ISSA's Quality Framework: An Invitation to Policy Dialogue for Building Integration and Alignment in ECEC Systems

Author(s):  
Dawn Tankersley ◽  
Mihaela Ionescu ◽  
Zorica Trikic
Water ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (15) ◽  
pp. 2060
Author(s):  
Elvira Buonocore ◽  
Umberto Grande ◽  
Pier Paolo Franzese ◽  
Giovanni F. Russo

The biotic and abiotic assets of the marine environment form the “marine natural capital” embedded in the global ocean. Marine natural capital provides the flow of “marine ecosystem services” that are directly used or enjoyed by people providing benefits to human well-being. They include provisioning services (e.g., food), regulation and maintenance services (e.g., carbon sequestration and storage, and coastal protection), and cultural services (e.g., tourism and recreational benefits). In recent decades, human activities have increased the pressures on marine ecosystems, often leading to ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss and, in turn, affecting their ability to provide benefits to humans. Therefore, effective management strategies are crucial to the conservation of healthy and diverse marine ecosystems and to ensuring their long-term generation of goods and services. Biophysical, economic, and sociocultural assessments of marine ecosystem services are much needed to convey the importance of natural resources to managers and policy makers supporting the development and implementation of policies oriented for the sustainable management of marine resources. In addition, the accounting of marine ecosystem service values can be usefully complemented by their mapping to enable the identification of priority areas and management strategies and to facilitate science–policy dialogue. Given this premise, this study aims to review trends and evolution in the concept of marine ecosystem services. In particular, the global scientific literature on marine ecosystem services is explored by focusing on the following main aspects: the definition and classification of marine ecosystem services; their loss due to anthropogenic pressures, alternative assessment, and mapping approaches; and the inclusion of marine ecosystem services into policy and decision-making processes.


2008 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Antkiewicz ◽  
Thiago Tonelli Bartolomei ◽  
Krzysztof Czarnecki

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (spe) ◽  
pp. 147-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanie Lachance ◽  
Frédéric Douville ◽  
Clémence Dallaire ◽  
Katia Grillo Padilha ◽  
Maria Cecilia Gallani

ABSTRACT Objective analyze how studies have approached the results obtained from the application of the Nursing Activities Score (NAS) based on Donabedian’s model of healthcare organization and delivery. Method CINAHL and PubMed databases were searched for papers published between 2003 and March 2015. Results 36 articles that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed and double-coded by three independent coders and analyzed based on the three elements of Donabedian’s health care quality framework: structure, process and outcome. The most frequently addressed, but not always tested, variables were those that fell into the structure category. Conclusion variables that fell into the process category were used less frequently. Beside NAS, the most frequently used variables in the outcome category were mortality and length of stay. However, no study used a quality framework for healthcare or NAS to evaluate costs, and it is recommended that further research should explore this approach.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document