Research training and national innovation systems in Australia, Finland and the United States : a policy and systems study supported by 30 case studies of research students in the fields of geospatial science, wireless communication, biosciences, and materials science and engineering

Reforms to the national research and research training system by the Commonwealth Government of Australia sought to effectively connect research conducted in universities to Australia's national innovation system. Research training has a key role in ensuring an adequate supply of highly skilled people for the national innovation system. During their studies, research students produce and disseminate a massive amount of new knowledge. Prior to this study, there was no research that examined the contribution of research training to Australia's national innovation system despite the existence of policy initiatives aiming to enhance this contribution. Given Australia's below average (but improving) innovation performance compared to other OECD countries, the inclusion of Finland and the United States provided further insights into the key research question. This study examined three obvious ways that research training contributes to the national innovation systems in the three countries: the international mobility and migration of research students and graduates, knowledge production and distribution by research students, and the impact of research training as advanced human capital formation on economic growth. Findings have informed the concept of a research training culture of innovation that aims to enhance the contribution of research training to Australia's national innovation system. Key features include internationally competitive research and research training environments; research training programs that equip students with economically-relevant knowledge and the capabilities required by employers operating in knowledge-based economies; attractive research careers in different sectors; a national commitment to R&D as indicated by high levels of gross and business R&D expenditure; high private and social rates of return from research training; and the horizontal coordination of key organisations that create policy for, and/or invest in research training.

Bike share's impact on car use : evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia

There are currently more than 400 cities operating bike share programs. Purported benefits of bike share programs include flexible mobility, physical activity, reduced congestion, emissions and fuel use. Implicit or explicit in the calculation of program benefits are assumptions regarding the modes of travel replaced by bike share journeys. This paper examines the degree to which car trips are replaced by bike share, through an examination of survey and trip data from bike share programs in Melbourne, Brisbane, Washing, D.C., London, and Minneapolis/St. Paul. A secondary and unique component of this analysis examines motor vehicle support services required for bike share fleet rebalancing and maintenance. These two components are then combined to estimate bike share’s overall contribution to changes in vehicle kilometres traveled. The results indicate that the estimated mean reduction in car use due to bike share is at least twice the distance covered by operator support vehicles, with the exception of London, in which the relationship is reversed, largely due to a low car mode substitution rate. As bike share programs mature, evaluation of their effectiveness in reducing car use may become increasingly important. This paper reveals that by increasing the convenience of bike share relative to car use and by improving perceptions of safety, the capacity of bike share programs to reduce vehicle trips and yield overall net benefits will be enhanced. Researchers can adapt the analytical approach proposed in this paper to assist in the evaluation of current and future bike share programs.

Bike share's impact on car use : evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia

There are currently more than 700 cities operating bike share programs. Purported benefits of bike share include flexible mobility, physical activity, reduced congestion, emissions and fuel use. Implicit or explicit in the calculation of program benefits are assumptions regarding the modes of travel replaced by bike share journeys. This paper examines the degree to which car trips are replaced by bike share, through an examination of survey and trip data from bike share programs in Melbourne, Brisbane, Washington, D.C., London, and Minneapolis/St. Paul. A secondary and unique component of this analysis examines motor vehicle support services required for bike share fleet rebalancing and maintenance. These two components are then combined to estimate bike share’s overall contribution to changes in vehicle kilometers traveled. The results indicate an estimated reduction in motor vehicle use due to bike share of approx. 90,000 km per annum in Melbourne and Minneapolis/St. Paul and 243,291 km for Washington, D.C. London’s bike share program however recorded an additional 766,341 km in motor vehicle use. This was largely due to a low car mode substitution rate and substantial truck use for rebalancing of bicycles. As bike share programs mature, evaluation of their effectiveness in reducing car use may become increasingly important. Researchers can adapt the analytical approach proposed in this paper to assist in the evaluation of current and future bike share programs.

