid rate at the same time that researchers are identifying serious problems in the practice of science that cause many reports to be irreproducible and invalid. Certainly the practice of science needs to be improved and scientists are now pursuing this goal. However, in this perspective we argue that this seeming paradox is not new, has always been part of the way science works, and likely will remain so. We first introduce the paradox. We then review a wide range of challenges that appear to make scientific success difficult. Next, we describe the factors that make science work-in the past, present, and presumably also in the future. We then suggest that remedies for the present practice of science need to be applied selectively so as not to slow progress, and illustrate with a few examples. We conclude with arguments that communication of science needs to emphasize not just problems but the enormous successes and benefits that science has brought and is now bringing to all elements of modern society.Comment: 3 figure

    Measurements of trackways as a method for assessing locomotion in dairy cows

    Get PDF
    The aim of this study was to assess whether locomotion parameters obtained by measurements of cow trackways are reliable and sufficiently sensitive to describe locomotion in non-lame and lame dairy cows on different floors. Thirty-two non-lame cows were used to study the reliability of the trackway measurements. The cows were tested twice over three weeks and measurements from four consecutive strides were used during each test session. To study the effect of different floors on locomotion, 25 non-lame cows and eleven cows with different lameness degrees were tested on five different surfaces: solid and slatted concrete, both with and without 20 mm thick elastic rubber mats, and wet, compacted sand. The reliability of the measurements varied from moderate to low, with measurements relating to inter-limb coordination being most inconsistent. The slippery slatted concrete floor caused restricted locomotion in so far as the strides were significantly shorter here than on all the other floors. Use of yielding rubber mats resulted in a locomotion more similar to that on the sand path. Lameness had an effect on shortening strides and steps, but in most cases the animals’ reaction to different floorings was similar in lame and healthy cows. Step asymmetry due to lameness was decreased when cows walked on the soft surfaces. It was concluded that a trackway measurement system is a suitable method to use in field locomotion studies and that the system is useful in identifying differences in kinematics on different floor types. Since there is a relatively high inconsistency in cow walking it is beneficial to use measurements of several strides to obtain a representative gait pattern
    corecore