Book review: Jiří Přibáň, legal symbolism: on law, time and European identity

This is a book review of Jiří Přibáň, Legal Symbolism: On Law, Time and European Identity, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2007, 226 pp, ISBN: 978-0-7546-7073-5

Book review: Philosophy and the city: classic to contemporary writings

Book Review: Philosophy and the City: Classic to Contemporary Writings Sharon M. Meagher (Ed.), 2007 Albany, NY: State University of New York Press 309 pp. US$75.50 hardback; US$24.95 paperback ISBN 978 0 7914 7308 5 paperback; 978 0 7914 7307 8 hardback

Small Press Book Fair

This was held on 20 February 2015. It attracted around 25 small presses, and around 100 attendees.

Book review: New perspectives on the Irish abroad: the silent people?

Review of Mícheál Ó hAodha and Máirtín Ó Catháin eds., New perspectives on the Irish Abroad: The silent people? Lanham, Md.; Toronto: Lexington Books, 2014,166 pages. ISBN-13: 978-0739183717

Accessibility Instrument Survey

This chapter presents the main results of the Accessibility Instrument Survey (AIS), collecting basic information on each of the accessibility instruments reviewed in this report (for more detail on these Instruments see Chapter 3). The aim of the survey was to enable quick, objective and comparable overviews of each of the reviewed accessibility instruments. The information collected will enable the categorization of accessibility instruments present in this research, aiming to be a reference for future categorization of accessibility instruments for planning practice. These categories will support the analysis of the coverage of accessibility instruments in this research, i.e., identify how representative this research is across different accessibility instrument types. In addition, these will be used to analyse the characteristics and concerns which most frequently underlie the development of accessibility instruments. Finally, the survey also collects developer’s perceptions on the usefulness of their accessibility instruments in planning practice, enabling the first insight into the main research question of this COST Action, although limited to the developer’s point of view. In summary, the results of the survey will be used for four purposes: Development of an accessibility instrument sheet for each accessibility instrument summarizing its main characteristics (Appendix A); Identify the coverage of accessibility instrument types present in this research (Section 4.3.1) discussing the representativeness of this Action; Provide a glimpse on the characteristics and concerns which most frequently underlie the development of accessibility instruments (Section 4.3.2); Provide a first insight into the perceived usefulness of accessibility instruments in planning practice from the point of view of the developer (Section 4.3.2 and Section 4.3.3). The next section provides an overview of the Survey describing the information collected. This section also describes the development process of this survey including data collection, dates and means. The results of the survey are analysed in the third section starting with a discussion on the coverage of accessibility instruments reviewed by this research (Section 4.3.1), identifying accessibility measure types which are represented and which are absent. This discussion is accompanied by the presentation of the main categories of accessibility instruments from the perspective of the end user. These categories try to summarize the main concerns planning practitioners are expected to have when searching for an accessibility instrument and is built upon some of the information collected by the survey. Following, the third section also presents a general analysis of the results (Section 4.3.2), focussing on the dominant characteristics of the accessibility instruments reviewed and on the developer’s perception of the usefulness their instrument will have for end users. The section ends with a brief cross analysis of results (Section 4.3.3) trying to identify relationships between accessibility instrument characteristics and perceptions of usefulness by developers. The fourth and last section presents the main conclusions of this study.