Moral reasoning in adaptation to climate change

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.Moral foundations theory argues that moral reasoning is widely observed and fundamental to the legitimacy of relevant governance and policy interventions. A new analytical framework to examine and test how moral reasoning underpins and legitimizes governance and practice on adaptation to climate change risks is proposed. It develops a typology of eight categories of vulnerability-based and system-based moral reasoning that pertain to the dilemmas around adaptation and examines the prevalence of these moral categories in public discourse about specific adaptation issues. The framework is tested using data on climate change impact, adaptation, and societal responsibility, drawn from 14 focus groups comprising 148 participants across the UK. Participants consistently use moral reasoning to explain their views on climate adaptation; these include both vulnerability-based and system-based framings. These findings explain public responses to adaptation options and governance, and have implications for the direction of adaptation policy, including understanding which types of reasoning support politically legitimate interventions.We acknowledge funding from the University of Exeter Humanities and Social Science Strategy; the UK Economic and Social Research Council (Grant ES/M006867/1); and National Institute for Health Research, Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Environmental Change and Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in partnership with Public Health England. We thank IPSOS-MORI and the UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs for access to the data used here. We benefitted from interactions with Karen Parkhill, Ben Wheeler, Stuart Capstick and Saffron O’Neill and feedback from participants at the Governing Sustainability workshop at the University of Sydney, March 2015, and the Royal Meteorological Society conference, London, November 2015. We further benefitted from helpful guidance from David Schlosberg and from two referees. This version remains our sole responsibility

Wellbeing in the aftermath of floods.

Published onlineJournal ArticleThis is the final version of the article. Available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record.The interactions between flood events, their aftermath, and recovery leading to health and wellbeing outcomes for individuals are complex, and the pathways and mechanisms through which wellbeing is affected are often hidden and remain under-researched. This study analyses the diverse processes that explain changes in wellbeing for those experiencing flooding. It identifies key pathways to wellbeing outcomes that concern perceptions of lack of agency, dislocation from home, and disrupted futures inducing negative impacts, with offsetting positive effects through community networks and interactions. The mixed method study is based on data from repeated qualitative semi-structured interviews (n=60) and a structured survey (n=1000) with individuals that experienced flooding directly during winter 2013/14 in two UK regions. The results show for the first time the diversity and intersection of pathways to wellbeing outcomes in the aftermath of floods. The findings suggest that enhanced public health planning and interventions could focus on the precise practices and mechanisms that intersect to produce anxiety, stress, and their amelioration at individual and community levels.This research was undertaken with funding from the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Environmental Change and Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), and in collaboration with the University of Exeter, University College London, and the Met Office, and funding from the UK Economic and Social Research Council [Grant: ES/M006867/1]. The public interview transcripts can be found in the UK Data Archive (www.data-archive.co.uk). The authors wish to thank Louisa Evans and Saffron O’Neill for collaboration and the members of the public and the stakeholders that participated in the research. For comments on earlier drafts and versions of this paper, thanks also go to Angie Bone, Sari Kovats, and participants in the Sydney Ideas Lecture, Sydney University, March 2015, our report launch meeting at the Royal Geographical Society, London, June 2016, and the RGS annual conference sessions, Exeter, September 2015

Narratives of recovery after floods: Mental health, institutions, and intervention.

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the publisher via the DOI in this recordThere is increasing evidence that flood events affect the mental health of those experiencing them, with recognition that the period of recovery after the event is particularly important to outcomes. Previous research on flooding has argued that there is a recovery gap that occurs during the long process of recovery at the point when the support provision from public authorities and agencies diminishes, and less well-defined interactions with private actors, such as insurers, begin. This concept highlights the importance of the support and intervention from authorities and other institutions for recovery processes. To date, little research has focused specifically on these relationships and their consequences for people's mental wellbeing through recovery. This study examines the processes of individuals' recovery from flood events, focusing on the role of interaction with agencies in the trajectories of mental health journeys. The analysis applies a narrative approach to in-depth repeated interviews carried out over a fifteen-month period with nine individuals whose homes were inundated by floods in 2013/14 in Somerset, UK. The results suggest strong evidence for institutional support having an important role in how individuals experience their post-flood mental health recovery journeys. The data reveal strategies to maintain psychological and emotional resilience at distinct periods during recovery, and show that both institutional actions and the perceived absence of support in specific circumstances affect the mental health burden of flood events.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC

Community resilience and wellbeing: An exploration of relationality and belonging after disasters

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Taylor & Francis via the DOI in this recordCommunity resilience is commonly held to be critical for coping with adversity and disturbance. Although the process of community resilience is often contested and critiqued, the enactment of social relations within communities has been shown to ameliorate the worst impacts of disaster events on the well-being of their members. Here, we propose that well-being in the aftermath of disasters is shaped by processes of relationality and belonging within communities. This study uses data from longitudinal mixed-methods research with flood-affected communities in southwest and eastern England directly affected by long-duration and high-impact floods. Analysis from in-depth interviews conducted over eighteen months and from cross-sectional surveys of affected populations shows that active belonging and relational capital are related to self-reported well-being. The results further show that active belonging is consistently significant for well-being, whereas relational capital is only significantly correlated to well-being later in the recovery period, and that social identity processes are central in the link between community dynamics and well-being. The changing identity processes include altered perceptions of community membership and the use of collective identities to frame personal experience. These results suggest that community resilience processes and their relationship to individual well-being are not fixed but evolve through stress, trauma, and renewal.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)Wellcome Trus

