Exploring How Degree Apprentices Experience Their Engineering Identity Through Life Story Interviews and the Twenty Statement Test (TST)

Every year, around 35% of engineering graduates (mainly female and ethnic minority graduates) in the UK choose roles outside engineering. Given that engineering disciplines struggle to attract recruits, this represents a significant loss of qualified talent the profession can ill afford. A possible reason why engineers choose not to practise after qualifying may be that they have not developed a professional engineering identity during their engineering education. Research shows that engineering identity is an important indicator of persistence in both engineering education and the engineering profession. The purpose of this research is to gain a deeper understanding into the process of engineering identity formation in undergraduates studying for an engineering apprenticeship degree in England, with a view to proposing changes to engineering education that may better support the development of an engineering identity. A qualitative methodology is well-suited to the study of how engineering identity develops in engineering students, given that we are interested in the personal experiences of engineering students rather than in measuring standardised outcomes. This research is inspired by narrative inquiry through the use of life story interviews (LSI). This paper outlines the findings of a preliminary study with first and final year students. The findings presented are surprising in that they seem to indicate that the four years of a degree apprenticeship have little impact on students’ identification with engineering. Going forward, engineering educators need to consider how the development of an engineering identity can be supported in engineering education

Exotic Bodies in Melville’s Typee

[Abstract] Not only has the body been instrumental to (post)colonial discourses of various kinds. It is also a crucial site for representation and control, as well as prime means of developing and reinforcing prejudices against specific groups. It is my intention to examine the ways in which the ‘visual’ and textual intrusion of “exotic” bodies have challenged or confirmed inherited or traditional consideration regarding the body. I will argue that, at least in the case of Melville’s work, readers perceive an evolution from the use of exotic/colonial bodies to undermine and criticise ‘dominant’ or ‘hegemonic’ perceptions and values of the western body to a vision in which the colonial exotic body is valued on its own

Breaking down the barriers between Ecosystem services and the Fisheries Socio-Ecological System : abstract

Fisheries research gives scientific advice towards informing the management of different types of fisheries, mainly on the basis of the biology of a single stock, i.e. how much can sustainably be harvested from this stock every year. Implicitly, some ecosystem functions of this stock are taken into account through specific natural mortality analyses to assess the stock status and to derive advice on total catch for the following year. Indeed the ecosystem-based management is becoming more and more used on the assessment of fisheries, for instance in the last update of the European Common Fisheries Policy. Still there are several issues and conflicts emerging in different fisheries-related cases around the globe. This highlights the need for a holistic approach of the the marine/fisheries system where ecological, social, economic and institutional aspects are taken into account. We go beyond the standard fisheries or ecosystem-based approach and see the fisheries “system” as a complex, dynamic socio-ecological system, with a variety of interaction types and a broad range of ecosystem services and beneficiaries. Our goal is to highlight the complex nature of this system, give emphasis on different types of ecosystem services generated by this system (from the standard food provisioning ones, to regulating and cultural) and use this approach as a means to incorporate fisheries management in broader decision-making strategies. We highlight research areas where fisheries and ecosystem services science share common grounds and explore ways to improve scientific knowledge around this topic. This work is a conversation starter, aiming to bring together researchers from both communities in order to improve research and practice around the topic

Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management

AbstractEcosystem service concepts can offer a valuable approach for linking human and nature, and arguments for the conservation and restoration of natural ecosystems. Despite an increasing interest in the topic, the application of these concepts for water resource management has been hampered by the lack of practical definitions and methodologies. In this study we review and analyse the current literature and propose an approach for assessing and valuing ecosystem services in the context of water management. In particular, to study the link between multiple pressures, ecological status and delivery of ecosystem services in aquatic ecosystems under different scenarios of measures or future changes. This is of interest for the development of River Basin Management Plans under the EU Water Framework Directive. We provide a list of proxies/indicators of natural capacity, actual flow and social benefit for the biophysical assessment of the ecosystem services. We advocate the use of indicators of sustainability, combining information on capacity and flow of services. We also suggest methods for economic valuation of aquatic ecosystem for each service and spatial scale of application. We argue that biophysical assessment and economic valuation should be conducted jointly to account for the different values of ecosystem services (ecologic, social and economic) and to strengthen the recognition of human dependency on nature. The proposed approach can be used for assessing the benefits of conservation and restoration of aquatic ecosystems in the implementation of the EU water policy

A Pan-European Delimitation of Coastal Waters: Compliance with EU Environmental Legislation

The definition of coastal waters in relation to EU environmental legislation was clearly stated in the Water Framework Directive. In compliance with this Directive, most of the EU Member States delineated their coastal waters¿ boundaries. However, these delineations are not as complete and homogeneous as could be expected. A clear identification of European coastal waters boundaries is crucial for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which depend on an accurate ecological/environmental assessment of those waters. Hence, there is a need for a comprehensive and unambiguous delimitation of European coastal waters. This report aims at bridging this gap providing a pan-European mapping of coastal waters, which cover 553,817 km2 in 30 seaside countries, 340,524 km2 of which pertain to the 22 EU Member States connected to the sea. For this purpose, a comprehensive geographical analysis of the national baselines and transitional waters distribution was performed. A pan-European baseline of 63,340 km was delineated as a basis for the European coastal waters delimitation. The European coastal waters identified in this work show significant differences with the available national declarations (almost 12% of the compared area), the latter defining an additional area of 29,337 km2 with respect to the former. The largest deviations seem to be due to misinterpretations of the definition of coastal waters in the Water Framework Directive, although a number of one-sided national modifications to that definition are also observed. This work provides the geographical basis for a full consultation process and discussion about this subject. Our recommendations include setting a clear geographical limit between the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive jurisdiction, revise the possible exemptions in the definition of coastal waters, and discuss their consequences in the assessment of ecological/environmental status.JRC.DDG.H.5-Rural, water and ecosystem resource

