**4. Discussion**

This study quantified the hip, knee, and ankle muscle activations during level and slope walking with di fferent backpack loads. Compared to level walking, the hip, knee, and ankle muscle activations increased generally during slope walking, especially the hip extensor muscle activations. The increased mean EMG of the leg muscles in this study were consistent with published findings [4,5,18–20]. Moreover, the increase became more pronounced with backpack loads, especially the hip and knee muscle activations. The hip extensor muscles increased the most with grades changing, and the knee

extensor muscles increased the most with loads changing, which expanded our knowledge of muscle activation strategies during slope walking with backpack loads.

The results of this study supported our first hypothesis that the hip, knee, and ankle extensor muscle activations would increase during the slope walking, especially the hip extensor muscle activations, compared to level walking. In this study, all the leg extensor muscle activations increased during slope walking to raise the body's center of mass, which were consistent with prior studies [18–20]. In addition, the hip extensor muscle activations (GM and HA) increased remarkably more (the GM increased by 46% to 207% and the HA increased by 110% to 226%) than the ankle extensor muscle (GA increased by 30% to 100%) at steeper grades. The activation value and duration of the hip extensor muscles increased remarkably at the early stance stage during slope walking (shown in Figure 2). This demonstrates the pronounced role of hip extensor muscles during slope walking [18,23], which was also described by the greatest increase of the hip extension moment (increased from 1.01 to 1.37 when the treadmill gradient increased from 0% to 20% [22]) and the greatest increased power of the hip extensor muscles (increased by 85% at push-o ff and by 75% during mid-stance while walking on uneven terrain [21]). The hip extensors provided greater acceleration of the COM and generated more power for the trunk and ipsilateral leg during slope walking [19], which may also be the reason that the hip extensor muscles were more pronouncedly activated on slopes in our study.

The results of this study also supported our second hypothesis that muscle activations would increase pronouncedly with backloads during slope walking. The increases of the GM, RF, and GA became significant statistically when slope walking with a big backpack load (30 kg). Consistent with previous investigations [4,37,38], the mean amplitude of the RF and GA increased with loads in this study. The RF activation increased to provide more force and energy to extend the knee to attenuate the impact forces with heavy load carriage [38] and to maintain lower limb stability as the load mass increased [4]. The increase of the GA activations provided more power for walking by increasing the plantar flexing [38], which was thought to overcome the inertia associated with increasing backpack loads [39]. However, the mean EMG of the AT increased in this study, while the average amplitude of the AT remained una ffected [37,38]. This di fference may be caused by di fferent experimental designs in our study and theirs. The walking conditions in our study were slope walking with backpack loads, while their studies' conditions involved level walking. People elicited larger AT activity during slope walking to provide greater ankle dorsiflexion than level walking [19,22,28]. The slope grades may enlarge the influence of backpack loads on muscles.

The results of this study supported our third hypothesis that the muscle activations would increase at di fferent degrees, and the knee extensor muscles would be activated more compared to the hip and ankle extensor muscles. Compared to walking without loads at the same grade across all slope walking, the mean EMG of the knee extensor muscle (RF) increased significantly by 104% to 172% with 30-kg backpack loads. The increase of the knee extensor muscle was much greater than that of the ankle extensor muscle (GA increased by 15% to 61% with 30-kg backpack loads relative to without loads across all grades). The knee extensor muscle increased most to provide greater force for body support during the early stance stage, which was consistent with other investigations [18,38,40]. Except for the knee extensor muscle activations, the hip extensor muscle GM activations also increased more pronouncedly than the ankle extensor muscle GA (GM increased by 5% to 173%). With the loads increasing, the energy and power for walking increased greatly [7,10]. The hip extensor muscle GM played an important role in the acceleration of the trunk [19]. Thus, the GM activations increased pronouncedly to provide more power for the acceleration of the trunk as the backpack loads increased. The results implied that the leg extensor muscles may have di fferent contributions during walking with backpack loads. The knee extensor and hip extensor muscles may play a greater role during walking with heavy loads, which was also speculated by Harman [38].

In our present study, the EMG of the GM, HA, RF, AT, and GA were analyzed to investigate the muscle strategy during slope walking with backpack loads. However, one limitation of our study is that we did not acquire the kinematic data in the experiment that may give force to our work. In addition, another limitation of our study is that the muscles analyzed were relatively few and most of them were focused on the leg extensor muscles. The muscles around the trunk, such as the external oblique muscles, were not analyzed in this study, which influenced pronouncedly during the inclined walking with backpack loads. The vastus medialis and vastus lateralis at the knee joint were influenced a lot during slope walking to provide more forces for lower limb stability [18,19], which were also not analyzed in this study. Thus, we should acquire the kinematics data and analyze more muscles by experiment or simulation [19,41] in the future to expand the insights into the muscle strategy during slope walking with backpack loads. Finally, considering the load intensity, only male participants were recruited in this study. Males and females may have different muscle-activation strategies during slope walking with backpack loads. Future studies may be needed to understand how muscle activations are influenced by the grade and loads using female subjects.


