Public procurement for carbon reduction in infrastructure projects - An international overview

Carbon emissions emanating from infrastructure construction projects are substantial and stem primarily from production of construction materials and use of energy for construction transport and site activities. In recent years, public infrastructure clients world-wide have begun to include carbon reduction goals in their procurement requirements. This is however a new and complex field where practices vary and are still developing. In this paper, we compare models for carbon reduction requirements in infrastructure construction projects based on case studies of large projects in Australia, USA, the Netherlands, Sweden and UK. We found that open, functional carbon reduction requirements were considered innovative but entailed costs for calculating baselines and risks for speculation. Also, high time pressure in projects limits contractors\u27 opportunities to explore reduction opportunities. Thus, specific, prescriptive requirements may play an important role in client-led, long-term innovation processes. Organizational competence and resources on the buyer side are essential, and policies for carbon reduction should aim to increase client capacity. Further, procurement practices are developed in mutual interaction between clients and suppliers over longer periods of time, which limits possibilities to transfer procurement policies and requirements between contexts

Lunds kommuns klimatpolitiska råd : Rapport 2021

Lunds kommuns klimatpolitiska råd (Rådet) bildades hösten 2018 med uppdrag att utvärdera hur Lunds kommuns samlade politik är förenlig med de klimatmål som antagits av kommunfullmäktige. Rådet, som består av forskare från Lunds universitet (LU) och SLU Alnarp, har sammantaget en bred tvär- och mångvetenskaplig kompetens och en gedigen erfarenhet av samverkan med olika samhällsaktörer.Samarbetet mellan Lunds kommun och akademin har sedan länge stimulerat utvecklingen i Lund och utgör en viktig källa till nytänkande och problemlösning.Rådet uppskattar förtroendet att utvärdera kommunens klimatarbete men uttrycker samtidigt en ödmjukhet inför komplexiteten i detta arbete. Rådets ambition är att sträva efter att vara kritiskt granskande men också konstruktiv och lösningsorienterad för att kunna bidra till utvecklingen av det lokala klimatarbetet.Rådet presenterar årligen en rapport i vilken Lunds kommuns klimatarbete granskas. Detta är Rådets tredje rapport i vilken Rådet valt att fokusera på Lunds kommuns förslag till nya klimatmål i miljömålsprogrammet LundaEko. Denna granskningkompletteras med en uppföljning av de klimatmål som antagits i den tidigare versionen av LundaEko (LundaEko II 2014-2020) inom områdena Minstamöjliga klimatpåverkan och Klimatanpassning. Rådet har i sin granskning utgått från tillgängliga planer, dokument, redovisningar och data. Detta material har kompletterats med samtal med ansvariga tjänstepersoner. Under arbetets gång har Rådet även fört dialog med Ungdomspolitiken i Lund, som på egen hand granskat LundaEko ur ett ungdomsperspektiv.Under 2020 har mandatet för några rådsledamöter löpt ut – Lena Hiselius (LU), Anna Peterson (SLU Alnarp), Markku Rummukainen (LU) och Catharina Sternudd (LU) – och de har avtackats för sina insatser under de inledande två åren. Samtidigt har nya ledamöter tillkommit – Cecilia Akselsson (LU), Susanne Arvidsson (LU), Anders Larsson (SLU Alnarp) och Lars J Nilsson (LU) – som tillsammans med övriga ledamöter har deltagit i den granskning som presenteras i denna rapport

A Generic Bio-Economic Farm Model for Environmental and Economic Assessment of Agricultural Systems

Bio-economic farm models are tools to evaluate ex-post or to assess ex-ante the impact of policy and technology change on agriculture, economics and environment. Recently, various BEFMs have been developed, often for one purpose or location, but hardly any of these models are re-used later for other purposes or locations. The Farm System Simulator (FSSIM) provides a generic framework enabling the application of BEFMs under various situations and for different purposes (generating supply response functions and detailed regional or farm type assessments). FSSIM is set up as a component-based framework with components representing farmer objectives, risk, calibration, policies, current activities, alternative activities and different types of activities (e.g., annual and perennial cropping and livestock). The generic nature of FSSIM is evaluated using five criteria by examining its applications. FSSIM has been applied for different climate zones and soil types (criterion 1) and to a range of different farm types (criterion 2) with different specializations, intensities and sizes. In most applications FSSIM has been used to assess the effects of policy changes and in two applications to assess the impact of technological innovations (criterion 3). In the various applications, different data sources, level of detail (e.g., criterion 4) and model configurations have been used. FSSIM has been linked to an economic and several biophysical models (criterion 5). The model is available for applications to other conditions and research issues, and it is open to be further tested and to be extended with new components, indicators or linkages to other models

Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

Improved risk stratification of patients with atrial fibrillation: an integrated GARFIELD-AF tool for the prediction of mortality, stroke and bleed in patients with and without anticoagulation.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an accurate, web-based tool for stratifying patients with atrial fibrillation to facilitate decisions on the potential benefits/risks of anticoagulation, based on mortality, stroke and bleeding risks. DESIGN: The new tool was developed, using stepwise regression, for all and then applied to lower risk patients. C-statistics were compared with CHA2DS2-VASc using 30-fold cross-validation to control for overfitting. External validation was undertaken in an independent dataset, Outcome Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF). PARTICIPANTS: Data from 39 898 patients enrolled in the prospective GARFIELD-AF registry provided the basis for deriving and validating an integrated risk tool to predict stroke risk, mortality and bleeding risk. RESULTS: The discriminatory value of the GARFIELD-AF risk model was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc for patients with or without anticoagulation. C-statistics (95% CI) for all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and haemorrhagic stroke/major bleeding (treated patients) were: 0.77 (0.76 to 0.78), 0.69 (0.67 to 0.71) and 0.66 (0.62 to 0.69), respectively, for the GARFIELD-AF risk models, and 0.66 (0.64-0.67), 0.64 (0.61-0.66) and 0.64 (0.61-0.68), respectively, for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). In very low to low risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc 0 or 1 (men) and 1 or 2 (women)), the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED (for bleeding) scores offered weak discriminatory value for mortality, stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. C-statistics for the GARFIELD-AF risk tool were 0.69 (0.64 to 0.75), 0.65 (0.56 to 0.73) and 0.60 (0.47 to 0.73) for each end point, respectively, versus 0.50 (0.45 to 0.55), 0.59 (0.50 to 0.67) and 0.55 (0.53 to 0.56) for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). Upon validation in the ORBIT-AF population, C-statistics showed that the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was effective for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality using the full and simplified model for all-cause mortality: C-statistics 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77) and 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77), respectively, and for predicting for any stroke or systemic embolism over 1 year, C-statistics 0.68 (0.62 to 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc in predicting stroke and mortality and superior to HAS-BLED for bleeding, overall and in lower risk patients. The GARFIELD-AF tool has the potential for incorporation in routine electronic systems, and for the first time, permits simultaneous evaluation of ischaemic stroke, mortality and bleeding risks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362) and for ORBIT-AF (NCT01165710)