Managing wetlands sustainably as ecosystems : The contribution of the law (part 1)

The ways in which a society set standards of behaviour and of conduct for its members vary hugely. For example, accepted practices, recognised customs, spiritually or morally inspired norms, judicially declared rules, executively formulated edicts, formal legislative enactments or constitutionally embedded rights and duties. Whatever form they assume, these standards are the artificial construction of the human mind. Accordingly the law - whatever its form - can do no more and no less than regulate or set standards for human behaviour, human conduct, and human decision-making. The law cannot regulate the environment. It can only regulate human activities that impact directly or indirectly upon the environment. This applies as much to wetlands as components of the environment as it does to any other components of the environment or the environment at large. The capacity of the law to protect the environment and therefore wetlands is thus totally dependent upon the capacity of the law to regulate human behaviour, human conduct and human decision-making. At the same time the law needs to reflect the specific nature, functions and locations of wetlands. A wetland is an ecosystem by itself; it comprises a range of ecosystems within it; and it is part of a wider set of ecosystems. Hence, the significant ecological functions performed by wetlands. Then there are the benefits flowing to humans from wetlands. These may be social, economic, cultural, aesthetic, or a combination of some or of all of these. It is a challenge for a society acting through its legal system to find the appropriate balance between these ecological and these human values. But that is what sustainability requires.The ways in which a society set standards of behaviour and of conduct for its members vary hugely. For example, accepted practices, recognised customs, spiritually or morally inspired norms, judicially declared rules, executively formulated edicts, formal legislative enactments or constitutionally embedded rights and duties. Whatever form they assume, these standards are the artificial construction of the human mind. Accordingly the law - whatever its form - can do no more and no less than regulate or set standards for human behaviour, human conduct, and human decision-making. The law cannot regulate the environment. It can only regulate human activities that impact directly or indirectly upon the environment. This applies as much to wetlands as components of the environment as it does to any other components of the environment or the environment at large. The capacity of the law to protect the environment and therefore wetlands is thus totally dependent upon the capacity of the law to regulate human behaviour, human conduct and human decision-making. At the same time the law needs to reflect the specific nature, functions and locations of wetlands. A wetland is an ecosystem by itself; it comprises a range of ecosystems within it; and it is part of a wider set of ecosystems. Hence, the significant ecological functions performed by wetlands. Then there are the benefits flowing to humans from wetlands. These may be social, economic, cultural, aesthetic, or a combination of some or of all of these. It is a challenge for a society acting through its legal system to find the appropriate balance between these ecological and these human values. But that is what sustainability requires.

The contribution of maize cropping in the Midwest USA to global warming: A regional estimate

Agricultural soils emit about 50% of the global flux of N2O attributable to human influence, mostly in response to nitrogen fertilizer use. Recent evidence that the relationship between N2O fluxes and N-fertilizer additions to cereal maize are non-linear provides an opportunity to estimate regional N2O fluxes based on estimates of N application rates rather than as a simple percentage of N inputs as used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We combined a simple empirical model of N2O production with the SOCRATES soil carbon dynamics model to estimate N2O and other sources of Global Warming Potential (GWP) from cereal maize across 19,000 cropland polygons in the North Central Region (NCR) of the US over the period 1964–2005. Results indicate that the loading of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere from cereal maize production in the NCR was 1.7 Gt CO2e, with an average 268 t CO2e produced per tonne of grain. From 1970 until 2005, GHG emissions per unit product declined on average by 2.8 t CO2e ha−1 annum−1, coinciding with a stabilisation in N application rate and consistent increases in grain yield from the mid-1970’s. Nitrous oxide production from N fertilizer inputs represented 59% of these emissions, soil C decline (0–30 cm) represented 11% of total emissions, with the remaining 30% (517 Mt) from the combustion of fuel associated with farm operations. Of the 126 Mt of N fertilizer applied to cereal maize from 1964 to 2005, we estimate that 2.2 Mt N was emitted as N2O when using a non-linear response model, equivalent to 1.75% of the applied N.

Managing Wetlands Sustainably as Ecosystems: The Contribution of the Law (Part 2)

In this Part 2 attention is turned towards the legal arrangements in nation states for managing wetlands. These national arrangements have effect within the international arrangements already mentioned and any regional arrangements that are relevant. However, each national system is a reflection of its own historical, cultural, political and constitutional background. It is the purpose of this Part 2 to review and assess the national approaches to wetlands management. This involves an analysis of a range of instruments. These are: constitutional rules; strategic rules; regulatory rules; and management rules. Each of these sets of rules performs different functions, assumes different forms and is differentially capable of enforcement.

