Search results

Efforts to increase sustainability are increasingly being promulgated using non-state forms of governance. Currently, there are multiple multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) working to develop sustainability standards and metrics for US agriculture. These include: LEO-4000, Field to Market, and the Sustainability Consortium. Using Paul Thompson’s (2010) tripartite sustainability framework, the proposed sustainability standards and metrics of the three MSIs are assessed. Our findings indicate that the current political economic stakeholder nexus is producing incremental adjustments to the status quo of industrial agriculture. Put differently, the standards and metrics being produced by these initiatives are largely advancing programs of sustainable intensification in which sustainability is equated with increasing resource efficiencies. Hence, our research problematizes the efficacy of non-state governance approaches for transformative change in food and agriculture. The findings in this chapter are based on fieldwork conducted between 2011 and 2013.

Multi-stakeholder initiatives have proliferated as a leading form of standard-development, as they are understood to be more legitimate than other forms of non-state governance. The legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives is a result of their perceived congruence with normative democratic principles. Using a case study of a multi-stakeholder initiative to develop a National Sustainable Agriculture Standard (LEO-4000) for the United States, this chapter examines the practices and politics of legitimation in non-state governance. The analysis of LEO-4000 indicates that, first, the simultaneous construction of legitimacy and standards affects the kinds of standards developed. Second, understandings of legitimacy are influenced by the standpoint of actors. Third, legitimacy has become a strategic dimension of standard-development, which actors use to further their interests. Based on these findings, we contend that non-state governance that relies on normative democratic principles for legitimation is constrained in its ability to develop stringent standards. Thus, there may be limits to non-state governance as a regulatory tool, and to achieve non-economic objectives such as increased sustainability. For rural areas, the implication is that they are becoming enmeshed in an emerging system of non-state governance that continues to be highly contested, particularly regarding who has the right to govern such areas. The findings in this chapter are based on qualitative data, including 34 interviews and participant-observation.

Necessary conditions represent the factors that cannot be compensated but must be present to aim the desired outcome; if a necessary condition is absent, the outcome will not exist. This logic of necessity causality differs from the conventional logic that has been evaluated by the methods drawing the lines “through the middle of the data” (e.g., regression and SEM). The authors argue that the empirical investigation of necessity causality has been largely ignored in hospitality and tourism literature although the notion of necessary causes for achieving certain outcomes is widespread throughout the studies. Thus, the authors introduce “necessary condition analysis” (NCA) as a suitable analytical method to identify necessary conditions in hospitality and tourism research. This chapter provides details on the underlying logic, key advantages, and an illustrative example of NCA. The chapter concludes by offering a few recommendations for future NCA applications in hospitality and tourism research.

Purpose – This chapter gives an overview of methods for defining and analysing crash severity.

Methodology – Commonly used methods for defining crash severity are surveyed and reviewed. Factors commonly found to be associated with crash severity are discussed. Approaches for formulating and estimating models for predicting crash severity are presented and critiqued. Two examples of crash severity modelling exercises are presented and findings are discussed. Suggestions are offered for future research in crash severity modelling.

Findings – Crash severity is usually defined according to the outcomes for the persons involved. The definition of severity levels used by law enforcement or crash investigation professionals is less detailed and consistent than what is used by medical professionals. Defining crash severity by vehicle damage can be more consistent, as vehicle response to crash forces is more consistent than that of humans. Factors associated with crash severity fall into three categories – human, vehicle/equipment and environmental/road – and can apply before, during or after the crash event. Crash severity can be modelled using ordered, nominal or several different types of mixed models designed to overcome limitations of the ordered and nominal approaches. Two mixed modelling examples demonstrate better prediction accuracy than ordered or nominal modelling.

Research Implications – Linkage of crash, roadway and healthcare data sets could create a more accurate picture of crash severity. Emerging statistical analysis methods could address remaining limitations of the current best methods for crash severity modelling.

Practical Implications – Medical definitions of injury severity require observation by trained medical professionals and access to private medical records, limiting their use in routine crash data collection. Crash severity is more sensitive to human and vehicle factors than environmental or road factors. Unfortunately, human and vehicle factor data are generally not available for aggregate forecasting.

This contribution explores the history of women and feminism in the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) using concepts from feminist radical political economy. A feminist approach changes the categories of economic analysis to offer a new interpretation of an older history: the formation of the Women’s Caucus. I reread the early history of the feminist project in economics through the lens of social reproduction to understand the influence of life experience on practice, particularly on the 1971 women’s walkout during a URPE conference, and on economic theory. Highlighting women’s multiple roles, as graduate students, mothers, wives, girlfriends, and/or caregivers – but ultimately as women – reveals social reproduction as a site of radical politics and demonstrates the importance of reproductive labor for understanding solidarity. In doing so, the analysis provides an example of how a feminist perspective contributes uniquely to economics.