Jan 27, 2015 | Environment, Young Scientists
Danielle Haak, who recently completed her PhD from the Nebraska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and the School of Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has won the annual Peccei Award for her outstanding research as part of the 2014 Young Scientists Summer Program (YSSP) in IIASA’s Advanced Systems Analysis research program.
Could you tell me a bit about yourself? Where are you from and what do you study?
I grew up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (USA), and it was there I fell in love with the natural world. As a kid, my family and I spent weekends boating on Lake Michigan, and I’ve always been fascinated by lakes and the hidden world beneath the water’s surface. As an undergraduate, I spent a few summers in northern Wisconsin at a limnology research station, and this is where I realized I could actually make a career out of this fascination! I went on to get a BSc in Wildlife Ecology, a MSc in Biological Sciences, and I recently defended my PhD dissertation that focused on the energetics and habitat requirements of the invasive freshwater Chinese mystery snail. In general, I’m interested in aquatic invasive species and how their introduction affects ecosystem structure, functioning, and resilience.
How did you get interested in this subject?
I was drawn to aquatic invasive species during my undergraduate research. My first independent research project was on invasive crayfish in a northern Wisconsin lake; in addition to out-competing the native crayfish population, the invasive species suffered from a fungal disease outbreak, and we wanted to understand its prevalence throughout the lake. I also worked as a technician on a whole-lake study researching the efficacy of manual removal of an invasive crayfish species from another lake. It was a long-term project that successfully reduced the invasive rusty crayfish population enough that the native crayfish population was able to recover, and the entire lake underwent a drastic physical change as a result. These large-scale dynamics have always been appealing to me, and I knew it was something I wanted to pursue in my career. When I started my PhD at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, our research group had just started a number of side projects on the Chinese mystery snail, and there was an obvious gap in our scientific understanding of the species; thus, it made sense to take advantage of this opportunity!
What was the question you were trying to answer in your YSSP research project?
My YSSP project built upon my dissertation topic but went in a slightly different direction. My YSSP supervisor, Dr. Brian Fath, and I wanted to utilize the already-established methods of social and ecological network analyses, but in a way that hadn’t been done before. Ultimately, we had two main questions. First, we wanted to investigate how the social dynamics of ecosystems can be integrated into ecological network analysis. And second, we wanted to use network analysis to analyze the ecological effects and movement of the Chinese mystery snail in the southeast region of Nebraska.
What did you find?
Because there were a few parts to this research, we had a number of different results. First, we were able to create directed networks of how anglers and boaters moved among a network of flood-control reservoirs. We also developed ecological networks specific to each of the 19 reservoirs included in our study. Both of these findings were relevant by themselves, but the cool part was how we combined them. We adapted the framework of infectious disease network modeling to simulate what would happen within the first 25 years after a hypothetical introduction. The human movements connecting reservoirs were equivalent to a disease’s transmission rate, and the individual population growth of the snail within each reservoir after an introduction was like a disease’s incubation time leading up to a threshold where that reservoir then became contagious. We started with 5 infected and contagious reservoirs, and after 25 years only 5 of the 19 reservoirs did not have the Chinese mystery snail in it. Finally, we identified three of the already-infected reservoirs where preventing snails from being transported out of them would be most critical as well as two susceptible reservoirs where preventing introduction of the snails would be most beneficial.
Chinese Mystery Snail. Photo: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Doug Jensen
Why is this research important for policy or society?
Our preliminary results demonstrated that social and ecological network models can be used in tandem, which has the potential to address a number of complex policy and management issues. Additionally, being able to prioritize reservoirs based on how effective prevention efforts would be allows managers to focus their limited resources in places they would get the best return on their investment. I believe there is also a great deal of potential in using this combined model approach to assess the spread of other aquatic invasive species of concern as well as other types of disturbances.
How are you planning to continue this research when you return to IIASA?
I would like to work with Dr. Fath on refining some of my individual ecological network models, and possibly incorporating some of the additional social data that’s available to us. We also discussed possibly using the approach to look at other questions related to aquatic invasive species, but in different geographical regions and possibly with different software. One of the best parts of this project was coming up with so many questions on where we could go next, and I really enjoyed working with Dr. Fath and gaining a new perspective on the questions that interest me.
