Scholarly journal access in academic libraries:issues for future development

As academia progresses towards the 21st century, increases in student numbers, distance learning, changes in copyright licensing and lack of funding means that academic institutions have to look more closely at the use of electronic resources in order to meet these challenges. The "wired campus" and "virtual university" mean more users looking for electronic resources and increased pressure on libraries to provide these services. The development of electronic journals in the early 1990s and the onset of electronic publishing appeared to be a solution to the problem. Journals could be stored electronically thereby saving space, the risk of lose, theft or damage is lessened and costs where significantly reduced. Electronic journals have become an increasingly important part of academic library collections, however they have not proved to be the panacea the profession hoped for. Electronic journal useage has created a new set of issues such as archiving, copyright, cataloguing, site licensing, remote access, hardware requirements and journal design. There are many stakeholders involved in the selection of electronic journals within academic libraries from librarians, to users and publishers. This paper attempts to raise awareness of some of the issues which will have to be considered if scholarly electronic journal publishing is to develop over the next decade. The content and ideas presented in the paper are derived from research undertaken in the area for a student Masters dissertation

Can Maxwell's equations be obtained from the continuity equation?

We formulate an existence theorem that states that given localized scalar and vector time-dependent sources satisfying the continuity equation, there exist two retarded fields that satisfy a set of four field equations. If the theorem is applied to the usual electromagnetic charge and current densities, the retarded fields are identified with the electric and magnetic fields and the associated field equations with Maxwell's equations. This application of the theorem suggests that charge conservation can be considered to be the fundamental assumption underlying Maxwell's equations.Comment: 14 pages. See the comment: "O. D. Jefimenko, Causal equations for electric and magnetic fields and Maxwell's equations: comment on a paper by Heras [Am. J. Phys. 76, 101 (2008)].

Directed motion emerging from two coupled random processes: Translocation of a chain through a membrane nanopore driven by binding proteins

We investigate the translocation of a stiff polymer consisting of M monomers through a nanopore in a membrane, in the presence of binding particles (chaperones) that bind onto the polymer, and partially prevent backsliding of the polymer through the pore. The process is characterized by the rates: k for the polymer to make a diffusive jump through the pore, q for unbinding of a chaperone, and the rate q kappa for binding (with a binding strength kappa); except for the case of no binding kappa=0 the presence of the chaperones give rise to an effective force that drives the translocation process. Based on a (2+1) variate master equation, we study in detail the coupled dynamics of diffusive translocation and (partial) rectification by the binding proteins. In particular, we calculate the mean translocation time as a function of the various physical parameters.Comment: 22 pages, 5 figures, IOP styl

Lessons Learned from Measuring Flood Resilience

The Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance (ZFRA) has identified the measurement of resilience as a valuable ingredient in building community flood resilience. Measuring resilience is particularly challenging because it is an invisible or latent characteristic of a community until a flood occurs. The Flood Resilience Measurement for Communities (FRMC) framework measures “sources of resilience” before a flood happens and looks at the post-flood impacts afterwards. The FRMC is built around the notion of five types of capital (the 5Cs: human, social, physical, natural, and financial capital) and the 4Rs of a resilient system (robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness, and rapidity). The sources of resilience are graded based on Zurich’s Risk Engineering Technical Grading Standard. Results are displayed according to the 5Cs and 4Rs, the disaster risk management (DRM) cycle, themes and context level, to give the approach further flexibility and accessibility. In the first application phase (2013-2018), we measured flood resilience in 118 communities across nine countries, building on responses at household and community levels. Continuing this endeavor in Phase II (2018 – 2023) will allow us to enrich the understanding of community flood resilience and to extend this unique data set. We find that at the community level, the FRMC enables users to track community progress on resilience over time in a standardized way. It thus provides vital information for the decision-making process in terms of prioritizing the resilience-building measures most needed by the community. At community and higher decision-making levels, measuring resilience also provides a basis for improving the design of innovative investment programs to strengthen disaster resilience. By exploring data across multiple communities (facing different flood types and with very different socioeconomic and political contexts), we can generate evidence with respect to which characteristics contribute most to community disaster resilience before an event strikes. This contributes to meeting the challenge of demonstrating that the work we do has the desired impact – that it actually builds resilience. No general measurement framework for disaster resilience has been empirically verified yet , but the FRMC framework has been developed to eventually generate the data needed to demonstrate empirically which ex-ante measures are most effective for communities. Our findings suggest that stronger interactions between community functions induce co-benefits among the five capitals, thus providing evidence for a virtuous cycle type effect where higher resilient capacity in one capital fosters the community’s capacity for resilience in other capitals

