Social Capital, Resilience and Accessibility in Urban Systems : A Study on Sweden

Spatial systems appear to exhibit often a complex pattern of socio-economic development, in terms of (un)employment, income, mobility, ethnic composition, and urbanisation rates. Their evolution is co-determined by such factors as: market proximity, labour and housing market developments, public amenities, use of and access to transport systems, socio-economic composition of the population, etc. In addition, a sine qua non for sustaining urban economic growth is the local or regional presence of individual and collective cognitive assets that favour knowledge acquisition and transfer, education, innovation, and creativity. In this context, social capital and spatial accessibility are critical factors. The present paper aims to provide an operational framework for mapping out and understanding the mechanisms which drive spatial systems from the perspective of the resilience of urban areas, in the light of their social capital in combination with accessibility. Particular attention is therefore given to the essential role of social capital and transport accessibility in shaping both the economic development of cities and the spatial pattern in the evolution of cities, in terms of, inter alia, education, age, ethnic composition, (un)employment, and socio-economic poverty. For our quantitative analysis of the Swedish urban system, a quantile regression model is introduced and applied in order to study which urban-economic factors in Sweden determine the different levels of social capital, which are seen here as the fundamental component of the resilience capacity of urban areas

Social Capital in Rural and Urban Areas

Over the past decade the concept of social capital has attracted a vast research interest at the interface of economics and the social sciences, giving rise to a large amount of literature from both a methodological and empirical viewpoint (see, for a review, 6sth et al., 2018). Broadly defined, social capital is the benefit individuals gain from mutual relations, interactions, social networks and the associated norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness (Putnam, 2000; Helliwell and Putnam, 2004). However, the topographic, demographic and socio-economic differences between rural and urban areas might lead to different social capital experiences for their residents. Additionally, given recent dramatic changes characterized by urbanization; in particular, a rise in the number of densely populated cities, and a corresponding decline in population and accessibility of amenities in rural areas, it becomes of great importance to review the rural/urban differences of social capital. The present chapter discusses the social capital concept in the light of the current socio-economic evolution of rural areas. The aim of the chapter is to identify the role and importance of accessibility, migration and occupation in interaction with social capital, given the emerging urbanization trend and the related isolation of rural areas

Retrospective observational study on the use of acetyl-L-carnitine in ALS

: ALCAR (Acetyl-L-carnitine) is a donor of acetyl groups and increases the intracellular levels of carnitine, the primary transporter of fatty acids across the mitochondrial membranes. In vivo studies showed that ALCAR decrease oxidative stress markers and pro-inflammatory cytokines. In a previous double-blind placebo-controlled phase II trial showed positive effects on self-sufficiency (defined as a score of 3+ on the ALSFRS-R items for swallowing, cutting food and handling utensils, and walking) ALSFRS-R total score and FVC. We conducted an observational, retrospective, multicentre, case-control study to provide additional data on the effects of ALCAR in subjects with ALS in Italy. Subjects treated with ALCAR 1.5 g/day or 3 g/day were included and matched with not treated subjects by sex, age at diagnosis, site of onset, and time from diagnosis to baseline, (45 subjects per group). ALCAR 3 g/day vs not treated: 22 not treated subjects (48.9%) were still alive at 24 months after baseline, compared to 23 (51.1%) treated subjects (adj. OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.46-3.02). No statistically significant differences were detected in ALSFRS nor FVC nor self-sufficiency. ALCAR 1.5 g/day vs not treated: 22 not treated subjects (48.9%) were still alive at 24 months after baseline, compared to 32 (71.1%) treated subjects (adj. OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10-0.71). For ALSFRS-R, a mean slope of - 1.0 was observed in treated subjects compared to - 1.4 in those not treated (p = 0.0575). No statistically significant difference was detected in the FVC nor self-sufficiency. Additional evidence should be provided to confirm the efficacy of the drug and provide a rationale for the dosage