**3. Socio-economic significance and uses**

*V. karroo* is of considerable socio-economic value as almost all of its parts, including bark, pods, seeds, leaves and thorns, are extremely useful to both humans and animals.


**3. Results**

We reviewed the workshop reports for general patterns and lessons. We found that the indicators with the lowest mean scores generated the most insightful discussions about ways in which governance could be improved. The indicators with the lowest mean scores were: equity (Indicator 1.3); integrated landscape planning (Indicator 3.1); and implementation and enforcement (Indicator 4.4). Below we will address each of these indicators in some more detail, based on the qualitative descriptions of these indicators in the different landscapes.

#### *3.1. Stakeholders Do Not Have Equal Opportunities to Influence Decision-Making*

Inequality in decision-making is one of the biggest concerns among workshop participants in all landscapes. The influence of local communities and Indigenous Peoples on landscape-level decisions was often considered sub-optimal. Governments tend to be in control of important decisions in the landscape, such as the planning of infrastructural projects and the issuance of plantation, logging, and mining permits. Some governments organize consultations, where landscape actors can comment on development plans. However, non-government participants would often point at the lack of procedures and mechanisms that allow for structural and meaningful participation in these planning processes. A common observation is that more powerful landscape actors, such as plantation companies, are better able to make use of opportunities to influence decision-making, because they have the necessary resources to participate, more access to information, and often have direct access to government o fficials. Further discussions also revealed bottlenecks at the community level. Participants in the Kalangala Landscape, Uganda, for example, mentioned that the district government had been inviting community representatives to participate in meetings, but that these seldom showed up, due to a lack of confidence to participate.

Participants also used the discussion on this indicator to point at inequalities between community members at the village level. In two-thirds of the workshop reports it is stressed that women are in a disadvantageous position, and lack representation in decision-making. Some reports further mention that village-level decision-making processes are dominated by village elites, and such intra-village inequalities (in terms of both decision-making power and wealth) are further exacerbated as soon as companies start o ffering material benefits to customary leaders and village elites, to win their support.

Across the board, CSOs are considered key actors to promote equality in decision-making. They may help create opportunities for marginalized groups to share their views or raise their voice, and invest in their capacity to do so. For example, CSOs may support representatives of marginalized groups to participate in multi-stakeholder workshops and meetings, helping them to voice their concerns and share these with other actors in the landscape. There are also CSOs that support marginalized groups to access justice in courts, while other CSOs help to organize local actors in formal structures (such as cooperatives, community-based enterprises, and women's groups), to give their voices more weight in political arenas. At the same time, it was stressed that the inclusion of marginalized groups can not depend on CSO support alone, and that governments should also take responsibility to strengthen capacities of marginalized groups and ensure their participation in decision-making.

#### *3.2. Integrated Landscape Planning E*ff*orts Remain Noncommittal*

In many landscapes, stakeholders highlighted the need for better alignment and coordination of plans in the landscape. Sometimes there are e fforts to improve coordination between stakeholders at the landscape level. In Uganda, for example, participants mentioned that CSOs occasionally organize coordination meetings, where stakeholders get together to discuss pressing issues. Despite such e fforts, mistrust between stakeholders is common, and planning processes often lack transparency. In some cases, there had been integrated landscape planning initiatives, but these lacked synchronization with existing government planning processes. When push comes to shove, sectoral planning through mandated government agencies tends to override well-intended multi-stakeholder planning exercises.

Discussions also revealed that government representatives and other landscape actors may have di fferent ideas about the meaning of 'coordination'. Government o fficials would present their efforts to create awareness about government plans as a form of coordination. Other stakeholders, however, would argue that such awareness programs are one-way tra ffic, with the government sending information to other actors. Overall, it is uncommon for governments to facilitate coordination between actors towards integrated landscape planning.

#### *3.3. Weak Implementation and Enforcement of Regulations*

In many landscapes, the regulations to promote sustainable land use and management exist. There is usually a range of government-devised prohibitions and requirements, such as a limitation to access forest reserves and national parks, a ban on hunting in certain periods of the year, a moratorium on plantations in peat areas, and reporting requirements for logging and sustainable forest management. However, the implementation and enforcement of these regulations is generally considered inadequate. Indeed, the indicator 'implementation and enforcement' had the lowest score of all indicators.

