Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"This book explores how the state can foster collective action by fisher's communities in fisheries management. It presents a different perspective from Elinor Ostrom's classic work on the eight institutional conditions that foster collective action in natural resource management and instead emphasizes the role of the state in fisheries co-management, engaging a state-centric notion of 'meta-governance'. It argues that first, the state is required to foster collective action by fishers; and secondly, that the current fisheries co-management arrangements are state-centric. The study develops these arguments through the analysis of three case studies in Japan, Vietnam and Norway. The author also makes a theoretical contribution to governance literature by developing Ostrom's 'society-centric' framework in a way which makes it more amenable to analysis of state capacity and government intervention in a comparative context\"--Back cover.

Multimorbidity represents one of the greatest challenges in modern healthcare. Advances in diagnostics and therapeutics have extended survival but also increased the number of patients presenting with multisystem conditions requiring coordinated inpatient management. This position paper from the EFIM Multimorbidity Working Group explores the evolution, current state, and future of hospitalist co-management models in the United States (US) and Europe. In the US, the emergence of hospitalists in the 1990s revolutionized inpatient medicine. Hospitalist-led co-management, defined as shared responsibility between internists and surgical or subspecialty team, has demonstrated consistent benefits, including reduced complications, shorter hospital stays, fewer readmissions, and enhanced patient and provider satisfaction. Success relies on clear role delineation, effective communication, and structured workflows. Evidence from surgical and oncological co-management highlights significant improvements in outcomes and efficiency, establishing hospitalist co-management as a key component of high-value care. In Europe, where internists traditionally provide comprehensive care, co-management has developed alongside integrated care models addressing multimorbidity. Different integrated and multidisciplinary programs exemplify person-centered frameworks, improving patient experience and quality of care. Although European evidence on co-management remains more limited, its expansion in surgical and medical fields illustrates growing recognition of its value. Yet challenges persist: defining accountability, managing workload, and ensuring cultural acceptance among specialties. The integration of digital health tools and artificial intelligence may further enhance its effectiveness, particularly for high-risk populations. At last, hospitalist co-management stands as a transformative model of inpatient medicine, linking efficiency with holistic, patient-centered care and shaping the future of multidisciplinary hospital practice.

\"Everything you need to know about your child's anger and how to manage it\"-- Provided by publisher.

Orthogeriatrics is increasingly recommended in the care of hip fracture patients, although evidence for this model is conflicting or at least limited. Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence on which model [geriatric medicine consultant service (GCS), geriatric medical ward with orthopedic surgeon consultant service (GW), integrated care model (ICM)] is superior. The review summarizes the effect of orthogeriatric care for hip fracture patients on length of stay (LOS), time to surgery (TTS), in-hospital mortality, 1-year mortality, 30-day readmission rate, functional outcome, complication rate, and cost. Two independent reviewers retrieved randomized controlled trials, controlled observational studies, and pre/post analyses. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Thirty-seven studies were included, totaling 37.294 patients. Orthogeriatric care significantly reduced LOS [mean difference (MD) − 1.55 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) (− 2.53; − 0.57)], but heterogeneity warrants caution in interpreting this finding. Orthogeriatrics also resulted in a 28% lower risk of in-hospital mortality [95%CI (0.56; 0.92)], a 14% lower risk of 1-year mortality [95%CI (0.76; 0.97)], and a 19% lower risk of delirium [95%CI (0.71; 0.92)]. No significant effect was observed on TTS and 30-day readmission rate. No consistent effect was found on functional outcome. Numerically lower numbers of complications were observed in orthogeriatric care, yet some complications occurred more frequently in GW and ICM. Limited data suggest orthogeriatrics is cost-effective. There is moderate quality evidence that orthogeriatrics reduces LOS, in-hospital mortality, 1-year mortality, and delirium of hip fracture patients and may reduce complications and cost, while the effect on functional outcome is inconsistent. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend one or the other type of orthogeriatric care model.