Contribution of take-out food consumption to socioeconomic differences in fruit and vegetable intake : a mediation analysis

Lower fruit and vegetable intake among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups has been well documented, and may be a consequence of a higher consumption of take-out foods. This study examined whether, and to what extent, take-out food consumption mediated (explained) the association between socioeconomic position and fruit and vegetable intake. A cross-sectional postal survey was conducted among 1500 randomly selected adults aged 25–64 years in Brisbane, Australia in 2009 (response rate = 63.7%, N = 903). A food frequency questionnaire assessed usual daily servings of fruits and vegetables (0 to 6), overall take-out consumption (times/week) and the consumption of 22 specific take-out items (never to ≥once/day). These specific take-out items were grouped into “less healthy” and “healthy” choices and indices were created for each type of choice (0 to 100). Socioeconomic position was ascertained by education. The analyses were performed using linear regression, and a bootstrap re-sampling approach estimated the statistical significance of the mediated effects. Mean daily serves of fruits and vegetables was 1.89 (SD 1.05) and 2.47 (SD 1.12) respectively. The least educated group were more likely to consume fewer serves of fruit (B= –0.39, p<0.001) and vegetables (B= –0.43, p<0.001) compared with the highest educated. The consumption of “less healthy” take-out food partly explained (mediated) education differences in fruit and vegetable intake; however, no mediating effects were observed for overall and “healthy” take-out consumption. Regular consumption of “less healthy” take-out items may contribute to socioeconomic differences in fruit and vegetable intake, possibly by displacing these foods.

The PSS : From Flat Maps to Layered Perspectives - the contribution of the Airport Metropolis Planning Support System (PSS) to sub-regional planning in the Brisbane Airport case environment

Conventional planning and decision making, with its sectoral and territorial emphasis and flat-map based processes are no longer adequate or appropriate for the increased complexity confronting airport/city interfaces. These crowed and often contested governance spaces demand a more iterative and relational planning and decision-making approach. Emergent GIS based planning and decision-making tools provide a mechanism which integrate and visually display an array of complex data, frameworks and scenarios/expectations, often in ‘real time’ computations. In so doing, these mechanisms provide a common ground for decision making and facilitate a more ‘joined-up’ approach to airport/city planning. This paper analyses the contribution of the Airport Metropolis Planning Support System (PSS) to sub-regional planning in the Brisbane Airport case environment.

The contribution of leadership attributes to large scale, complex project success

Mismanagement of large-scale, complex projects has resulted in spectacular failures, cost overruns, time blowouts, and stakeholder dissatisfaction. We focus discussion on the interaction of key management and leadership attributes which facilitate leaders’ adaptive behaviors. These behaviors should in turn influence adaptive team member behavior, stakeholder engagement and successful project outcomes, outputs and impacts. An understanding of this type of management will benefit from a perspective based in managerial and organizational cognition. The research question we explore is whether successful leaders of large-scale complex projects have an internal process leading to a display of administrative, adaptive, and enabling behaviors that foster adaptive processes and enabling behaviors within their teams and with external stakeholders. At the core of the model we propose interactions of key attributes, namely cognitive flexibility, affect, and emotional intelligence. The result of these cognitive-affective attribute interactions is leadership leading to enhanced likelihood of complex project success.

Organizations as distinction generating and processing systems: Niklas Luhmann's contribution to organization studies

Niklas Luhmann's theory of social systems has been widely influential in the German-speaking countries in the past few decades. However, despite its significance, particularly for organization studies, it is only very recently that Luhmann's work has attracted attention on the international stage as well. This Special Issue is in response to that. In this introductory paper, we provide a systematic overview of Luhmann's theory. Reading his work as a theory about distinction generating and processing systems, we especially highlight the following aspects: (i) Organizations are processes that come into being by permanently constructing and reconstructing themselves by means of using distinctions, which mark what is part of their realm and what not. (ii) Such an organizational process belongs to a social sphere sui generis possessing its own logic, which cannot be traced back to human actors or subjects. (iii) Organizations are a specific kind of social process characterized by a specific kind of distinction: decision, which makes up what is specifically organizational about organizations as social phenomena. We conclude by introducing the papers in this Special Issue. Copyright © 2006 SAGE.