text:
Social return on investment (SROI) method to evaluate physical activity and sport interventions: a systematic review
Véronique Gosselin ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9644-548X1,
Dorothée Boccanfuso2 &
Suzanne Laberge1
Physical Activity and Sport (PAS) interventions can reduce the social and economic burden of non-communicable diseases and improve the wellbeing of the population. Social return on investment (SROI) has the capacity to measure broader socio-economic outcomes in a singular monetary ratio to help identify the most impactful and cost-beneficial intervention. This review aimed to systematically identify and review studies using the SROI method within the field of PAS and assess their quality.
Peer-reviewed and grey literature SROI studies were identified through a systematic search of six databases. Two reviewers independently assessed the identified studies to determine eligibility. Study quality was assessed using the Krelv et al. 12-point framework. For each included study, information was extracted and classified into summary tables. Extracted information included study and participant characteristics, type of outcomes and SROI ratio. The PRISMA guidelines were followed.
Seventeen studies published between 2010 and 2018 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (94%) were non-peer reviewed publicly available reports, primarily conducted in the UK (76%), by private consulting firms (41%) and included all types of stakeholders (76%). PAS interventions included Primary prevention (47%), Sport for development (29%), Secondary and tertiary prevention (18%) and High-performance sport (6%). SROI ratios, which report the social value created in relation to the cost of an intervention, vary between 3:1 and 124:1 for the high-quality studies.
The SROI framework can be a useful tool to inform policy-making relating to PAS investment as it can account for the wide societal benefits of PAS. The quality of studies in the field would benefit from the employment of an impact map (or logic model), reporting negative outcomes and using objective study designs. The application of the SROI method in the PAS field is relatively recent, and thus further research would be beneficial to promote its potential for policy-making bodies in the field.
Regular physical activity is proven to help prevent and treat noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) such as heart disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes and breast and colon cancer. It can also help to prevent weight-gain and obesity, while also contributing to improved mental health, quality of life and well-being [1, 2]. In addition to these health benefits, there is a growing body of literature measuring the ways in which physical activity and sport (PAS) contribute to society [3]. For example, Taylor et al. [4], in a systematic review on the social impact of culture and sport, provide evidence of the impact of sport on crime reduction, educational achievement, subjective well-being, and social capital. Economic productivity and civic participation have also been identified as social contributions of PAS [1, 4, 5]. As a strategy to reduce the social and economic burden of NCDs, improve the wellbeing of the population and benefit from their broad contribution to society, many countries, through different levels of governance, are investing in different PAS interventions [6,7,8,9]. For instance, in the United Kingdom (UK), the five outcomes identified in Sporting Future, the Government's strategy for sport are physical wellbeing, mental wellbeing, individual development, social and community development and economic development [10]. In Quebec, 64 million CAD was recently invested in different interventions intended to promote PAS, which include a school-based PAS policy. The policy target is to provide 60 min of daily PAS to all children, with several expected benefits including improved cognitive skills, educational achievement, wellbeing, physical and mental health, as well as more developed social and relational skills [11]. Economic evaluations can be used to determine whether policies and interventions achieve the highest attainable impacts and to inform the policymaking process. Traditional frameworks of economic evaluations include cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Over the past decade, the social return on investment (SROI) framework has received increased attention within the public health domain [12,13,14,15,16].
SROI is a framework used for understanding, measuring, and reporting the social, economic and environmental value created by an intervention, programme, policy or organisation [17]. It has its foundations in traditional economic evaluation [16, 18, 19] and is recognized for providing a holistic framework in its inclusion of entire social impact and a strong engagement with the stakeholders [13, 15, 17, 18, 20].
The SROI provides an indication of the efficiency of an investment by comparing the value of its benefits to the value of the resources invested in order to assess comparative options. To do so, it uses monetary values to represent the social value created by an intervention by accounting for the whole range of the value generated, beyond a narrow microeconomic dimension [21, 22]. This allows for the calculation of a benefits to costs ratio [17]. For example, a ratio of 2:1 indicates that an investment of $1 delivers $2 of social value.
There are two types of SROI: evaluative (conducted after an intervention and based on outcomes that have already taken place) and forecast (conducted before an intervention to predict how much social value will be created if it meets the intended outcomes) [17]. The first step for both types is to develop an impact map (also called theory of change or logic model) with the stakeholders. The impact map shows the relationship between inputs, outputs and outcomes, and allows for the identification of indicators to measure outcomes [17, 22]. The next step is attributing values to the outcomes, referred to as the monetisation. Monetising the social outcomes of an intervention is one of the main challenges of the method as some may be difficult to monetise (e.g., subjective wellbeing or improved self-esteem) [16, 23]. To do so, financial proxies are used: they provide an estimate of financial value for outcomes or benefits that have no market value. To choose the financial proxies, the SROI guide presents methods used in environmental and health economics, such as contingent valuation, revealed preference and hedonic pricing. It is also recommended to use cost savings or an increased income when appropriate [17]. For instances, changes in health care costs resulting from an alteration in an individual's personal health as well as changes in personal income due to an alteration of employment status could both be used as financial proxies. Proxy databases have also been developed in the last decade to assist SROI practitioners in the valuation process [24, 25]. They provide financial proxies to monetise outcomes, including those that are particularly hard to value, such as an increase in confidence or improved relationships. For example, the HACT value bank [24] uses results of large national surveys to isolate the effect of various factors, such as increased confidence or good overall health, on a person's wellbeing to reveal the amount of money needed to increase someone's wellbeing by the same amount [26]. Finally, to establish the actual impact of an investment it is necessary to consider deadweight. Establishing deadweight means determining what would have occurred anyway and is therefore not attributable to the intervention [17, 22].
As mentioned, PAS interventions are associated with a broad range of benefits including health, economic and social impacts. Therefore, the SROI framework seems to be relevant to support improved understanding, measurement and reporting the value created by these interventions and to inform policy-making. A previous systematic review of SROI studies in public health concluded that SROI is "very relevant and applicable" and that "it aids identification of the most impactful, cost-beneficial and culturally sensitive public health interventions" ([13], p., 12). However, to date, there is no review that focuses on the SROI framework in PAS. To fill this gap in knowledge, this review aims to systematically identify and review studies using the SROI framework within the field of PAS and assess their quality.
A systematic search of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement [27].
We included peer-reviewed and grey literature studies using the SROI framework to evaluate any intervention, program or policy for which PAS is the main component. To be included, studies needed to be published in English and discuss the conduct of the study. Table 1 reports the inclusion and exclusion criteria following PICOS.
Table 1 PICOS criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies
The search was comprised of two main steps: first, peer-reviewed articles were identified, and second, grey literature articles were identified. For both, search results were downloaded. Duplicates were removed and two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of the articles following the criteria specified in Table 2. Articles that did not match the inclusion criteria were excluded. Finally, the full-text versions of the remaining articles were obtained and assessed for eligibility, using the same criteria.
For peer-reviewed articles, we searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science from January 1996 to September 2018. January 1996 was chosen because the first recorded SROI report was published during that year [13]. After performing an initial exploration and review of identified studies, we decided to use the following search terms: ('social return on investment' OR 'SROI') AND ('sport' OR 'physical activity').
To identify grey literature articles, we searched the Social Value International SROI-focused database, Google and Google Scholar from January 1996 to September 2018. For the SROI-focused database, 'sport' OR 'physical activity' were used as search terms. For the web search (Google and Google scholar), we employed the same search terms as for the peer-reviewed search. We also used the reference lists of identified articles to find other potential studies to be included. An email was sent to request the full report of one incomplete paper found online. The search strategy is summarised in Fig. 1.
PRISMA flow diagram of study selection
Data extraction and synthesis
Information was extracted from each article and classified in two summary tables: 1) Study and participant characteristics, and 2) Application of SROI and findings.
The first summary table, Study and participant characteristics, included: authors, year of publication, type of organisation commissioning the study, type of analyst performing the study, country where the study was conducted, type of PAS intervention, setting of the study and target population. We used four categories to classify the different types of PAS interventions: (1) Preventive – primary, (2) Preventive – secondary and tertiary [28], (3) Sport for development [29] and (4) High-performance sport.
The second summary table, Application of SROI and findings, included: SROI type (forecast or evaluative), purpose of the study, stakeholders included, study design, use of a proxy database (yes or no), type of outcomes and SROI ratio. Classifying outcomes was challenging given the lack of standardisation within the field. Therefore, to report the type of outcomes considered, we noted all indicators used in the studies and built categories (e.g., physical health, levels of social trust) in an iterative process. Afterward, we classified these outcome categories using the "indicator groups" presented in Krlev et al. [5]. Each 'indicator group' addresses a distinct type of outcome and an additional group covers negative outcomes. Each 'indicator group' with its respective abbreviation is listed as follows: Personal Resources: PR Community Resources: CR Regional Resources: RR Organisational Resources: OR Public Resources: PuR Societal Resources: SR Environmental Resources: ER Negative Outcomes: NO [15].
Stakeholders are defined as "people or organisations that experience change or affect the activity, whether positive or negative, as a result of the activity being analysed" ([17], p., 20). To classify stakeholders, we used the following classification ([13], p., 586):
Beneficiaries: users, those who experience the outcomes of an intervention.
Implementers: includes project managers, suppliers and subcontractors.
Promoters: those who provide support and a conducive environment for implementation of the intervention.
Funders: those who finance the project.
To assess the quality of included articles the framework developed by Krlev et al. [15] was used. This framework consists of five dimensions (Transparency about why SROI was chosen; Documentation of the analysis; Study design and approximation of deadweight; Precision of the analysis and Reflection of the results) split into 12 criteria (Add. File 2). One point was awarded for each criterion that was considered 'present'. If the criterion was 'missing' or 'could not be ascertained', no point was given. Papers were classified into high-quality (study scored ≥7) and low-quality (study scored < 7) [13, 15]. We used this quality assessment framework to perform comparisons between quality assessments completed in previous reviews of SROI studies.
We screened a total of 1626 titles. During abstract screening we excluded 1595 records. Key reasons for exclusion were: the paper refers to SROI without using it; PAS was not the main component of the assessed intervention, program or policy; SROI did not stand for Social Return on Investment; and the paper was a summary of another screened paper. We screened 31 full-text papers. The total number of SROI studies included in the present review is 17. All included studies were retrieved from grey literature search (Fig. 1). One included study [30] was peer-reviewed, yet identified through Google Scholar.
Study and participant' characteristics
The 17 included studies were published between 2010 and 2018. Thirteen were conducted in the UK [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43], two in Australia [44, 45], one in Turkey [46] and one in South Africa [30]. Seven studies were performed by private consulting firms [31, 33, 35,36,37, 43, 46], four in an academic setting [39, 42,43,44], two by a sport organisation [41, 45] and one by a partnership between a university health board and a sport organisation [40]. Finally, three studies were performed by a social enterprise or a registered charity [24, 32, 38] (Table 2).
Table 2 Studies and participant characteristics
