The nexus between port governance and performance

The diversity of port governance models in the world, sometimes even within the same country, has aroused the interest of researchers. This study is based on contingency theory to support the port governance model. The purpose is to understand the port governance model and the relation with port performance. There are three objectives: to analyze the port governance mechanisms; to analyze the port performance factors; and to understand the influence of the governance model mechanisms on port performance. A factorial analysis was used to determine the main components, and the methodology of the structural equation model was used to analyze a survey sample of 105 valid responses from specialists and managers of port user’s companies that operate in the main Portuguese ports. This study demonstrates that port governancemodel influences directly the port performance. The main contribution of this paper to the literature is providing a set of factors that public managers may decide when changing the characteristics of the port governance models to ensure their performance. It was also observed the approximation of the port expert vision of port governance with models described in literature.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Packaging waste recycling in Europe: is the industry paying for it?

This paper describes and examines the schemes established in five EU countries for the recycling of packaging waste. The changes in packaging waste management were mainly implemented since the Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste entered into force. The analysis of the five systems allowed the authors to identify very different approaches to cope with the same problem: meet the recovery and recycling targets imposed by EU law. Packaging waste is a responsibility of the industry. However, local governments are generally in charge of waste management, particularly in countries with Green Dot schemes or similar extended producer responsibility systems. This leads to the need of establishing a system of financial transfers between the industry and the local governments (particularly regarding the extra costs involved with selective collection and sorting). Using the same methodological approach, the authors also compare the costs and benefits of recycling from the perspective of local public authorities for France, Portugal and Romania. Since the purpose of the current paper is to take note of who is paying for the incremental costs of recycling and whether the industry (i.e. the consumer) is paying for the net financial costs of packaging waste management, environmental impacts are not included in the analysis. The work carried out in this paper highlights some aspects that are prone to be improved and raises several questions that will require further research. In the three countries analyzed more closely in this paper the industry is not paying the net financial cost of packaging waste management. In fact, if the savings attained by diverting packaging waste from other treatment (e.g. landfilling) and the public subsidies to the investment on the “recycling system” are not considered, it seems that the industry should increase the financial support to local authorities (by 125% in France, 50% in Portugal and 170% in Romania). However, in France and Portugal the industry is paying local authorities more than just the incremental costs of recycling (full costs of selective collection and sorting minus the avoided costs). To provide a more definitive judgment on the fairness of the systems it will be necessary to assess the cost efficiency of waste management operators (and judge whether operators are claiming costs or eliciting “prices”)

Economic viability of packaging waste recycling systems: a comparison between Belgium and Portugal

The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive has had an undeniable impact on waste management throughout the European Union. Whereas recycling and recovery targets are the same, member states still enjoy a considerable degree of freedom with respect to the practical organization and management strategies adopted. Nevertheless, in all cases, the industry (which brings packaging material onto the market) should be responsible for the costs associated with packaging waste recycling/recovery (following the extended producer responsibility principle). The current paper compares and contrasts the institutional frameworks and financial costs and benefits of waste management operators for Belgium and Portugal. The unit costs of selective collection and sorting of packaging waste are provided for both countries. In Belgium, the costs of recycling seem to be fully supported by the industry (through Fost Plus, the national Green Dot agency). In Portugal the fairness of the recycling system depends on the perspective adopted (economic or strictly financial). Adopting a strictly financial perspective, it seems that Sociedade Ponto Verde (SPV, the Portuguese Green Dot agency) should increase the transfers to local authorities. However, the conclusions differ for this country if the avoided costs with refuse collection and other treatment are taken into account

An approach to promote social and communication behaviors in children with autism spectrum disorders : robot based intervention

Most autistic people present some difficulties in developing social behavior, living in their own world. This study has the goal to improve the social life of children with autism with a main focus in promoting their social interaction and communication. It is necessary to call for children’s attention and enforce their collaboration, where a robot, LEGO MindStorm, behaves as a mediator/promoter of this interaction. A set of experiments designed to share objects and fulfill simple orders, by the 11 years old autistic child at the time of daily routine work and in-game with the robot, are described. The generalization of the acquired skills by the child in new contexts and environments are also tested. Results are described showing the outcomes of the experiments.Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) - R&D projecto RIPD/ADA/109407/200

A“Dirty” Footprint: Macroinvertebrate diversity in Amazonian Anthropic Soils

International audienceAmazonian rainforests, once thought to be pristine wilderness, are increasingly known to have been widely inhabited, modified, and managed prior to European arrival, by human populations with diverse cultural backgrounds. Amazonian Dark Earths (ADEs) are fertile soils found throughout the Amazon Basin, created by pre-Columbian societies with sedentary habits. Much is known about the chemistry of these soils, yet their zoology has been neglected. Hence, we characterized soil fertility, macroinvertebrate communities, and their activity at nine archeological sites in three Amazonian regions in ADEs and adjacent reference soils under native forest (young and old) and agricultural systems. We found 673 morphospecies and, despite similar richness in ADEs (385 spp.) and reference soils (399 spp.), we identified a tenacious pre-Columbian footprint, with 49% of morphospecies found exclusively in ADEs. Termite and total macroinvertebrate abundance were higher in reference soils, while soil fertility and macroinvertebrate activity were higher in the ADEs, and associated with larger earthworm quantities and biomass. We show that ADE habitats have a unique pool of species, but that modern land use of ADEs decreases their populations, diversity, and contributions to soil functioning. These findings support the idea that humans created and sustained high-fertility ecosystems that persist today, altering biodiversity patterns in Amazonia