How did your time at IIASA affect your PhD research?
My time at IIASA refreshed my love of the scientific process, and I loved the flexibility in adjusting my project as I learned more and developed new questions. Ultimately, I ended up with an additional chapter for my dissertation and came home with a mostly-completed draft.
What was your favorite aspect of the YSSP and IIASA?
I loved so much about YSSP and working at IIASA, but the best part was probably the ability to meet other brilliant scientists and students from around the world. In addition to thought-provoking discussions on science and research, we also had some incredible discussions on life in other countries with drastically different cultures. The other students made the entire summer even better, and I’m so happy I was able to participate in such an incredible experience. IIASA has a truly unique work environment, and everyone made us feel right at home. It really was a dream come true, and I’m so excited about the opportunity to return and pick up where I left off. The only thing missing will be my fellow YSSPers! I wish we could all come back every summer!
What was your favorite moment of the summer?
I think my favorite experience was the end of summer workshop and dinner and dance that followed. I was so impressed during the initial presentations and it was great to hear about all the progress that was made in the short three months. Celebrating this progress with a night of dancing and dining was just the perfect ending to a great summer. It was a bittersweet farewell, but I think it cemented our friendships and was a great capstone to an already dreamlike experience!
Danielle Haak (right) and fellow YSSPer Adriana Reyes, at the end-of-summer awards ceremony.
Note: This article gives the views of the interviewee, and not the position of the Nexus blog, nor of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Dec 1, 2014 | Young Scientists
By IIASA YSSP participants 2014: Edoardo Borgomeo, Mikko Dufva, Lukas Figge, Thomas Schinko and Fabian Schipfer
Photo Credit: Dan Suarez
A growing number of young researchers in various fields (for example the International Student Initiative for Pluralism in Economics) are realizing that responding to global challenges creates a need for more radical rethinking of some of the basic underlying assumptions of applied science, something that is not captured in most of the way research is done at the moment. Along that line, we argue that research is often not critical and self-reflexive enough and gets lost in the details without connecting to the bigger questions for the future of humanity.
In order to start a conversation on these topics, we organized a workshop as part of our participation in the 2014 IIASA Young Scientists Summer Program (YSSP). To prepare for the workshop we interviewed fellow YSSPers and asked each of them to identify one major controversial question for the future of humanity. This process resulted in five Big Questions, a list summarizing the five most controversial themes identified by the YSSP cohort. Our five Big Questions are:
- Adapting to changing environments: Who will be affected how badly?
- Planetary boundaries and resource constraints: How will we manage to live within planetary boundaries and resource constraints?
- (Re-)defining quality of life: Can humanity prosper without economic growth?
- Dealing with conflict: What will be the main reasons for conflict in the future and how to overcome them?
- The efficiency fetish of science and technology: What are or should be the moral and ethical limitations to optimization?
At the workshop, we asked participants – which included YSSP participants and IIASA researchers from different cultural and scientific backgrounds – to discuss the five Big Questions and how applied systems sciences could evolve to address them. The workshop’s outcome was not a list of answers to the five questions, but a list of guidelines that scientists should consider when doing research that seeks to address these questions.
Workshop participants from left to right: Margaret Garcia, Miho Kamei, Thomas Schinko, Farid Karimi Photo credit: Aleksandra Cofala.
- Connect and relate to the bigger picture
We as a scientists know that when doing research, it is easy to get tangled up in the details and miss the bigger picture of why the specific research matters. From the discussions at the workshop we distilled three relevant aspects to avoid not seeing the forest for the trees when doing research. First, the participants considered it essential to reflect about the impact that our own research has on society. Second, and connected to the first aspect, the group of researchers affirmed that it is essential how researchers relate and engage with their audience. Third, the discussants concurred that communicating research results means taking part in broader societal discussions: every scientific question, especially in applied sciences, raises political and ethical challenges and we need to realize that these cannot be separated from our research activities.