Amongst the studies included in the review, 15 were evaluative and two [30, 42] were forecast and evaluative. Only one study [40] used the SROI framework to inform decision-making. Three studies [35, 37, 41] reported its use for improved understanding of the impact and value created and five [30, 37, 38, 42, 46] used it to identify areas for improvement. Nine studies [30,31,32,33,34, 39, 43,44,45] used it exclusively in order to show and highlight the value created by the PAS intervention. One of these studies [32] mentioned securing funding as an objective of the SROI analysis. Most studies [30,31,32,33,34,35,36, 38, 40, 41, 45, 46] included all stakeholders in the analysis. To estimate deadweight, three studies [37, 42, 43] employed a before-and-after design, one study [44] used a comparison group and 12 [30,31,32,33,34,35,36, 38, 40, 41, 45, 46] used opinions and assumptions of stakeholders. Finally, one study [39] relied on a data analysis based on a systematic review of literature and consultation of academic experts. To monetise outcomes, a little less than half (47%) of the studies [30, 35, 36, 39,40,41, 43] used financial proxy databases (Table 3).
PAS interventions related mostly to Primary prevention [31, 33,34,35,36, 39, 42, 44], followed by Sport for development [30, 37, 41, 43, 46], Secondary and Tertiary prevention [32, 38, 40], and High-performance sport [27]. Primary prevention interventions targeted general population [31, 33, 39, 42, 44] or non-active groups [34,35,36] in community [44], regional [31, 33, 35, 36, 42], municipal [34] or national settings [39]. Sport for development interventions targeted people with multiple and complex needs of all ages [43], girls [46], disadvantaged youth [37, 41] and unemployed youth [30] in communities [30, 37, 41, 43] or school settings [46]. Secondary and tertiary prevention interventions targeted individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds and with physical or mental health problems [38], disabled people [40] or individuals with long-term medical or mental health issues [32] within communities [32, 40] or regional settings [40]. Finally, the high-performance sport intervention [E] targeted athletes in a regional setting.
Out of a maximum of 12 points on the Krelv et al. quality assessment framework, scores ranged from 2 to 11 with a median of 7 and mean of 6.5. About half (53%) of the studies got a score of 7 or higher [32, 34, 35, 37, 40,41,42,43, 46], which is defined as a good score [13, 15]. Of the five framework dimensions, Study design was the least successful. No study used a control group, and only 18% of the studies conducted a comparison of observations before and after intervention. Another weakness of the included studies was transparency regarding the choice of SROI. Indeed, the majority of studies explained SROI but failed to discuss the reasons for adopting this method over another. Also, only half of the studies mentioned using an impact map and less than half (47%) used quantitative methods to measure outcomes. As for the strong dimensions, Reflection of the results was the most successful. Between 65 and 76% of the studies discussed limitations of their analyses, interpreted the SROI ratio obtained and performed at least one sensitivity analysis. Finally, 76% of the studies had valid and comprehensive proxies.
Application of SROI and findings
One of our key finding was the type of outcomes measured and monetised in the studies. Due to a lack of standardisation within the field we decided to use the groups presented in Krlev et al. [15] to classify the various outcomes. Each group addresses a distinct type of outcome and consists of several categories. For example, Personal Resources (PR) outcomes were found in all studies under different categories, including the following: Physical health, Mental health and wellbeing, New knowledge and skills, Self-efficacy, Educational attainment and Self-esteem. Community Resources (CR) outcomes were found in 65% of the studies under different categories, including: Social contacts and improved relationships, Social trust, Reduction of anti-social behaviour and Community role models. Regional Resources (RR) outcomes were found in 35% of the studies under the following categories: Economic development and Family retention in regions. Organisational Resources (OR) outcomes were found in 29% (categories: Increased capacity, Productivity gain), Public Resources (PuR) in 24% (categories: Reduced obesity, Fiscal benefits) and Societal Resources (SR) in 12% of the studies (categories: Better understanding of ethnicity and disability, Interaction with others from different cultural and social backgrounds and Awareness of gender inequalities). None of the studies measured Environmental resources or Negative outcomes. The High-performance sport PAS type is associated with the lowest range of outcomes (PR, CR, RR), followed by Secondary and tertiary prevention (PR, OR, PuR, CR). Primary prevention and Sport for development are both associated with the highest range of outcomes (PR, OR, PuR, RR, CR, SR).
Not all of the outcomes measured in the studies were monetised. For example, Physical health was measured in 14 studies but only monetised in 9. Outcomes were not calculated in the SROI ratio if they were not also monetised, yet they were still presented as relevant information in the studies. Reasons for not monetising outcomes included the difficulty with identifying a relevant financial proxy and insufficient evidence for an outcome to be properly valued [16]. The most monetised outcome group was Personal Resources (in 82% of the studies), followed by Community Resources (in 41% of the studies) and Regional Resources (in 35% of the studies). In terms of outcome categories, Physical Health, included in the PR outcome group, was the most measured (82% of the studies used indicators to measure it) but Mental Health and wellbeing was the most monetised (monetised in 65% of the studies) (Add. file 3).
We also found a pronounced difference in SROI ratio between studies: it varied from 1.7:1 to 124:1. A ratio of 1.7:1 indicates that an investment of $1 delivers $1.7 of social value. The lowest reported ratios (1.7:1) were for a sport-based youth development program and a high-performance program. The highest (124:1) was for a PAS program for disabled people. We calculated SROI ratio average for each PAS type. The highest (44:1) is associated to Secondary and tertiary prevention, followed by Sport for development (5.9:1), Primary prevention (5.6:1) and High-performance (1.7:1).
Table 3 SROI application and findings
This systematic review identified a total of 17 SROI studies within the PAS field. Studies were published between 2010 and 2018, suggesting that the use of SROI in this field is relatively recent. Nearly all of the studies (94%) come from the grey literature and were largely conducted in the UK (76%) by private consulting firms (41%). Secondary and tertiary prevention PAS intervention demonstrates, on average, the highest SROI ratio but Primary prevention and Sport and development interventions are associated with the largest scope of outcomes. About half of the studies (53%) were identified as high-quality.
Regarding outcomes, our results highlight the broad range of PAS impacts to society as well as efforts deployed in the field to measure and valorise them. Although the Personal Resources outcomes are the most measured and monetised, Community Resources outcomes (such as Social contacts and Social trust) are emphasised much more in PAS studies than in general SROI studies [15]. Furthermore, PAS interventions were associated with a large range of outcome categories, from physical health to economic development, revealing that PAS can contribute value to society across multiple individual and populational outcomes. It highlights the relevance of the method to improve the understanding, measurement and reporting of the contributions of PAS to society in a way that traditional economic evaluation framework cannot provide [13, 20]. To further understand how the value is distributed across outcomes, future studies could make it more explicit how each outcome category contributes to the total social value created. This could be done by reporting the percentage of the total value attributed to each outcome category. Conversely, a weakness of the field is that none of the studies included negative outcomes. This weakness has also been noted in previous SROI reviews [15, 23].
Reported PAS SROI ratios vary between 1.7:1 and 124:1. These ratios suggest that every analysed PAS intervention provides a positive return on investment to society. If we exclude the highest ratio and select only the high-quality studies, ratios vary between 3:1 and 12.5:1. In comparison, a SROI review in public health reported ratios varying between 1.1:1 and 65:1 [13]. A possible explanation for the highest range in public health might be the number of studies included in their review: 40, compared to 17 in this current review. The concise format of the value created for invested money in the form of a ratio is a strength of the SROI method: it is an effective communication tool and can provide external accountability [47]. However, because of a large heterogeneity in the application of the SROI method, it is not possible to use solely the ratios to compare and identify the intervention generating the greater social value [13, 16,17,18,19, 48].
The preponderance of UK SROI studies has been noted in previous SROI reviews [13, 15]. A possible explanation is the credence given to the method by the UK government and policymaking bodies [15, 18, 23] as well as the introduction of the UK Social Value Act in 2013 [49]. The Social Value Act increased pressure for public services, including Sport and Recreation, to procure services that have social, economic and environmental value [18]. Mainly private consulting firms conducted the SROI studies (41%), which was followed by academics (30%). This is possibly due to the limited expertise of Sport and recreation service managers to undertake a SROI analysis [18]. A recent review [23] noted that, to date, academics have been slow to adopt the SROI framework in the evaluation of health and social care interventions. However, in this current review, 30% of the studies were performed by academics (compared to 7% in all SROI studies [15]) suggesting that academics in the field might be early adopters of the method. This difference does not appear to have made an impact on the quality and provenance (peer-reviewed or grey literature) of studies: the studies performed by academics did not received a high-quality score on average (6.2 out of a maximum of 12), and 94% of the studies were classified as grey literature.
Overall, SROI studies in the PAS field appear to be of lower quality than those conducted in the field of public health but slightly superior to SROI studies in general: 53% of the SROI studies obtained a high-quality score in PAS vs. 70% in public health [13] and 46% for SROI in general [15]. The quality assessment highlighted some weaknesses of the field, including no mention of a clear rationale for the choice of SROI framework and a lack impact map (or logic model) usage. This latter weakness is surprising as the impact map is a critical step of the method. The quality assessment also exposed some strengths: 71% of the studies performed sensitivity analysis (compared to 47% in all SROI studies [5]) which increases confidence in the SROI ratios presented [23]. Furthermore, 76% used valid and comprehensive financial proxies (58% in all SROI studies [15]). As for financial proxies, almost half of the studies (47%) used financial proxy databases (HACT or GVE) to select them. Using these databases improve standardisation in the monetisation process, which can increase the robustness of a study by removing subjectivity related to valuation methods. Yet, it prevents the tailoring of the SROI analyses, thus potentially affecting its validity [47]. For example, one of the included studies analysed a South African PAS intervention and used databases to identify financial proxies that were calculated from UK data. Indeed, financial proxies from a different country may not reflect the value of outcomes for the actual beneficiaries. One approach for future SROI studies to improve the robustness of financial valuations may be to use the Delphi method, which triangulate valuations of beneficiaries with a panel of "experts" [50].
Regarding the purpose of studies, most (53%) used the SROI framework exclusively to highlight the social value created by interventions, without intention to inform a decision, even if the framework has been created essentially as a tool to inform practical decision-making [14, 17, 48]. In the context of the Social Value Act, reinforcing a provider's position in a competitive environment [51] and attracting funding [52] might be key motivations for conducting a SROI, as well as enabling commissioners to make well informed decisions in the procurement process [18]. This is perhaps an explanation of the current state of the field, which appears to be driven more by demonstrating the value created by an intervention rather than using the framework as a practical decision-making tool.
A SROI analysis is a multifaceted evaluation tool, involving mapping, reporting and monetising outcomes to establish the impact of an intervention in relation to its costs. Making robust financial valuation when monetising outcomes is often cited as one of the main challenges of the method [16, 50, 53]. However, robust financial valuation can only partly improve the robustness of the SROI if outcomes are not properly measured and if deadweight is not robustly established using a proper study design. The latter appears to be the main limitation of SROI studies in the PAS field. Indeed, none of the included studies used a control group, only one used a comparison group, less than 20% used a before-and-after design and most studies used opinions and assumptions of stakeholders to estimate deadweight. To accurately determine the impact of interventions through SROI studies, Banke-Thomas et al. [13] emphasised the importance of using objective study designs such as case-control, before-and-after comparisons or a stepped-wedged cluster randomised trial [50]. Given organisational, financial and ethical constraints, non-academic organisations face significant limitations in adopting such study designs. However, studies conducted in an academic setting (30% of the studies in this review) are well positioned to use designs such as the stepped-wedged cluster randomised trial [50], to adopt methods that lend themselves to natural experiments or to conduct non-experimental observational studies [54]. To operationalize these study design in the SROI method, it has been suggested that a SROI analysis should start with a forecast-type SROI to model and predict the potential social impact of an intervention prospectively. This forecast-type study would allow researchers to identify data needs as well as to plan the evaluation process and study design to account for deadweight. An evaluative-type SROI would be performed after the implementation to retrospectively account for actual outcomes that have occurred [17, 50].
