Enhanced Transmission and Reflection of Femtosecond Pulses by a Single Slit

We show that a physical mechanism responsible for the enhanced transmission and reflection of femtosecond pulses by a single subwavelength nanoslit in a thick metallic film is the Fabry-Perot-like resonant excitation of stationary, quasistationary and nonstationary waves inside the slit, which leads to the field enhancement inside and around the slit. The mechanism is universal for any pulse-scatter system, which supports the stationary resonances. We point out that there is a pulse duration limit below which the slit does not support the intraslit resonance.Comment: 4 pages, 3 figure

Management Development Training: an Evaluation of a Program for First Line Staff Supervisors

A pre- and postexperimental design with a control group was used to evaluate the effectiveness of a management development program. Subjects were 48 first line staff supervisors employed by a major manufacturing company. The training group subjects (n = 24) attended the company's 1-week training program. Subjects in the control group (n= 24) were similar with respect to plant location, job assignment, etc. A 42-item employee-opinion questionnaire was constructed to measure supervisory style and work.-group climate. The subjects' subordinates (n = 313) completed the questionnaire before and after training. Eleven items identified by content analysis as most relevant to the training content comprised the measure of training effectiveness. An analysis of covariance was performed using the pretest as the covariate. Results indicated no significant training effects

Science for Loss and Damage. Findings and Propositions.

The debate on “Loss and Damage” (L&D) has gained traction over the last few years. Supported by growing scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change amplifying frequency, intensity and duration of climate-related hazards as well as observed increases in climate-related impacts and risks in many regions, the “Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage” was established in 2013 and further supported through the Paris Agreement in 2015. Despite advances, the debate currently is broad, diffuse and somewhat confusing, while concepts, methods and tools, as well as directions for policy remain vague and often contested. This book, a joint effort of the Loss and Damage Network—a partnership effort by scientists and practitioners from around the globe—provides evidence-based insight into the L&D discourse by highlighting state-of-the-art research conducted across multiple disciplines, by showcasing applications in practice and by providing insight into policy contexts and salient policy options. This introductory chapter summarises key findings of the twenty-two book chapters in terms of five propositions. These propositions, each building on relevant findings linked to forward-looking suggestions for research, policy and practice, reflect the architecture of the book, whose sections proceed from setting the stage to critical issues, followed by a section on methods and tools, to chapters that provide geographic perspectives, and finally to a section that identifies potential policy options. The propositions comprise (1) Risk management can be an effective entry point for aligning perspectives and debates, if framed comprehensively, coupled with climate justice considerations and linked to established risk management and adaptation practice; (2) Attribution science is advancing rapidly and fundamental to informing actions to minimise, avert, and address losses and damages; (3) Climate change research, in addition to identifying physical/hard limits to adaptation, needs to more systematically examine soft limits to adaptation, for which we find some evidence across several geographies globally; (4) Climate risk insurance mechanisms can serve the prevention and cure aspects emphasised in the L&D debate but solidarity and accountability aspects need further attention, for which we find tentative indication in applications around the world; (5) Policy deliberations may need to overcome the perception that L&D constitutes a win-lose negotiation “game” by developing a more inclusive narrative that highlights collective ambition for tackling risks, mutual benefits and the role of transformation

Enhanced transmission versus localization of a light pulse by a subwavelength metal slit: Can the pulse have both characteristics?

The existence of resonant enhanced transmission and collimation of light waves by subwavelength slits in metal films [for example, see T.W. Ebbesen et al., Nature (London) 391, 667 (1998) and H.J. Lezec et al., Science, 297, 820 (2002)] leads to the basic question: Can a light be enhanced and simultaneously localized in space and time by a subwavelength slit? To address this question, the spatial distribution of the energy flux of an ultrashort (femtosecond) wave-packet diffracted by a subwavelength (nanometer-size) slit was analyzed by using the conventional approach based on the Neerhoff and Mur solution of Maxwell's equations. The results show that a light can be enhanced by orders of magnitude and simultaneously localized in the near-field diffraction zone at the nm- and fs-scales. Possible applications in nanophotonics are discussed.Comment: 5 figure

Improved Methods and Metrics for Assessing Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation

Over the course of the MEDIATION project, Work Package 2 was tasked with "develop[ing] and apply[ing] a toolbox, defined as a set of models, methods, and metrics for the assessment of impacts and vulnerability and adaptation options." As highlighted in Deliverable 2.2, many frameworks and methods for assessing adaptation have been developed over the last 20 years, yet these often have not been adopted in the context of formal adaptation policies in Europe and elsewhere. Reasons and problems include: (i) a fragmentation of methods and tools, (ii) a lack of linkages to actual policy needs, (iii) a lack of understanding and communication of uncertainties, (iv) the often expert-based nature and complexity of methods used versus actual user demands, and (v) a lack of consistent data, definitions and metrics. Deliverable 2.2 put forward a rough prototype for a toolbox of methods for studying impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation. In this deliverable, we discuss subsequent work on the MEDIATION toolbox, and report on application and testing of the improved methods and metrics in selected key European sectors and regions. We present feedback and improvement to methods and metrics based on input from case studies, stakeholders, and focus groups, as well as an overview of case study work and contribution to an improved MEDIATION toolbox. This input resulted in a number of conclusions relating to the development and use of methods and metrics, reducing uncertainty in CCIAV, and led to a number of changes, including the creation of a novel typology for classifying methods and models relating to CCIAV analysis. We provide an overview of the new typology, as well as the final toolbox, and summarize case study contributions towards improved methods and metrics