Historia de la Educación Primaria en la escuela rural

Desde el S. XVIII hasta la promulgación de la LOMCE, la importancia que se le ha dado a la escuela rural ha ido cambiando. Se ha pasado de ignorarla y considerarla de escasa importancia, dotándola con escasos recursos, profesores mal formados y mal pagados, a la promulgación de leyes concretas para su organización, funcionamiento y mejora de la calidad, que han intentado evitar la discriminación de la escuela rural respecto a la urbana. Sin embargo, a veces, no han conseguido el efecto deseado o no han resultado suficientes para el colectivo de padres, profesores, pedagogos, estudiosos… relacionados con este medio.Grado en Educación Primari

Spatial distribution of marine ecosystem service capacity in the European seas

Practitioners and policy makers at European Union (EU) and Member States level are increasingly seeking spatially-explicit ecosystem service information to use in decision-making and the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Whilst under the MAES Action, land-cover data has already been used to map the distribution of several ecosystem services provided over the European land surface, a similar exercise exploiting existing seabed habitat data is still lacking for the European Seas. In this work we map the distribution of seabed-associated ecosystem services capacity by using a methodology that brings together (i) a geospatial dataset representing the broadscale distribution of permanently-submerged seabed habitats with (ii) information on each habitat capacity to provide ecosystem services. A compilation of EUNIS-harmonized broadscale seabed habitat maps based on EMODNET Seabed Habitats and UNEP GSGFM is exploited as the pan-European cartographic basis. The exercise extends out to the limits of the Extended Continental Shelf claims, achieving an areal coverage of approximately 8.7 million km2, i.e., more than 90% of the EU seafloor area in the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent seas. Alongside, expert-based assessments of each marine EUNIS habitat's capacity to provide CICES-harmonized Ecosystem Services are compiled from a literature review into a presence-only lookup table. Overall, the new seabed habitats versus ecosystem services lookup tables relate 33 ecosystem services to 67 EUNIS and 24 non-EUNIS seabed habitats. These results suggest that out of all marine habitats (n=974) in the EUNIS classification (EUNIS A1 to A7), only 14% (n=141) have so far been related to at least one ecosystem service. When all potential connections between the existing seabed EUNIS classes and CICES services are considered (n=104,218), results further show that only 2% (i.e., n=2,241) of the have been addressed qualitatively or semi-quantitatively. Based on this information, a total of 30 CICES ecosystem service categories are mapped: 3 at level 1 (CICES Sections), 5 at level 2 (CICES Divisions), 10 at level 3 (CICES Groups) and 12 at level 4 (CICES Classes). From these maps, area-based indicators of ecosystem service capacity (i.e., extent where each service is potentially provided) are extracted per MSFD region/subregion, Ecoregion, Fishing Area and an approximation of EU Member States (MS) maritime areas in the Northeast Atlantic and Adjacent Seas. Along with the maps, the study presents also some spatial statistics based on the extent over which each service is potentially provided. Different segmentations of the European Seas are used to aggregate these statistics including MSFD region/subregion, Ecological Region, FAO Fishing Area and an approximation of the Member State maritime area. Overall, continental shelves and oceanic elevations (islands, seamounts and ridges) were highlighted as ecosystem services hotspots where a larger number of services could be potentially held. When maps were segmented using MSFD region/subregion limits, the Extended Continental Shelf areas claimed by the EU MS in the Northeast Atlantic, together with the Celtic Seas and the Greater North Sea sub-regions stood as the regions holding most ecosystem service capacity. An ecoregion-based segmentation of the maps emphasized the Atlantic Deep Sea as the major ecosystem service capacity holder, followed by ecoregions containing large shelves, notably the Boreal Proper, the Boreal-Lusitanean and the Western Mediterranean. A disaggregation of the results per Fishing Area highlighted the Northeast Atlantic, namely areas around the British Isles and Macaronesia, as well as the western Mediterranean. When an approximation of EU Member States (MS) maritime areas was used, MS with larger EEZs (namely, UK, IT, PT and ES) came up as holding most of the marine ecosystem service capacity. The new maps and associated area-based indicators provide a first spatially-explicit baseline concerning the EU-wide distribution of marine ecosystem services. They contribute to the marine component of MAES and fulfil key objectives of the JRC’s SEACOAST and BES projects. Options to develop this research line and eventually make it more quantitative are expounded in the discussion and summarized in the conclusions. The new information is of value to practitioners, managers and policy makers, at European or Member State level, seeking spatially-explicit ecosystem service information for marine spatial planning and environmental management. Researchers initiating and developing marine ecosystem service mapping studies are also expected users.JRC.H.1-Water Resource