Strengths and limitations of the current review
The strengths of the current systematic review include the replicable search strategy within both peer-reviewed and grey literature databases, the in-depth synthesis focusing on study and participant characteristics and the quality assessment that allowed for comparisons to previous reviews. Our review also has limitations. First, non-English language articles were not included. Second, some criteria of the Krlev et al. assessment quality framework, such as Transparency about why SROI was chosen, were difficult to judge because of their subjectivity. We followed the criteria to the best of our ability according to their description [15] and applied them consistently to all studies included in this review. However, it is possible that we were more or less strict with certain criteria as compared to Krlev et al. [15] or Banke-Thomas et al. [13], which may affect the reliability of our comparisons.
To our knowledge, this is the first review to systematically identify studies using the SROI framework within the field of PAS. This study highlighted its relevance to further understand, evidence and value the wide benefits of PAS to society. In this regard, the SROI framework can be a useful tool to inform policy-making related to PAS investment. However, further research is needed to improve the robustness of the SROI application in the field. Study quality in the field would benefit from using an impact map (or logic model) and reporting negative outcomes. Academics could also play an important role in improving the quality of SROI studies by integrating the study design to account for deadweight. The application of the SROI method in the PAS field is relatively recent, and thus further research would be beneficial to promote its potential for policy-making bodies in the field.
The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article (and its Additional files).
CBA:
Cost-benefits analysis
Cost-effectiveness analysis
CR:
CUA:
Cost-utility analysis
NCD:
Non-communicable diseases
Negative outcomes
Organisational resources
Physical Activity and Sport
PuR:
RR:
Societal resources
SROI:
Social return on investment
Bouchard C, Blair SN, Haskell WL. Physical activity and health. 2nd ed. Human Kinetics: Windsor; 2011.
Global action plan on physical activity 2018–2030. more active people for a healthier world. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.
Lee SP, Cornwell TB, Babiak K. Developing an instrument to measure the social impact of sport: social capital, collective identities, health literacy, well-being and human capital. J Sport Manag. 2013;27(1):24–42.
Taylor P, Davies L, Wells P, Gilbertson J, Tayleur W. A review of the social impacts of culture and sport: Culture and Sport Evidence (CASE), Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Arts Council England, English Heritage and Sport England; 2015.
Fujiwara D, Kudrna L, Dolan P. Quantifying the social impacts of culture and sport. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 2014. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/304896/Quantifying_the_Social_Impacts_of_Culture_and_Sport.pdf Accessed 1 Dec 2019.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Physical Activity. https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/index.html (2019). Accessed 2 Dec 2019.
Public Health Agency of Canada: A Common Vision for increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary living in Canada: Let's Get Moving. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/lets-get-moving.html (2018). Accessed 2 Dec 2019.
Varney J, Brannan M, Aaltonen G. Everybody active, every day: Framework for physical activity. Public Health England. 2014. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/everybody-active-every-day-a-framework-to-embed-physical-activity-into-daily-life Accessed 2 Dec 2019.
Prévot-Ledrich J, Hoye AV, Lombrail P, Lecomte F, Vuillemin A. Panorama des politiques publiques françaises de promotion de l'activité physique bénéfique pour la santé. Sante Publique. 2016;S1(HS):25–31.
Sporting Future: A new strategy for an active nation. HM Government 2015.
Mesure 15023 – À l'école, on bouge! Document d'information complémentaire. Directeur du sport, du loisir et de l'activité physique, Secteur du loisir et du sport. Ministère de l'Éducation et de l'Enseignement supérieur, Gouvernement du Québec. 2019. http://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/site_web/documents/education/Mesure-15023-Septembre_2019.pdf. Accessed 2 Dec 2019.
Edwards RT, Charles JM, Lloyd-Williams H. Public health economics: a systematic review of guidance for the economic evaluation of public health interventions and discussion of key methodological issues. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1001.
Banke-Thomas AO, Madaj B, Ameh C, van den Broek N. Social return on investment (SROI) methodology to account for value for money of public health interventions: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:582.
Leck C, Upton D, Evans N. Social return on investment: valuing health outcomes or promoting economic values? J Health Psychol. 2016;21(7):1481–90.
Krlev G, Münscher R, Mülbert K. Social return on investment (SROI): state-of-the-art and perspectives: a meta-analysis of practice in social return on investment (SROI) studies published 2000–2012. 2013. https://www.csi.uni-heidelberg.de/downloads/CSI_SROI_Meta_Analysis_2013.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2018.
Muyambi K, Gurd B, Martinez L, Walker-Jeffreys M, Vallury K, Beach P, Dennis S. Issues in using social return on investment as an evaluation tool. Eval J Australasia. 2017;17(3):32–9.
Nicholls J, Lawlor E, Neitzert E, Goodspeed T. A guide to social return on investment. 2nd ed. London: The Cabinet Office; 2012. https://ccednet-rcdec.ca/sites/ccednet-rcdec.ca/files/a_guide_to_social_return_on_investment_revised.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2018
King N. Making the case for sport and recreation services: the utility of social return on investment (SROI) analysis. Int J Public Sector Mgmt. 2014;27(2):152–64.
Pathak P, Dattani P. Social return on investment: three technical challenges. Soc Enterprise J. 2014;10(2):91–104.
Nicholls J. Social return on investment – development and convergence. Eval Prog Plan. 2017;64:127–35.
Gargani J. The leap from ROI to SROI: farther than expected? Eval Prog Plan. 2017;64:116–26.
Hamelmann C, Turatto F, Then V, Dyakova M. Social return on investment: accounting for value in the context of implementing health 2020 and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2017. (Investment for Health and Development Discussion Paper)
Hutchington CL, Berndt V, Forsythe D, et al. Valuing the impact of health and social care programs using social return on investment: how have academics advance the methodology? A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e029789. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029789.
HACT: Value calculator. https://www.hact.org.uk/value-calculator (2018). Accessed 9 Dec 2019.
Global Value Exchange: GVE 2.0. http://globalvalueexchange.org (2019). Accessed 9 Dec 2019.
Trotter L, Vine J, Leach M, Fujiwara D. Measuring the social impact of community investment: a guide to using the wellbeing valuation approach. 2014. https://www.hact.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/Archives/2014/3/MeasuringSocialImpactHACT2014.pdf?sid=9120. Accessed 5 Dec 2019.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care intervention: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.
Khasnabis C, Motsch KH, Achu K, Jubah KA, Brodtkorb S, Chervin P. et al. Community-based rehabilitation: CBR guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK310943/. Accessed 5 Dec 2019.
Sported: What is Sport for Development. https://sported.org.uk/about-us/what-is-sport-for-development/ Accessed 5 Dec 2019.
Sanders B, Raptis E. Changing the game – can a sport-based youth development program generate a positive social return on investment? Commonwealth Youth Dev. 2017;15:1.
Baker Tilly. North Lanarkshire leisure – social impact evaluation. 2010. https://www.nlleisure.co.uk/images/PDFs/social-impact-evaluation.pdf. Accessed 20 Sept 2018.
Carrick K, Lobley N. Social return on investment evaluation report – bums off seats. 2011. http://www.socialvalueuk.org/app/uploads/2016/03/BoS%20assured%20version.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2018.
Baker Tilly. Manchester sport and leisure trust – telling the story of our actions using social return on investment. Full Report 2013. http://www.socialvalueuk.org/app/uploads/2016/03/MSLT%20SROI%20Full%20Report%20Dec%202013_0.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2018.
Carrick K. Glasgow health walks social return on investment analysis. 2013. http://www.socialvalueuk.org/app/uploads/2016/03/Glasgow_Health_Walks_assured%20and%20formatted.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2018.
ICF GHK. Social return on investment evaluation of the Sportivate programme in the black country. 2013. http://www.socialvalueuk.org/app/uploads/2016/03/V2%20FINAL%20Black%20Country%20Sportivate%20SROI%20Sept%2013.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2018.
Charlton C. Sportivate in North Yorkshire: an SROI evaluation. 2013. https://www.northyorkshiresport.co.uk/uploads/sroi-sportivate-report.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2018.
Butler W, Leathem K. A social return on investment evaluation of three 'sport for social change network' programmes in London. 2014. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5733282860b5e9509bc9c4db/t/5964c1c978d171ed79c59732/1499775436857/Social+Return+on+Investment+SROI+-+Active+Communities+Network.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2018.
New Economics Foundation and TCV. TCV's impact: Organisational social return on investment summary findings. 2015. Accessed by personal communication. Evaluation summary available at: https://www.tcv.org.uk/sites/default/files/green-gym-evaluation-report-2016-summary.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2018.
Davies L, Taylor P, Ramchandani G, Christy E. Social return on investment in sport: a participation wide model for England – summary report. 2016. https://www.sportanddev.org/sites/default/files/downloads/sroi_england_report.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2018.
Chin C. Health disability sport partnership: a social return on investment analysis. 2016. https://whiasu.publichealthnetwork.cymru/files/6715/0210/7630/The_Health_Disability_Sport_Partnership_-_A_Social_Return_on_Investment_Analysis_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2018.
Hopkinson M. Social value of developing coaches to deliver high quality coaching session. 2016. https://www.ukcoaching.org/UKCoaching/media/coaching-images/Entity%20base/Guides/SROI-Evaluation-Final-Report_1.pdf
Baker C, Courtney P, Kubinakova K, Ellis L, Loughren E, Crone D. Gloucestershire active together evaluation final report. 2017. http://eprints.glos.ac.uk/4321/3/Gloucestershire%20Active%20Together%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2018.
Regeneris Consulting. The economic & social impact of street soccer academy. 2017. http://www.socialvalueuk.org/app/uploads/2017/03/Street-Soccer-Academy-Economic-and-Social-Impact-Assessment_0.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2018.
Centre for Sport and Social Impact (CSSI), La Trobe University. Value of a community football club. 2015. https://www.aflvic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Latrobe-Value-of-a-Community-Football-Club-Final-PDF.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2018.
Darlington C. Social return on investment analysis – Midwest academy of sport. 2014. https://www.mwaswa.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/SROI-Analysis-MWAS-2014-Result.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2018.
Ozgun SC. Girls are on the soccer field academy – social investment impact assessment – report SROI analysis. 2016. http://www.socialvalueuk.org/app/uploads/2018/02/GSFA-SROI-Analysis.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2018.
Maier F, Schober C, Simsa R, Millner R. (2015). SROI as a method for evaluation research: understanding merits and limitations. Volunt Int J Volunt Nonprofit Org. 2015;26(5):1805–30.
Arvidson M, Lyon F, McKay S, Moro D. The ambitions and challenges of SROI. Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre; 2010.
HM Government. Public Services (Social Value) Act. London: HMSO; 2012.
Banke-Thomas AO. What about the issues in using social return on investment as an evaluation tool? Eval J Australasia. 2018;18(1):64–8.
Lyon F, Arvidson M, Etherington D, Vickers I. Social impact measurement (SIM) experiences and future directions for third sector organisations in the East of England. East of England Development Agency, Norwich; 2010. www.the-guild.co.uk Accessed 2 Dec 2019.
New Philanthropy Capital (NPC). Misspent Youth: The Costs of Truancy and Exclusion, New Philanthropy Capital, London; 2007.
Laing C, Moules N. Social return on investment: a new approach to understanding and advocating for value in healthcare. J Nurs Adm. 2017;47(12):623–8.
Craig P, Vittal Katikireddi SV, Layland A, Popham F. Natural experiments: an overview of methods, approaches, and contributions to public health intervention research. Ann Rev Public Health. 2017;38:39–56.
We thank the reviewers who have helped refine and improve the paper.
VG is supported by Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture PhD scholarship.
École de kinésiologie et des sciences de l'activité physique, Faculté de médecine, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville,, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3J7, Canada
Véronique Gosselin & Suzanne Laberge
Faculté de Gouvernance, Sciences Économiques et Sociales, Université Mohammed VI Polytechnique, Lot 660 - Hay Moulay Rachid, 43150, Ben Guerir, Morocco
Dorothée Boccanfuso
Véronique Gosselin
Suzanne Laberge
VG, SL and DB were involved in the conception and design of the systematic review. VG generated and conducted the search. VG and SL were involved in the data collection, extraction and synthesis. DB revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors contributed to the writing of the paper, read and approved the final manuscript.
Correspondence to Véronique Gosselin.
PRISMA checklist
Outcome groups and categories
Gosselin, V., Boccanfuso, D. & Laberge, S. Social return on investment (SROI) method to evaluate physical activity and sport interventions: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 17, 26 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-00931-w


