A taste of best practice in engineering sustainable solutions

This paper asks the question to what scale and speed does society need to reduce its ecological footprint and improve resource productivity to prevent further overshoot and return within the ecological limits of the earth’s ecological life support systems? How fast do these changes need to be achieved? The paper shows that now a large range of studies find that engineering sustainable solutions need to be roughly an order or magnitude resource productivity improvement (sometimes called a Factor of 10, or a 90% reduction) by 2050 to achieve real and lasting ecological sustainability. This marks a significant challenge for engineers – indeed all designers and architects, where best practice in engineering sustainable solutions will need to achieve large resource productivity targets. The paper brings together examples of best practice in achieving these large targets from around the world. The paper also highlights key resources and texts for engineers who wish to learn how to do it. But engineers need to be realistic and patient. Significant barriers exist to achieving Factor 4-10 such as the fact that infrastructure and technology rollover and replacement is often slow. This slow rollover of the built environment and technology is the context within which most engineers work, making the goal of achieving Factor 10 all the more challenging. However, the paper demonstrates that by using best practice in engineering sustainable solutions and by addressing the necessary market, information and institutional failures it is possible to achieve Factor 10 over the next 50 years. This paper draws on recent publications by The Natural Edge Project (TNEP) and partners, including Hargroves, K. Smith, M. (Eds) (2005) The Natural Advantage of Nations: Business Opportunities, Innovation and Governance for the 21st Century, and the TNEP Engineering Sustainable Solutions Program - Critical Literacies for Engineers Portfolio. Both projects have the significant support of Engineers Australia. its College of Environmental Engineers and the Society of Sustainability and Environmental Engineering.

The Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and its Association with Quality of Life in Ambulatory Patients Receiving Radiotherapy

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the scored Patient-generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) tool as an outcome measure in clinical nutrition practice and determine its association with quality of life (QoL). DESIGN: A prospective 4 week study assessing the nutritional status and QoL of ambulatory patients receiving radiation therapy to the head, neck, rectal or abdominal area. SETTING: Australian radiation oncology facilities. SUBJECTS: Sixty cancer patients aged 24-85 y. INTERVENTION: Scored PG-SGA questionnaire, subjective global assessment (SGA), QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30 version 3). RESULTS: According to SGA, 65.0% (39) of subjects were well-nourished, 28.3% (17) moderately or suspected of being malnourished and 6.7% (4) severely malnourished. PG-SGA score and global QoL were correlated (r=-0.66, P<0.001) at baseline. There was a decrease in nutritional status according to PG-SGA score (P<0.001) and SGA (P<0.001); and a decrease in global QoL (P<0.001) after 4 weeks of radiotherapy. There was a linear trend for change in PG-SGA score (P<0.001) and change in global QoL (P=0.003) between those patients who improved (5%) maintained (56.7%) or deteriorated (33.3%) in nutritional status according to SGA. There was a correlation between change in PG-SGA score and change in QoL after 4 weeks of radiotherapy (r=-0.55, P<0.001). Regression analysis determined that 26% of the variation of change in QoL was explained by change in PG-SGA (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: The scored PG-SGA is a nutrition assessment tool that identifies malnutrition in ambulatory oncology patients receiving radiotherapy and can be used to predict the magnitude of change in QoL.

Integrating health and sustainability in life cycle assessment

Until now health impact assessment and environmental impact assessment are two different issues, often not addressed together. Both issues have to be dealt with for sustainable building. The aim of this paper is to link healthy and sustainable housing in life cycle assessment. Two strategies are studied: clean air as a functional unity and health as a quality indicator. The strategies are illustrated with an example on the basis of Eco-Quantum, which is a Dutch whole-building assessment tool. It turns out that both strategies do not conflict with the LCA methodology. The LCA methodology has to be refined for this purpose.