- Accept that controversy is a fact and that it matters
The second main takeaway message from the workshop is that there is controversy around important issues and that sometimes controversy is a desirable thing. We learned that as applied scientists we need to understand that there are different perceptions about a research topic, based on different (cultural) worldviews, politicized processes and from the framing of the issue. Furthermore these perceptions change over time. This means that researchers have to constantly reassess their own perceptions about the specific research topic. However, we argue that controversy drives research forward and, as climate scientist Mike Hulme puts it, disagreeing is a form of learning.
- Be more reflective about normative assumptions and cultural biases underlying research
Another important aspect that was brought up by the workshop participants is that the framing of a research question reflects assumptions made about it, either explicitly or implicitly. We agree that making assumptions is of course needed in science, as it is an inherent part of dealing with real world complexity, incomplete knowledge, and uncertainty. But we argue that at the same time, it is important to be aware of and open about the assumptions made. We would like to reiterate three important questions a researcher should answer for herself when framing a research topic: who, where and when? Who do we assume are the stakeholders most affected by our research? Where do we concentrate our attention on? When, i.e. which time horizon, is our research focused on?
- Foster inter- and transdisciplinary research
We are aware that for an individual scientist, it is not an easy task to take all of the three previous points into account. Therefore, to engage with the Big Questions, science needs to approach them from multiple angles and foster inter- and transdisciplinary research between natural sciences, social sciences, the humanities, and non-scientific stakeholders. We are certain that not being restricted to only one discipline paints a more detailed and comprehensive picture of a specific problem.
We have presented four guidelines that scientists should consider when doing research that seeks to matter, based on the results of the workshop on the five Big Questions. However, it is not our intention to give commandments about how to do science. What we and the other participants of the workshop learned from the discussions is that interdisciplinary thinking and debating about the big picture and being exposed to conflicting viewpoints is not only imperative for doing research that is relevant for the future of humanity, but can also be a thoroughly enjoyable experience. And this is perhaps the key take-home message from the workshop: Have fun with your research and find meaning in it by connecting to other researchers and to the bigger questions for the future of humanity.
Photo Credit: Lukas Figge
Note: This post gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the Nexus blog, nor of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Mar 17, 2014 | Alumni, Poverty & Equity, Young Scientists
Lanoi Maloiy is a PhD student at the University of South Australia in Adelaide, and a participant in the recently completed 2013-14 Southern African Young Scientists Summer Program (SA-YSSP), which IIASA co-organizes with the South African National Research Foundation and Department of Science and Technology at the University of the Free State in South Africa. In this interview Maloiy talks about her research and her experience in the program.
Lanoi Maloiy Photo Credit: Stephen Collett
Why did you apply for the SA-YSSP?
I applied for the Southern African Young Scientists Summer Program because I envisioned the program would assist my research, especially regarding ways to improve the quality of life for Africans.
I’m from Nairobi, Kenya and from the Maasai tribe. Coming from Africa, I am passionate about improving the quality of life for all of the continent’s citizens. The Maasai are a culture that traditionally didn’t often value sending girls to school, but my parents really stressed the importance of education.
I have seen very clearly in my own life how having access to education makes a difference, and how it really presents a limitation for those who don’t have access to education. Especially for girls, not having that education really limits their options. This experience made me very passionate about education as a transformative tool. I believe that education is an important tool in eradicating poverty and eliminating oppression.
Please tell us about your project for the SA-YSSP.
My research for the SA-YSSP explores the educational experiences of Kenyan female political leaders evaluating the role of education in their leadership journey. I investigated social, cultural and historical issues regarding African women and education, including the leadership context in Africa. My doctoral work is an interdisciplinary study within the fields of gender, education, and African leadership. The study investigates the experiences of Kenyan female political leaders, and focuses on locating enablers or strategies to address the challenges women face while accessing leadership positions.
During the program I worked with IIASA population researcher Dr. Anne Goujon and my South African adviser Dr. Petronella Jonck. Working with them gave my research a new social psychology perspective which really enriched my work, because I come from an education and a leadership standpoint, it broadened my research examining it from the perspective of social psychology, evaluating the interaction and dynamics of gender within society.
I believe that this study will be beneficial to policy makers, and leadership practitioners. More studies on women leaders in Africa are essential to provide a global account of the experiences of women in leadership.
What methods did you use to conduct your study?