Supporting Climate Risk Management at Scale. Insights from the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance Partnership Model Applied in Peru & Nepal

There has been increasing interest in the potential of effective science-society partnership models for identifying and implementing options that manage critical disaster risks “on the ground.” This particularly holds true for debate around Loss and Damage. Few documented precedents and little documented experience exists, however, for such models of engagement. How to organise such partnerships? What are learnings from existing activities and how can these be upscaled? We report on one such partnership, the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance, a multi-actor partnership launched in 2013 to enhance communities’ resilience to flooding at local to global scales. The program brings together the skills and expertise of NGOs, the private sector and research institutions in order to induce transformational change for managing flood risks. Working in a number of countries facing different challenges and opportunities the program uses a participatory and iterative approach to develop sustainable portfolios of interventions that tackle both flood risk and development objectives in synergy. We focus our examination on two cases of Alliance engagement, where livelihoods are particularly being eroded by flood risk, including actual and potential contributions by climate change: (i) in the Karnali river basin in West Nepal, communities are facing rapid on-set flash floods during the monsoon season; (ii) in the Rimac basin in Central Peru communities are exposed to riverine flooding amplified by El Niño episodes. We show how different tools and methods can be co-generated and used at different learning stages and across temporal and agency scales by researchers and practitioners. Seamless integration is neither possible, nor desirable, and in many instances, an adaptive management approach through, what we call, a Shared Resilience Learning Dialogue, can provide the boundary process that connects the different analytical elements developed and particularly links those up with community-led processes. Our critical examination of the experience from the Alliance leads into suggestions for identifying novel funding and support models involving NGOs, researchers and the private sector working side by side with public sector institutions to deliver community level support for managing risks that may go “beyond adaptation.

An agenda for ethics and justice in adaptation to climate change

As experts predict that at least some irreversible climate change will occur with potentially disastrous effects on the lives and well-being of vulnerable communities around the world, it is paramount to ensure that these communities are resilient and have adaptive capacity to withstand the consequences. Adaptation and resilience planning present several ethical issues that need to be resolved if we are to achieve successful adaptation and resilience to climate change, taking into consideration vulnerabilities and inequalities in terms of power, income, gender, age, sexuality, race, culture, religion, and spatiality. Sustainable adaptation and resilience planning that addresses these ethical issues requires interdisciplinary dialogues between the natural sciences, social sciences, and philosophy, in order to integrate empirical insights on socioeconomic inequality and climate vulnerability with ethical analysis of the underlying causes and consequences of injustice in adaptation and resilience. In this paper, we set out an interdisciplinary research agenda for the inclusion of ethics and justice theories in adaptation and resilience planning, particularly into the Sixth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6). We present six core discussions that we believe should be an integral part of these interdisciplinary dialogues on adaptation and resilience as part of IPCC AR6, especially Chapters 2 (“Terrestial and freshwater ecosystems and their services”), 6 (“Cities, settlements and key infrastructure”), 7 (“Health, wellbeing and the changing structure of communities”), 8 (“Poverty, livelihoods and sustainable development”), 16 “Key risks across sectors and regions”), 17 (“Decision-making options for managing risk”), and 18 (“Climate resilient development pathways”).: (i) Where does ‘justice’ feature in resilience and adaptation planning and what does it require in that regard?; (ii) How can it be ensured that adaptation and resilience strategies protect and take into consideration and represent the interest of the most vulnerable women and men, and communities?; (iii) How can different forms of knowledge be integrated within adaptation and resilience planning?; (iv) What trade-offs need to be made when focusing on resilience and adaptation and how can they be resolved?; (v) What roles and responsibilities do different actors have to build resilience and achieve adaptation?; (vi) Finally, what does the focus on ethics imply for the practice of adaptation and resilience planning

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