| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Lundstrom, E, et al.
(författare)
-
Estrone - a partial estradiol antagonist in the normal breast
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Gynecological endocrinology : the official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1473-0766. ; 31:9, s. 747-749
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Rosen, Lars, 1962, et al.
(författare)
-
SCORE: A novel multi-criteria decision analysis approach to assessing the sustainability of contaminated land remediation
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Science of the Total Environment. - : Elsevier BV. - 0048-9697 .- 1879-1026. ; 511, s. 621-638
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method provides for a comprehensive and transparent basis for performing sustainability assessments. Development of a relevant MCDA-method requires consideration of a number of key issues, e.g. (a) definition of assessment boundaries, (b) definition of performance scales, both temporal and spatial, (c) selection of relevant criteria (indicators) that facilitate a comprehensive sustainability assessment while avoiding double-counting of effects, and (d) handling of uncertainties. Adding to the complexity is the typically wide variety of inputs, including quantifications based on existing data, expert judgements, and opinions expressed in interviews. The SCORE (Sustainable Choice Of REmediation) MCDA-method was developed to provide a transparent assessment of the sustainability of possible remediation alternatives for contaminated sites relative to a reference alternative, considering key criteria in the economic, environmental, and social sustainability domains. The criteria were identified based on literature studies, interviews and focus-group meetings. SCORE combines a linear additive model to rank the alternatives with a non-compensatory approach to identify alternatives regarded as non-sustainable. The key strengths of the SCORE method are as follows: a framework that at its core is designed to be flexible and transparent; the possibility to integrate both quantitative and qualitative estimations on criteria; its ability, unlike other sustainability assessment tools used in industry and academia, to allow for the alteration of boundary conditions where necessary; the inclusion of a full uncertainty analysis of the results, using Monte Carlo simulation; and a structure that allows preferences and opinions of involved stakeholders to be openly integrated into the analysis. A major insight from practical application of SCORE is that its most important contribution may be that it initiates a process where criteria otherwise likely ignored are addressed and openly discussed between stakeholders.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- van den Burg, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Participatory Design of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Sustainability. - : MDPI AG. - 2071-1050. ; 8:2, s. Art. no. 127-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- European oceans are subject to rapid development. New activities such as aquaculture and ocean energy have gained importance. This triggers interest in “multi-use platforms at sea” (MUPS), i.e., areas at sea in which different activities are combined. MUPS are complex features with regards to technology, governance, and financial, socioeconomic, and environmental aspects. To identify realistic and sustainable solutions and designs for MUPS, the MERMAID project applied a participatory design process (PDP) involving a range of stakeholders representing companies, authorities, researchers, and NGOs. This paper evaluates if and how the participatory design process contributed to the design of multi-use platforms. It is based on interviews with the managers of the case study sites and a questionnaire administered to all stakeholders participating in the PDP workshops. Analyzing the four case studies, we conclude that the participatory design process has had a valuable contribution to the development of the four different designs of MUPS, even though the preconditions for carrying out a participatory design process differed between sites. In all four cases, the process has been beneficial in generating new and shared knowledge. It brought new design issues to the table and increased knowledge and understanding among the different stakeholders.
|
|