I did largely a qualitative study analyzing face to face interviews with 18 women political leaders in Kenya, which I had conducted in 2013. I went to where the women leaders were based, often to their constituencies or in parliament. The interviews included demographic questions, asking them about their education, qualifications, age, and marital status. Then the second half of the interview was more open ended, asking about their leadership journey, about their family background, educational background, and what factors enabled them, and factors that inhibited them, and in particular evaluating the role of education and personality. The last section of the interviews focused more on recommendations, asking their opinion on strategies that could be put into place to help women better access leadership positions. In particular, what African society could do better in terms of accommodating women, and also asking participants why it is important to have women take part in leadership, and how women leaders can enrich African society.
I will be submitting my report at the end of this month, and we plan to also submit a journal article on the work.
How has the program changed the way you think about or do research?
The SA-YSSP has informed the way in which I communicate my research, ensuring simplicity and clarity, especially to interdisciplinary audiences. It has also equipped me as an early career researcher, with knowledge and skills to locate avenues for transforming and improving the lives of Africa’s citizens through research.
What was the best thing about the SA-YSSP?
The SA-YSSP programme was an exciting and capacity building process, which provided a rich experience for me as an early career researcher. It afforded me with an invaluable learning experience. Attending lectures on writing scientific papers, systems analysis, including practical ‘hands on’ training in media communication enriched and extended my skills base. Interacting with a range of PhD students brought a new wealth of knowledge and provided a vibrant social experience. I truly appreciated the opportunity to contribute and engage in research life during the course of the summer program.
Where do you hope to go with your research career?
I have a strong desire to be part of research that transforms the lives of Africans, in particular through education and leadership development projects. I believe that attending the SA-YSSP has proved an important step towards my long-term goal of creating leadership development programs to improve the quality of life for Africans.
Lanoi Maloiy, right, with other participants in the 2013-14 Southern African Young Scientists Summer Program (SA-YSSP) Photo Credit: Rene Van Der Berg
Note: This article gives the views of the interviewee, and not the position of the Nexus blog, nor of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Oct 1, 2013 | Alumni, Poverty & Equity, Young Scientists
Pheakkdey Nguon, participant in IIASA’s 2012 Young Scientists Summer Program, and IIASA Annual Fund recipient, has won an IPCC reserach fellowship to fund his research on REDD+ in Cambodia. In this interview he discusses his research plans, the award, and his experience at IIASA.
Pheakkdey Nguon at the awards ceremony for the IPCC research fellowship on 30 September, 2013.
Nexus: Please tell us about the research that you will be working on under this grant: What is the major question that you’re studying?
Pheakkdey Nguon: The main objective of my dissertation research is to better understand how governance systems organize and distribute knowledge on the UN’s REDD+ Program (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) across different groups of stakeholders with conflicting interests, and the resulting impacts of such systems on forests and people in Cambodia. I am basically asking to what extent the different groups of stakeholders in Cambodia have considered REDD+ as salient, credible and/or legitimate for addressing deforestation, forest degradation and sustainable livelihood development.
How will you address this question?
Theoretically, I am drawing from sustainability science and political economy of institutions and decisions literature to reveal ways in which perceptions, institutional locations, and contextual differences affect patterns of stakeholders’ engagement in REDD+, a complex environmental governance project that spans multiple levels of implementation and involve various groups of stakeholders. Methodologically, I am using qualitative methods such as key informant interviews (up to 150 interviews), observations of REDD+ policy processes (up to 70 observations), and extended archival research (e.g. government reports, newspapers, policy briefs, feasibility studies) to answer my question.
The interviews offer a first-hand account of the criteria that different group of stakeholders use and their justifications for using those criteria to assess REDD+ projects within their project areas and in Cambodia. Observations of REDD+ policy processes (e.g. meetings, workshops, consultations) provide information on the participation and engagement of different groups of stakeholders in the production, examination and dissemination of knowledge on REDD+ within the three project sites and in Cambodia. Finally, archival research is conducted for two main reasons: (1) to validate, compare, and contextualize information gathered through interviews and policy observations; and (2) to add to the study information that would not be appropriate or feasible to collect through interviews or observations, either because of the political sensitivities of the topics or time constraints.
Why are you interested in this area?
