Search

Climate change mitigation in the tourism sector is expanding research areas due to the importance of this sector and its rapid expansion. Aviation's contribution was found to be the most important source of GHG emissions from tourism. Also, the hospitality sector contributes a lot to GHG emissions in tourism destinations. Hospitality, constituting an essential component of the tourism industry, is a sector that has a high potential to reduce GHG and use of energy and water resources. Therefore, it is important to monitor the climate change mitigation performance of tourism destinations to achieve decarbonization of the tourism sector. The main objectives of this paper are to develop indicators of climate change mitigation performance of tourism destinations based on GHG indicators for the transport and hospitality sectors and apply this framework to assessment and ranking based on climate change mitigation performance of 4 main EU geographical regions as tourism destinations: Central, Northern, Southern, and Western Europe. This paper's main methodological approach is comparing and ranking different geographical regions in the European Union by assessing their climate change mitigation performance as tourist destinations. The study's main results showed that Finland, representing North Europe, is the best-performing country in climate change mitigation in tourism destinations. The second-best-performing geographical region is Western Europe. The worst-performing EU region based on climate change mitigation in tourism destinations was Central Europe. The South Europe region was found to be in a slightly better position than Central Europe but worse in comparison with Western Europe and especially in comparison to Northern Europe. The study's main implications provide policy recommendations for Central Europe as a tourism destination to increase energy and water use efficiency and the carbon footprint of the tourism sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to explore the role of Child Well-Being (CWB) in the integration processes of migrant and refugee minors. Through the co-creative development of a new child-centered system of indicators about the integration of migrant and refugee children in Europe the authors discuss a) the prominent role of well-being in this set of indicators, and b) how reappraising these indicators from a well-being approach can contribute to delving into which aspects of CWB are connected to the integration of migrant children. The contributions of this paper open new research paths: on the one hand, the methodology presented provides a reference for future research that can replicate the procedure to build child-centered indicators in disciplines different than migration studies; on the other hand, the results presented suggest not only that well-being has a prominent role in migrant children integration experiences, but also, that reappraising dimensions of migrant children's integration from a well-being approach hints at blurry borders between both concepts. This suggests promising research opportunities to underpin the relationship between integration and well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Smart Specialization policy, Europe's place-based innovation policy, is transitioning into an innovation policy for sustainability inspired by academic debate and the urgency of societal challenges. The implications in terms of policy design remain underexplored. This paper studies the policy implications of this transition on the design of monitoring indicators. First, a theoretical framework based on the literature is created. Then, monitoring indicators used in the first policy phase are summarized into categories and themes through inductive and deductive document analysis. The indicators' strengths and limitations are discussed. By highlighting how monitoring indicators need to adjust to the policy transition, this paper contributes to the literature on innovation policy and Smart Specialization. It also provides guidance to policymakers by developing a framework on indicator design and providing practical recommendations on aspects that need to be considered, captured, and analysed through the indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes a set of digitalisation indicators focused on measuring the different digital capabilities and infrastructure of electricity distribution systems, as opposed to previous indicators which have mainly focused on performance and quality of service aspects. The indicators are classified according to the pillars of digitalisation: sensor and actuator, connectivity, data processing, and digital culture. They are use-case-agnostic and do not require a huge amount of information. In addition to this, three possible new applications of these indicators for distribution system operators and regulatory authorities are identified and discussed. The extensive use of these indicators in Europe could allow the development of fruitful collaborations between distribution system operators, allow the identification of cause–effect relations between grid performance and digital infrastructure, and improve the replicability of innovative smart grid solutions. However, this will only be possible if regulators promote the adoption of the proposed indicators and the dissemination of their results. • Smart grid indicators are required by European Directive 2019/944. • Indicators on sensors/actuators, connectivity, data processing, and digital culture. • Indicators to provide an overview of the distribution grid. • Indicators to study relation between performance and digital infrastructure. • Indicators to generate information for the replicability of solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alzheimer's disease (AD), breast cancer (BC) and prostate cancer (PC) continue to be high in the research and innovation agenda of the European Commission (EC). This is due to their exceptionally large burden to the national health systems, the profound economic effects of opportunity costs attributable to decreased working ability, premature mortality and the ever-increasing demand for both hospital and home-based medical care. Over the last two decades, the EC has been steadily increasing both the number of proposals being funded and the amounts of financial resources being allocated to these fields of research. This trend has continued throughout four consecutive science funding cycles, namely framework programme (FP)5, FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 (H2020). We performed a retrospective assessment of the outputs and outcomes of EC funding in AD, BC and PC research over the 1999–2019 period by means of selected indicators. These indicators were assessed for their ability to screen the past, present and future for an array of causal relationships and long-term trends in clinical, epidemiological and public health sphere, while considering also the broader socioeconomic impact of funded research on the society at large. This analysis shows that public–private partnerships with large industry and university-based consortia have led to some of the most impactful proposals being funded over the analysed time period. New pharmaceuticals, small molecules and monoclonal antibodies alike, along with screening and prevention, have been the most prominent sources of innovation in BC and PC, extending patients' survival and enhancing their quality of life. Unlike oncology, dementia drug development has been way less successful, with only minor improvements related to the quality of supportive medical care for symptoms and more sensitive diagnostics, without any ground-breaking disease-modifying treatment(s). Significant progresses in imaging diagnostics and nanotechnology have been largely driven by the participation of medical device industry multinational companies. Clinical trials funded by the EC were conducted, leading to the development of brand-new drug molecules featuring novel mechanisms of action. Some prominent cases of breakthrough discoveries serve as evidence for the European capability to generate cutting-edge technological innovation in biomedicine. Less productive areas of research may be reconsidered as priorities when shaping the new agenda for forthcoming science funding programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2018 European bioeconomy strategy sets a new vision for Europe's sustainable development: a transition to regenerative resource usage that embraces circular principles. Similarly, various member states have developed national bioeconomy strategies. To be effective, such strategies require methodologically sound monitoring tools that support the alignment of national and urban policies. Indeed, cities are central to the bioeconomy, mobilizing ever increasing amounts of biogenic materials. To better understand the suitability of national bioeconomy strategies for guiding urban circular bioeconomy transitions, this paper examines the composition, features, and topical coverage of national bioeconomy indicator sets with a threefold analysis: (1) assessment of the integration of circularity principles in the sets and their alignment with existing policy frameworks; (2) appraisal of quality and the fulfillment of the sets' functional purposes; (3) evaluation of the breadth and depth of tackled issues. Of the 27 EU member states, only nine have a dedicated bioeconomy strategy, of which four propose an indicator set. While there is a general lack of sophisticated monitoring, the tools proposed after the publication of the 2018 bioeconomy strategy (Germany and Italy) follow indicator development standards rigorously. They include circularity in their notion of bioeconomy and combine indicators for a comprehensive, substantial, informative and politically relevant analysis. These characteristics strongly improve the potential for alignment and coherence with urban-level bioeconomy monitoring efforts. Although national measuring tools are not intended to cover all urban needs, the findings of this paper give insight into their remaining gaps and highlight improvement pathways for an efficient EU-wide circular bioeconomy transition. [Display omitted] • Most EU national bioeconomy strategies lack sophisticated indicator sets. • National bioeconomy strategies should favor alignment with other policy levels. • Thoroughly developed indicator sets allow targeted answers to environmental change. • Recent strategies follow indicator development standards more rigorously. • Recent indicator sets enable monitoring of urban circular bioeconomy transitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]