Associations of baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs with COVID-19 severity in rheumatoid arthritis : Results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry

Funding Information: Competing interests JAS is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Funding Information: Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (grant numbers K23 AR069688, R03 AR075886, L30 AR066953, P30 AR070253 and P30 AR072577), the Rheumatology Research Foundation (K Supplement Award and R Bridge Award), the Brigham Research Institute, and the R Bruce and Joan M Mickey Research Scholar Fund. JAS has received research support from Amgen and Bristol-Myers Squibb and performed consultancy for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen and Optum, unrelated to this work. ZSW reports grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/ Sanofi and performed consultancy for Viela Bio and MedPace, outside the submitted work. His work is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. MG is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (grant numbers K01 AR070585 and K24 AR074534; JY). KLH reports she has received speaker’s fees from AbbVie and grant income from BMS, UCB and Pfizer, all unrelated to this study. KLH is also supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. LC has not received fees or personal grants from any laboratory, but her institute works by contract for laboratories such as, among other institutions, AbbVie Spain, Eisai, Gebro Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme España, Novartis Farmaceutica, Pfizer, Roche Farma, Sanofi Aventis, Astellas Pharma, Actelion Pharmaceuticals España, Grünenthal and UCB Pharma. LG reports research grants from Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz and Sanofi; consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi Aventis and UCB, all unrelated to this study. EFM reports that LPCDR received support for specific activities: grants from AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly Portugal, Sanofi, Grünenthal, MSD, Celgene, Medac, Pharma Kern and GAfPA; grants and non-financial support from Pfizer; and non-financial support from Grünenthal, outside the submitted work. AS reports grants from a consortium of 13 companies (among them AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Lilly, Mylan, Hexal, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi Aventis and UCB) supporting the German RABBIT register, and personal fees from lectures for AbbVie, MSD, Roche, BMS and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. AD-G has no disclosures relevant to this study. His work is supported by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. KMD is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (T32-AR-007258) and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. NJP is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (T32-AR-007258). PD has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai and Pfizer, and performed consultancy for Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Sanofi, Pfizer, Chugai, Roche and Janssen, unrelated to this work. NS is supported by the RRF Investigator Award and the American Heart Association. MFU-G reports grant support from Janssen and Pfizer. SB reports no competing interests related to this work. He reports non-branded consulting fees for AbbVie, Horizon, Novartis and Pfizer (all <$10 000). RG reports no competing interests related to this work. Outside of this work she reports personal and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Cornerstones, and travel assistance from Pfizer (all <$10 000). JH reports no competing interests related to this work. He is supported by grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance. He has performed consulting for Novartis, Sobi and Biogen, all unrelated to this work (<$10 000). JL has received research funding from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. ES is a Board Member of the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, a patient-run, volunteer-based organisation whose activities are largely supported by independent grants from pharmaceutical companies. PS reports no competing interests related to this work. He reports honorarium for doing social media for American College of Rheumatology journals (<$10 000). PMM has received consulting/speaker’s fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this study (all <$10 000). PMM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). PCR reports no competing interests related to this work. Outside of this work he reports personal consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, and travel assistance from Roche (all <$10 000). JY reports no competing interests related to this work. Her work is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. She has performed consulting for Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca, unrelated to this project. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Objective To investigate baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We analysed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (from 24 March 2020 to 12 April 2021). We investigated b/tsDMARD use for RA at the clinical onset of COVID-19 (baseline): abatacept (ABA), rituximab (RTX), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), interleukin 6 inhibitors (IL-6i) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi, reference group). The ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome was (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation without oxygen, (3) hospitalisation with oxygen/ventilation or (4) death. We used ordinal logistic regression to estimate the OR (odds of being one level higher on the ordinal outcome) for each drug class compared with TNFi, adjusting for potential baseline confounders. Results Of 2869 people with RA (mean age 56.7 years, 80.8% female) on b/tsDMARD at the onset of COVID-19, there were 237 on ABA, 364 on RTX, 317 on IL-6i, 563 on JAKi and 1388 on TNFi. Overall, 613 (21%) were hospitalised and 157 (5.5%) died. RTX (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 5.44) and JAKi (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.65) were each associated with worse COVID-19 severity compared with TNFi. There were no associations between ABA or IL6i and COVID-19 severity. Conclusions People with RA treated with RTX or JAKi had worse COVID-19 severity than those on TNFi. The strong association of RTX and JAKi use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights prioritisation of risk mitigation strategies for these people.publishersversionPeer reviewe