In this article we focus upon a division between generalized schools of philosophical and ethical thought about culture and conservation. There is an ongoing debate playing out over conservation between those who believe conservation threatens community livelihoods and traditional practices, and those who believe conservation is essential to protect nonhuman species from the impact of human development and population growth. We argue for reconciliation between these schools of thought and a cooperative push toward the cultivation of an environmentally-focused perspective that embraces not only social and economic justice but also concern for non-human species. Our goal is to underline the ethics and tangible benefits that may result from combining the cultural data and knowledge of the social sciences with understanding of environmental science and conservation. We highlight instances in which social scientists overlook their own anthropocentric bias in relationship to ecological justice, or justice for all species, in favor of exclusive social justice among people. We focus on the polemical stances of this debate in order to emphasize the importance of a middle road of cooperation that acknowledges the rights of human and nonhuman species, alike. In conclusion, we present an alternative set of ethics and research activities for social scientists concerned with conservation and offer ideas on how to reconcile the conflicting interests of people and the environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.030 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
The transition from institutional to community care for vulnerable people has been shaping the welfare system in Europe over the last decades. For the period of 2014-20 deinstitutionalization became one of the highlighted priorities of the European Commission in order to promote reforms in disability and mental health care in the convergence regions, too. Between 2007 and 2013, Estonia as many other Eastern European countries has implemented the first wave of deinstitutionalization and during the new EU budget period a second wave will be occurred in order to continue and hopefully complete the transition. In this study, we try to give an overview on the experiences of different European countries highlighting good practices and possible pitfalls. This study has been conducted at the request of the Estonian Ministry of Social Affairs.
BackgroundPreference-weighted multi-faceted endpoints have the potential to facilitate comparative effectiveness research that incorporates patient preferences. The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey—Composite endpoint (TOPICS-CEP) is potentially a valuable outcome measure for evaluating interventions in geriatric care as it combines multiple outcomes relevant to older persons in a single metric. The objective of this study was to validate TOPICS-CEP across different study settings (general population, primary care and hospital).MethodsData were extracted from TOPICS Minimum Dataset (MDS), a pooled public-access national database with information on older persons throughout the Netherlands. Data of 17,603 older persons were used. Meta-correlations were performed between TOPICS-CEP indexed scores, EuroQol5-D utility scores and Cantril’s ladder life satisfaction scores. Mixed linear regression analyses were performed to compare TOPICS-CEP indexed scores between known groups, e.g. persons with versus without depression.ResultsIn the complete sample and when stratified by study setting TOPICS-CEP and Cantril’s ladder were moderately correlated, whereas TOPICS-CEP and EQ-5D were highly correlated. Higher mean TOPICS-CEP scores were found in persons who were: married, lived independently and had an education at university level. Moreover, higher mean TOPICS-CEP scores were found in persons without dementia, depression, and dizziness with falls, respectively. Similar results were found when stratified by subgroup.ConclusionThis study supports that TOPICS-CEP is a robust measure which can potentially be used in broad settings to identify the effect of intervention or of prevention in elderly care.