A typology of loss and damage perspectives

Loss and Damage (L&D) has been the subject of contentious debate in international climate policy for several decades. Recently, formal mechanisms on L&D have been established, but arguably through unclear language. This ambiguity is politically important, but researchers and practitioners require clearer understandings of L&D. Here we report on the first in-depth empirical study of actor perspectives, including interviews with 38 key stakeholders in research, practice, and policy. We find points of agreement and also important distinctions in terms of: the relationship between L&D and adaptation, the emphasis on avoiding versus addressing L&D, the relevance of anthropogenic climate change, and the role of justice. A typology of four perspectives is identified, with different implications for research priorities and actions to address L&D. This typology enables improved understanding of existing perspectives and so has potential to facilitate more transparent discussion of the options available to address L&D

Making Communities More Flood Resilient: The Role of Cost Benefit Analysis and Other Decision-support Tools in Disaster Risk Reduction

Given the series of large-scale flood disasters that have occurred in recent years, there is a growing recognition among community leaders, businesses, insurers, governments and international donors of the need to invest in risk reduction measures before such events happen. Due to the costs of risk reduction measures, these actions need to be justified and as a result there is an increasing need to utilize decision-support tools, which can help to make the case for action to reduce disaster risks and build flood resilience when faced with limited resources. Across stakeholders, the specific objectives from the use of decision-support tools include (i) demonstrating the efficiency of the action ex-ante (before the flood); (ii) aiding in the selection of a particular intervention in enhancing community flood resilience from a suite of possible options; (iii) helping communities make the right choice when faced with limited investments; (iv) demonstrating the benefits of donor funding of community flood resilience projects; and (v) monitoring the successes and weaknesses of past interventions to generate lessons learned for future work. Typically, discussion on decision-support for disaster risk reduction (DRR) in floods (as well as for other hazards) has focused on cost-benefit analysis (CBA), however there are a number of other tools available to support decision-making. These include cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and robust-decision-making approaches (RDMA), which have been applied to similar problems, and can also be used to aid decision-making regarding flooding. This white paper provides an overview of the opportunities and challenges of applying these different tools, and guides the reader to select among them. Selection depends on the desired objective, circumstances, data available, timeframe to perform analyses, level of detail, and other considerations. We first focus on the CBA decision-tool, as this has been the mainstay of research and implementation. We then go beyond CBA to consider the other techniques for prioritising DRR investments. While our analysis is specific to flood DRR actions, the conclusion are also applicable to other hazards. The key findings arising from this white paper with relevance to research, policy and implementation of flood DRR decision-support tools, are: (1) Following a comprehensive review of the quantitative CBA flood DRR evidence, we find that flood DRR investments largely pay off, with an average of five dollars saved for every dollar spent through avoided and reduced losses; (2) Using CBA for flood risk reduction assessment should properly account for low-frequency, high-impact flood events, and also tackle key challenges such as intangible impacts; (3) Decision-making can be improved by using various decision support tools tailored to the desired outcomes and contexts. This white paper is the foundation upon which the Zurich flood resilience alliance work on integration of a decision toolbox will proceed "on the ground," with established community-based risk assessment tools, in particular Vulnerability Capacity Assessments (VCA) or Participatory Capacity and Vulnerability Assessments (PCVA). Based on these findings we propose a way forward over the next several years on informing risk-based decision making as part of the alliance program

Flood Proofing Low-Income Houses in India: an Application of Climate-Sensitive Probabilistic Benefit-Cost Analysis

Poor communities in high risk areas are disproportionately affected by disasters compared to their wealthy counterparts; yet, there are few analyses to guide public decisions on pro-poor investments in disaster risk reduction. This paper illustrates an application of benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for assessing investments in structural flood proofing of low-income, high-risk houses. The analysis takes account of climate change, which is increasingly viewed as an important consideration for assessing long-term investments. Specifically, the study focuses on the Rohini river basin of India and evaluates options for constructing non-permanent and permanent residential structures on a raised plinth to protect them against flooding. The estimates show a positive benefit-cost ratio for building new houses on a raised plinth, while the ratio is less than one for demolishing existing houses to rebuild on a raised plinth. Climate change is found to significantly affect the BCA results. From a policy perspective, the analysis demonstrates the potential economic returns of raised plinths for ‘building back better’ after disasters, or as a part of good housing design practice