535 research outputs found

    Transitioning out of Open Access: A Closer Look at Institutions for Management of Groundwater Rights in France, California, and Spain

    Full text link
    [EN] Many regions around the world are transitioning out of open access to groundwater resources in order to tackle over extraction by irrigated agriculture. However, the state has limited capacities to regulate effectively agricultural groundwater use. This paper evaluates how users and public authorities can co-manage groundwater extraction by agriculture. Based on Schlager and OstromÂżs Âżbundle of rightsÂż framework, the paper examines how decisions over access and use of groundwater resources are made in France, Spain and California. The three cases share a common strive to involve groundwater users in decisions over how to reduce over extraction of groundwater resources. However, different choices were made regarding the institutional set-up for user involvement in allocation decisions. The paper presents the diversity of institutional arrangements influencing groundwater allocations in the three cases, and the relative involvement and power of users and public authorities over these institutions. The papers show the different ways in which ÂżcomanagementÂż may be made operational for managing agricultural groundwater use.This research benefited from funding of the EU H2020 RURECO project (grant agreement 750553) and from Montpellier University I-Site MUSE. This study has also received funding from the eGROUNDWATER project (GA n. 1921), part of the PRIMA programme supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programmeRouillard, J.; Babbitt, C.; Pulido-Velazquez, M.; Rinaudo, J. (2021). Transitioning out of Open Access: A Closer Look at Institutions for Management of Groundwater Rights in France, California, and Spain. Water Resources Research. 57(4):1-20. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028951S12057

    OligoArrayDb: pangenomic oligonucleotide microarray probe sets database

    Get PDF
    OligoArrayDb is a comprehensive database containing pangenomic oligonucleotide microarray probe sets designed for most of the sequenced genomes that are not covered by commercial catalog arrays. The availability of probe sequences, associated with custom microarray fabrication services offered by many companies and cores presents the unequalled possibility to perform microarray experiments on most of the sequenced organisms. OligoArrayDb contains more than 2.8 probes per gene in average for more than 600 organisms, mostly archaea and bacteria strains available from public database. On average, 98% of the annotated genes have at least one probe which is predicted to be specific to its intended target in >94% of the cases. OligoArrayDb is weekly updated as new sequenced genomes become available. Probe sequences, in addition to a comprehensive set of annotations can be downloaded from this database. OligoArrayDb is publicly accessible online at http://berry.engin.umich.edu/oligoarraydb

    Empirical Issues and Challenges for Multilevel Governance: The Case of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games

    Get PDF
    How did a large network of over 600 actors successfully organize itself to serve a mega project dominated by three levels of government, even as control rested with a non-profit entity, included other sectors, and the governments involved did not normally work well together? The purpose of this paper is to examine how the three levels of government in Canada established a network to coordinate efforts for hosting the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games. This case study was built by means of documents and interviews, and supported by participant observations. The network was not found to be dense, but did include a multiplexity of ties (e.g., transactions, communications, collaborations, and coordinating bridges) by actors serving diverse strategic goals and scopes of work. The case was compared to data collected for the 2012 London Olympic Games to draw out key network governance coordination themes. Nine governance themes emerged associated with governance structure, processes, and evaluation: coordination mechanisms; internal engagement, momentum, and motivation; external transparency; formalization; balancing autonomy and interdependence; co-location; readiness exercises; political alignment; and time. The findings provide a framework for examining the governance of multi-level, multi-sectorial networks created to undertake a mega project and indicate how a network’s public and non-profit organizations’ activities and procedures can be influenced, modified, and impacted by the other actors (i.e., other public or non-profit organizations).Comment un vaste rĂ©seau de plus de 600 acteurs a-t-il rĂ©ussi Ă  s’organiser pour soutenir un mĂ©gaprojet dominĂ© par trois niveaux de gouvernement, alors mĂȘme que le contrĂŽle relevait d’une entitĂ© sans but lucratif, incluait d’autres secteurs et que les gouvernements concernĂ©s ne travaillaient normalement pas bien ensemble ? Cet article a pour objet d’examiner comment les trois ordres de gouvernement au Canada ont Ă©tabli un rĂ©seau pour coordonner les interventions en faveur de la tenue des Jeux olympiques d’hiver de 2010 Ă  Vancouver. Cette Ă©tude de cas a Ă©tĂ© rĂ©alisĂ©e au moyen de documents et d’entrevues, appuyĂ©e de l’observation participante. Le rĂ©seau, sans ĂȘtre dense, comprend nĂ©anmoins une multiplicitĂ© de liens (p. ex. transactions, communications, collaborations et ponts de coordination) entre les acteurs qui servent divers objectifs stratĂ©giques et champs d’activitĂ©. Le cas a Ă©tĂ© comparĂ© aux donnĂ©es recueillies pour les Jeux olympiques de 2012 Ă  Londres afin de dĂ©gager les principaux thĂšmes relatifs Ă  la coordination de la gouvernance en rĂ©seau. Neuf thĂšmes associĂ©s Ă  la structure, aux processus et Ă  l’évaluation de la gouvernance sont ressortis : mĂ©canismes de coordination, engagement interne, dynamique et motivation, transparence externe, formalisation, Ă©quilibre entre autonomie et interdĂ©pendance, regroupement, exercices de prĂ©paration, alignement politique et temps. Les rĂ©sultats fournissent un cadre pour l’examen de la gouvernance des rĂ©seaux multiniveaux et multisectoriels crĂ©Ă©s pour entreprendre un mĂ©gaprojet et indiquent comment les activitĂ©s et les procĂ©dures des organismes publics et sans but lucratif d’un rĂ©seau peuvent ĂȘtre influencĂ©es, modifiĂ©es et subir les effets des autres acteurs (c’est-Ă -dire les autres organismes publics ou sans but lucratif)
    • 

    corecore