Academic and policy-oriented literature on REDD+ has been prolific within the last decade. Its central focus has been on addressing the technical issues – defined largely by the scientific and policy communities – that will improve the design and implementation of REDD+ so that its outcomes achieve the goals of effectiveness, efficiency and equity (the so-called “3Es” criteria). Whether these “3Es” criteria – or the underlying logic of REDD+ in general – are as relevant for the different groups of stakeholders in developing countries as they are for the international policy community has, however, been insufficiently substantiated in the literature. Therefore, my justification for exploring the abovementioned question departs from my assumption that the preferences and perceptions of stakeholders cannot be presumed to coincide with aspirations of scientists and/ or policy-makers who have been working on REDD+. Understanding how stakeholders interpret, experience and assess REDD+ is central to understanding the appropriateness of REDD+ as an initiative aiming at addressing deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries.
How does it relate to the work you did at IIASA?
I classify myself as a sustainability science geographer, and so I came to IIASA already very inspired because people who have had tremendous intellectual influence on me have at certain points been affiliated with IIASA, for example Robert Kates and William Clark. The main activity that I was doing during my YSSP participation was trying to translate literature from these intellectuals into testable hypotheses that will help me understand the question(s) I am asking in my dissertation research. This was not an easy process. It involved a lot of conversations between me, my advisor at Clark (Dr. Anthony Bebbington) and my advisor at IIASA (Dr. Hannes Böttcher). I would also like to acknowledge the very engaging and informative conversations that I had with Dr. Anthony Patt, Dr. Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer, Dr. Michael Thompson, and fellow YSSPers on this matter. They were very generous with their time.
How did the YSSP help you to get this grant?
I came to the YSSP with the main intention of finalizing the questions that I will pursue for my dissertation research. My goal was to have a defensible dissertation research proposal by the time I return to my PhD program at Clark University. I was also hoping that I would be able to build on this proposal to apply for research grants to pursue my empirical fieldwork in Cambodia. During the YSSP, I was very fortunate to be able to work very closely with Dr. Hannes Böttcher, from the Ecosystem Services and Management Program. Similar to other PhD students, I had so many questions that were floating in my head, some of which did not make any sense now that I am reflecting on them. Therefore, I very much admired Dr. Böttcher for his patience, supports and willingness to engage with all the ideas that I was coming up with. Through these many conversations, I did finish my dissertation research proposal that I defended at Clark. And this is the very same proposal that helped me get the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) research award. Additionally, I was also able to get one of my dissertation papers accepted for publication at Environmental Science and Policy (DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.04.011) during my time at IIASA.
Why is this research important?
I hope that my research will have some impact in the academy and in the realm of forest governance and climate change debates based in a developing country context. In academe, my research engages with politically broader discussions on the science-policy interface, market-based approaches to forest governance in developing countries, stakeholders’ assessments of policies on climate change, and national sovereignty issues. Beyond the academy, this research is relevant to the ongoing debate on how scientific knowledge is being received, perceived and reconfigured in environmental governance policy that spans multiple scales of implementation and involves various groups of stakeholders. Finally, significant for the national and international policy negotiations on REDD+, this study should contribute to the debate on why certain groups of stakeholders have been supportive, while others have been critical, of the implementation of REDD+ projects in developing countries.
Note: This article gives the views of the interviewee, and not the position of the Nexus blog, nor of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Sep 26, 2013 | Young Scientists
By Kanae Matsui – Participant in the IIASA Young Scientists Summer Program (YSSP) 2013
As part of my YSSP project for summer 2013, I developed a Web site to study consumer behaviors towards electricity market liberalization to the residential side. This liberalization means that consumers can select an energy company that has different portfolios of energy supply. It has been introduced in many countries, including the US, Austria, and Germany.
The Web site, called Green Energy Consumption, is a simulated world of liberalized electricity markets—a game—that lets people make choices about their energy consumption, choosing between different providers with different mixes of energy coming from renewable and fossil fuel sources.
The goal of this study is to find out how people make choices about energy, and what it takes to change people’s energy consumption behavior. A game like this could be used in countries where the policy has not been introduced to analyze whether or not a policy would work before introducing it.