text:
|}
Die Bahnstrecke Beverly–Rockport ist eine Eisenbahnstrecke in Essex County in Massachusetts (Vereinigte Staaten). Sie ist rund 27 Kilometer lang und verbindet die Städte Beverly, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Gloucester und Rockport.

Die normalspurige Strecke wird heute durch die Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) ausschließlich im Personenverkehr betrieben. Güterverkehr findet nicht mehr statt.

Geschichte

Nachdem die Eastern Railroad in den 1830er Jahren die Hauptstrecke von Boston in Richtung Portsmouth gebaut hatte, wollte man eine Zweigstrecke auf die Cape-Ann-Halbinsel errichten, um die dortigen Städte und Strandsiedlungen anzubinden. Im März 1845 erteilte die Regierung die Konzession für den Bau einer solchen Strecke, die in Beverly von der Hauptstrecke abzweigen und über Manchester bis Gloucester führen sollte. Der Bau begann alsbald und im August 1847 fuhren die ersten Züge bis Manchester-by-the-Sea. Am 1. Dezember 1847 wurde die Strecke bis Gloucester offiziell eröffnet.

Die Stadt Rockport an der Ostspitze der Halbinsel ersuchte nun auch um eine Schienenanbindung. Da die Eastern Railroad kein Interesse hatte, gründeten lokale Unternehmer am 16. Mai 1853 die Rockport Railroad Company und erhielten die Konzession für die Streckenverlängerung. Sie konnten jedoch nicht genügend Geld aufbringen, um den Streckenbau zu beginnen. 1860 wurde diese Gesellschaft erneut gegründet und schließlich baute man die sechs Kilometer lange Verlängerung, die im November 1861 eröffnet wurde. Den Betrieb führte die Eastern Railroad, die auch die Fahrzeuge zur Verfügung stellte. 1868 erwarb sie die Rockport Railroad schließlich, nachdem sich die Wirtschaftlichkeit gezeigt hatte. Ab 1884 oblag die Betriebsführung der Boston and Maine Railroad, die die Eastern gepachtet hatte und 1890 schließlich endgültig aufkaufte.

Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts baute man in Rockport südlich des Bahnhofs eine Wendeschleife, die die Züge benutzten. Die Strecke wurde von Beverly bis Gloucester zweigleisig ausgebaut, was 1911 abgeschlossen war. Dampfzüge fuhren auf der Strecke noch bis 1954, nachdem bereits im Jahr zuvor die ersten Diesellokomotiven eingesetzt wurden. Ab 1955 wurde der Personenverkehr durch Budd Rail Diesel Cars bewerkstelligt. Da diese Züge als Wendezüge verkehren konnten, legte man etwa 1962 die Wendeschleife in Rockport still und baute den Bahnhof zu einem Kopfbahnhof um.

Seit 1976 ist die Strecke in Besitz der Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), die den Personenverkehr betreibt. Den Güterverkehr betrieb weiterhin die Boston&Maine, die jedoch 1983 durch die Guilford Transportation übernommen wurde. Im November 1984 brannte in Beverly eine Brücke ab, was den Gesamtverkehr auf der Strecke zum Erliegen brachte. Der zuletzt nur noch spärliche Güterverkehr wurde in der Folge nicht wieder aufgenommen. Der Personenverkehr ruhte mehrere Monate und konnte erst im Laufe des Jahres 1985 wieder aufgenommen werden.

Streckenbeschreibung

Die Strecke zweigt in Beverly, nördlich des Bahnhofs, aus der Hauptstrecke Boston–Portsmouth ab und führt ostwärts parallel zur Küste, jedoch fast durchgängig mit einigen hundert Metern Abstand zum Strand. Sie durchfährt zunächst das Stadtgebiet von Beverly, in dem sich mit Montserrat, Prides Crossing und Beverly Farms drei weitere Haltepunkte befinden, die mit Seitenbahnsteigen ausgestattet sind. Der Haltepunkt Prides Crossing wird dabei nur im Berufsverkehr in Stoßrichtung, das heißt früh in Richtung Beverly, nachmittags in Richtung Rockport, bedient. An mehreren Stellen entlang der Strecke in Beverly und Gloucester querten früher Straßenbahnstrecken die Bahn.

Hinter der Stadtgrenze berührt die Trasse kurzzeitig die Manchester Bay, wo sich zur Blütezeit der Eisenbahn ein Haltepunkt West Manchester befand, der nur im Sommer für Strandbesucher bedient wurde. In Manchester-by-the-Sea überquert die Bahn zunächst die Hafeneinfahrt auf einer Hubbrücke, ehe der Bahnhof der Stadt erreicht ist. Heute dienen hier zwei einfache Seitenbahnsteige dem Fahrgastfluss. Ein im Linienverkehr nicht benutzter Doppelgleiswechsel ermöglicht das Wenden von Zügen. Die Güteranlagen des Bahnhofs sind abgebaut.

Die Strecke führt nun weiter in nordöstliche Richtung. An der Magnolia Avenue nahe dem östlichen Stadtrand von Manchester befand sich ein Bahnhof, der auch über Güteranlagen verfügte. Hier fahren die Züge heute durch. Kurz darauf ist Gloucester erreicht, wo sich zunächst ein Haltepunkt West Gloucester befindet. Östlich davon überquert die Bahntrasse den Annisquam River, ein fjordartiger Meeresarm, der die Cape-Ann-Halbinsel vom Festland trennt. Nach der Brücke endet die zweigleisige Strecke und kurz danach ist der Haltepunkt Gloucester im Stadtzentrum erreicht. Östlich an die Station schlossen sich früher umfangreiche Güteranlagen an, die jedoch einem Parkplatz gewichen sind. Die Strecke biegt nun nach Norden ab und führt nach Rockport, wo sie stumpf vor der Railroad Avenue endet. Der Endbahnhof besteht aus einer zweigleisigen Anlage mit Seitenbahnsteigen für den Personenverkehr sowie aus einigen Abstellgleisen. Die frühere Wendeschleife in Rockport befand sich südlich des Bahnhofs und führte um einen kleinen Teich, den Loop Pond, herum.

Personenverkehr

Auf dem Höhepunkt des Eisenbahnverkehrs Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts fuhren neben den 16 Zugpaaren an Werktagen zahlreiche Ausflugszüge im Sommer, die teilweise Kurswagen nach New York City mitführten.

An der Zugdichte hat sich seitdem wenig geändert. 2011 verkehren 13 Zugpaare an Werktagen sowie sieben an Wochenenden. Alle Züge fahren über Beverly nach Boston weiter.

Quellen und weiterführende Literatur

Literatur
 Ronald D. Karr: The Rail Lines of Southern New England. A Handbook of Railroad History. Branch Line Press, Pepperell, MA 1995. ISBN 0-942147-02-2
 Mike Walker: Comprehensive Railroad Atlas of North America. New England&Maritime Canada. (2. Auflage) SPV-Verlag, Dunkirk (GB), 2010. ISBN 1-874745-12-9

Weblinks
 Betreibergesellschaft: MBTA (englisch)
 Boston&Maine Railroad Historical Society (englisch)
 Verzeichnis der Stationen (mit Streckenmeilen) und des Personals von 1923 (englisch)

Einzelnachweise

Bahnstrecke in Massachusetts
Bahnstrecke BeverlyRockport

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


OK ladies and gentlemen, here's the beginnings of the rant and the ramble. These are my thoughts based on my experiences, some of which are based on observations while doing research, some are backed up by statistically significant findings, others based on observations while guiding 60-90 days/year on the lower Neuse/western Pamlico for 20 years.
Four years after graduating from UNCW with a B.S. in Marine Biology, my degree was un-expectantly put into use when I was approached by a scientist from NCSU who was pursuing a Fisheries Resource Grant to study adult red drum. His goal was to use radio transmitters to track adult red drum in the lower Neuse River and western Pamlico Sound in hopes of documenting where these fish were spawning.
In the summer of 1999 we were on the way out to tag our first red drum with a radio transmitter the size of half a roll of Life-Savers candy. It was attached to the drum by one of the shoulder tags that we normally use to tag big drum. The transmitter was attached to the dart with a material that would break away after about 6 months, about the life of the tag. Each tag had a different frequency, too high to even be noticed by red drum. Each tag had a different "ping" sequence so that we could identify individuals.
To hear the tags, we used a hydrophone on the end of a pole that we would hold in the water, slowly turning and turning until we heard the "ping". The cables from the hydrophone went to a box where we could change frequencies; from the box a set of head phones was attached. The guy with the head phones would sit on the gunnel of the boat, eyes closed, concentrating. Depth finder would be off, VHF off, we would often be anchored and we would take turns listening…….and listening…….and listening.
The range of the tag was over a mile under ideal conditions, under rough conditions, we could easily hear a tag as long as we were within half a mile. We had the river gridded with different listening positions so that we could effectively search entire sections of the river and Pamlico Sound for the faint sound of a "ping".
After we heard the "ping", we would slowly head in that direction, trying to get closer so that we could hear the tag more clearly and identify from the sequence of pings exactly to which fish we were listening. After we identified the fish, we tried to get as close as we could to document the habitat and water quality conditions that the fish was utilizing. This was difficult, because when we got within a 100 yards and often much further in shallow water, the idling boat would "push" the drum.
If you are within 200 yards of a school of drum and running your motor, they know you are there.
If you come within 300 yards of another boat, you are affecting their fishing, so at the very least, be quiet and just idle. Also, try not cross the chum slick of another boat, that's where the drum he will be catching will most likely be coming from. The courteous thing to do would be to slowly idle off to the side or bow, ideally after being invited.
This is only a tiny segment of the rant that is coming. Maybe in little pieces and spelled out it will be easier for the knuckleheads to get it through their thick heads.
I look forward to telling you about those first fish that we tagged and what we learned. More to come.


