Search results

The present study aims to inform the requirements for developing a sustainable rating tool for small-scale infrastructure projects (SSIPs) through research findings.

A review-based comparative study of existing infrastructure sustainability (IS) rating tools for assessment of SSIPs is presented. Key stakeholder participants of the existing IS rating tools, are interviewed to identify existing barriers and requirements for sustainability rating. The study further presents possible rating tool options to optimise the sustainable performance evaluation of SSIPs.

Findings of this study indicated that prevalent IS rating tools are majorly applied to large-scale infrastructure projects and sustainability of SSIPs are seldom assessed. Based on a literature review and series of interviews, it was found that user friendliness, efficient structure, training and technical support, cost effectiveness and stakeholder recognition are the five key requirements of a sustainability rating tool for SSIPs. Additionally, six sustainability assessment options were proposed for SSIPs which range from pathways for existing tools through to new, customisable tools. Upon comparison, a new modified tool with verification process and revised tool with defined grouping of sustainable criteria was more effective for evaluation of SSIPs.

Use of case specific information for validation and framework development may lack generalisation. However, methodology can be used for future decision-making by making necessary adjustments to suit different local regional requirements.

Despite lack of generalisation, the findings can lead to future general studies on sustainability of SSIPs. Findings of the study provide foundation knowledge and awareness for sustainability evaluation of SSIPs.

According to Truth the War Office has selected Mr. C. C. DUNCAN, F.I.C., the Public Analyst for the County of Worcester, for a special post, in which “ he will be responsible for the examination of the water supply for the troops.” “It might be supposed,” our contemporary observes, “that the services of this scientific expert would be worth at least the pay of a Captain. The War Office thinks differently. It is giving Mr. Duncan the pay of a private soldier, a piece of parsimony in no wise excused by the fact that the difference between his military pay and his regular salary will be made up by the Worcestershire County Council.” It appears that MR. DUNCAN has been selected for the post in question on the recommendation of a body described by Truth as “ The Institute of Analysts.” As no such body exists we presume that either the Institute of Chemistry or the cumbrously‐named “ Society of Public Analysts and Other Analytical Chemists” is referred to. It would be interesting to know what the Councils of either or both of these concerns have got to say about the treatment of this member of the profession which they are supposed to represent and whose dignity and interests they are supposed to maintain. The monstrous advertisement issued by the Woolwich Arsenal authorities about a year ago in which scientific chemists with University degrees were invited to apply for appointments at the munificent remuneration of £2 per week is a sufficient illustration of the value put upon scientific attainments by Government Departments in this country. But even this example of fatuous ignorance and inane parsimony has been eclipsed by the present arrangements for the employment of scientific chemists in the Royal Engineers, in which they are invited to enlist with the rank of Corporal and with Corporal's pay and “allowances.” The sulphuric acid scandal recently exposed by The Globe makes it once more abundantly clear that where scientific advice even of an elementary kind is needed no attempt is made to obtain reliable guidance. The wrong people are invariably applied to for advice and the wrong men are appointed to fill responsible posts. The following remarks appear in The Globe of September 23rd :—“We have evidence of the incompetence of the High Explosives Department which thought it fitting to appoint as the comptroller of the shipment of oleum” (i.e., a form of sulphuric acid shipped from America) “a young man, wholly inexperienced, at a handsome salary, his only qualification apparently being that he was the son of his father. This young man was completely ignorant of the properties of oleum. His first introduction to the acid was when he was called upon to advise as to the best method of shipment.” According to the facts stated in The Globe the result of this bungling has been a loss of some hundreds of thousands of pounds to the taxpayers of this country.

ARNOLD BENNETT was a man of two worlds. In the terms of Max Beerbohm's cartoon “Old Self” was plump, wealthy, self‐assured, a landmark of the London scene, a familiar of press magnates, the owner of a yacht; “Young Self” was thin, ambitious, far‐sighted, industrious, secretly terribly anxious to justify himself to himself and decidedly provincial.

“Interactive multimedia” was Last Year's Big Thing—so say the financial wizards, and they may be right. That particular flavor of convergence theory made no more sense than any of the others, and this year's hype is for The Almighty Web. Meanwhile, as with the World Wide Web, multimedia does have growing uses for many library and personal computer uses—and the author, ever at the rear of the pack, has dealt with some low‐level multimedia problems and promises. You won't learn a thing about production here, but there are some useful notes on what seems to work and where it might be going. Finally, the usual notes cover the PC and Macintosh literature received during April through June 1995.

Building upon a larger mixed-methods research agenda, the purpose of this research study was to explore the growth of generativity (i.e. care for the next generation) among college student leaders who mentor, answering the central question “What changes in generativity do college student leaders who mentor associate with their mentoring experience, and why?” and associated sub-question “How does generativity develop among college student leaders who mentor?”

Applying methodological innovation to a phenomenological design, semi-structured interviews were conducted and triangulated with pictorial degree-of-change graphs among 33 collegiate leadership mentors at a large Midwestern USA land-grant university.

The findings indicated that senior collegiate leadership mentors overwhelmingly acknowledged sustained generativity increases as a result of mentoring a younger student when given the tools, environment to process and time needed to develop trusting investment relationships. These increases in generativity were associated with changes in their understanding of generativity, the desire to pass on the knowledge given to them and growth in both mentor and mentee.

Findings from the current study advance mentoring research and practice by providing a deeper understanding of mentoring as a developmental intervention, informing antecedents of generativity and utilizing innovative qualitative methodological techniques.

