• Energy Research
• Open Access close
• Restricted close
• US close
• GB close
• FR close
• AU close
• UA close

Wheat Biomass for Kherson and Poltava regions in Ukraine The dataset contains Dry Above Ground Biomass (DAM) estimates over the Kherson and Poltava regions in Ukraine for years 2020,2021 and 2022. - Processing:The processing is done using the AgriCarbon-EOv1.5 processing chain, using the TREX processing centre at CNES France.The input remote sensing data are L2A Sentinel-2 surface reflectances provided by the MAJA processing chain based on the Copernicus Sentinel-2 L1C data.The Landcover maps are provided using ML Deep learning based on the Copernicus L2A data.The daily weather data is extracted from ERA5Land products (C3S). -Geophysical variable:Dry Above ground biomass of winter wheat in g/m2. - Extents: * DAM estimates over the Copernicus Sentinel-2 tile 36TWT cover the Kherson region.* DAM estimates over the Copernicus Sentinel-2 tile 36UVA cover the Poltava region. - Spatial resolution:10m resolution estimlates over wheat plots identified in the landcover map. - Temporal coverage:Estimates are provided at the end of the wheat cycle for cycles:* The year 2020 correspond to cycle: 2019-2020* The year 2021 corresponds to cycle : 2020-2021* The year 2022 corresponds to cycle : 2021-2022 - Projection: EPSG:32636 - File content: Each Raster file has 2 bands containing respectively: * band1: mean value of DAM in g/m2. * band2: standard deviation of DAM in g/m2. - List of maps:* Dry_aboveground_biomass_2020_T36TWT_Kherson_Ukraine.tif* Dry_aboveground_biomass_2020_T36UVA_Poltava_Ukraine.tif* Dry_aboveground_biomass_2021_T36TWT_Kherson_Ukraine.tif* Dry_aboveground_biomass_2021_T36UVA_Poltava_Ukraine.tif* Dry_aboveground_biomass_2022_T36TWT_Kherson_Ukraine.tif* Dry_aboveground_biomass_2022_T36UVA_Poltava_Ukraine.tif

The Global Yield Gap Atlas project (GYGA - http://yieldgap.org ) has undertaken a yield gap assessment following the protocol recommended by van Ittersum et. al. (van Ittersum et. al., 2013). This datafile holds the results for rainfed rice.

This spreadsheet contains the results for the article, "Meeting the costs of decarbonising industry – the potential effects on prices and competitiveness (a case study of the UK)". These include projected impacts for industrial process decarbonisation (costs, fuel use, residual emissions), for key years (2030, 2040, 2050), distributed in the following ways: - Directly allocated to industrial sector in which they occur - Shared between sectors in proportion to the share of GVA of each supply chain - Embodied in final products - Embodied in final products, aggregated to consumption patterns The source of the projections and the method to perform the distribution are described in detail in the associated article. Further relevant documentation may be found in the following resources. Cooper, S. J.G., Allen, S. R., Gailani, A., Norman, J. B., Owen, A., Barrett, J., and Taylor, P., 2024. Meeting the costs of decarbonising industry – The potential effects on prices and competitiveness (a case study of the UK). Energy Policy, 184, 113904. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113904. For details of the methods used, please see the associated journal article.

This dataset and codebook correspond to the second round of survey data gathered in Denmark in 2023, within the project FULFILL - Fundamental Decarbonisation Through Sufficiency By Lifestyle Changes. As part of Work Package 3 (WP3) in the FULFILL project, we collected quantitative data from six countries: Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, and India. The first round of the survey, consisted of recruiting a representative sample of approximately 2000 households in each country. In this second survey round, we recruit around 500 respondents from the initial survey round, ensuring representativity is maintained. This survey is very similar to the survey in the first round and includes a lot of identical items, including a quantitative assessment of the carbon footprint in the housing, mobility, and diet sectors, socio-economic factors such as age, gender, income, education, household size, life stage, and political orientation. Furthermore, the survey includes measures of quality of life, encompassing aspects such as health and well-being, environmental quality, financial security, and comfort. New for this second round, we have incorporated questions regarding the measures respondents adopted in response to the 2022 energy crisis.

Dataset including raw Photoluminescence (PL) spectral data, UV-vis Absorbance (ABS) spectral data, Photoluminescence quantum yield (PLQY) data and calculations, and the average Suprapartice (SP) size data.

Maps created and resulting data from analysis in changes in community weighted mean of traits. The raw trait data and forest census data used are available from their sources in www.gem.tropicalforests.ox.ac.uk and ForestPlots.net.

Survey data used in a perception study of stalked barnacle harvesters on the effectiveness of fisheries management practices in Spain, Portugal and France. Harvesters from the following six regions along the Atlantic Arc participated: Morbihan in Brittany (France), Asturias-East, Asturias-West and Galicia (Spain), the Reserva Natural das Berlengas (RNB; Portugal) and the Parque Natural do Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina (PNSACV; Portugal). We administered 184 surveys from October 2019 to September 2020 and each region was treated as an independent population. The data includes: general demographic data (Region, Age, Gender, Level of Education, Main income source, Years of Experience); perception data of the effectiveness of the currently implemented management strategies in each region (coded: e_name_of_strategy – using Likert Scale with scores ranging from 1 = completely ineffective to 5 = very effective); data of the willingness for change of the currently implemented management (Yes, No, NA); and data of harvesters’ perceptions regarding the most important strategy to achieve sustainability in the fishery. Because the surveys were conducted both before and during the Covid-19 pandemic (the column Covid indicates whether the data was collected before or during the pandemic), we had to make adjustments in our data collection methods. We provided the following options for survey completion (see the Recollection_of_data column): by hand in a written format, online, or via an oral interview conducted with the assistance of a scientist per telephone. Our results indicate that the majority of harvesters in the regions in Portugal and France were willing to make changes to current management strategies, reflecting their awareness of the need for improvement. Based on the AIC model selection analysis results, the model with the single variable region explained 83% of the cumulative model weight. The variable region was the best predictor of the trends in management strategy preferences, and presented a highly significant goodness-of-fit result (p<0.001), suggesting that regional differences play a significant role in shaping these preferences. No clear trend emerged regarding a single "optimal" management strategy preferred by harvesters across regions. Harvesters in less developed co-management systems favored general input and output restrictions and expressed a desire for greater involvement in co-management processes. Conversely, harvesters in highly developed co-management systems with Territorial User Rights for Fishers (TURFs) preferred the most restrictive and spatially explicit management strategies, such as implementing harvest bans and establishing marine reserves. Our findings emphasise that management strategies do not only need to be tailored to each region's particular practices, needs, and characteristics, but that resource users’ readiness for specific strategies also needs to be considered.