Some people weren't impressed with the ad, deeming it racist.
In 2017, Dove released a body wash ad that showed a black women removing her brown shirt, only to reveal a white woman in a light shirt underneath.
Burger King New Zealand has apologised for and removed a short Instagram video created to promote its Vietnamese Sweet Chilli Tendercrisp burger, as Burger King apology continues to go viral on Weibo in China.
Burger King New Zealand has earned the ire of many Asian netizens for an ad that many have found to be racially insensitive.
"So this is the new Burger King ad for a "Vietnamese" burger ok coolcoolcoolcoolcool CHOPSTICKS R HILARIOUS right omg etc", wrote Maria Mo on Twitter in an attempt to criticize the company's ad.
The clip included a caption reading "Take your taste buds all the way to Ho Chi Minh City".
"I couldn't believe such blatantly ignorant ads are still happening in 2019", she told CNN.
However, going by its official website for Vietnam, Burger King has only 10 outlets in the country. "I was watching it thinking there must be some kind of layered twist ― only to realise, no, there was no twist, it really was that base level".
Many users on social media expressed their discontent with the ad, which they claimed used chopsticks as a comedy vehicle and was culturally insensitive.
Chinese media outlets compared the video to one issued by Italian luxury brand Dolce & Gabbana past year, which featured a Chinese model struggling to eat pizza and spaghetti with chopsticks.


New research published today by the Informa Telecoms & Media news service Music & Copyright reveals that global retail sales of rock music increased 2.9% last year, to US$6 million, from US$5.8 million in 2011. Pop may still be the world's most popular type of music, but retail sales of the genre were down 1%, to US$7.4 million, from US$7.5 million.
Pop and rock dominate global recorded-music sales. According to the annual genre study by Music & Copyright, retail sales of the two genres accounted for 57.4% of total sales in 2012.
In contrast to 2011, when there was a fall in retail sales of virtually all music styles, several music genres experienced growth in 2012. Most notable last year was the 8.3% rise in dance music sales. Retail spending on the genre was up, from US$1.2 million to US$1.3 million. Big name dance acts that sold well globally last year include David Guerta, Calvin Harris, Skrillex and Swedish House Mafia. Dance music accounted for 5.5% of global retail sales in 2012.
Country-music also saw an increase in sales last year, rising 2.1%, from US$1.4 million to US$1.5 million. Jazz was the biggest loser in 2012, with global retail sales down 14.3%. Smaller genres have suffered more than most in recent years from retailers giving less floor space to slow-selling, low-margin genres in favor of better-selling items, such as DVDs, video games and consumer electronics.
The classification of any artists' music into a single genre is fairly arbitrary and can differ between record company, music retailer and national trade association. Categorizing music within a genre can often have multiple influencing factors such as musical technique, style, context, target audience and geographical origin. Moreover, many genres have sub-genres that can often overlap others.
If you like this blog then Music & Copyright might be just what you are looking for. It is a fortnightly research service covering global copyright and legal issues affecting the music industry. It is unrivalled in its coverage of this complex and fascinating area of the music industry. It is also why our extensive client list includes companies and organizations from all sectors of the music industry operating all around the world. But don't take our word for it, please get in touch and we will send you the latest issue.
Music & Copyright is published by Informa Telecoms & Media.


Owning an URB-E is not only helpful as a means of getting to class or work for USC students, it also allows us to explore the surrounding area of Los Angeles. Although we have great academics, sports, and campus life, one thing USC is not necessarily known for is its subpar dining hall food. Sometimes, a good meal from a restaurant or eatery is just what we need, but lack of transportation makes it difficult to access some quality food. However, URB-Es provide just the solution: a quick trip on your vehicle can get you some of the city's best eats. Here are some of the best places to eat in URB-E range from USC's campus... Trio House (0.4 miles from USC Village, 2 minute URB-E ride) Pad Thai lovers be warned: this will be your next favorite spot to eat. Trio House is just on the other side of campus from the USC Village down Figueroa. Come here for some of the best Pad Thai in the USC area, I promise you will not be disappointed. If you're not into the peanut-flavored noodles, there's plenty of other Asian delicacies like fried rice, pho, stir fries, curries, and more. Katsuya (2 miles from USC Village, 14 minute URB-E ride) https://www.instagram.com/p/BddBCcbhCwK/?taken-by=katsuyabysbe Some of the greatest, and most upscale, Japanese food in the city, Katsuya's LA Live location is in perfect URB-E distance of USC's campus. Just ride straight down Figueroa and you'll reach this hub of music, entertainment, and dining in only a few minutes. If you can handle a little heat, make sure you get their signature crispy rice with spicy tuna, and don't miss out on the crispy brussels sprouts. Cleo (2 miles from USC Village, 14 minute URB-E ride) https://www.instagram.com/p/BakMAxzjB8B/?taken-by=cleorestaurant Also in LA Live, this Mediterranean "tapas-style" restaurant is great for sharing small plates with a group of friends. If you like Israeli and other Middle Eastern dishes, you should definitely check out this place. One menu highlight is the crispy artichoke hummus which comes with a fresh-out-of-the-oven, warm pita bread. The sharing atmosphere and great food makes it a fun restaurant to come to with a group of people, especially for birthdays! Nature's Brew (0.8 miles from USC Village, 6 minute URB-E ride) Nature's Brew is a local coffee shop and popular study spot a few blocks away from campus on South Union Ave. It's open all day and offers a wide variety of foods and treats like smoothies, sandwiches, salads, cookies, and pastries. Of course, their drinks are definitely a must, so stay for a while, have a warm cup of tea or coffee, and maybe get some work done too. Everytable (0.9 mile from USC Village, 6 minute URB-E ride) https://www.instagram.com/p/BddbAwABcrM/?taken-by=foreverytable Everytable serves affordable, made-from-scratch food in an effort to solve the issue of food deserts around the country. They have delicious salads and hot plates all just around $5--a pretty impressive price for the quality of the food. Located on West 23rd street just past Nature's Brew, Everytable is a quick URB-E away and a great way to support a good-intentioned business. Good food is only a few minutes away when you take your URB-E! Explore the surrounding area and make the great city of Los Angeles a little smaller with your foldable, electric transportation device.


text:
Climate & Energy
Germany's solar panels produce more power than Japan's entire Fukushima complex
By Christopher Mims on Mar 22, 2011
Germany is the world leader in installed solar photovoltaic panels — and they also just shut down seven of their oldest nuclear reactors. Coincidence? Maaaaybe… Anyway, it's worth noting that just today, total power output of Germany's installed solar PV panels hit 12.1 GW — greater than the total power output (10 GW) of Japan's entire 6-reactor nuclear power plant.
Now before the trolls come out, let me just note that 12.1 GW is max power (the output whose name you'd love to touch). The panels generated that much at one instant in time — when the sun was at its apex — but of course solar power production varies with the weather and the time of day. To find out how much energy those panels generated today in total, you'd have to calculate the area under that curve in the lower right hand corner. (Which, come to think of it, we should probably use as the CAPTCHA on the comment field on this post.)
Update: the folks at The Breakthrough Institute did the math. Their analysis has a slant — it's impossible for anyone at the BTI to talk about what they view as the woefully inadequate state of current alternate energy technology without getting red in the face — so their comments don't, for example, reflect the fact that solar panels produce power when it's needed most. But, short version: the area under the curve is a significant portion of the total energy that could potentially be produced by Japan's Fukushima reactor, which wasn't running at full capacity when disaster struck. (Hence my 10GW figure, above, which reflects the amount of power it was producing when it was brought down.) Also, and I'm sort of paraphrasing here: "If you talk smack about nuclear, we will shot this dog."
Regardless, Japan's facing rolling blackouts until next Winter, and it's undeniable that if the country had more distributed power generation like Germany's roof-based solar PV system, the entire country would be much more resilient in the face of catastrophe.
German solar output hit 10.6 GW peak Sunday	, Climate Progress

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Louis Henry ( * 1854 - 1913 ) fue un botánico francés, trabajando en la taxonomía de la familia Cornaceae, realizando unas diez identificaciones y clasificaciones de nuevas especies, como Cornus bretschneideri L.Henry.

Referencias

Enlaces externos

Botánicos de Francia del siglo XIX
Botánicos de Francia del siglo XX


text:
Q: Bootstrap 3 offset on right not left In regards to BS 3 if I wanted just a narrow column of content on the right I might use an offset class of 9 and a column of 3.
However, what if I wanted the reverse and on the left side? Is there a proper way to do this in BS or should I just use my own CSS methods? I was thinking of creating a column of 3 with my content and just an empty column of 9.

