Social development for the Cape Flats: an alternative planning structure

An initial analysis into the present problems which will affect the future growth of the Western Cape resulted in the conclusion that the situation of the Coloured population is the factor most urgently requiring positive planning resolutions. Understanding the area's problems leads one to conclude that the main thrusts must be directed towards increased opportunities for the residents to fulfil their potential, and towards a greater involvement in the decisions made about their future. The arrangement of the thesis was thus developed around the three interrelated notions of administrative structure, human resources and social development, physical and economic resources. An unbound 'process diagram’ is provided in the back cover to facilitate an understanding of the sequence adopted. The administrative and planning activities of various local authorities, particularly the Cape Town City Council, were investigated with respect to the relationship between their actions and the causes of problems on the Flats. The complexity of social problems necessitated a consideration of the concept and the theory of social development. This was defined as the process whereby the individual and/or group is enabled to increasingly participate in and contribute to the growing flow of social transactions over time. By adopting Social Development as the goal for the Cape Flats and developing objectives for its six primary subsystems (housing, education, employment, recreation, community and civic), the subsequent form of the thesis was established

A clean air plan for Sydney: An overview of the special issue on air quality in New South Wales

2019 by the authors. This paper presents a summary of the key findings of the special issue of Atmosphere on Air Quality in New South Wales and discusses the implications of the work for policy makers and individuals. This special edition presents new air quality research in Australia undertaken by (or in association with) the Clean Air and Urban Landscapes hub, which is funded by the National Environmental Science Program on behalf of the Australian Government\u27s Department of the Environment and Energy. Air pollution in Australian cities is generally low, with typical concentrations of key pollutants at much lower levels than experienced in comparable cities in many other parts of the world. Australian cities do experience occasional exceedances in ozone and PM2.5 (above air pollution guidelines), as well as extreme pollution events, often as a result of bushfires, dust storms, or heatwaves. Even in the absence of extreme events, natural emissions play a significant role in influencing the Australian urban environment, due to the remoteness from large regional anthropogenic emission sources. By studying air quality in Australia, we can gain a greater understanding of the underlying atmospheric chemistry and health risks in less polluted atmospheric environments, and the health benefits of continued reduction in air pollution. These conditions may be representative of future air quality scenarios for parts of the Northern Hemisphere, as legislation and cleaner technologies reduce anthropogenic air pollution in European, American, and Asian cities. However, in many instances, current legislation regarding emissions in Australia is significantly more lax than in other developed countries, making Australia vulnerable to worsening air pollution in association with future population growth. The need to avoid complacency is highlighted by recent epidemiological research, reporting associations between air pollution and adverse health outcomes even at air pollutant concentrations that are lower than Australia\u27s national air quality standards. Improving air quality is expected to improve health outcomes at any pollution level, with specific benefits projected for reductions in long-term exposure to average PM2.5 concentrations

(276–279) Proposals to provide for registration of new names and nomenclatural acts