A common perspective is that local governments do not have su fficient capacity and resources (and sometimes willingness) to implement and enforce government regulations. The lack of enforcement creates opportunities for other actors to circumvent the rules. In the Bafwasende landscape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, stakeholders stressed that regulations are established by legal texts, but in the field it is the 'law of the strongest' that prevails. The lack of adequate government monitoring was brought up in 11 out of 12 workshop reports. When government monitoring fails, CSOs may try to fill the gap, by monitoring illegal activities themselves, but public and private actors often ignore the results of CSO monitoring. Though watchdog CSOs have little or no power to enforce compliance themselves, they can use their monitoring results to raise attention in the media and mobilize communities to pressure other parties.

Corruption is mentioned as a major problem in half of all the landscapes. In the Kalangala landscape in Uganda, stakeholders argued that powerful individuals are able to influence policies, law enforcement, and the judicial system to their own advantage. Local government o fficials, who often stay in one area for a long time, establish personal relationships with businesses, and are therefore prone to corruption.

During the workshops, CSO and community representatives often stressed the importance of customary norms and rules. In the Akamkpa landscape in Nigeria, for example, parts of the forest cannot be used, because they are dedicated to spirits. Furthermore, eating of certain animals is considered taboo, according to local customs. Such customary regulations are not immune to implementation and enforcement challenges. Customary authorities may have their own enforcement systems in place, but these are increasingly challenged by outsiders and younger generations. This is because they are either not aware of them, or simply attach less value to customary practices and beliefs, such as the idea that nature will punish villagers when they violate customary rules.

#### *3.4. Suggestions to Improve Landscape Governance*

The last part of each workshop was used to discuss practical next steps to improve landscape governance. Three suggestions appeared common. The first is for the government to explicitly recognize traditional knowledge and rights, and to align government regulations with customary governance systems. In line with this, CSOs would need to invest in the capacity of traditional leaders, so they can e ffectively coordinate with government agencies.

Second, governments were urged to step up e ffort in support of sustainable practices, by investing in the monitoring and halting of illegal activities, implementing environmental impact assessments, developing incentives for sustainable enterprise development, and raising environmental awareness. Governments are also called upon to support the creation of a safe operational space for civil society organizations.

Third, 75% of the workshop reports suggest to invest in a multi-stakeholder mechanism, either by establishing a new institutional arrangement, or by strengthening an existing one. This is expected to contribute to all four criteria of inclusive landscape governance for sustainable development: enabling more active involvement of marginalized groups in discussions and negotiations with others; promoting information sharing and coordination between stakeholders; building trust and stimulating cooperation; and providing a place to discuss and initiate sustainable management.


11.**Turing machines allowing for a broader range of computations beyond the capabilities of FSAs is science fiction.**

ChatGPT:

The concept of an infinite tape in Turing machines allows for the theoretical handling of unbounded storage and computations. However, in practice, physical computing systems are subject to finite resources and limitations.


*Polymer-Based Membranes for C3+ Hydrocarbon Removal from Natural Gas DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.103903*

**Table 9.** *C3+hydrocarbon*

 *properties in mixed matrix membranes.*

*3Multicomponent*

*4Multicomponent*

 *gas mixture: 0.5%C4H10/2%*

 *gas mixture: 1.5%C4H10/3%*

 *C*

 *C*

*H3 8/5% C2H6/77.9%% CH4/14% N2/500ppm BTEX.*

*H3 8/5% C*

*H2*

*6/66.5%% CH4/12% CO2/12% N2.*

#### **Figure 18.**

*Molecular structure of dual-functionalized POSS crosslinking agent (OS-POSS-VTMO) containing silicon hydride moiety (*☰*–Si–H) and trimethoxylsilicon groups –(Si(OMe)3).*

simulated typical field gas streams and testing conditions (e.g. feed pressure up to 800 psi for multicomponent gas mixture consisting C1-C5 hydrocarbons, CO2, N2 and BTEX). The produced novel, crosslinked Ter-PDMS/POSS MMMs exhibited better separation performance (e.g. 89% and 163% increase in C3H8/CH4 and C4H10/CH4 mixed gas selectivities) and enhanced swelling resistance, compared to conventional PDMS membrane. At 800 psi, Ter-PDMS/POSS MMM had a mixed gas C4H10 permeability of 4880 Barrer and C4H10/CH4 mixed gas selectivity of 18.7, respectively.