Beyond airport enclaves : insights for overcoming turf wars

Airports, over time, have emerged as separate independent entities often described as ‘enclaves’. As such airports regularly planned and implemented developments within their boundaries with limited inclusion of local actors in decision making processes. Urban encroachment on airport boundaries has increasingly focused the planning interests of airports to consider what their neighbouring cities are doing. Likewise city planners are progressively more interested in the development activities of airports. Despite shared interests in what happens on the either side of the fence line, relationships between airports and their neighbouring cities have often been strained, if not, at times, hostile. A number of strategies and conceptualisations for the co-existence of urban and airport environs have been put forward. However, these models are likely to have a limited effect unless they can be implemented to maximise opportunities for both cities and airports, and at the same time not confound their long-term interests. The isolation of airport planning from local and regional planning agencies, and the resulting power struggles are not new. Under current conditions the need to ‘bridge the gap’ between airports and their urban surrounds has become an increasing, yet under explored imperative. This paper examines the decision making arena for airport-region development to define the barriers, enablers, tensions and puzzles for the governance of airport-region development, from a cross-country perspective. Findings suggest that while there are many embedded rule structures that foster airport-region tensions, there are nonetheless a number of pathways for moving airports beyond decision making enclaves, to more integrated mechanisms for city and regional planning. In providing preliminary answers for overcoming the barriers, tensions and intractable issues of mutually agreeable airport and city development, the research makes a primary contribution to the ground level governance of collaborative planning. This research also serves as a launching point for future, more detailed research into the areas of airport-region decision making and collaborative planning for airport-regions. This work was carried out through the Airport Metropolis Research Project under the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects funding scheme (LP0775225).

Come together : forging publics in Brisbane's Gallery of Modern Art

The Gallery of Modern Art (GoMA) in Brisbane, Australia’s third largest city, recently staged ‘21st Century: Art of the First Decade’. The gallery spaces were replete with a commissioned slide by Carsten Höller, an installation of Rivane Neuenschwande’s I Wish Your Wish (2003), a table of white Legos, a room of purple balloons and other participatory or interactive artworks designed to engage multiple publics and encourage audience participation in a variety of ways. Many of the featured projects used day-to-day experiences and offered new conceptions about art practice and what they can elicit in their public – raise awareness about local issues, help audiences imagine different ways of negotiating their environs or experi-ence a museum in a new way. At times, the bottom floor galleries resembled a theme park – adults and children playing with Legos and using Höller’s slide. This article examines the benefits and limitations of such artistic interventions by relating the GoMA exhibition to Brisbane City Council’s campaign of ‘Together Brisbane’ (featuring images of Neunenschwande’s ribbons); a response to the devastation brought to the city and its surrounds in January 2011. During the Brisbane floods, GoMA’s basement was damaged, the museum closed and upon reopening, visitor numbers soared. In this context, GoMA’s use of engaged art practice – always verging on the ephemeral and ‘fun’ – has been used to project a wider notion of a collective urban public. What questions does this raise, not only regarding the cultural politics around the social and participatory ‘turn’ in art practice, but its use to address a much wider urban public in a moment of crisis.

Construction of interstellar cumulenes and heterocumulenes : Mass spectrometric studies

The last few years have brought an increasing interest in the chemistry of rite interstellar and circumstellar environs. Many of the molecular species discovered in remote galactic regions have been dubbed 'non-terrestrial' because of their unique structures (Thaddeus et al, 1993). These findings have provided a challenge to chemists in many differing fields to attempt to generate these unusual species in the laboratory of particular recent interest have been the unsaturated hydrocarbon families, CnH and CnH2, which have been pursued by a number of diverse methodologies. A wine range of heterocumulenes, including CnO, HCnO, CnN, HCnN, CnS, HCnS, CnSi and HCnSi have also provided intriguing targets for laboratory experiments. Strictly the term cumulene refers to a class of compounds that possess a series of adjacent double bonds, with allene representing the simplest example (H2C=C=CH2). However for many of the non-terrestrial molecules presented here, the carbon chain cannot be described in terms of a single simple valence structure, and so we use the terms cumulene and heterocumulene in a more general sense: to describe molecular species that contain an unsaturated polycarbon chain. Mass spectrometry has proved an invaluable tool in the quest for interstellar cumulenes and heterocumulenes in the laboratory it has the ability in its many forms, to (i) generate charged analogs of these species in the gas phase, (ii) probe their connectivity, ion chemistry, and thermochemistry, and (iii) in some cases, elucidate the neutrals themselves. Here, we will discuss the progress of these studies to this time. (C) 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Re-theorizing the “digital divide”: Identifying dimensions of social exclusion in contemporary media technologies

