Internalising the external costs of light and heavy goods vehicle transport in London

Report produced as part of the Green Logistics project (EPSRC and Department for Transport funded). This report provides estimates of the total external costs of LGV and HGV operations in London. In 2006, total LGV and HGV activity imposed external costs of approximately £1.75-£1.8 billion using low, medium and high emission cost values. About 27 per cent of these costs were internalised by duties and taxes paid by LGV operators, compared with 26% in the case of HGVs. If congestion costs are excluded, taxes and duties paid by LGV operators are estimated to be 155% of LGVs' allocated infrastructural and environmental costs, compared with 85% in the case of HGVs. When using the medium emission cost values, LGVs accounted for 56% of these external costs in London and HGVs for 44%.

Internalising the external costs of light and heavy goods vehicles in London

This report provides estimates of the total external costs of LGV and HGV operations in London. In 2006, total LGV and HGV activity imposed external costs of approximately £1.75-£1.8 billion using low, medium and high emission cost values. About 27 per cent of these costs were internalised by duties and taxes paid by LGV operators, compared with 26% in the case of HGVs. If congestion costs are excluded, taxes and duties paid by LGV operators are estimated to be 155% of LGVs' allocated infrastructural and environmental costs, compared with 85% in the case of HGVs. When using the medium emission cost values, LGVs accounted for 56% of these external costs in London and HGVs for 44%.

Supporting the learning and networking experiences of doctoral students

This study explores the impact of a Graduate Virtual Research Environment (GVRE) on the learning and networking experiences of research students. The GVRE was established to support and enhance research skills and employability training across a university. It provides an extensive range of resources including video reflections based on the experiences of students and staff; GVRE members are encouraged to comment and engage in discussions on these resources. Our work is framed using social theories of learning and the role of communities in the support and development of research students. In particular, we are interested in exploring the challenges involved in developing communities and networks for students whose main focus is their individual research. The GVRE was made available to over 600 students and in this research we explore its impact on the experiences of research students. In particular, we investigate four questions: (a) what impact does the students use of the GVRE have on the development of their research skills; (b) what impact does membership of the GVRE have on the networks and communities of research students; (c) how do research students view the relationships between their research skills training programme, their individual research and the GVRE; and (d) how do research students currently use social media. We use an interpretivist approach and our data sources include site statistics, responses to a questionnaire and also feedback from a focus group. Our findings indicate that networking remains an issue and students suggested approaches to facilitating this using the GVRE: (1) A clearer pathway from skills need identification to skills acquisition; (2) Rewards for activities around networking - possibly through credit on the training scheme; (3) Activities that would involve research directly. Feedback on the GVRE indicated that it is valued by research students as it facilitates the development of their research skills. In terms of marketing the GVRE to research students important factors identified were: the ease of access to the site, the overview it gives of the PhD process; and the value of the site to students around the defining moments of their studies when the students felt they needed additional advice and guidance.

Networked learning ten years on: the rise of the virtual graduate school

The aim of this paper is to reflect on how conceptions of networked learning have changed, particularly in relation to educational practices and uses of technology, that can nurture new ideas of networked learning to sustain multiple and diverse communities of practice in institutional settings. Our work is framed using two theoretical frameworks: Giddens's (1984) structuration theory and Callon & Latour's (1981) Actor Network Theory as critiqued by Fox (2005) in relation to networked learning. We use these frameworks to analyse and critique ideas of networked learning embodied in both cases. We investigate three questions: (a) the role of individual agency in the development of networked learning; (b) the impact of technological developments on approaches to supporting students within institutional infrastructures; and (c) designing networked learning to incorporate Web 2.0 practices that sustain multiple communities and foster engagement with knowledge in new ways. We use an interpretivist approach by drawing on experiential knowledge of the Masters programme in Networked Collaborative Learning and the decision making process of designing the virtual graduate schools. At this early stage, we have limited empirical data related to the student experience of networked learning in current and earlier projects. Our findings indicate that the use of two different theoretical frameworks provided an essential tool in illuminating, situating and informing the process of designing networked learning that involves supporting multiple and diverse communities of practice in institutional settings. These theoretical frameworks have also helped us to analyze our existing projects as case studies and to problematize and begin to understand the challenges we face in facilitating the participation of research students in networked learning communities of practice and the barriers to that participation. We have also found that this process of theorizing has given us a way of reconceptualizing communities of practice within research settings that have the potential to lead to new ideas of networked learning.

The risk of viral dispersal and aerosolization by different hand-drying methods

Background World Health Organization hand hygiene guidelines state that if electric hand dryers are used, they should not aerosolize pathogens. Previous studies have investigated the dispersal by different hand-drying devices of chemical indicators, fungi and bacteria on the hands. This study assessed the aerosolization and dispersal of virus on the hands to determine any differences between hand-drying devices in their potential to contaminate other occupants of public washrooms and the washroom environment. Methods A suspension of MS2, an Escherichia coli bacteriophage virus, was used to artificially contaminate the hands of participants prior to using three different handdrying devices: jet air dryer, warm air dryer, paper towel dispenser. Virus was detected by plaque formation on agar plates layered with the host bacterium. Vertical dispersal of virus was assessed at a fixed distance (0.4 m) and over a range of different heights (0.0 – 1.8 m) from the floor. Horizontal dispersal was assessed at different distances of up to three metres from the hand-drying devices. Virus aerosolization and dispersal was also assessed at different times up to 15 minutes after use by means of air sampling at two distances (0.1 and 1.0 m) and at a distance behind and offset from each of the hand-drying devices. Results Over a range of heights, the jet air dryer was shown to produce over 60 times greater vertical dispersal of virus from the hands than a warm air dryer and over 1300 times greater than paper towels; the maximum being detected between 0.6 and 1.2 metres from the floor. Horizontal dispersal of virus by the jet air dryer was over 20 times greater than a warm air dryer and over 190 times greater than paper towels; virus being detected at distances of up to three metres. Air sampling at three different positions from the hand-drying devices 15 minutes after use showed that the jet air dryer produced over 50-times greater viral contamination of the air than a warm air dryer and over 110-times greater than paper towels. Conclusions Due to their high air speed, jet air dryers aerosolize and disperse more virus over a range of heights, greater distances, and for longer times than other hand drying devices. If hands are inadequately washed, they have a greater potential to contaminate other occupants of a public washroom and the washroom environment. Main messages: Jet air dryers with claimed air speeds of over 600 kph have a greater potential than warm air dryers or paper towels to aerosolize and disperse viruses on the hands of users. The choice of hand-drying device should be carefully considered. Jet air dryers may increase the risk of transmission of human viruses, such as norovirus, particularly if hand washing is inadequate.