Glastir Monitoring & Evaluation Programme. Second year annual report

What is the purpose of Glastir Monitoring and Evaluation Programme? Glastir is the main scheme by which the Welsh Government pays for environmental goods and services whilst the Glastir Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (GMEP) evaluates the scheme’s success. Commissioning of the monitoring programme in parallel with the launch of the Glastir scheme provides fast feedback and means payments can be modified to increase effectiveness. The Glastir scheme is jointly funded by the Welsh Government (through the Rural Development Plan) and the EU. GMEP will also support a wide range of other national and international reporting requirements. What is the GMEP approach? GMEP collects evidence for the 6 intended outcomes from the Glastir scheme which are focussed on climate change, water and soil quality, biodiversity, landscape, access and historic environment, woodland creation and management. Activities include; a national rolling monitoring programme of 1km squares; new analysis of long term data from other schemes combining with GMEP data where possible; modelling to estimate future outcomes so that adjustments can be made to maximise impact of payments; surveys to assess wider socio-economic benefits; and development of novel technologies to increase detection and efficiency of future assessments. How has GMEP progressed in this 2nd year? 90 GMEP squares were surveyed in Year 2 to add to the 60 completed in Year 1 resulting in 50% of the 300 GMEP survey squares now being completed. Squares will be revisited on a 4 year cycle providing evidence of change in response to Glastir and other pressures such as changing economics of the farm business, climate change and air pollution. This first survey cycle collects the baseline against which future changes will be assessed. This is important as GMEP work this year has demonstrated land coming into the scheme is different in some respects to land outside the scheme. Therefore, future analysis to detect impact of Glastir will be made both against the national backdrop from land outside the scheme and this baseline data from land in scheme. A wide range of analyses of longterm data has been completed for all Glastir Outcomes with the exception of landscape quality and historic features condition for which limited data is available. This has involved combining data with 2013/14 GMEP data when methods allow. Overall analysis of long term data indicates one of stability but with little evidence of improvement with the exception of headwater quality, greenhouse gas emissions and woodland area for which there has been improvement over the last 20 years. Some headline statistics include: 51% of historic features in excellent or sound condition; two thirds of public rights of way fully open and accessible; improvement in hedgerow management with 85% surveyed cut in the last 3 years but < 1% recently planted; 91% of streams had some level of modification but 60% retained good ecological quality; no change topsoil carbon content over last 25 years. What is innovative? GMEP has developed various new metrics to allow for more streamlined reporting in the future. For example a new Priority Bird species Index for Wales which combines data from 35 species indicates at least half have stable or increasing populations. The new GMEP Visual Quality Landscape Index has been tested involving over 2600 respondents. Results have demonstrated its value as an objective and repeatable method for quantifying change in visual landscape quality. A new unified peat map for Wales has been developed which has been passed to Glastir Contract Managers to improve targeting of payments when negotiating Glastir contracts. An estimate of peat soil contribution to current greenhouse gas emissions due to human modification has been calculated. Models have allowed quantification of land area helping to mitigate rainfall runoff. We are using new molecular tools to explore the effects of Glastir on soil organisms and satellite technologies to quantify e.g. small woody features and landcover change. Finally we are using a community approach to develop a consensus on how to define and report change in High Nature Value Farmland which will be reported in the Year 3 GMEP report

Glastir Monitoring & Evaluation Programme. Final report

Final Report to Welsh Government, prepared by CEH on behalf of the Glastir Monitoring & Evaluation Programme Team. The Glastir Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (GMEP) provides a comprehensive programme to establish a baseline against which future assessments of Glastir can be made. GMEP also contributes national trend data which supports a range of national and international biodiversity and environmental targets. GMEP fulfils a commitment by the Welsh Government to establish a monitoring programme concurrently with the launch of the Glastir scheme. The use of models and farmer surveys provides early indicators of the likely direction, magnitude and timing of future outcomes. The programme ensures compliance with the rigorous requirements of the European Commission’s Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) through the Rural Development Plan (RDP) for Wales. This report represents the final results of the GMEP programme which ran from 2012 to 2016

Comparison of foot pain and foot care among rheumatoid arthritis patients taking and not taking anti-TNFα therapy: an epidemiological study

Epidemiological studies report foot pain affects more than 90% of people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Most data about foot involvement in RA were collected prior to the availability of novel treatments such as biologics. The objective of this study is to compare the prevalence of foot symptoms, frequency of foot examination, and access to foot care services among RA patients currently treated with anti-TNFα to those not receiving biologics. This study is a cross-sectional epidemiological study: a 28-item self-administered questionnaire was posted to 1,040 people with RA throughout the UK. Overall, 585 (55%) useable replies were received, and 120 (20.5%) respondents were currently taking anti-TNFα medication. Prevalence of current foot pain was 99% among the biologics group compared with 76% not treated with biologics. Stiffness, swelling, and numbness in the feet were all significantly more common in the anti-TNFα group (P < 0.05). Most respondents (90%) taking biologics discussed their foot pain with their rheumatologist, but only 70% were receiving podiatry (compared to 78% not taking anti-TNFα). Subjects reported that their feet were examined significantly less frequently (P < 0.001) than their hands. Foot complaints are common in this group, and allied health professions could enhance rheumatological care by undertaking foot assessment

Social and political dynamics of flood risk, recovery and response. A report of the findings of the Winter Floods Project

This report should be cited as: Butler, C., Walker-Springett, K., Adger, W. N., Evans, L. & O’Neill, S. 2016. Social and political dynamics of flood risk, recovery and response, The University of Exeter, Exeter.No abstractWe acknowledge funding from the UK Economic and Social Research Council [Grant: ES/M006867/1]. We further acknowledge funding from the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Environmental Change and Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), and in collaboration with the University of Exeter, University College London, and the Met Office