The digital divide is the disparancy in access to information, in the ability to communicate, and in the capacity to make information and communication serve full participation in the information society. Indeed, the conversation about the digital divide has developed over the last decade from a focus on connectivity and access to information and communication technologies, to a conversation that encompasses the ability to use them and to the utility that usage provides (Wei et al., 2011). However, this conversation, while transitioning from technology to the skills of the people that use them and to the fruits of their use is limited in its ability to take into account the social role of information and communication technologies (ICTs). One successful attempt in conceptualizing the social impact of the differences in access to and utilization of digital communication technologies, was developed by van Dijk (2005) whose sequential model for analyzing the divide states that: 1. Categorical inequalities in society produce an unequal distribution of resources; 2. An unequal distribution of resources causes unequal access to digital technologies; 3. Unequal access to digital technologies also depends on the characteristics of these technologies; 4. Unequal access to digital technologies brings about unequal participation in society; 5. Unequal participation in society reinforces categorical inequalities and unequal distributions of resources.” (p. 15) As van Dijk’s model demonstrates, the divide’s impact is the exclusion of individuals from participation. Still left to be defined are the “categorical inequalities,” the “resources,” the “characteristics of digital technologies,” and the different levels of “access” that result in differentiated levels of participation, as these change over time due to the evolving nature of technology and the dynamics of society. And most importantly, the meaning of “participation” in contemporary society needs to be determined as it is differentiated levels of participation that are the result of the divide and the engine of the ever-growing disparities. Our argument is structured in the following manner: We first claim that contemporary digital media differ from the previous generation of ICTs along four dimensions: They offer an abundance of information resources and communication channels when compared to the relative paucity of both in the past; they offer mobility as opposed to the stationary nature of their predecessors; they are interactive in that they provide users with the capability to design their own media environments in contrast to the dictated environs of previous architectures; and, they allow users to communicate utilizing multi forms of mediation, unlike the uniformity of sound or word that limited users in the past. We then submit that involvement in the information society calls for egalitarian access to all four dimensions of the user experience that make contemporary media different from their predecessors and that the ability to experience all four affects the levels in which humans partake in the shaping of society. The model being cyclical, we then discuss how lower levels of participation contribute to the enhancement of social inequalities. Finally, we discuss why participation is needed in order to achieve full membership in the information society and what political philosophy should govern policy solutions targeting the re-inclusion of those digitally excluded.

Transdisciplinary synthesis for ecosystem science, policy and management: The Australian experience

Mitigating the environmental effects of global population growth, climatic change and increasing socio-ecological complexity is a daunting challenge. To tackle this requires synthesis: the integration of disparate information to generate novel insights from heterogeneous, complex situations where there are diverse perspectives. Since 1995, a structured approach to inter-, multi- and trans-disciplinary1 collaboration around big science questions has been supported through synthesis centres around the world. These centres are finding an expanding role due to ever-accumulating data and the need for more and better opportunities to develop transdisciplinary and holistic approaches to solve real-world problems. The Australian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (ACEAS ) has been the pioneering ecosystem science synthesis centre in the Southern Hemisphere. Such centres provide analysis and synthesis opportunities for time-pressed scientists, policy-makers and managers. They provide the scientific and organisational environs for virtual and face-to-face engagement, impetus for integration, data and methodological support, and innovative ways to deliver synthesis products. We detail the contribution, role and value of synthesis using ACEAS to exemplify the capacity for synthesis centres to facilitate trans-organisational, transdisciplinary synthesis. We compare ACEAS to other international synthesis centres, and describe how it facilitated project teams and its objective of linking natural resource science to policy to management. Scientists and managers were brought together to actively collaborate in multi-institutional, cross-sectoral and transdisciplinary research on contemporary ecological problems. The teams analysed, integrated and synthesised existing data to co-develop solution-oriented publications and management recommendations that might otherwise not have been produced. We identify key outcomes of some ACEAS working groups which used synthesis to tackle important ecosystem challenges. We also examine the barriers and enablers to synthesis, so that risks can be minimised and successful outcomes maximised. We argue that synthesis centres have a crucial role in developing, communicating and using synthetic transdisciplinary research.