Bikeshare's impact on active travel: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia

Over 800 cities globally now offer bikeshare programs. One of their purported benefits is increased physical activity. Implicit in this claim is that bikeshare replaces sedentary modes of transport, particularly car use. This paper estimates the median changes in physical activity levels as a result of bikeshare in the cities of Melbourne, Brisbane, Washington, D.C., London, and Minneapolis/St. Paul. This study is the first known multi-city evaluation of the active travel impacts of bikeshare programs. To perform the analysis, data on mode substitution (i.e. the modes that bikeshare replaces) were used to determine the extent of shift from sedentary to active transport modes (e.g. when a car trip is replaced by bikeshare). Potentially offsetting these gains, reductions in physical activity when walking trips are replaced by bikeshare was also estimated. Finally a Markov Chain Monte Carlo analysis was conducted to estimate confidence bounds on estimated impacts on active travel given uncertainties in data sources. The results indicate that on average 60% of bikeshare trips replace sedentary modes of transport (from 42% in Minneapolis/St. Paul to 67% in Brisbane). When bikeshare replaces a walking trip, there is a reduction in active travel time because walking a given distance takes longer than cycling. Considering the active travel balance sheet for the cities included in this analysis, bikeshare activity in 2012 has an overall positive impact on active travel time. This impact ranges from an additional 1.4 million minutes of active travel for the Minneapolis/St. Paul bikeshare program, to just over 74 million minutes of active travel for the London program The analytical approach adopted to estimate bikeshare’s impact on active travel may act as the basis for future bikeshare evaluations or feasibility studies.

Lock the gate: Fracking, investor-state dispute settlement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

There has been much debate about the relationship between international trade, the environment, biodiversity protection, and climate change.The Obama Administration has pushed such issues into sharp relief, with its advocacy for sweeping international trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. There has been much public concern about the impact of the mega-trade deals upon the protection of the environment. In particular, there has been a debate about whether the Trans-Pacific Partnership will promote dirty fracking. Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership transform the Pacific Rim into a Gasland?There has been a particular focus upon investor-state dispute settlement being used by unconventional mining companies. Investor-state dispute settlement is a mechanism which enables foreign investors to seek compensation from national governments at international arbitration tribunals. In her prescient 2009 book, The Expropriation of Environmental Governance, Kyla Tienhaara foresaw the rise of investor-state dispute resolution of environmental matters. She observed:'Over the last decade there has been an explosive increase of cases investment arbitration. This is significant in terms of not only the number of disputes that have arisen and the number of states that have been involved, but also the novel types of dispute that have emerged. Rather than solely involving straightforward incidences of nationalization or breach of contract, modern disputes often revolve around public policy measures and implicate sensitive issues such as access to drinking water, development on sacred indigenous sites and the protection of biodiversity.'In her study, Kyla Tienhaara observed that investment agreements, foreign investment contracts and investment arbitration had significant implications for the protection for the protection of the environment. She concluded that arbitrators have made it clear that they can, and will, award compensation to investors that claim to have been harmed by environmental regulation. She also found that some of the cases suggest that the mere threat of arbitration is sufficient to chill environmental policy development. Tienhaara was equally concerned by the possibility that a government may use the threat of arbitration as an excuse or cover for its failure to improve environmental regulation. In her view, it is evident that arbitrators have expropriated certain fundamental aspects of environmental governance from states. Tienhaara held: As a result, environmental regulation has become riskier, more expensive, and less democratic, especially in developing countries. This article provides a comparative analysis of the battles over fracking, investment, trade, and the environment in a number of key jurisdictions including the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Part 1 focuses upon the United States. Part 2 examines the dispute between the Lone Pine Resources Inc. and the Government of Canada over a fracking moratorium in Quebec. Part 3 charts the rise of the Lock the Gate Alliance in Australia, and its demands for a moratorium in respect of coal seam gas and unconventional mining. Part 4 focuses upon parallel developments in New Zealand. This article concludes that Pacific Rim countries should withdraw from investor-state dispute settlement procedures, because of the threat posed to environmental regulation in respect of air, land, and water.