Suchergebnisse

Logisticians are trained to identify trade‐offs and to devise
compromising solutions which produce the lowest total costs. For
example, the economic batch size is a compromise between setup costs and
inventory carrying costs. Presents a problem‐analysis technique which
helps the analyst to eliminate the problem so that no compromise is
necessary. For example, instead of balancing inventory‐carrying costs
and setup costs a solution which produces both lower setup costs and
lower inventory‐carrying costs would be sought. Discusses a description
of the techniques and several examples of its application to logistical
problems.

AbstractAs cash increasingly becomes an essential part of humanitarian assistance, it is critical that practitioners are aware of, and work to mitigate, exposure to protection risks among the most vulnerable recipients. This article presents findings from qualitative research exploring protection risks and barriers that arise in cash programming for internally displaced persons at high risk of violence and exploitation in Cameroon and Afghanistan. The authors conclude with recommendations for mainstreaming global protection principles into cash programmes, as well as key considerations for designing and implementing cash programmes in ways that minimize existing risks of harm and avoid creating new ones.

The Arctic is undergoing large-scale changes that are likely to accelerate in future decades such as introductions and expansions of invasive species. The Arctic is in a unique position to prevent new introductions and spread of existing invasive species by adopting policies and actions aimed at early detection. Responding to threats from invasive species to minimize impacts to ecosystems, communities, food security, and northern economies will necessitate extensive observations and monitoring, but resource managers often face decisions without having adequate data and resources at hand. Local observing programs such as citizen science and community-based monitoring programs present attractive methods for increasing observing capacity that span contributory and co-created approaches while raising awareness of an issue among stakeholders. While the co-created model has been widely applied and encouraged in the Arctic context, contributory citizen science programs offer an additional tool for addressing observing needs in the Arctic. We showcase three contributory citizen science programs related to freshwater, terrestrial, and marine environments that have supported the objectives of the Alaska Invasive Species Partnership. We discuss criteria for achieving ARIAS priority actions at the participant scale related to participants' motivation and participants' understanding of the value of their contributions, at the programmatic scale, for example promoting accessible, reciprocal, and transparent knowledge exchange, and at the policy and science scale where management action is data driven. The approach is aimed at successful integration of citizen science into Arctic policy making. Finally, we discuss challenges related to broader global data collection and future directions for contributory citizen science within Arctic observing networks. ; L'Arctique fait l'objet de changements de taille susceptibles de s'accélérer au cours des prochaines décennies, comme l'introduction et l'intensification d'espèces envahissantes. L'Arctique se trouve dans la position unique d'empêcher les nouvelles introductions et la propagation des espèces envahissantes actuelles grâce à l'adoption de politiques et de mesures visant à en faire la détection précoce. Réagir aux menaces des espèces envahissantes afin de minimiser leurs incidences sur les écosystèmes, les collectivités, la sécurité alimentaire et les économies nordiques nécessitera des activités d'observation et de surveillance d'envergure. Toutefois, les gestionnaires de ressources sont souvent tenus de prendre des décisions sans posséder de données et de ressources adéquates. Les programmes d'observation locaux, comme les programmes de science citoyenne et les programmes de surveillance communautaire, constituent des méthodes intéressantes d'augmentation de la capacité d'observation qui comportent des approches contributives et créées en collaboration tout en ayant pour effet de sensibiliser les parties prenantes aux enjeux. Bien que le modèle créé en collaboration ait été appliqué et encouragé à grande échelle dans le contexte de l'Arctique, les programmes de science citoyenne contributive offrent un outil supplémentaire pour s'attaquer aux besoins d'observation dans l'Arctique. Nous présentons trois programmes de science citoyenne contributive se rapportant à l'environnement d'eau douce, à l'environnement terrestre et à l'environnement marin, programmes qui s'inscrivent dans les objectifs du partenariat de l'Alaska en matière d'espèces envahissantes (Alaska Invasive Species Partnership). Nous discutons des critères nécessaires à l'atteinte des mesures prioritaires de l'ARIAS à l'échelle du participant, soit en matière de motivation des participants et de leur compréhension de la valeur de leurs contributions, à l'échelle programmatique, par exemple en faisant la promotion d'un échange de connaissances accessible, réciproque et transparent, et à l'échelle des politiques et des sciences pour lesquelles les mesures de gestion sont fondées sur les données. La démarche vise l'intégration réussie de la science citoyenne dans l'élaboration des politiques touchant l'Arctique. Enfin, nous discutons des défis inhérents à la collecte générale des données globales et à l'orientation future de la science citoyenne contributive au sein des réseaux d'observation de l'Arctique.

