Sanitation, human rights, and disaster management

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to link debates around the international law on human rights and disaster management with the evolving debate around the human right to sanitation, in order to explore the extent to which states are obliged to account for sanitation in their disaster management efforts. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on analysis of existing laws and policy relating to human rights, sanitation and disaster management. It further draws upon relevant academic literature. Findings The paper concludes that, while limitations exist, states have legal obligations to provide sanitation to persons affected by a disaster. It is further argued that a human rights-based approach to sanitation, if respected, can assist in strengthening disaster management efforts, while focusing on the persons who need it the most. Research limitations/implications The analysis in this paper focuses on the obligations of states for people on their territory. Due to space limitations, it does not examine the complex issues relating to enforcement mechanisms available to disaster victims. Originality/value This is the first scholarly work directly linking the debates around international human rights law and disaster management, with human rights obligations in relation to sanitation. The clarification of obligation in relation to sanitation can assist in advocacy and planning, as well as in ensuring accountability and responsibility for human rights breaches in the disaster context

Modelling species distributions using regression quantiles

1. Species distribution modelling is an important and well-established tool for conservation planning and resource management. Modelling techniques based on central estimates of species responses to environmental factors do not always provide ecologically meaningful estimates of species-environment relationships and are being increasingly questioned. 2. Regression quantiles (RQ) can be used to model the upper bounds of species-environment relationships and thus estimate how the environment is limiting the distribution of a species. The resulting models tend to describe potential rather than actual patterns of species distributions. 3. Model selection based on null hypothesis testing and backward elimination, followed by validation procedures, are proposed here as a general approach for constructing RQ limiting effect models for multiple species. 4. This approach was applied successfully to 16 of the most abundant marine fish and cephalopods in the eastern English Channel. Most models were validated successfully and null hypothesis testing for model selection proved effective for RQ modelling. 5. Synthesis and applications. Modelling the upper bounds of species-habitat relationships enables the detection of the effects of limiting factors on species' responses. Maps showing potential species distributions are also less likely to underestimate species responses' to the environment, and therefore have subsequent benefits for precautionary management

The Sustainability Perspective: A New Governance Model

Whatever criticisms, there is little doubt that the involvement of enterprises with issues of social concern take greater prominence. This book examines the questions and challenges surrounding the concept and application of the social responsibilities of the enterprise

Normative, systemic and procedural aspects: a review of indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture

Methods for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems do often not fully (i) take into account the multifunctionality of agriculture, (ii) include multidimensionality, (iii) utilize and implement the assessment knowledge and (iv) identify conflicting goals and trade-offs. This chapter reviews seven recently developed multidisciplinary indicator-based assessment methods with respect to their contribution to these shortcomings. All approaches include (1) normative aspects such as goal setting, (2) systemic aspects such as a specification of scale of analysis and (3) a reproducible structure of the approach. The approaches can be categorized into three typologies: first, top-down farm assessments, which focus on field or farm assessment; second, top-down regional assessments, which assess the on-farm and the regional effects; and third, bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches, which focus on a regional scale. Our analysis shows that the bottom-up, integrated participatory or transdisciplinary approaches seem to better overcome the four shortcomings mentioned above