A: I'm using the following simple custom CSS I wrote to achieve this.
.col-xs-offset-right-12 {
  margin-right: 100%;
}
.col-xs-offset-right-11 {
  margin-right: 91.66666667%;
}
.col-xs-offset-right-10 {
  margin-right: 83.33333333%;
}
.col-xs-offset-right-9 {
  margin-right: 75%;
}
.col-xs-offset-right-8 {
  margin-right: 66.66666667%;
}
.col-xs-offset-right-7 {
  margin-right: 58.33333333%;
}
.col-xs-offset-right-6 {
  margin-right: 50%;
}
.col-xs-offset-right-5 {
  margin-right: 41.66666667%;
}
.col-xs-offset-right-4 {
  margin-right: 33.33333333%;
}
.col-xs-offset-right-3 {
  margin-right: 25%;
}
.col-xs-offset-right-2 {
  margin-right: 16.66666667%;
}
.col-xs-offset-right-1 {
  margin-right: 8.33333333%;
}
.col-xs-offset-right-0 {
  margin-right: 0;
}
@media (min-width: 768px) {
  .col-sm-offset-right-12 {
    margin-right: 100%;
  }
  .col-sm-offset-right-11 {
    margin-right: 91.66666667%;
  }
  .col-sm-offset-right-10 {
    margin-right: 83.33333333%;
  }
  .col-sm-offset-right-9 {
    margin-right: 75%;
  }
  .col-sm-offset-right-8 {
    margin-right: 66.66666667%;
  }
  .col-sm-offset-right-7 {
    margin-right: 58.33333333%;
  }
  .col-sm-offset-right-6 {
    margin-right: 50%;
  }
  .col-sm-offset-right-5 {
    margin-right: 41.66666667%;
  }
  .col-sm-offset-right-4 {
    margin-right: 33.33333333%;
  }
  .col-sm-offset-right-3 {
    margin-right: 25%;
  }
  .col-sm-offset-right-2 {
    margin-right: 16.66666667%;
  }
  .col-sm-offset-right-1 {
    margin-right: 8.33333333%;
  }
  .col-sm-offset-right-0 {
    margin-right: 0;
  }
}
@media (min-width: 992px) {
  .col-md-offset-right-12 {
    margin-right: 100%;
  }
  .col-md-offset-right-11 {
    margin-right: 91.66666667%;
  }
  .col-md-offset-right-10 {
    margin-right: 83.33333333%;
  }
  .col-md-offset-right-9 {
    margin-right: 75%;
  }
  .col-md-offset-right-8 {
    margin-right: 66.66666667%;
  }
  .col-md-offset-right-7 {
    margin-right: 58.33333333%;
  }
  .col-md-offset-right-6 {
    margin-right: 50%;
  }
  .col-md-offset-right-5 {
    margin-right: 41.66666667%;
  }
  .col-md-offset-right-4 {
    margin-right: 33.33333333%;
  }
  .col-md-offset-right-3 {
    margin-right: 25%;
  }
  .col-md-offset-right-2 {
    margin-right: 16.66666667%;
  }
  .col-md-offset-right-1 {
    margin-right: 8.33333333%;
  }
  .col-md-offset-right-0 {
    margin-right: 0;
  }
}
@media (min-width: 1200px) {
  .col-lg-offset-right-12 {
    margin-right: 100%;
  }
  .col-lg-offset-right-11 {
    margin-right: 91.66666667%;
  }
  .col-lg-offset-right-10 {
    margin-right: 83.33333333%;
  }
  .col-lg-offset-right-9 {
    margin-right: 75%;
  }
  .col-lg-offset-right-8 {
    margin-right: 66.66666667%;
  }
  .col-lg-offset-right-7 {
    margin-right: 58.33333333%;
  }
  .col-lg-offset-right-6 {
    margin-right: 50%;
  }
  .col-lg-offset-right-5 {
    margin-right: 41.66666667%;
  }
  .col-lg-offset-right-4 {
    margin-right: 33.33333333%;
  }
  .col-lg-offset-right-3 {
    margin-right: 25%;
  }
  .col-lg-offset-right-2 {
    margin-right: 16.66666667%;
  }
  .col-lg-offset-right-1 {
    margin-right: 8.33333333%;
  }
  .col-lg-offset-right-0 {
    margin-right: 0;
  }
}

A: Since Google seems to like this answer...
If you're looking to match Bootstrap 4's naming convention, i.e. offset-*-#, here's that modification:
.offset-right-12 {
  margin-right: 100%;
}
.offset-right-11 {
  margin-right: 91.66666667%;
}
.offset-right-10 {
  margin-right: 83.33333333%;
}
.offset-right-9 {
  margin-right: 75%;
}
.offset-right-8 {
  margin-right: 66.66666667%;
}
.offset-right-7 {
  margin-right: 58.33333333%;
}
.offset-right-6 {
  margin-right: 50%;
}
.offset-right-5 {
  margin-right: 41.66666667%;
}
.offset-right-4 {
  margin-right: 33.33333333%;
}
.offset-right-3 {
  margin-right: 25%;
}
.offset-right-2 {
  margin-right: 16.66666667%;
}
.offset-right-1 {
  margin-right: 8.33333333%;
}
.offset-right-0 {
  margin-right: 0;
}
@media (min-width: 576px) {
  .offset-sm-right-12 {
    margin-right: 100%;
  }
  .offset-sm-right-11 {
    margin-right: 91.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-sm-right-10 {
    margin-right: 83.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-sm-right-9 {
    margin-right: 75%;
  }
  .offset-sm-right-8 {
    margin-right: 66.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-sm-right-7 {
    margin-right: 58.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-sm-right-6 {
    margin-right: 50%;
  }
  .offset-sm-right-5 {
    margin-right: 41.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-sm-right-4 {
    margin-right: 33.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-sm-right-3 {
    margin-right: 25%;
  }
  .offset-sm-right-2 {
    margin-right: 16.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-sm-right-1 {
    margin-right: 8.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-sm-right-0 {
    margin-right: 0;
  }
}
@media (min-width: 768px) {
  .offset-md-right-12 {
    margin-right: 100%;
  }
  .offset-md-right-11 {
    margin-right: 91.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-md-right-10 {
    margin-right: 83.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-md-right-9 {
    margin-right: 75%;
  }
  .offset-md-right-8 {
    margin-right: 66.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-md-right-7 {
    margin-right: 58.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-md-right-6 {
    margin-right: 50%;
  }
  .offset-md-right-5 {
    margin-right: 41.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-md-right-4 {
    margin-right: 33.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-md-right-3 {
    margin-right: 25%;
  }
  .offset-md-right-2 {
    margin-right: 16.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-md-right-1 {
    margin-right: 8.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-md-right-0 {
    margin-right: 0;
  }
}
@media (min-width: 992px) {
  .offset-lg-right-12 {
    margin-right: 100%;
  }
  .offset-lg-right-11 {
    margin-right: 91.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-lg-right-10 {
    margin-right: 83.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-lg-right-9 {
    margin-right: 75%;
  }
  .offset-lg-right-8 {
    margin-right: 66.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-lg-right-7 {
    margin-right: 58.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-lg-right-6 {
    margin-right: 50%;
  }
  .offset-lg-right-5 {
    margin-right: 41.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-lg-right-4 {
    margin-right: 33.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-lg-right-3 {
    margin-right: 25%;
  }
  .offset-lg-right-2 {
    margin-right: 16.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-lg-right-1 {
    margin-right: 8.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-lg-right-0 {
    margin-right: 0;
  }
}
@media (min-width: 1200px) {
  .offset-xl-right-12 {
    margin-right: 100%;
  }
  .offset-xl-right-11 {
    margin-right: 91.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-xl-right-10 {
    margin-right: 83.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-xl-right-9 {
    margin-right: 75%;
  }
  .offset-xl-right-8 {
    margin-right: 66.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-xl-right-7 {
    margin-right: 58.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-xl-right-6 {
    margin-right: 50%;
  }
  .offset-xl-right-5 {
    margin-right: 41.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-xl-right-4 {
    margin-right: 33.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-xl-right-3 {
    margin-right: 25%;
  }
  .offset-xl-right-2 {
    margin-right: 16.66666667%;
  }
  .offset-xl-right-1 {
    margin-right: 8.33333333%;
  }
  .offset-xl-right-0 {
    margin-right: 0;
  }
}

A: You need to combine multiple classes (col-*-offset-* for left-margin and col-*-pull-* to pull it right)

<link href="https://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/3.3.7/css/bootstrap.min.css" rel="stylesheet"/>

      I'm a right column

      We're

      four columns

      using the

      whole row

      I'm a left column

      We're

      four columns

      using the

      whole row

So you don't need to separate it manually into different rows.

A:

col-md-10 col-md-pull-2

col-md-10 col-md-pull-2

A: I modified Bootstrap SASS (v3.3.5) based on Rukshan's answer
Add this in the end of the calc-grid-column mixin in mixins/_grid-framework.scss, right below the $type == offset if condition.
@if ($type == offset-right) {
      .col-#{$class}-offset-right-#{$index} {
          margin-right: percentage(($index / $grid-columns));
      }
  }

Modify the make-grid mixin in mixins/_grid-framework.scss to generate the offset-right classes.

// Create grid for specific class
@mixin make-grid($class) {
  @include float-grid-columns($class);
  @include loop-grid-columns($grid-columns, $class, width);
  @include loop-grid-columns($grid-columns, $class, pull);
  @include loop-grid-columns($grid-columns, $class, push);
  @include loop-grid-columns($grid-columns, $class, offset);
  @include loop-grid-columns($grid-columns, $class, offset-right);
}

You can then use the classes like col-sm-offset-right-2 and col-md-offset-right-1

A: Bootstrap rows always contain their floats and create new lines. You don't need to worry about filling blank columns, just make sure they don't add up to more than 12.

<link rel="stylesheet" href="//maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/3.2.0/css/bootstrap.min.css">

      I'm a right column of 3

      I'm a left column of 3

      And I'm some content below both columns

A: Based on WeNeigh's answer! here is a LESS example
.col-offset-right(@i, @type) when (@i >= 0) {
    .col-@{type}-offset-right-@{i} {
        margin-right: percentage((@i / @grid-columns));
    }
    .col-offset-right(@i - 1, @type);
};
.col-offset-right(@grid-columns, xs);
.col-offset-right(@grid-columns, sm);
.col-offset-right(@grid-columns, md);
.col-offset-right(@grid-columns, lg);

A: Here is the same solution than Rukshan but in sass (in order to keep your grid configuration) for special case that don't work with Ross Allen solution (when you can't have a parent div.row)
@mixin make-grid-offset-right($class) {
    @for $index from 0 through $grid-columns {
        .col-#{$class}-offset-right-#{$index} {
            margin-right: percentage(($index / $grid-columns));
        }
    }
}

@include make-grid-offset-right(xs);

@media (min-width: $screen-sm-min) {
  @include make-grid-offset-right(sm);
}

@media (min-width: $screen-md-min) {
  @include make-grid-offset-right(md);
}

@media (min-width: $screen-lg-min) {
  @include make-grid-offset-right(lg);
}

A:

                                <input type="text" asp-for="search" class="form-control" placeholder="Search" aria-controls="order-listing" />

                                    <input type="submit" value="Search" class="input-group-text bg-transparent">

A: Bootstrap 5 SASS solution:
@mixin make-col-offset-end($size, $columns: $grid-columns) {
  $num: divide($size, $columns);
  margin-right: if($num == 0, 0, percentage($num));
}

@mixin make-grid-offset-end($columns: $grid-columns, $gutter: $grid-gutter-width, $breakpoints: $grid-breakpoints) {
  @each $breakpoint in map-keys($breakpoints) {
    $infix: breakpoint-infix($breakpoint, $breakpoints);

    @include media-breakpoint-up($breakpoint, $breakpoints) {
      @if $columns > 0 {
        // `$columns - 1` because offsetting by the width of an entire row isn't possible
        @for $i from 0 through ($columns - 1) {
          @if not ($infix == "" and $i == 0) { // Avoid emitting useless .offset-0
            .offset-end#{$infix}-#{$i} {
              @include make-col-offset-end($i, $columns);
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

