Densely populated areas are major sources of air, soil and water pollution. Agriculture, manufacturing, consumer households and road traffic all have their share. This is particularly true for the country featured in this paper: the Netherlands. Continuous pollution of the air and soil manifests itself as acification, decalcification and eutrofication. Biodiversity becomes lower and lower in nature areas. Biological farms are also under threat. In case of mobility, local air pollution may have a huge health impact. Effective policy is called for, after high courts blocked construction projects, because of foreseen building- and transport-related NOx emissions. EU law makers are after Dutch governments, because these favoured economics and politics over environmental and liveability concerns. But, people in the Netherlands are strongly divided. The latest provincial elections were dominated by environmental concerns, next to many socio-economic issues. NOx and CO2 emissions by passenger cars are in focus. Technical means and increasing fuel economy norms strongly reduced NOx emissions to a still too high level. A larger number of cars neutralized a technological reduction of CO2 emissions. The question is: What would be the impact of a drastic mandatory reduction in CO2, NOx, and PM10 emissions on car ownership and use in the Netherlands? The authors used literature, scenario analysis and simulation modelling to answer this question. Electric mobility could remove these emissions. Its full impact will only be achieved if the grid-mix, which is still dominated by fossil fuels, becomes green(er), which is a gradual, long-term, process. EVs compete with other consumers of electricity, as many other activities, such as heating, are also electrifying. With the current grid-mix, it is inevitable that the number of km per vehicle per year is reduced to reach the scenario targets (−25% resp. −50% CO2 emissions by cars). This calls for an individual mobility budget per car user.
LINK
Background: The emphasis on impact factors and the quantity of publications intensifies competition between researchers. This competition was traditionally considered an incentive to produce high-quality work, but there are unwanted side-effects of this competition like publication pressure. To measure the effect of publication pressure on researchers, the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) was developed. Upon using the PPQ, some issues came to light that motivated a revision.Method: We constructed two new subscales based on work stress models using the facet method. We administered the revised PPQ (PPQr) to a convenience sample together with the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). To assess which items best measured publication pressure, we carried out a principal component analysis (PCA). Reliability was sufficient when Cronbach's alpha > 0.7. Finally, we administered the PPQr in a larger, independent sample of researchers to check the reliability of the revised version.Results: Three components were identified as 'stress', 'attitude', and 'resources'. We selected 3 × 6 = 18 items with high loadings in the three-component solution. Based on the convenience sample, Cronbach's alphas were 0.83 for stress, 0.80 for attitude, and 0.76 for resources. We checked the validity of the PPQr by inspecting the correlations with the MBI and the WDQ. Stress correlated 0.62 with MBI's emotional exhaustion. Resources correlated 0.50 with relevant WDQ subscales. To assess the internal structure of the PPQr in the independent reliability sample, we conducted the principal component analysis. The three-component solution explains 50% of the variance. Cronbach's alphas were 0.80, 0.78, and 0.75 for stress, attitude, and resources, respectively.Conclusion: We conclude that the PPQr is a valid and reliable instrument to measure publication pressure in academic researchers from all disciplinary fields. The PPQr strongly relates to burnout and could also be beneficial for policy makers and research institutions to assess the degree of publication pressure in their institute.
DOCUMENT
Ongeveer een derde van alle kinderen in Nederland groeit op in niet-traditionele gezinsverbanden (Staatscommissie Herijking Ouderschap, 2016). In sommige van deze gezinnen hebben de ouders hun kinderwens weten te realiseren met behulp van geassisteerde voortplantingstechnologieën, zoals gametendonatie (sperma of eicel) of embryo-donatie (Staatscommissie Herijking Ouderschap, 2016, Golombok, 2020a,b). Deze voortplantingstechnologie kan ook gecombineerd worden met een draagmoeder. In dat geval wordt een vrouw zwanger met de intentie het juridisch ouderschap na de geboorte over te dragen aan de wensouder(s). Binnen de draagmoederschapprocedure zijn er twee opties: traditioneel draagmoederschap, waarbij de draagmoeder zwanger is van haar eigen eicellen. De andere vorm is “gestational” draagmoederschap. Bij deze vorm is de draagmoeder niet genetisch verwant aan het kind. De draagmoeder kan zwanger zijn van een kind dat genetisch volledig verwant is aan de wensouders of zwanger van een kind dat zowel genetisch verwant is aan een wensouder en een donor. Tot slot zou het kind ook nog genetisch verwant kunnen zijn aan twee donoren en dus niet aan de wensouders.
LINK