Now that we have developed the prototype Web site, we will analyze the simulation’s influence, using questionnaires for the simulation’s participants comparing the pre-and post-gaming experience.
What you can do with this website?
1) You can simulate your energy costs and see how much CO₂ is emitted based on your decision.
2) Your decision making under a liberalized electricity market and your understanding of the consequences of your decisions with respect to costs and CO₂ emissions will be supported.
Please help me out with my research by taking a few minutes to play the Green Energy Consumption game!
http://greenenergyconsumption.com/
Kanae Matsui is a PhD student at the Graduate school of Media Design, Keio University in Japan. Her main research interest is information visualization for human behavior modification.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the Nexus blog, nor of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Aug 29, 2013 | Alumni, Young Scientists
By Valentina Prado, PhD student at Arizona State University, SA-YSSP participant 2012-2013 @ValentinaASU
Enjoying the landscape around Bloemfontein.
I am a PhD student in Sustainable Engineering at Arizona State University (ASU). I was born in Cali, Colombia, and when I was in high school, my family immigrated to Canada seeking educational opportunities for me and my sister. I did my last two years of high school in British Columbia, Canada and my undergraduate degree at Jackson State University (JSU) in Mississippi, USA (where I earned a tennis athletic scholarship).
After a degree in Civil Engineering at JSU, I decided to pursue a graduate engineering degree with an environmental sustainability focus. So, in the fall of 2010, I joined Dr. Thomas P. Seager’s research group to study decision analysis methods for environmental management problems.
The SA-YSSP program
When I found out about the Southern African Young Scientists Summer Program (SA-YSSP), it seemed too good to be true. I was immediately drawn by the project involving Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) tools because I apply these tools in my PhD thesis and I was familiar with the work from the SA-YSSP supervisors: Prof. Theodor Stewart from the University of Cape Town, Prof. Detlof von Winterfeldt from University of Southern California and Dr. Marek Makowski from IIASA. I even had one of their books on my desk when reading the call for applicants. The timing of the program was tough because of the academic schedule, but my graduate committee at ASU encouraged me to apply and worry about the logistics later. In fact, when it was time for the logistics, there was no time to worry- everything had to be quick! All of a sudden I was on my way from Phoenix to Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Here’s a group picture from the SA-YSSP. I’m in yellow.
My project in the SA-YSSP evaluates environmental, social, and economic aspects of possible energy pathways in South Africa using MCDA tools—which allow us look for solutions to complex problems with many trade-offs. For this project, we focused on a period of energy transition in South Africa where natural gas is a key player. We used these tools to examine how thermo-electric power is produced in South Africa, and how different generation technologies perform economically, environmentally, and socially. For each energy pathway, we take into account environmental impacts concerning water and air quality, social impacts such as job creation and cost of production. We have already submitted our findings for publication.
In all, participating in SA YSSP was outside of anything I could have ever imagined – it was one of the most amazing and productive experiences of my life! I got to travel to a place that otherwise I would have not gone, I got to work on a really cool project with renowned people in the field, and I got to meet wonderful young scientists from all over the world. I also learned more about the IIASA community and discovered that it is something that I will consider taking part during my doctorate or after. In addition, the people at University of the Free State took good care of us. It was 3 unbelievable months where I celebrated my birthday with friends from over 10 different countries and felt at home, learned about South Africa’s history, saw a penguin, ran a 5km race, ate bobotie, and got to pet 2-week old baby lions. All in three months. Amazing. I feel incredibly fortunate to have participated in the SA YSSP program.
I never thought I would get to travel and meet so many wonderful people with my research. I also don’t think my parents ever considered the educational opportunities in South Africa when they immigrated to Canada! Coming from Colombia, South Africa is not a place you typically visit, or stay for three months (unless you are Shakira). In all, I would like to thank all the sponsor organizations and staff for organizing the SA YSSP program, and allowing me the opportunity to participate.
Editor’s Note:
Applications for the 2013-2014 SA-YSSP have been extended to the 16th of September. Please visit the IIASA Web site for more information: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/education/sa-yssp/About-the-Program.en.html
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the Nexus blog, nor of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Could you tell me a bit about yourself? Where are you from and what do you study?
You must be logged in to post a comment.