2 1 The innovative transport systems and the CityMobil project 10 1.1 The research questions 10 2 The state of art in the field of automatic transport systems 12 2.1 Case studies and demand studies for innovative transport systems 12 3 The design and implementation of surveys 14 3.1 Definition of experimental design 14 3.2 Questionnaire design and delivery 16 3.3 First analyses on the collected sample 18 4 Calibration of Logit Multionomial demand models 21 4.1 Methodology 21 4.2 Calibration of the “full” model. 22 4.3 Calibration of the “final” model 24 4.4 The demand analysis through the final Multinomial Logit model 25 5 The analysis of interaction between the demand and socioeconomic attributes 31 5.1 Methodology 31 5.2 Application of Mixed Logit models to the demand 31 5.3 Analysis of the interactions between demand and socioeconomic attributes through Mixed Logit models 32 5.4 Mixed Logit model and interaction between age and the demand for the CTS 38 5.5 Demand analysis with Mixed Logit model 39 6 Final analyses and conclusions 45 6.1 Comparison between the results of the analyses 45 6.2 Conclusions 48 6.3 Answers to the research questions and future developments 52

The European commission

Nanoparticles: Properties, applications and toxicities

Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology

What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

http://www.marine.usf.edu/reefslab/documents/evol_ecol2007/Fabricius_terrest-runoff_2005.pdf

Effects of terrestrial runoff on the ecology of corals and coral reefs: review and synthesis

http://www.managingforimpact.org/sites/default/files/case/stilgoe_owen_macnaghten_2013_developing_a_framework_for_responsible_innovation.pdf

Developing a framework for responsible innovation

The term responsible (research and) innovation has gained increasing EU policy relevance in the last two years, in particular within the European Commission’s Science in Society programme, in the context of the Horizon 2020 Strategy. We provide a brief historical overview of the concept, and identify three distinct features that are emerging from associated discourses. The first is an emphasis on the democratic governance of the purposes of research and innovation and their orientation towards the ‘right impacts’. The second is responsiveness, emphasising the integration and institutionalisation of established approaches of anticipation, reflection and deliberation in and around research and innovation, influencing the direction of these and associated policy. The third concerns the framing of responsibility itself in the context of research and innovation as collective activities with uncertain and unpredictable consequences. Finally, we reflect on possible motivations for responsible innovation itself.

Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society

The emerging literature on the ecotoxicity of nanoparticles and nanomaterials is summarised, then the fundamental physico-chemistry that governs particle behaviour is explained in an ecotoxicological context. Techniques for measuring nanoparticles in various biological and chemical matrices are also outlined. The emerging ecotoxicological literature shows toxic effects on fish and invertebrates, often at low mg l−1 concentrations of nanoparticles. However, data on bacteria, plants, and terrestrial species are particularly lacking at present. Initial data suggest that at least some manufactured nanoparticles may interact with other contaminants, influencing their ecotoxicity. Particle behaviour is influenced by particle size, shape, surface charge, and the presence of other materials in the environment. Nanoparticles tend to aggregate in hard water and seawater, and are greatly influenced by the specific type of organic matter or other natural particles (colloids) present in freshwater. The state of dispersion will alter ecotoxicity, but many abiotic factors that influence this, such as pH, salinity, and the presence of organic matter remain to be systematically investigated as part of ecotoxicological studies. Concentrations of manufactured nanoparticles have rarely been measured in the environment to date. Various techniques are available to characterise nanoparticles for exposure and dosimetry, although each of these methods has advantages and disadvantages for the ecotoxicologist. We conclude with a consideration of implications for environmental risk assessment of manufactured nanoparticles.

The ecotoxicology and chemistry of manufactured nanoparticles

This paper introduces a special issue on the ecotoxicology and environmental chemistry of nanoparticles (NPs), and nanomaterials (NMs), in the journal Ecotoxicology. There are many types of NMs and the scientific community is making observations on NP ecotoxicity to inform the wider debate about the risks and benefits of these materials. Natural NPs have existed in the environment since the beginning of Earth’s history, and natural sources can be found in volcanic dust, most natural waters, soils and sediments. Natural NPs are generated by a wide variety of geological and biological processes, and while there is evidence that some natural NPs can be toxic, organisms have also evolved in an environment containing natural NPs. There are concerns that natural nano-scale process could be influenced by the presence of pollution. Manufactured NPs show some complex colloid and aggregation chemistry, which is likely to be affected by particle shape, size, surface area and surface charge, as well as the adsorption properties of the material. Abiotic factors such as pH, ionic strength, water hardness and the presence of organic matter will alter aggregation chemistry; and are expected to influence toxicity. The physico-chemistry is essential to understanding of the fate and behaviour of NPs in the environment, as well as uptake and distribution within organisms, and the interactions of NPs with other pollutants. Data on biological effects show that NPs can be toxic to bacteria, algae, invertebrates and fish species, as well as mammals. However, much of the ecotoxicological data is limited to species used in regulatory testing and freshwater organism. Data on bacteria, terrestrial species, marine species and higher plants is particularly lacking. Detailed investigations of absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) remain to be performed on species from the major phyla, although there are some data on fish. The environmental risk assessment of NMs could be performed using the existing tiered approach and regulatory framework, but with modifications to methodology including chemical characterisation of the materials being used. There are many challenges ahead, and controversies (e.g., reference substances for ecotoxicology), but knowledge transfer from mammalian toxicology, colloid chemistry, as well as material and geological sciences, will enable ecotoxicology studies to move forward in this new multi-disciplinary field.

http://users.uoa.gr/~econom/thalis/Coordinator/Papers/VALSAMI-JONES-%20The%20ecotoxicology%20of%20nanoparticles%20and%20nanomaterials,%202008l.pdf

The ecotoxicology of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: current status, knowledge gaps, challenges, and future needs

“Responsible innovation,” in reality, lacks definition and clarity, both in concept and practice. This chapter begins by emphasizing that science and innovation have not only produced understanding, knowledge, and value (economic, social, or otherwise), but also questions, dilemmas, and unintended impacts. It presents a framework for responsible innovation, based on four dimensions-anticipatory, reflective, deliberative, and responsive. The chapter emphasizes that this must be able to reflect on both the products and purposes of science and innovation. It reminds of the rich history in a number of fields of study, both theoretical and applied, which make a significant and important contribution both to the framing and definition of responsible innovation, and to how this is translated through the dimensions into practice. The chapter concludes with some closing thoughts on implementation, on how the embedding of responsible innovation as a genuinely transformative and constructive approach can be supported.

/pdf/a-framework-for-responsible-innovation-1mlod5ckh8.pdf

Richard Owen

Papers

Developing a framework for responsible innovation

Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society

The ecotoxicology and chemistry of manufactured nanoparticles

The ecotoxicology of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: current status, knowledge gaps, challenges, and future needs

A Framework for Responsible Innovation