Search results

This chapter examines the Netherlands’ challenges in safeguarding its low-lying coastline against rising sea levels and the consequences of coastal defense strategies on marine life, particularly in relation to SDG14. Sea-level rise necessitates increased soft coastal defense strategies, affecting seafloor areas and marine biodiversity through sand extraction and sand nourishments. The use of hard structures for coastal defense contributes to the loss of natural coastal habitats, raising biodiversity concerns. The chapter explores the potential benefits of artificial hard surfaces as marine habitats, emphasising the need for careful design to prevent ecological problems caused by invasive species. Strategies for enhancing biodiversity on human-made hard substrate structures, including material variations, hole drilling, and adaptations, are discussed. The ecological impact of marine sand extraction is examined, detailing its effects on benthic fauna, sediment characteristics, primary production, and fish and shrimp populations. Solutions proposed include improved design for mining areas, ecosystem-based rules for extraction sites, and ecologically enriched extraction areas. The ecosystem effects of marine sand nourishments are also analysed, considering the impact on habitat suitability for various species. The chemical effects of anaerobic sediment and recovery challenges are addressed. Mitigation measures, such as strategic nourishment location and timing, adherence to local morphology, and technical solutions, are suggested. The chapter underscores the importance of education in Nature-based Solutions and announces the launch of a new BSc programme in Marine Sciences at Wageningen University & Research, integrating social and ecological knowledge to address challenges in seas, oceans, and coastal regions and support SDG14 goals.

The discussion about public sector performance is still present today, despite the profound research that has already tried to address this subject. Furthermore, theory links negative effects on organizational performance with increased levels of organizational complexity. However, literature thus far did not succeed to put forward a successful theory that explains why and how public organizations became increasingly complex. To answer this question, we argue that increased organizational complexity can be explained by viewing public organizations as the hybrid result of different institutional logics, which are shaped by various management views. However, former research mainly concentrated on the separate study of management views such as traditional public management (TPM), NPM, and post-NPM. Although appealing, research that approaches hybridity from this perspective is fairly limited.

We conducted a literature review in which we studied 80 articles about traditional public management, NPM, and post-NPM.

We found that these management views essentially differ on the base of three fault lines, depending on the level of the organizational culture. These fault lines, according to the management view, together result in nine dimensions. By combing dimensions of the different management views, we argue that a public organization becomes hybrid. Furthermore, in line with findings of contingency theory, we explain the level of hybridity might depend on the level of tight coupling for a given organization. Finally, we developed propositions that explain hybridity as the result of isomorphic forces, organizational change, and organizational resistance to change and that link hybridization with processes of selective coupling.

The value of this chapter lies in its real-life applicability.

This paper chronicles the evolution of the academic debate regarding diversity in management accounting research and discusses its impact on the current state of management accounting research.

We review the stream of literature over the last 40-plus years that discusses diversity in management accounting.

Anthony’s 1972 paper in Sloan Management Review makes a call to academics to adjust the trajectory of management accounting research. Our review of the literature reveals that early responses in the 1980s and 1990s to Anthony’s call primarily came from U.S. academics who suggest a broader theoretical approach and more work in the field. After 2000, non-U.S. authors and non-U.S. journals take up the call for diversity and shift the discussion to the more fundamental topic of validating and accepting various research paradigms. The U.S. academic environment fosters a narrow yet important view of management account research. To balance the U.S. view, non-U.S. academics have the liberty of using diverse theories, paradigms, and methods.

The results of the study indicate that the challenge to moving management accounting research forward is for diverse research approaches to be valued and published in top accounting journals that tend to be U.S. based.

In light of the growing interest in neuroscience within the managerial and organizational cognition (MOC) scholarly domain at large, this chapter advances current knowledge on core neuroscience methods. It does so by building on the theoretical analysis put forward by Healey and Hodgkinson (2014, 2015), and by offering a thorough – yet accessible – methodological framework for a better understanding of key cognitive and social neuroscience methods. Classifying neuroscience methods based on their degree of resolution, functionality, and anatomical focus, the chapter outlines their features, practicalities, advantages and disadvantages. Specifically, it focuses on functional magnetic resonance imaging, electroencephalography, magnetoencephalography, heart rate variability, and skin conductance response. Equipped with knowledge of these methods, researchers will be able to further their understanding of the potential synergies between management and neuroscience, to better appreciate and evaluate the value of neuroscience methods, and to look at new ways to frame old and new research questions in MOC. The chapter also builds bridges between researchers and practitioners by rebalancing the hype and hopes surrounding the use of neuroscience in management theory and practice.