The Melbourne Congress of 2011 authorized a Special Committee on Registration of Algal and Plant Names (including fossils), which was established the following year (Wilson in Taxon 61: 878–879. 2012). Its explicit mandate was “to consider what would be involved in registering algal and plant names (including fossils), using a procedure analogous to that for fungal names agreed upon in Melbourne and included in the Code as Art. 42”, but expectations at the Nomenclature Section in Melbourne went farther than that. There was the hope that registration systems for at least some of the main groups would soon be set up, to be used and tested on a voluntary basis and, if found to be generally accepted, would persuade the subsequent Congress in Shenzhen, in 2017, to declare registration of new names an additional requirement for valid publication. The Melbourne Congress also approved mandatory registration of nomenclatural novelties in fungi, starting on 1 Jan 2013. The new Art. 42 of the Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012) requires authors to register any fungal nomenclatural novelty, prior to publication, with a recognized repository, whereupon they are provided with a unique identifier for each name, to be included in the protologue along with other Code-mandated information. Years before registration became mandatory, mycologists had been encouraged, often prompted by journal editors, to register their nomenclatural novelties prior to publication. Most complied. Consequently, when mandatory registration was proposed, it had strong support from the mycological community. There are currently three recognized repositories for fungal names. They vary somewhat in how they operate, but they share records of their registered novelties as soon as publication has been effected. One consequence of implementing mandatory registration is that locating new fungal names and combinations and associated protologue information is much simpler now than it was before. This makes it easier to incorporate the information into taxonomic studies and to update taxonomic treatments, inventories, and indices. A corollary is that, no matter what publication outlet an author chooses, the name cannot fail to be noticed. The positive experience in mycology makes extension of the registration concept to plants and algae a compelling idea. That experience shows that the best way to make mandatory registration of nomenclatural novelties palatable to botanists and phycologists is the establishment of trial registration at repositories with a history of involvement in and commitment to the indexing of names. Trial registration enables users to acquaint themselves with registration procedures, make suggestions on how they might be improved, and appreciate, by personal experience, the benefits of registration. Unfortunately, the task of establishing such repositories proved to be more complex and time-consuming than had been foreseen. Substantial progress has been made in the establishment of such centres (Barkworth & al., in this issue, pp. 670–672) but the Committee is not in a position to make firm proposals to regulate registration procedures, even less to make registration mandatory from a concrete future date. Nevertheless, the Committee sees it as imperative that the Shenzhen Congress be offered the opportunity to move forward with registration without having to wait six more years. In this spirit, we offer the proposals below. Proposal (276) would declare registration an ongoing concern of the botanical, mycological, and phycological community and provide the basic structure for making it possible. Proposal (277) and Prop. (278) would, in addition, define a flexible framework within which a system of voluntary registration could be developed for various categories of organisms. Proposal (279) would provide for future mandatory registration in a way that does not depend on the six-year intervals between International Botanical Congresses. Presentation of each proposal is followed by a summary of the support received from members of the Committee.Fil: Barkworth, Mary E.. State University of Utah; Estados UnidosFil: Watson, Mark. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Barrie, Fred R.. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados Unidos. Field Museum Of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Belyaeva, Irina V.. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Chung, Richard C. K.. Forest Research Institute ; MalasiaFil: Dasková, Jirina. Národní Muzeum; República ChecaFil: Davidse, Gerrit. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados UnidosFil: Dönmez, Ali A.. Hacettepe Üniversitesi; TurquíaFil: Doweld, Alexander B.. National Institute Of Carpology; RusiaFil: Dressler, Stefan. Senckenberg Forschungsinstitut Und Naturmuseum; AlemaniaFil: Flann, Christina. Naturalis Biodiversity Center; Países BajosFil: Gandhi, Kanchi. Harvard University; Estados UnidosFil: Geltman, Dmitry. Russian Academy of Science; RusiaFil: Glen, Hugh F.. Forest Hills; SudáfricaFil: Greuter, Werner. Freie Universität Berlin; AlemaniaFil: Head, Martin J.. Brock University; CanadáFil: Jahn, Regine. Freie Universität Berlin; AlemaniaFil: Janarthanam, Malapati K.. Goa University; IndiaFil: Katinas, Liliana. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División de Plantas Vasculares; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; ArgentinaFil: Kirk, Paul M.. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Klazenga, Niels. Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria; AustraliaFil: Kusber, Wolf-Henning. Freie Universität Berlin; AlemaniaFil: Kvacek, Jirí. Národní Muzeum; República ChecaFil: Malécot, Valéry. Universite D'angers; FranciaFil: Mann, David G.. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Marhold, Karol. Charles University; República ChecaFil: Nagamasu, Hidetoshi. Kyoto University; JapónFil: Nicolson, Nicky. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Paton, Alan. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Patterson, David J.. The University Of Sydney; AustraliaFil: Price, Michelle J.. Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève; SuizaFil: van Reine, Willem F Prud' Homme. Naturalis Biodiversity Center; Países BajosFil: Schneider, Craig W.. Trinity College Hartford; Estados UnidosFil: Sennikov, Alexander. Russian Academy Of Sciences; RusiaFil: Smith, Gideon F.. Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University; Sudáfrica. Universidad de Coimbra; PortugalFil: Stevens, Peter F.. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados Unidos. University of Missouri; Estados UnidosFil: Yang, Zhu-Liang. Kunming Institute Of Botany Chinese Academy Of Sciences; ChinaFil: Zhang, Xian-Chun. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de ChinaFil: Zuccarello, Giuseppe C.. Victoria University Of Wellington; Nueva Zeland

Bird Responses at Inherent and Induced Edges in the Murray Mallee, South Australia. 2. Nest predation as an Edge Effect

We assayed nest predation as an edge effect, using artificial ground nests, at inherent (naturally occurring) and induced (human-created) edges in the Murray Mallee, South Australia. Nests were constructed at distances between 0-120 m away from habitat edges. The relative predation rate on nests generally increased close to induced edges with a significant difference (P < 0.05) recorded for two out of five experiments. Predation rate at inherent edges was similar from the edge to the interior, and was lower than that recorded at induced edges. Our results suggest that increased predator numbers, activity or efficiency at locating nests occurred close to the induced edges at our study sites

Report of the Special Committee on Registration of Algal and Plant Names (including fossils)

The Special Committee on Registration of Algal and Plant Names (including fossils) was established at the XVIII International Botanical Congress (IBC) in Melbourne in 2011, its mandate being to consider what would be involved in registering algal and plant names (including fossils), using a procedure analogous to that for fungal names agreed upon in Melbourne and included as Art. 42 in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. Because experience with voluntary registration was key to persuading mycologists of the advantages of mandatory registration, we began by asking institutions with a history of nomenclatural indexing to develop mechanisms that would permit registration. The task proved more difficult than anticipated, but considerable progress has been made, as is described in this report. It also became evident that the Nomenclature Section needs a structure that will allow ongoing discussion of registration and associated issues. Simultaneously with this report we are submitting four proposals that would provide such a structure