@include make-grid-offset-end();

This will give you all of the classes offset already has, but with offset-end (e.g. offset-end-md-2)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


measuring cup of water measuring liquid ingredients measuring cup boiling water measuring cup water bottle.
measuring cup of water measure a cup of plain yogurt 1 4 cup of water without measuring cup 1 measuring cup of water.
measuring cup of water measuring cup oxo measuring cup hot water measuring cup water.
measuring cup of water large measuring cup plastic kitchen filled with cc of water on white background large measuring cup oxo measuring cup hot water pyrex measuring cup boiling water.
measuring cup of water of water in a measuring cup on kitchen counter with vegetables measuring cup water microwave pyrex measuring cup boiling water.
measuring cup of water close up photo of a half full clear measuring cup 1 cup of water without measuring cup how to measure 1 cup of watermelon.
measuring cup of water 3 4 measuring cup no 3 4 measuring cup 3 4 cup of water without measuring 1 measuring cup of water pyrex measuring cup boiling water.
measuring cup of water 1 2 cup of water without measuring cup measuring cup boiling water.
measuring cup of water pyrex measuring cup boiling water 1 4 cup of water without measuring cup.
measuring cup of water get quotations a crystal epoxy water curing ab water cup plastic cup liquid measuring cup with a scale 1 cup of water without measuring cup pyrex measuring cup boiling water.
measuring cup of water measuring cup measurement milliliter cup of water 1 2 cup of water without measuring cup pyrex measuring cup boiling water.
measuring cup of water of water in a measuring cup on a kitchen counter with vegetables pyrex measuring cup boiling water oxo measuring cup boiling water.
measuring cup of water to plastic graduated measuring cup jug with spout lab volume measuring tool 1 cup of water without measuring cup 1 measuring cup of water.
measuring cup of water gray water cup gray cup scale and vector pyrex measuring cup boiling water 1 measuring cup of water in ml.


text:
Clinical appearance of erythema migrans caused by Borrelia afzelii and Borrelia garinii: effect of the patient´s sex
Bennet, Louise
Department of Clinical Sciences, University Hospital of Malmö, Lund University; Blekinge Institute of Research and Development.
Fraenkel, Carl-Johan
Department of Infectious Diseases, Blekinge County Hospital Karlskrona.
Garpmo, Ulf
Department of Clinical Microbiology, Kalmar County Hospital.
Halling, Anders
Blekinge Institute of Research and Development, Karlskrona.
Ingman, Mikael
Department of Clinical and Experimental Infectious Medicine, University Hospital of Lund.
Ornstein, Katharina
Stjernberg, Louise
Blekinge Institute of Technology, School of Health Science, Karlskrona.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8673-5109
Berglund, Johan
Department of Clinical Sciences, University Hospital of Malmö, Lund University; Blekinge Institute of Research and Development, Karlskrona; Blekinge Institute of Technology, School of Health Science, Karlskrona.
2006 (English)In: Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, ISSN 0043-5325, E-ISSN 1613-7671, Vol. 118, no 17-18, p. 531-537Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Aim: The aim in this survey was to study the clinical characteristics of infections caused by Borrelia genospecies in patients with erythema migrans where Borrelial origin was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction. The aim was also to study factors influencing the clinical appearance of erythema migrans. Methods: The study was conducted in southern Sweden from May 2001 to December 2003 on patients 18 years and older attending with erythema migrans at outpatient clinics. All erythema migrans were verified by polymerase chain reaction, photographed and categorized into "annular" or "non-annular" lesions. A logistic regression model was used to analyze relations between the appearance of the erythema migrans (i.e., annular or non-annular) and factors that influenced its clinical appearances. Results: A total of 118 patients, 54 women (45.8%) and 64 men (54.2%), fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 74% were infected by B. afzelii, 26% by B. garinii ( p < 0.001). A total of 45% (38/85) of the erythema migrans were annular, 46% (39/85) were non-annular and 9.4% (8/85) were atypical. For men infected by B. afzelii the odds ratio of developing non-annular erythema migrans was 0.09 (95% CI: 0.03 - 0.33) in comparison with women with the same infection. Conclusions: In this prospective study of a large series of erythema migrans, where infecting genospecies were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction, the sex of patients infected with B. afzelii had a strong influence on the appearance of the rash. Patients infected by B. garinii more often had non-annular erythema migrans and a more virulent infection with more individuals presenting with fever, raised levels of C-reactive protein and seroreactivity in the convalescence sera.
SPRINGER WIEN , 2006. Vol. 118, no 17-18, p. 531-537
Lyme borreliosis, erythema chronicum migrans, Borrelia garinii, Borrelia afzelii, polymerase chain reaction
URN: urn:nbn:se:rkh:diva-1905DOI: 10.1007/s00508-006-0659-1PubMedID: 17009065OAI: oai:DiVA.org:rkh-1905DiVA, id: diva2:862550
Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift


text:
Middlesex County 2023 Economic Outlook
« January Networking Breakfast
The Business of Government »
Join the Middlesex County Regional Chamber of Commerce for The Middlesex County 2023 Economic Outlook Presented by Dean James W. Hughes, Ph.D, Rutgers University's Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning & Public Policy.
Tuesday, January 24, 2023 from 8:30 to 10:30 AM at Middlesex College, 2600 Woodbridge Ave. in Edison
Sponsorship opportunities available!
Middlesex College
2600 Woodbridge Ave
Edison, NJ 08818 United States + Google Map


« Avant j'avais froid mais ça c'était avant ! Je rentre !
This entry was posted by Eric BELROSE on 24 janvier 2013 at 04:54, and is filed under . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.


text:
FISCUS (Föderales Integriertes Standardisiertes Computer-Unterstütztes Steuersystem) ist eine nie fertig entwickelte Software für die öffentliche Hand. Gedacht war sie als einheitliche Software für die rund 650 Finanzämter der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bis Anfang 2006 betrugen die Entwicklungskosten rund 400 Millionen Euro bei einer Entwicklungszeit von dreizehn Jahren und ohne ein brauchbares Ergebnis zu liefern.

Die Anfänge des Projekts FISCUS

Die Entwicklung von FISCUS begann 1993, nachdem sich die Bundesländer mit Beteiligung des Bundes auf die Entwicklung einer gemeinsamen, bundesweit einheitlichen Software für die Finanzämter geeinigt hatten. Mit dieser Einigung wollte man mehrere Probleme auf einmal lösen.

 Das Problem der Parallelentwicklung: Viele Bundesländer entwickelten für die gleichen Probleme eigene Softwarelösungen. Dies wurde als unnötiger Aufwand erkannt und sollte durch ein einheitliches, arbeitsteilig entwickeltes System gelöst werden.
 Das Problem der Komplexität: Die Altsysteme wurden über Jahre hinweg an die neuen Steuergesetze angepasst und wuchsen in ihrer Komplexität immer weiter an. Es bestand die Befürchtung, dass man eines Tages diese Komplexität nicht mehr beherrschen würde (Softwarekrise) und als Folge die Gesetzesvorgaben des Bundestages und der Landesparlamente nicht mehr erfüllen könnte. So weit wollte man es nicht kommen lassen.

Die Neuentwicklung sollte nach dem damaligen Stand des Softwareengineerings, mit strukturierten Entwicklungsmethodiken erfolgen und die unterschiedlichen Systeme in den Ländern ersetzen. Eingesetzt wurde SEtec (Software-Engineering-Technology) der Münchener Software- und Beratungsfirma Softlab. Nach den ersten umfangreichen Analysen startete in Nordrhein-Westfalen mit "Vollstreckung" eines der ersten Entwicklungsprojekte im Rahmen von FISCUS.

Mit der immer größeren Akzeptanz und Verbreitung der Objektorientierung stellte sich Mitte der 1990er Jahre auch für FISCUS die Frage, ob ein Wechsel von der strukturierten Entwicklung hin zur objektorientierten Entwicklung vollzogen werden sollte. Als die Entscheidung fiel, war das Projekt "Vollstreckung" bereits so weit fortgeschritten, dass dieses Entwicklerteam mit dem strukturierten Entwicklungsparadigma weiter entwickeln konnte. Damit war dieses Team von der weiteren FISCUS-Entwicklung abgekoppelt, aber das realisierte System befindet sich heute in mehreren Bundesländern im Einsatz.

Durch die objektorientierte Technologie eröffneten sich neue Möglichkeiten. Es konnten sog. Frameworks eingesetzt werden. Hierbei handelt es sich um vorgefertigte, in der Regel gekaufte Software, in die die selbstgeschriebene Software eingebunden wird. Frameworks bieten Standardlösungen für Standardprobleme, ohne Entwicklungsarbeit im eigenen Projekt. In FISCUS entschied man sich für das Framework "San Francisco" von der Firma IBM. Die Lizenzpolitik von IBM kam der öffentlichen Verwaltung sehr entgegen, da während der Softwareentwicklung keine Lizenzgebühren entstanden. Erst wenn die fertigen Produkte in den Finanzämtern zum Einsatz kommen würden, müsste Geld fließen.

Doch in FISCUS wollte man noch mehr. So gab es ein Entwicklerteam, das auf Grundlage von "San Francisco" ein weiteres Framework, den sog. "Anwendungsrahmen" entwickelte. Dieser Anwendungsrahmen war die Entwicklungsbasis für die über ganz Deutschland verteilten Entwicklerteams. Doch die Entwicklung mit einer derart komplexen Softwarearchitektur mit verteilten Teams, gestaltete sich schwieriger als ursprünglich erhofft. Hinzu kam, dass die Java-Technologie noch in den Kinderschuhen steckte und nicht das leistete, was man von ihr erwartete. So kam das Projekt erheblich langsamer voran als geplant und die Kritik an FISCUS wuchs.

Darüber hinaus stellte IBM fest, dass man mit Frameworks wie "San Francisco" kein Geld verdienen kann und stellte die Weiterentwicklung ein. Damit war dem Projekt FISCUS eine technologische Basis entzogen und da die Software von IBM kostenlos zur Verfügung gestellt wurde, gab es auch keinerlei Verpflichtungen gegenüber FISCUS.

Gründung der fiscus GmbH

Nachdem FISCUS bis zum Jahr 2000 keine tragfähigen Ergebnisse lieferte, beschlossen die Finanzminister einen Neustart, allerdings ohne den Freistaat Bayern. Der Freistaat Bayern startete stattdessen mit EOSS ein eigenes Projekt, in dem die aus den 70er Jahren stammende Software evolutionär weiterentwickelt werden sollte. Wesentlicher Teil des Neustarts von FISCUS war die Gründung der privatwirtschaftlichen fiscus GmbH mit Sitz in Bonn (Gebäude des Presse- und Informationsamtes der Bundesregierung) im April 2001. Das Personal der GmbH – insbesondere die Führungskräfte – wurden überwiegend auf dem freien Arbeitsmarkt gewonnen. Sie wurde personell auch durch zu Programmierern umgeschulte Verwaltungsfachangestellte und Beamte verstärkt. Die Einbeziehung der bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt in den Steuerverwaltungen des Bundes und der Länder eingesetzten Beschäftigten war erforderlich, um steuerrechtliches Know-how in die fiscus GmbH einzubringen.

