Linking the ecosystem service approach to social preferences and needs in integrated coastal land use management - a planning approach

Coastal zones with their natural and societal subsystems are exposed to rapid changes and pressures on resources. Scarcity of space and impacts of climate change are prominent drivers of land use and adaptation management today. Necessary modifications to present land use management strategies and schemes influence both the structures of coastal communities and the ecosystems involved. Approaches to identify the impacts and account for (i) the linkages between social references and needs and (ii) ecosystem services in coastal zones have been largely absent. The presented method focuses on improving the inclusion of ecosystem services in planning processes and clarifies the linkages with social impacts. In this study, fourteen stakeholders in decisionmaking on land use planning in the region of Krummhörn (northwestern Germany, southern North Sea coastal region) conducted a regional participative and informal process for local planning capable to adapt to climate driven changes. It is argued that scientific and practical implications of this integrated assessment focus on multifunctional options and contribute to more sustainable practices in future land use planning. The method operationalizes the ecosystem service approach and social impact analysis and demonstrates that social demands and provision of ecosystem services are inherently connected.

Religion and returns in Europe

Drawing on social identity and social impact theory, this paper is the first to investigate the impact of religious preferences on share prices and expected returns at the country level. Using data from 12 European countries, our findings suggest that religion has a significant effect on the share price of companies whose activities are considered unethical, i.e., tobacco manufacturers and alcohol producers. The share price of these companies (called sin stocks) is depressed when they are located in a predominantly Protestant environment (relative to a Catholic environment). With investors in Protestant countries being more sin averse than in Catholic countries, they insist upon higher expected returns on sin stocks. Conversely, religious preferences do not have the same impact on the performance of other companies, e.g. socially responsible companies. Our results are robust to various methodologies and controlling for several firm-specific, industry-specific and country-specific characteristics.

Evaluating the Business Impact of Social Science: a report to the ESRC

This report presents the main findings from a project entitled ‘Evaluating the Business Impact of Social Science', commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and undertaken by a team of researchers from the University of Hull. In brief, the project involved an examination of the processes through which social science research and related activities impact upon business (defined broadly to incorporate large and small private sector businesses as well as social enterprises, but excluding public sector organisations) in relation to three of the UK’s leading business/management schools that have received significant amounts of ESRC funding in recent years: Cardiff Business School, Lancaster University Management School, and Warwick Business School

Introduction: the impact of the 'War on Terror' on executive–legislative relations: a global perspective

In democratic polities, constitutional equilibria or balances of power between the executive and the legislature shift over time. Normative and empirical political theorists have long recognised that war, civil unrest, economic and political crises, terrorist attacks, and other events strengthen the power of the executive, disrupt and threaten constitutional politics, and damage democratic institutions: crises require swift action and executives are thought to be more capable than parliaments and legislatures of taking such actions. The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001 and the ensuing so-called 'war on terror' declared by President Bush clearly constituted a crisis, not only in the United States but also in other political systems, in part because of the US's hegemonic position in defining and shaping many other states' foreign and domestic policies. Dicey, Schmitt, and Rossiter suggest that critical events and political crises inevitably trigger the concentration of (emergency) powers in the hands of the executive. Aristotle and Machiavelli questioned the inevitability of this process. This article and the articles that follow in this Special Issue utilise empirical evidence, through the use of case studies of the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Australia, Israel, Italy and Indonesia, to address this debate. Specifically, the issue explores to what extent the external shock or crisis of 9/11 (and other terrorist attacks) and the ensuing 'war on terror' significantly changed the balance of executive-legislative relations from t (before the crisis) to t+1 (after the crisis) in these political systems, all of which were the targets of actual or foiled terrorist attacks. The most significant findings are that the shock of 9/11 and the 'war on terror' elicited varied responses by national executives and legislatures/parliaments and thus the balance of executive-legislative relations in different political systems; that, therefore, executive-legislative relations are positive rather than zero-sum; and that domestic political contexts conditioned these institutional responses.

Reassessing the impact of yesterday's men

This special seminar to explore the controversy surrounding the Yesterday's Men programme of 1971, and its subsequent significance in the history of British political documentaries, was held at the Institute of Historical Research, London, on 26 January 1994. The seminar opened with a re‐screening of the programme, which featured interviews with Harold Wilson, the then leader of the opposition to Edward Heath's new Conservative government, front bench opposition spokesmen including Roy Jenkins, Tony Crosland and Denis Healey, and the political correspondent Peter Jenkins. The discussion was introduced by Dr Jean Seaton and chaired by Professor Peter Hennessy. The principal participants were Joe Haines (Chief Press Secretary to Harold Wilson 1969–76), Brian Wenham (editor, Panorama 1969–71, Head of BBC Current Affairs Group 1971–78) and John Grist (Head of BBC Current Affairs Group 1967–71, Controller, BBC English Regions 1972–77), with further contributions from Philip Whitehead, Professor Ben Pimlott, Peter Rose, David Benn, Professor Colin Seymour‐Ure, Joanna Kayford, Rosaleen Hughes, Hugh Purcell, Murray Weston and Chloe Miller.