In this paper, I demonstrate an alternative explanation to the development of the American electricity industry. I propose a social embeddedness approach (Granovetter, 1985, 1992) to interpret why the American electricity industry appears the way it does today, and start by addressing the following questions: Why is the generating dynamo located in well‐connected central stations rather than in isolated stations? Why does not every manufacturing firm, hospital, school, or even household operate its own generating equipment? Why do we use incandescent lamps rather than arc lamps or gas lamps for lighting? At the end of the nineteenth century, the first era of the electricity industry, all these technical as well as organizational forms were indeed possible alternatives. The centralized systems we see today comprise integrated, urban, central station firms which produce and sell electricity to users within a monopolized territory. Yet there were visions of a more decentralized electricity industry. For instance, a geographically decentralized system might have dispersed small systems based around an isolated or neighborhood generating dynamo; or a functionally decentralized system which included firms solely generating and transmitting the power, and selling the power to locally‐owned distribution firms (McGuire, Granovetter, and Schwartz, forthcoming). Similarly, the incandescent lamp was not the only illuminating device available at that time. The arc lamp was more suitable for large‐space lighting than incandescent lamps; and the second‐generation gas lamp ‐ Welsbach mantle lamp ‐ was much cheaper than the incandescent electric light and nearly as good in quality (Passer, 1953:196–197).

THE provisional programme of this year's L.A. Conference at Southport on September 20–23 is now in our hands. The theme, the library and the community, is the perennial one for our conferences and, in that, is blameless ; everything will depend on the handling of the subjects. No one who considers what is promised can accuse the Council of the L.A. of a partial view of the field, because whole areas are given representation in general sessions and if, as we expect from such writers as Messrs. R. O. MacKenna, W. S. Haigh, D. J. Foskett and F. C. Francis, the papers have the requisite range, the Proceedings will prove to be a comprehensive Statement of library practice today. All are well‐tried speakers and amongst them we anticipate, for example, a model paper from Mr. Haigh, who was frank in his view of the endurance required of the listeners at Hastings. The gifted Editor of The Assistant Librarian, Mr. A. C. Jones, who, unfortunately for us all, is relinquishing that office, is to occupy the A.A.L. with the assistant librarian in the community, and county libraries are to be represented by papers by Mr. B. Oliph Smith and Mr. H. Thompson at their own Section meetings. University libraries again come into the picture at theirs with a discussion opened by Dr. L. W. Sharp. Mystery is suggested by Mr. B. C. Vickery's “Tower of Babel: the language barrier in science” which seems to indicate some form of Interglossa or, possibly, since he is an enthusiast for Dr. Ranganathan, that teacher's Meta‐language. It certainly would be an achievement if whenever a scientist used a word it could be made to convey the same thing in every reader's mind. The Youth Section will listen to that practical teacher and thinker, Mr. J. F. Wolfenden; and the Annual Lecturer on Wednesday, September 21, will be by Mr. J. L. Longland, the chief education officer of Derbyshire, whose co‐operative sympathy and support was no doubt of great service to Mr. Edgar Osborne in the organizing of the most fully co‐ordinate county service in this country. Five British “internes” will render account of their experiences in America, under the chairmanship of Mr. J. C. Harrison, we hope to the encouragement of others of us “to go and do likewise.” Nothing better for the creation of fresh enthusiasms and for a high international level of library practice in all its variants can be imagined than this prolonged employment in the libraries of other countries ; every librarian should encourage it to the limit of his means and feel, as we do, gratitude to Messrs. Sydney and Harrison for acting as the selection committee so far as British candidate “internes” are concerned.

Purpose: The United States became a member of the United Nations’ (UN’s) core anti-racism treaty, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), but has not passed the UN’s core gender equality treaty, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This chapter explores why the United States passed only one of the conventions. It reviews the power, misinterpretation, and compliance theories that explain why only one of the treaties was ratified. In addition, it offers a fourth explanation of the nation’s behavior – that of relative cost.

Findings: This chapter shows that CEDAW’s mandates, which are specific in nature, are costlier with respect to public services, educational resources, and programs to alleviate cultural prejudices, than are the more broadly framed ICERD mandates. This chapter finds this difference as a driving factor for the nation to enter into the race convention and not the women’s rights pact.

Methodologies: Methodologies used in this publication include feminist and legal analyses and the examination of US policies as well as statements made by political figures.

Originality: This chapter makes contributions to legal and feminist scholarship by providing insight into the nation’s adoption of ICERD, and its failure to ratify CEDAW despite its stance that it is a supporter of women’s rights. The implications of this study are that while the power, misinterpretation, and compliance theories are useful to understand the apparent discrepant response to the two treaties, relative cost as defined by the different ways in which the treaties are framed is also useful in explaining the United States’ failure to ratify the gender equality treaty. Though CEDAW is more specific in its identification of equality issues and is costlier than ICERD, the advancement of both gender and racial equality in the United States falls short of international standards.

The inaugural meeting of the newly established National Party was held in the Queen's Hall, Langham Place, on Thursday, October 25th, under the presidency of Admiral Lord Beresford. There was a large and distinguished audience numbering about 3,000 persons, among those on the platform being Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Brigadier‐General Page Croft, M.P., Mr. Havelock Wilson, Miss Constance Williams, the Hon. G. J. Jenkins (all of whom addressed the meeting), Earl Bathurst, Sir C. Allom, Major Alan Burgoyne, M.P., Colonel Cassal, Mr. G. K. Chesterton, Sir R. Cooper, M.P., Capt. Viscount Duncannon, M.P., Sir W. Earnshaw Cooper, Mr. H. A. Gwynne, Mr. Rowland Hunt, M.P., Lieut.‐Col. Lord Leconfield, Lord Leith of Fyvie, Admiral Sir H. Markham, The Earl of Northesk, Colonel R. H. Rawson, M.P., Lord Edward St. Maur, Admiral Sir Edward Seymour, Lord Stafford and others.