Marking wild birds is an integral part of many field studies. However, if marks affect the vital rates or behavior of marked individuals, any conclusions reached by a study might be biased relative to the general population. Leg bands have rarely been found to have negative effects on birds and are frequently used to mark individuals. Leg flags, which are larger, heavier, and might produce more drag than bands, are commonly used on shorebirds and can help improve resighting rates. However, no one to date has assessed the possible effects of leg flags on the demographic performance of shorebirds. At seven sites in Arctic Alaska and western Canada, we marked individuals and monitored nest survival of four species of Arctic-breeding shorebirds, including Semipalmated Sandpipers (Calidris pusilla), Western Sandpipers (C. mauri), Red-necked Phalaropes (Phalarope lobatus), and Red Phalaropes (P. fielicarius). We used a daily nest survival model in a Bayesian framework to test for effects of leg flags, relative to birds with only bands, on daily survival rates of 1952 nests. We found no evidence of a difference in nest survival between birds with flags and those with only bands. Our results suggest, therefore, that leg flags have little effect on the nest success of Arctic-breeding sandpipers and phalaropes. Additional studies are needed, however, to evaluate the possible effects of flags on shorebirds that use other habitats and on survival rates of adults and chicks. ; National Fish and Wildlife Foundation [2010-0061-015, 2011-0032-014, 0801.12.032731, 0801.13.041129]; Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [F11AP01040, F12AP00734, F13APO535, 4073, 4102]; Alaska Department of Fish and Game; State Wildlife Grant [T-16]; Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; Bureau of Land Management; Centre for Wildlife Ecology at Simon Fraser University; Environment and Climate Change Canada; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada; Kansas State University; Kresge Foundation; Liz Claiborne/Art Ortenberg Foundation; Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences; National Park Service; Murie Science and Learning Center Research Fellowship Program; National Science Foundation (Office of Polar Programs)National Science Foundation (NSF) [ARC-1023396]; National Science Foundation (Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant)National Science Foundation (NSF) [1501479]; Natural Resources Canada (Polar Continental Shelf Program); Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Strategic Grant - Discovery Grants) [357054]; Northern Scientific Training Program (Canadian Polar Commission); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory Bird Management Division, Survey, Monitoring and Assessment Program); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge System's Challenge Cost Share Program); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Avian Influenza Health and Influenza programs); U.S. Geological Survey (Changing Arctic Ecosystem Initiative, Wildlife Program of the USGS Ecosystem Mission Area); University of Colorado Denver; University of Alaska Fairbanks; University of Missouri Columbia ; Major support for the infrastructure of the Arctic Shorebird Demographics Network was provided by the Arctic Landscape Conservation Cooperative, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (grants 2010-0061-015, 2011-0032-014, 0801.12.032731, and 0801.13.041129), and Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (grants F11AP01040, F12AP00734, F13APO535, 4073, and 4102). Additional funding for individual sites was provided by Alaska Department of Fish and Game (including State Wildlife Grant T-16), Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Bureau of Land Management, Centre for Wildlife Ecology at Simon Fraser University, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Kansas State University, Kresge Foundation, Liz Claiborne/Art Ortenberg Foundation, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, National Park Service (including Murie Science and Learning Center Research Fellowship Program), National Science Foundation (Office of Polar Programs grant ARC-1023396 and Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant 1501479), Natural Resources Canada (Polar Continental Shelf Program), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Strategic Grant - 357054, Discovery Grants), Northern Scientific Training Program (Canadian Polar Commission), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory Bird Management Division, Survey, Monitoring and Assessment Program, Alaska National Wildlife Refuge System's Challenge Cost Share Program, and Avian Influenza Health and Influenza programs), U.S. Geological Survey (Changing Arctic Ecosystem Initiative, Wildlife Program of the USGS Ecosystem Mission Area), University of Colorado Denver, University of Alaska Fairbanks, and University of Missouri Columbia. We thank local communities and landowners, including the people of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, North Slope Borough, Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation, and Sitnasuak Native Corporation for permitting us to conduct research on their lands. Logistical support was provided by Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Barrow Arctic Science Consortium, Cape Krusenstern National Monument (National Park Service), ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., Sisualik National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and Umiaq, LLC. We thank the many field assistants who helped on this project throughout the years, including S. Carvey, T. Donnelly, A. Gottesman, D. Pavlik, and B. Wilkinson for their key roles in field work at the Colville River Delta, and D. Payer for his key role in implementing and overseeing field work at Canning River Delta. J. Lamb, L. Rosen, and B. Ross provided comments on an early draft of the manuscript. Animal handling, marking, and monitoring procedures were approved by animal care and use committees and permitting agencies at Environment and Climate Change Canada, Kansas State University, National Park Service, University of Alaska Fairbanks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Geological Survey - Alaska Science Center. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. ; Public domain authored by a U.S. government employee