Development of indicators. The current basis for the development of a system of indicators to measure the effectiveness of the Albatross and Petrel Agreement was set out in AC5 Inf 16 Rev1. This was the subject of intersessional work following the guidance set out in AC5 Final Report paragraphs 14.2 to 14.4. The Working Group reviewed the comments and advice relating to indicators in AC6 Inf 07 and AC 6 Doc 27. The Working Group recommends that the following indicators should, in the short to medium term, be further developed and implemented as ACAP indicators. These indicators include those measuring the progressive acquisition of data. State (S)
Development of indicators. As RWTH Aachen University has already been working with Gender Equality Plans for some years, our purpose was to sustain the existing elements and to develop further indicators as a whole set of a gender monitoring system to strengthen the Equal Opportunities Strategy. At RWTH Aachen University, we developed a data set for the voluntary Equal Table 5: Indicators to complement the existing gender monitoring system at RWTH Aachen University; indicators already implemented are highlighted in blue Opportunities Strategy which takes up the four main fields of action which are referred to in already existing gender and diversity strategies: research, teaching, personnel development and organizational specifics. The indicators identified by the FESTA team would serve as a full picture, basically represent a whole set of a gender monitoring system about the different aspects of RWTH Aachen’s academic life in the following dimensions: - Gender expertise in research, projects and teaching - Gender proportion in teaching - Position of female researchers in research: leading a project, being visible by publications, presentations and awards - Success rates of female researchers in appointment processes for professorships - Contract conditions, career development and budgets - Share of parental responsibilities To start the cooperation with the departments, we presented the identified indicators to the Rectorate and the Head of Department for Planning, Development and Controlling and two of his Unit Heads. The purpose of our meeting was to find out which data are possible to provide. All participants agreed with the overall concept and signalized support for collecting data. Due to data protection issues though, some indicators had to be dismissed after this meeting. For example, in case of negotiations about the conditions of appointment, it would have been interesting to know whether women or men have different outcomes. But unfortunately the numbers are too small as to guarantee an anonymized process. Also, for some of the data, changes in the work flow, e.g. for the collection of bibliometric data would have been needed which take longer than prospected. So it was impossible to collect meaningful data for these indicators. Some organizational changes are still in progress. Collecting data At RWTH Aachen University, data is being collected within the administrative departments which work on relevant topics such as the Human Resources department collects data for the...
Development of indicators. 15.12.1 The SBWG reviewed the comments and advice relating to indicators (AC6 Inf 07 and AC 6 Doc 27) and recommended that a set of indicators (ANNEX 12) should, in the short to medium term, be further developed and implemented as ACAP indicators: The annex also shows proposed actions to enable the development and implementation of these indicators, subject to the extent that resources permit.
Development of indicators. The measures identified in Sections §6.2.3-6 indicate how morphological factors and socio- economic activity can alter exposure and impact at local scale in cities, and how appropriate building and infrastructure design can mitigate these effects, so-called "climate proofing" (EEA, 2012a, p. 89). The impact of such measures, however, needs to be assessed and compared to various competing scenarios for best impact (for example, combining green roofs with integration of photovoltaic panels) and avoidance of lock-in effects. Prioritising amongst design measures therefore requires knowledge-based scenarios, benchmarking, and operational indicators. This approach can be used as a stepping-stone towards the development and design of resilient systems, as advocated by Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxx (2013) (see §5.4.7), if the absorptive, adaptive and restorative capacities of urban architecture and infrastructure systems are mapped and assessed. The workshop resulted in few specific indicators, but did include many proposals for measures that in fact are already embedded in modelling, urban spatial structure planning, insurance assessment and other practical applications by means of quantitative and qualitative indicators. It was also emphasised that resilience indicators ideally should be embedded in already existing initiatives and frameworks in order to be successful and operationalized quickly. The next step of the research is therefore to analyse these sources within the RAMSES case cities in order to identify solution spaces for further development.
