Search

Abstract The Council of European Aerospace Societies (CEAS) Aeroacoustics Specialists Committee (ASC) supports and promotes the interests of the scientific and industrial aeroacoustics community on the European scale, and European aeronautics activities internationally. Each year, the committee highlights several of the research and development projects in Europe. This paper is the 2017 issue of this collection of Aeroacoustic Highlights, compiled from contributions submitted to the CEAS-ASC. The contributions are classified under five main headings: Airframe Noise, Jet Noise, Turbomachinery Noise, Techniques and Methods in Aeroacoustics and Further Applications of Aeroacoustics. A concise summary of the CEAS-ASC workshop held in Dublin, Ireland, in September 2017 is also included in this report. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Council of European Aerospace Societies (CEAS) Aeroacoustics Specialists Committee (ASC) supports and promotes the interests of the scientific and industrial aeroacoustics community on a European scale and European aeronautics activities internationally. In this context, “aeroacoustics” encompasses all aerospace acoustics and related areas. Each year the committee highlights some of the research and development projects in Europe. This paper is a report on some highlights of aeroacoustics research in Europe in 2006, compiled from information provided to the ASC of the CEAS. During 2006, numerous research programmes were funded by the European Union. Some of the contributions submitted to the editor summarize selected findings from these programmes, while other articles cover issues supported by national associations. Furthermore, a concise summary of the workshop on “Aeroacoustics of Jet Noise” held in Dublin in September is included in this report. Enquiries concerning all contributions should be addressed to the authors who are given at the end of each subsection. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In this paper we examine an example of a conservation conflict that is encountered in Ireland arising from the designation of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for the Hen Harrier under the European Birds Directive (Directive, 2009/147/EC) and the consequent restrictions that are placed on forestry activities within these SPAs. We examine the causes of the Hen Harrier-forestry conflict; identify what stakeholders believe are the policy instruments and management strategies that may be useful in managing the conflict and finally identify plausible solutions that may be relevant to similar conflicts around multi-functional forests elsewhere in Europe and globally. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key actors in this conflict. Drawing on Walker and Daniels' conflict triangle theory, a qualitative analysis of the transcripts of these interviews revealed that the conflict between Hen Harrier conservation and forestry in Ireland has a number of deep-rooted dimensions including those relating to the substance (e.g. restrictions on forest management activity in the SPAs), as well as procedural (e.g. lack of stakeholder engagement) and relationship dimensions (e.g. lack of trust). The polarisation of views in this conflict testifies to how entrenched stakeholders can become through lack of communication and trust. The policy instruments that stakeholders identified as having potential to address the conflict include the introduction of incentives/compensation scheme; changes to restrictions; more data and research on Hen Harrier bird surveys; implementation of landscape management models; and better communication and stakeholder engagement. The study highlights that conservation conflicts persist due to the multi-functional nature of forests and also due to repeated mistakes in terms of the lack of engagement with local stakeholders. Increasing the involvement of local actors has important substantive and instrumental benefits including improving the quality of decisions, as well as creating a greater chance of policies being better socially and politically acceptable. The need for more and better capacity-building across EU Member States for statutory and government agencies to learn from one another in terms of how to avoid repeating the same mistakes from one site to another is highlighted. • A forestry and conservation conflict is examined. • The conflict has substance, procedural and relationship dimensions. • Stakeholder hold very polarised views. • Lack of communication and trust are major issues. • Stakeholders share a common interest and goal in terms of conservation and incentives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]