Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

This study assesses the value of restoring forested wetlands via the U.S. government's Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley by quantifying and monetizing ecosystem services. The three focal services are greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, nitrogen mitigation, and waterfowl recreation. Site- and region-level measurements of these ecosystem services are combined with process models to quantify their production on agricultural land, which serves as the baseline, and on restored wetlands. We adjust and transform these measures into per-hectare, valuation-ready units and monetize them with prices from emerging ecosystem markets and the environmental economics literature. By valuing three of the many ecosystem services produced, we generate lower bound estimates for the total ecosystem value of the wetlands restoration. Social welfare value is found to be between $1435 and $1486/ha/year, with GHG mitigation valued in the range of $171 to $222, nitrogen mitigation at $1248, and waterfowl recreation at $16. Limited to existing markets, the estimate for annual market value is merely $70/ha, but when fully accounting for potential markets, this estimate rises to $1035/ha. The estimated social value surpasses the public expenditure or social cost of wetlands restoration in only 1 year, indicating that the return on public investment is very attractive for the WRP. Moreover, the potential market value is substantially greater than landowner opportunity costs, showing that payments to private landowners to restore wetlands could also be profitable for individual landowners. © 2009 Elsevier B.V.

Reason, risk, and reward: Models for libraries and other stakeholders in an evolving scholarly publishing ecosystem

Scholarly publishing, and scholarly communication more generally, are based on patterns established over many decades and even centuries. Some of these patterns are clearly valuable and intimately related to core values of the academy, but others were based on the exigencies of the past, and new opportunities have brought into question whether it makes sense to persist in supporting old models. New technologies and new publishing models raise the question of how we should fund and operate scholarly publishing and scholarly communication in the future, moving away from a scarcity model based on the exchange of physical goods that restricts access to scholarly literature unless a market-based exchange takes place. This essay describes emerging models that attempt to shift scholarly communication to a more open-access and mission-based approach and that try to retain control of scholarship by academics and the institutions and scholarly societies that support them. It explores changing practices for funding scholarly journals and changing services provided by academic libraries, changes instituted with the end goal of providing more access to more readers, stimulating new scholarship, and removing inefficiencies from a system ready for change. © 2014 by the American Anthropological Association.

Chromatin: bind at your own RSC.

Recent work has identified a novel RSC-nucleosome complex that both strongly phases flanking nucleosomes and presents regulatory sites for ready access. These results challenge several widely held views.

A framework for revising preservice curriculum for nonphysician clinicians: The mozambique experience.

Mozambique, with approximately 0.4 physicians and 4.1 nurses per 10,000 people, has one of the lowest ratios of health care providers to population in the world. To rapidly scale up health care coverage, the Mozambique Ministry of Health has pushed for greater investment in training nonphysician clinicians, Tιcnicos de Medicina (TM). Based on identified gaps in TM clinical performance, the Ministry of Health requested technical assistance from the International Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH) to revise the two-and-a-half-year preservice curriculum. A six-step process was used to revise the curriculum: (i) Conducting a task analysis, (ii) defining a new curriculum approach and selecting an integrated model of subject and competency-based education, (iii) revising and restructuring the 30-month course schedule to emphasize clinical skills, (iv) developing a detailed syllabus for each course, (v) developing content for each lesson, and (vi) evaluating implementation and integrating feedback for ongoing improvement. In May 2010, the Mozambique Minister of Health approved the revised curriculum, which is currently being implemented in 10 training institutions around the country. Key lessons learned: (i) Detailed assessment of training institutions' strengths and weaknesses should inform curriculum revision. (ii) Establishing a Technical Working Group with respected and motivated clinicians is key to promoting local buy-in and ownership. (iii) Providing ready-to-use didactic material helps to address some challenges commonly found in resource-limited settings. (iv) Comprehensive curriculum revision is an important first step toward improving the quality of training provided to health care providers in developing countries. Other aspects of implementation at training institutions and health care facilities must also be addressed to ensure that providers are adequately trained and equipped to provide quality health care services. This approach to curriculum revision and implementation teaches several key lessons, which may be applicable to preservice training programs in other less developed countries.