Search results

Finite divisibility of general systems is shown. Based on this result, Lavoisier’s Axiom, introduced in 1789, is verified by using the concept of basic particles, where a basic particle is one particle which can no longer be divided into smaller ones. The conservation principle of ancient atomists is recasted and proved mathematically, based on which the law of conservation of matter‐energy can be seen clearly. A brief history of atoms, elements, and laws of conservation is given and some important open questions are posed.

Adaptive reuse processes aim to preserve heritage values while creating new values through the architectural interventions that have become necessary. This claim provokes a discussion about the meaning of values, how we can preserve them in practice and how we can translate them into architectural qualities that users experience. Riegl's understanding of the different perspectives of heritage values in the past and present opens up the possibility of identifying present values as a reflection of current social, material and political conditions in the architectural discourse.

This qualitative and practical study compares two Belgian projects to trace the use of values in adaptive reuse projects from an architectural design perspective. The Predikherenklooster, a 17th-century monastery in Mechelen that now houses the public library, and the C-Mine cultural centre in Genk, a former 20th-century coal mine, are compared. The starting point is Flemish legislation, which defines significance through values, distinguishing between 13 heritage values.

The study demonstrates the opportunities that axiological questions offer during the design process of an adaptive reuse project. They provide an overarching framework for tangible and intangible aspects that need to be discussed, particularly in terms of the link between what exists, the design strategy and their effect.

Adaptive reuse can draw on approaches from both heritage conservation and contemporary architecture and explore values as a tool for “re-designing” built heritage.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Modern organic metaphors for society have run parallel to the very idea of sociology as a science, starting with Comte and Spencer's use of the term “social organism” (Comte, 1830–42; Spencer, 1897). These metaphors provide a self-renewing source of debate, analogies, and disanalogies. Processes of social regulation, conservation, growth, and reproduction provoke an irresistible epistemic resonance and make us lose little time in offering explanations resembling those of biological regulation, conservation, growth, and reproduction. The phenomenon has not been restricted to metaphor-hungry social scientists: the final chapter of W. B. Cannon's The wisdom of the body (1932) is called “Relations of biological and social homeostasis.” Attempts to apply a modern theory of living organisms — the theory of autopoiesis (Maturana & Varela, 1980) — to social systems are but the latest installment in this saga. Despite the appeal of the organic metaphor, there are good reasons to remain skeptical of these parallels. “Because every man is a biped, fifty men are not a centipede,” says G. K. Chesterton (1910) ironically in his essay against the medical fallacy. Doctors may disagree on the diagnosis of an illness, he says, but they know what is the state they are trying to restore: that of a healthy organism (implying, admittedly, a rather unproblematic concept of health). In social systems, a “social illness” confronts us with precisely the opposite situation: the disagreement is about what the healthy state should be.

To develop an overview of generalized scales based on pansystems‐relative quantification.

This is a discussion paper exploring the key issues surrounding generalized measures.

The concrete contents of the study include generalized measure views, dimension theory, concepts, logic, theories, Einstein's relativity, quality‐quantity‐degree, methodology of physics, theorems in pansystems mathematics and physics explained within the framework of pan‐scale transformations.

Provides an overview of generalized scales based on pansystems‐relative quantification.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a new ecological-issues-centered accounting research agenda, at the crossroads of accounting research and conservation science.

Based on a case study of the Natural Capital Project, the research examines the efforts and challenges of conservation practitioners regarding the use of evaluative information systems for conservation (EISC) in complex social and ecological contexts. It discusses why and how, to address these challenges, EISC promoters would benefit from theoretical and empirical insights coming from accounting research.

The paper suggests that the use of new information systems centered on organized collective action for biodiversity conservation should be regarded as a new type of accounting for the management of ecosystems, complementary to organization-centered biodiversity accounting and to ecosystem accounting at the national scale. A research agenda inspired by critical accounting should be developed for EISC design and use by: critically analyzing the organizational models currently underlying the use of new calculative practices for ecosystems; and developing new analytical and practical avenues on the basis of more explicit and powerful theories adapted to collective action for conservation perimeters.

The paper shows the importance of combining three domains of research and practice that are usually disconnected: the design and use of innovative information systems in biodiversity conservation research and practice; accounting research; and theories and conceptual models of collective action to resolve ecological challenges.