Ecosystem services frameworks effectively assume that nature's contributions to human well-being derive from people receiving benefits from nature. At the same time, efforts (money, time, or energy) for conservation, restoration or stewardship are often considered costs to be minimized. But what if caring for nature is itself an essential component of human well-being? Taking up and developing the concept of relational values, we explore the idea that well-being cannot be reduced to the reception of benefits, and that instead much derives from positive agency including caring for nature. In this paper, we ask specifically, a) how can "care" be conceptualised with respect to nature, b) how does caring for nature matter both to protecting nature and to people's well-being, and c) what are the implications for research and practice?We describe the theoretical background, drawing especially from (eco)feminist philosophy, and explore its (mostly) implicit uses in the conservation literature. Based on this analysis we propose a preliminary framework of caring for nature and discuss its potential to enrich the spectrum of moral 1 Corresponding author: email: kurt.jax@ufz.de, phone: +49-341-2351648 3 relations to/with nature. We explore both its consequences for environmental research and for the practice of conservation.

Findings suggest a need to review current practice to further understand individual and organizational reasons for the renal unit variation identified in patient understanding of transplant listing. The communication of information warrants attention to ensure patients are fully informed about the listing process and opportunity for pre-emptive transplantation in a way that is meaningful and understandable to them.

BackgroundInformation and communication technologies (ICTs) are often proposed as ‘technological fixes’ for problems facing healthcare. They promise to deliver services more quickly and cheaply. Yet research on the implementation of ICTs reveals a litany of delays, compromises and failures. Case studies have established that these technologies are difficult to embed in everyday healthcare.MethodsWe undertook an ethnographic comparative analysis of a single computer decision support system in three different settings to understand the implementation and everyday use of this technology which is designed to deal with calls to emergency and urgent care services. We examined the deployment of this technology in an established 999 ambulance call-handling service, a new single point of access for urgent care and an established general practice out-of-hours service. We used Normalization Process Theory as a framework to enable systematic cross-case analysis.ResultsOur data comprise nearly 500 hours of observation, interviews with 64 call-handlers, and stakeholders and documents about the technology and settings. The technology has been implemented and is used distinctively in each setting reflecting important differences between work and contexts. Using Normalisation Process Theory we show how the work (collective action) of implementing the system and maintaining its routine use was enabled by a range of actors who established coherence for the technology, secured buy-in (cognitive participation) and engaged in on-going appraisal and adjustment (reflexive monitoring).ConclusionsHuge effort was expended and continues to be required to implement and keep this technology in use. This innovation must be understood both as a computer technology and as a set of practices related to that technology, kept in place by a network of actors in particular contexts. While technologies can be ‘made to work’ in different settings, successful implementation has been achieved, and will only be maintained, through the efforts of those involved in the specific settings and if the wider context continues to support the coherence, cognitive participation, and reflective monitoring processes that surround this collective action. Implementation is more than simply putting technologies in place – it requires new resources and considerable effort, perhaps on an on-going basis.

IntroductionTowards the end of her report Killing the Future, Asbestos Use in Asia, Laurie Kazan-Allen remarks:``asbestos is yesterday's material and should be relegated to the dustbin of discredited technologies and discarded materials; an asbestos-free future is possible'' (2007, page 37). Produced for the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat (IBAS), an NGO based in the UK, her report exposes the global trade in chrysotile (white asbestos); delineates patterns in its production and consumption, highlighting its extensive use in construction projects throughout Asia; and emphasises the consequences for human health of its continued widespread and deregulated use. (1) The consequences are indeed stark. According to estimates from the WHO, 125 million people are exposed to asbestos annually in an occupational capacity, with around 9000 occupationally related deaths occurring per annum, primarily from asbestosis and mesothelioma. Environmental exposure is also significant. That asbestos is just another

Europe has set out its plans to foster a 'green economy', focused around recycling, by 2020. This pan-European recycling economy, it is argued, will have the triple virtues of: first, stopping wastes being 'dumped' on poor countries; second, reusing them and thus decoupling economic prosperity from demands on global resources; and third, creating a wave of employment in recycling industries. European resource recovery is represented in academic and practitioner literatures as 'clean and green'. Underpinned by a technical and physical materialism, it highlights the clean-up of Europe's waste management and the high-tech character of resource recovery. Analysis shows this representation to mask the cultural and physical associations between recycling work and waste work, and thus to obscure that resource recovery is mostly 'dirty' work. Through an empirical analysis of three sectors of resource recovery ('dry recyclables', textiles and ships) in Northern member states, we show that resource recovery is a new form of dirty work, located in secondary labour markets and reliant on itinerant and migrant labour, often from accession states. We show therefore that, when wastes stay put within the EU, labour moves to process them. At the micro scale of localities and workplaces, the reluctance of local labour to work in this new sector is shown to connect with embodied knowledge of old manufacturing industries and a sense of spatial injustice. Alongside that, the positioning of migrant workers is shown to rely on stereotypical assumptions that create a hierarchy, connecting reputational qualities of labour with the stigmas of different dirty jobs -a hierarchy upon which those workers at the apex can play.