Bis zum Jahr 2004 stellte die fiscus GmbH mehrere Anwendungen bzw. Testversionen fertig: Die Online-Stammdatenabfrage (OSA), Grunderwerbssteuer (GrESt) und Bußgeldverfahren und Strafsachen (BuStra). Allerdings blieb die Entwicklung der wesentlichen Kernverfahren (Einkommensteuer, Umsatzsteuer, Steuererhebung etc.), weit hinter den Erwartungen zurück. Daher kritisierten auch die Rechnungshöfe verstärkt das Projekt. Unter anderem beanstandete der Berliner Landesrechnungshof das Projekt FISCUS in den Jahren 2000 bis 2004 mehrere Male.

Liquidation der fiscus GmbH

Vor diesem Hintergrund beschloss die Finanzministerkonferenz (FMK) am 19. Juli 2005, die fiscus GmbH zu liquidieren (aufzulösen) und das neue Projekt KONSENS aufzusetzen. Im Projekt KONSENS wurden die Projekte FISCUS und EOSS zusammengeführt, so dass sich auch das Land Bayern wieder an der gemeinsamen Softwareentwicklung beteiligt.

Ein im Vorfeld der Liquidation geplanter Management-Buy-out scheiterte Mitte September 2005. Die Firmenliquidierung begann daher zum 1. Oktober 2005.

Die im Zeitpunkt der Liquidation bei der fiscus GmbH beschäftigten Beamten und ehemaligen Verwaltungsangestellten (etwa 40) kehrten nahezu ausnahmslos zu ihren Stammdienststellen zurück. Den übrigen, auf dem freien Arbeitsmarkt gewonnenen Angestellten (etwa 150) wurde gekündigt.

Die Liquidation wurde mit der Löschung im Handelsregister am 30. Juni 2008 abgeschlossen.

KONSENS als Nachfolger von FISCUS

Das Nachfolgeprojekt von FISCUS ist KONSENS (Koordinierte neue Softwareentwicklung der Steuerverwaltung). Basis sollen die derzeit bereits in den Bundesländern eingesetzten Programme sein. Die derzeit bereits laufenden Programme sollen vereinheitlicht werden. Dabei spielen die vom Land Bayern im sogenannten EOSS (Evolutionär orientierte Steuersoftware)-Verbund und die vom Land Nordrhein-Westfalen entwickelte Software eine besondere Rolle.

Innerhalb von KONSENS wollen die fünf größten Bundesländer (Bayern, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Niedersachsen, Baden-Württemberg und Hessen) die neue bundesweit einheitliche Software federführend für alle Länder entwickeln. Der Bund ist an dieser Entwicklung nicht mehr aktiv beteiligt.

Quellen

Weblinks

 Scheitern des Management-Buyouts
 Senatsverwaltung für Finanzen Berlin Kostenaufstellung bis 2006 (PDF; 154 kB)
Verwaltungssoftware


THE VALLEY TABLE HAS HONORED Dr. Sam Simon, co-founder and president of Hudson Valley Fresh, and John Novi, chef/owner of the Depuy Canal House, with its 2013 Farm-to-Table Award in recognition of their leadership efforts to promote sustainable agriculture and to advance the Hudson Valley as a premier food region.
Simon, a retired orthopedic surgeon, grew up on a dairy farm near Middletown (Orange County), kept the farm operating while in medical school, then returned to dairy farming after retirement. In 2005, he founded Hudson Valley Fresh, a non-profit dairy cooperative, initially committed to producing and distributing high-quality milk. Today, the co-op's products include half-and- half, heavy cream, sour cream and yogurt—all using the milk from sustainably raised, antibiotic- and hormone-free cows. Importantly, Hudson Valley Fresh guarantees its members a set price for their milk. Collectively, 8,000 acres of Hudson Valley farmland remain in production because of the co-op's success.
Named in Time magazine the "Father of New American Cooking," John Novi, chef/owner of the fabled Depuy Canal House, has been an acknowledged leader in local historic- and farm-preservation efforts, and is credited as being one of the early major proponents of using locally sourced ingredients. He has been instrumental in the development of the Rondout Valley Growers Association, a non-profit community organization of local farmers, residents and businesses committed to strengthening the region's family farms and preserving agricultural open space.
The 2013 Farm to Table Award winners received a handcrafted table designed and constructed from locally sourced black walnut by Beacon artisan Jessica Wickham, and joined Dr. Tim Ryan, president of the Culinary Institute of America, in the winner's circle. Ryan was the inaugural honoree of the award, established by The Valley Table in 2012.


Charged with preserving and sharing the stories of "Old Ironsides" for future generations, we do not charge admission so that all citizens, regardless of means, can access this important part of our national identity. As a private non-profit organization, we likewise receive no direct federal funding. It is the support of friends like you, who understand the value of the lessons learned aboard her decks, who make it possible for the Museum to fulfill its mission in keeping the stories of USS Constitution alive, inspiring ambitions and pride in visitors of all ages. A story that touches us all, there's a way for everyone to participate – just choose the option that's right for you!


text:
Quail Springs Mall then and now
by Steve Lackmeyer
Published: Sun, August 9, 2020 5:00 AM
The Memorial Road corridor, looking east along the Kilpatrick Turnpike just west of May Avenue, has turned into the city's largest retail draw since Quail Springs Mall opened in 1980. [CHRIS LANDSBERGER/THE OKLAHOMAN]
When construction started on Quail Springs Mall in January 1979, the area was on the edge of town, surrounded by hundreds of acres of open farmland.
Memorial Road was already expanded to four lanes with a median large enough to accommodate a turnpike, which was part of a long-term state highway plan.
Apartment development started within a couple of years of the mall opening in 1980, but the burst of new retail didn't start until the Kilpatrick Turnpike was built in 1990.
Price Edwards reports the north Oklahoma City retail market is the largest in the city and of the 7.2 million square feet in the north side, half of it is along the Memorial Road corridor.
Quail Springs Mall is now surrounded by thousands of apartments, numerous corporate headquarters and dozens of hotels and restaurants, while nearby older neighborhoods to the south have held their own or appreciated in value.
Quail Springs Mall was surrounded by farmland with the closest housing, Quail Creek, shown in the lower right corner of this photo taken in 1981. The Kilpatrick Turnpike was built in the wide Memorial Road median that ended just east of the mall at Pennsylvania Avenue. [THE OKLAHOMAN ARCHIVES]
Steve Lackmeyer
Steve Lackmeyer is a reporter, columnist and author who started his career at The Oklahoman in 1990. Since then, he has won numerous awards for his coverage, which included the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, the city's... Read more ›
CommentsQuail Springs Mall then and now


text:
Troubleshoot, Fix and Repair
How to Install a Swing Set on a Sloped Yard
Written by William Machin; Updated December 20, 2018
1 DIY: A-Frame Swing Sets
2 Tie Down a Swing Set
3 Terraced Vegetable Gardens on Steep Inclines
4 Fix Foundation Grade Problems
Swing sets are designed to be safe when installed on flat surfaces. But this doesn't mean you can't install a set on a sloped yard. On steeper slopes, enlist a contractor to level and compact a section that's large enough for the set, with additional room for safely getting on and off. On yards that have low or gentle slopes, installing a swing set takes a little planning and some minor excavating. In most cases, the job is easier with the help of one or more assistants.
Determine the best section of the slope for the swing set. This may be near the upper part of a slope, at the midpoint or near the base, depending on the landscaping or contour of the ground. For optimum stability, ensure the set installs so the main overhead crossbar is perpendicular to the uphill and downhill line of the slope instead of at an angle to the line.
Place the swing set at the area where it installs. Ask assistants to lift the downhill legs at the front of the swing set. Stack wooden blocks flat under each leg for support.
Stand to one side of the swing set. Use the triangle shape of the legs as guides and elevate the front legs until a swing hangs exactly vertical at the center line of the triangles. Stand at the downhill side of the swing set and determine if the overhead crossbar is level. Adjust the height of the downhill legs, as necessary. Measure the distance from the ground to the base of each downhill leg. Note the measurements.
Outline each of the uphill legs on the slope, using the flat tip of a digging bar. Move the swing set.
Use a garden spade to dig the holes for each uphill leg based on the measurements the downhill legs were elevated above the ground on blocks. For the best results, ensure the holes are slightly larger in diameter than the legs. Compact the soil at the bottom of each hole with the blunt end of the digging bar.
Move the swing set back into place with the uphill legs in the holes and the downhill legs on the ground. Fill in the holes around the base of the uphill legs with the loose soil that was excavated. Compact the soil around each leg with the blunt end of the digging bar.
Ask one of the taller people who will be using the swing set to swing back and forth to determine if the swing set needs to be adjusted. A swing should be high enough so feet don't drag the ground at the uphill part of the slope. Adjust the chains or lines on the swings, using the appropriate tools listed in the swing set's instructions.
Digging bar
As an added measure, or on slightly steeper slopes, install small concrete caissons to support the downhill legs of the set. Form the caissons with special tubing found at building supply outlets and include post anchors at the top of the caissons. Typically the depth of a caisson's footing is five times the amount that's above ground.
Do not install a swing set in any way that compromises the personal safety of those who are using or may use the set at some point.
Bamass.com: Backyard Adventures / Swings N Things
Swing Set Builders: A Few Things to Consider Before You Buy a Swing Set
William Machin began work in construction at the age of 15, while still in high school. In 35 years, he's gained expertise in all phases of residential construction, retrofit and remodeling. His hobbies include horses, motorcycles, road racing and sport fishing. He studied architecture at Taft Junior College.
Machin, William. "How to Install a Swing Set on a Sloped Yard." Home Guides | SF Gate, http://homeguides.sfgate.com/install-swing-set-sloped-yard-44755.html. 20 December 2018.
Machin, William. (2018, December 20). How to Install a Swing Set on a Sloped Yard. Home Guides | SF Gate. Retrieved from http://homeguides.sfgate.com/install-swing-set-sloped-yard-44755.html
Machin, William. "How to Install a Swing Set on a Sloped Yard" last modified December 20, 2018. http://homeguides.sfgate.com/install-swing-set-sloped-yard-44755.html
Fix the Slope Grading for a House
Steps in Backyard Garden Hills
Use a Riding Lawn Tractor on Slopes
Anchor a Swing to a Ceiling Joist
Make a Strong Entry Trellis
Install Ground Anchors for a Swing Set
Shed Foundations Using Cinder Blocks
Putting Concrete Blocks Under a Hot Tub
Edge a Lawn With Scallop Topped Concrete
Ornamental Fence Uses for Sloped Yards
Prep the Gound for a Storage Shed
Are Stand-on Lawn Mowers Dangerous?