Small-scale fisheries are critically important to millions of people worldwide for livelihood, food security, and lifeways. Despite their importance, effective management is often inhibited by a lack of participation, involvement, and empowerment, as well as the suppression of Indigenous and local agency to steward small-scale fisheries. For small-scale fisheries, co-management has emerged as a promising and potentially beneficial solution that allows communities and the government to share management authority for marine areas. Co-management is associated with better social and ecological outcomes, but there is an implementation gap in developed contexts where most power and authority to manage resources is nested within a state-level bureaucracy. Our research addresses a key question: how can communities evaluate and select the most practical pathway to co-management in these state-centric governance contexts? We investigate this question using a case study of small-scale coral reef fisheries in Hawaiʻi. Our goals are to assess the degree to which these different designations may offer an easier path to co-management implementation for communities and to reduce the transaction costs associated with implementing co-management. We combine institutional analysis, policy analysis, and semi-structured interviews to analyze six different marine management designations in Hawaiʻi. Our analysis revealed that many pathways exist for communities to use existing marine managed areas to collaboratively manage resources with state authorities. This suggests a diversity of institutional arrangements are possible for communities, but the rules that may be established can vary among different management designations. Even with this variability, the state’s rule-making process creates significant costs, which are primarily born by communities. Our stepwise institutional analysis uncovers how existing common-pool resource theories can be combined to assess, enable, and ease co-management planning and implementation and lead to more effective marine resource management transitions.

\"A banker, investor, and Columbia Business School professor offers an insider's take on what happened to Goldman Sachs, informed by his own experience, interviews with others who worked at or with the firm, and previously unreleased research\"-- Provided by publisher.

In recent decades, scientists and practitioners have increasingly focused on identifying and codifying the best ways to manage activities in marine systems, leading to the development and implementation of concepts such as the social-ecological systems approach, ecosystem-based management, integrated management, marine spatial planning, participatory co-management, and the precautionary approach. To date, these concepts appear as separate entities: they have parallel literature streams; have been applied most often individually in attempts to improve governance and management; and in many ways, seem to be competing for attention. This patchwork of approaches may be hindering effective ocean governance. We propose that desirable features from these frameworks could be woven together to form the basis of more effective and equitable ocean governance arrangements across contexts, sectors, and scales. This article synthesizes the efforts of an IMBeR (Integrated Marine Biosphere Research Project) conference session and working group, that brought together experts in these diverse concepts with the objective of producing a synthesis of how they could be more effectively integrated for improved ocean sustainability outcomes. We reviewed and compared the concepts in terms of (a) the need to achieve a comprehensive suite of sustainability objectives, (b) similarities and differences in their scope, and (c) their place in practical management, policy and regulation. Achieving greater cross-sectoral integration, or a more holistic perspective on management for sustainability is at the core of each concept. All deal with aspects of governance and most, with improved participation in governance. The major differences in the origin and historical application of each concept are reflected in the degree of implicit or explicit focus given to different objectives of sustainability. Overall, the concepts are especially strong for ecological and institutional or governance considerations, moderately strong for economic aspects, and weakest for the social-cultural pillar of full spectrum sustainability. There is no panacea, and no emergent hierarchy among concepts. Some concepts fit better with top-down legislation-based efforts, others with more bottom-up stakeholder driven efforts. The selection of the core concepts for a situation will depend in a large part on which concepts are specified, or demand focus, in the legal and policy context of the situation (or area) of interest. No matter how influential or dominant a single concept might be, pragmatically, different concepts will be used in different areas, and there may always be the need for a combination of concepts and objectives woven together to achieve a cohesive quilt of sustainability.

We survey and evaluate selected participatory tools that have been proven effective in natural resources management and research during our extensive experience with forest communities. We first establish a framework for our analysis by identifying a set of criteria for evaluating each tool. Next we provide a brief description of each tool, followed by an evaluation and comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of all the tools examined and how well they can be adapted to diverse contexts. We also provide suggestions for avoiding common pitfalls. Our findings suggest that most tools are flexible enough to be adapted to a range of applications, and that results are more robust when tools are used in concert. Practitioners should not be disturbed when results are contradictory or unexpected; initial surprises can lead to unexpected discoveries. Given the complexity of natural resources and their management, picking the right tool does not guarantee that the data desired will be produced, but selecting the wrong tool does make success less likely. The tools assessed are Bayesian belief networks and system dynamic modeling tools, discourse-based valuation, the 4Rs framework, participatory mapping, scoring or the Pebble Distribution Method, future scenarios, spidergrams, Venn diagrams, and Who Counts Matrices.