Philanthropic foundations as agents of environmental governance:a research agenda

Philanthropic foundations play increasingly prominent roles in the environmental arena, yet remain largely under the radar of environmental governance scholars. We build on the small body of existing research on foundations in environmental governance to outline a research agenda on foundations as agents of environmental governance. The agenda identifies current understandings, debates, and research gaps related to three themes: 1) the roles foundations perform in environmental governance, 2) the outcomes of environmental philanthropy, and 3) the sources of foundation legitimacy. We call for more systematic and empirical research using diverse theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches. This research agenda will contribute to literature on agency in environmental governance by providing a more comprehensive picture of who governs the environment and how. Coming at a time when foundations are facing growing public scrutiny, it can also inform contemporary debates and offer practical insights for effective and equitable environmental philanthropy

Using temperature as observable of the frequency response of RF CMOS amplifiers

The power dissipated by the devices of an integrated circuit can be considered a signature of the circuit's performance. Without disturbing the circuit operation, this power consumption can be monitored by temperature measurements on the silicon surface. In this paper, the frequency response of a RF LNA is observed by measuring spectral components of the sensed temperature. Results prove that temperature can be used to debug and observe figures of merit of analog blocks in a RFIC. Experimental measurements have been done in a 0.25 mum CMOS process. Laser probing techniques have been used as temperature sensors; specifically, a thermoreflectometer and a Michaelson interferometer.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Environmental governance theories: a review and application to coastal systems

This article synthesizes and compares environmental governance theories. For each theory we outline its main tenets, claims, origin, and supporting literature. We then group the theories into focused versus combinatory frameworks for comparison. The analysis resonates with many types of ecosystems; however, to make it more tangible, we focus on coastal systems. First, we characterize coastal governance challenges and then later link salient research questions arising from these challenges to the theories that may be useful in answering them. Our discussion emphasizes the usefulness of having a diverse theoretical toolbox, and we argue that if governance analysts are more broadly informed about the theories available, they may more easily engage in open-minded interdisciplinary collaboration. The eight theories examined are the following: polycentricity, network governance, multilevel governance, collective action, governmentality (power / knowledge), adaptive governance, interactive governance theory (IGT), and evolutionary governance theory (EGT). Polycentricity and network governance both help examine the links or connections in governance processes. Polycentricity emphasizes structural configurations at a broader level, and network governance highlights agency and information flow within and between individuals or organizations. Collective action theory is helpful for examining community level governance, and helps analyze variables hindering or enabling self-organization and shared resource outcomes. In contrast, multilevel governance helps understand governance integration processes between localities, regions, and states across administrative, policy, or legal dimensions. Governmentality is helpful for understanding the role of discourse, power, knowledge, and narratives in governance, such as who creates them and who becomes governed by them with what effect. Adaptive governance helps analyze the links between context, change, and resilience. IGT helps examine the interdependencies between the systems being governed and the governing systems. EGT is helpful for unpacking how coevolutionary processes shape governance and the options for change

Integrating social science into conservation planning

A growing body of literature has highlighted the value of social science for conservation, yet the diverse approaches of the social sciences are still inconsistently incorporated in conservation initiatives. Building greater capacity for social science integration in conservation requires frameworks and case studies that provide concrete guidance and specific examples. To address this need, we have developed a framework aimed at expanding the role for social science in formal conservation planning processes. Our framework illustrates multiple ways in which social science research can contribute to four stages of such processes: 1) defining the problem and project team; 2) defining goals; 3) identifying impact pathways and designing interventions; and 4) developing and evaluating indicators of success (or failure). We then present a timely case study of wolf reintroduction in Colorado, U.S.A., to demonstrate the opportunities, challenges, and complexities of applying our framework in practice

Addressing Criticisms of Large-Scale Marine Protected Areas

Designated large-scale marine protected areas (LSMPAs, 100,000 or more square kilometers) constitute over two-thirds of the approximately 6.6% of the ocean and approximately 14.5% of the exclusive economic zones within marine protected areas. Although LSMPAs have received support among scientists and conservation bodies for wilderness protection, regional ecological connectivity, and improving resilience to climate change, there are also concerns. We identified 10 common criticisms of LSMPAs along three themes: (1) placement, governance, and management; (2) political expediency; and (3) social–ecological value and cost. Through critical evaluation of scientific evidence, we discuss the value, achievements, challenges, and potential of LSMPAs in these arenas. We conclude that although some criticisms are valid and need addressing, none pertain exclusively to LSMPAs, and many involve challenges ubiquitous in management. We argue that LSMPAs are an important component of a diversified management portfolio that tempers potential losses, hedges against uncertainty, and enhances the probability of achieving sustainably managed oceans

Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations

Co-production, the collaborative weaving of research and practice by diverse societal actors, is argued to play an important role in sustainability transformations. Yet, there is still poor understanding of how to navigate the tensions that emerge in these processes. Through analyzing 32 initiatives worldwide that co-produced knowledge and action to foster sustainable social-ecological relations, we conceptualize ‘co-productive agility’ as an emergent feature vital for turning tensions into transformations. Co-productive agility refers to the willingness and ability of diverse actors to iteratively engage in reflexive dialogues to grow shared ideas and actions that would not have been possible from the outset. It relies on embedding knowledge production within processes of change to constantly recognize, reposition, and navigate tensions and opportunities. Co-productive agility opens up multiple pathways to transformation through: (1) elevating marginalized agendas in ways that maintain their integrity and broaden struggles for justice; (2) questioning dominant agendas by engaging with power in ways that challenge assumptions, (3) navigating conflicting agendas to actively transform interlinked paradigms, practices, and structures; (4) exploring diverse agendas to foster learning and mutual respect for a plurality of perspectives. We explore six process considerations that vary by these four pathways and provide a framework to enable agility in sustainability transformations. We argue that research and practice spend too much time closing down debate over different agendas for change – thereby avoiding, suppressing, or polarizing tensions, and call for more efforts to facilitate better interactions among different agendas

Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations

Co-production, the collaborative weaving of research and practice by diverse societal actors, is argued to play an important role in sustainability transformations. Yet, there is still poor understanding of how to navigate the tensions that emerge in these processes. Through analyzing 32 initiatives worldwide that co-produced knowledge and action to foster sustainable social-ecological relations, we conceptualize ‘co-productive agility’ as an emergent feature vital for turning tensions into transformations. Co-productive agility refers to the willingness and ability of diverse actors to iteratively engage in reflexive dialogues to grow shared ideas and actions that would not have been possible from the outset. It relies on embedding knowledge production within processes of change to constantly recognize, reposition, and navigate tensions and opportunities. Co-productive agility opens up multiple pathways to transformation through: (1) elevating marginalized agendas in ways that maintain their integrity and broaden struggles for justice; (2) questioning dominant agendas by engaging with power in ways that challenge assumptions, (3) navigating conflicting agendas to actively transform interlinked paradigms, practices, and structures; (4) exploring diverse agendas to foster learning and mutual respect for a plurality of perspectives. We explore six process considerations that vary by these four pathways and provide a framework to enable agility in sustainability transformations. We argue that research and practice spend too much time closing down debate over different agendas for change – thereby avoiding, suppressing, or polarizing tensions, and call for more efforts to facilitate better interactions among different agendas

A "hair-raising" history of alopecia areata

YesA 3500‐year‐old papyrus from ancient Egypt provides a list of treatments for many diseases including “bite hair loss,” most likely alopecia areata (AA). The treatment of AA remained largely unchanged for over 1500 years. In 30 CE, Celsus described AA presenting as scalp alopecia in spots or the “windings of a snake” and suggested treatment with caustic compounds and scarification. The first “modern” description of AA came in 1813, though treatment still largely employed caustic agents. From the mid‐19th century onwards, various hypotheses of AA development were put forward including infectious microbes (1843), nerve defects (1858), physical trauma and psychological stress (1881), focal inflammation (1891), diseased teeth (1902), toxins (1912) and endocrine disorders (1913). The 1950s brought new treatment developments with the first use of corticosteroid compounds (1952), and the first suggestion that AA was an autoimmune disease (1958). Research progressively shifted towards identifying hair follicle‐specific autoantibodies (1995). The potential role of lymphocytes in AA was made implicit with immunohistological studies (1980s). However, studies confirming their functional role were not published until the development of rodent models (1990s). Genetic studies, particularly genome‐wide association studies, have now come to the forefront and open up a new era of AA investigation (2000s). Today, AA research is actively focused on genetics, the microbiome, dietary modulators, the role of atopy, immune cell types in AA pathogenesis, primary antigenic targets, mechanisms by which immune cells influence hair growth, and of course the development of new treatments based on these discoveries.Alopecia UK

Miscellaneous

Volume: 13Start Page: 154End Page: 16