Climate change is prompting an unprecedented questioning of the fundamental bases upon which society is founded. Businesses claim that technology can save the environment, while politicians champion the role of international environmental agreements to secure global action. Economists suggest that we should pay developing countries not to destroy their forests, while environmentalists question whether we can solve ecological problems with the same thinking that created them. As the process of steering society, governance has a critical role to play in coordinating these disparate voices and se
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
In: Evans , J P 2011 , ' Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city ' Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers , vol 36 , no. 2 , pp. 223-237 . DOI:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00420.x
Abstract. Vorticity-driven lateral fire spread (VLS) is a form of dynamic fire behaviour, during which a wildland fire spreads rapidly across a steep leeward slope in a direction approximately transverse to the background winds. VLS is often accompanied by a downwind extension of the active flaming region and intense pyro-convection. In this study, the WRF-Fire (WRF stands for Weather Research and Forecasting) coupled atmosphere–fire model is used to examine the sensitivity of resolving VLS to both the horizontal and vertical grid spacing, and the fire-to-atmosphere coupling from within the model framework. The atmospheric horizontal and vertical grid spacing are varied between 25 and 90 m, and the fire-to-atmosphere coupling is either enabled or disabled. At high spatial resolutions, the inclusion of fire-to-atmosphere coupling increases the upslope and lateral rate of spread by factors of up to 2.7 and 9.5, respectively. This increase in the upslope and lateral rate of spread diminishes at coarser spatial resolutions, and VLS is not modelled for a horizontal and vertical grid spacing of 90 m. The lateral fire spread is driven by fire whirls formed due to an interaction between the background winds and the vertical circulation generated at the flank of the fire front as part of the pyro-convective updraft. The laterally advancing fire fronts become the dominant contributors to the extreme pyro-convection. The results presented in this study demonstrate that both high spatial resolution and two-way atmosphere–fire coupling are required to model VLS with WRF-Fire.
Including the impacts of climate change in decision making and planning processes is a challenge facing many regional governments including the New South Wales (NSW) and Australian Capital Territory (ACT) governments in Australia. NARCliM (NSW/ACT Regional Climate Modelling project) is a regional climate modelling project that aims to provide a comprehensive and consistent set of climate projections that can be used by all relevant government departments when considering climate change. To maximise end user engagement and ensure outputs are relevant to the planning process, a series of stakeholder workshops were run to define key aspects of the model experiment including spatial resolution, time slices, and output variables. As with all such experiments, practical considerations limit the number of ensemble members that can be simulated such that choices must be made concerning which global climate models (GCMs) to downscale from, and which regional climate models (RCMs) to downscale with. Here a methodology for making these choices is proposed that aims to sample the uncertainty in both GCM and RCM ensembles, as well as spanning the range of future climate projections present in the GCM ensemble. The RCM selection process uses performance evaluation metrics to eliminate poor performing models from consideration, followed by explicit consideration of model independence in order to retain as much information as possible in a small model subset. In addition to these two steps the GCM selection process also considers the future change in temperature and precipitation projected by each GCM. The final GCM selection is based on a subjective consideration of the GCM independence and future change. The created ensemble provides a more robust view of future regional climate changes. Future research is required to determine objective criteria that could replace the subjective aspects of the selection process.
Including the impacts of climate change in decision making and planning processes is a challenge facing many regional governments including the New South Wales (NSW) and Australian Capital Territory (ACT) governments in Australia. NARCliM (NSW/ACT Regional Climate Modelling project) is a regional climate modelling project that aims to provide a comprehensive and consistent set of climate projections that can be used by all relevant government departments when considering climate change. To maximise end user engagement and ensure outputs are relevant to the planning process, a series of stakeholder workshops were run to define key aspects of the model experiment including spatial resolution, time slices, and output variables. As with all such experiments, practical considerations limit the number of ensemble members that can be simulated such that choices must be made concerning which global climate models (GCMs) to downscale from, and which regional climate models (RCMs) to downscale with. Here a methodology for making these choices is proposed that aims to sample the uncertainty in both GCM and RCM ensembles, as well as spanning the range of future climate projections present in the GCM ensemble. The RCM selection process uses performance evaluation metrics to eliminate poor performing models from consideration, followed by explicit consideration of model independence in order to retain as much information as possible in a small model subset. In addition to these two steps the GCM selection process also considers the future change in temperature and precipitation projected by each GCM. The final GCM selection is based on a subjective consideration of the GCM independence and future change. The created ensemble provides a more robust view of future regional climate changes. Future research is required to determine objective criteria that could replace the subjective aspects of the selection process.
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine hospital services globally. This study estimated the total number of adult elective operations that would be cancelled worldwide during the 12 weeks of peak disruption due to COVID-19. Methods: A global expert response study was conducted to elicit projections for the proportion of elective surgery that would be cancelled or postponed during the 12 weeks of peak disruption. A Bayesian β-regression model was used to estimate 12-week cancellation rates for 190 countries. Elective surgical case-mix data, stratified by specialty and indication (surgery for cancer versus benign disease), were determined. This case mix was applied to country-level surgical volumes. The 12-week cancellation rates were then applied to these figures to calculate the total number of cancelled operations. Results: The best estimate was that 28 404 603 operations would be cancelled or postponed during the peak 12 weeks of disruption due to COVID-19 (2 367 050 operations per week). Most would be operations for benign disease (90·2 per cent, 25 638 922 of 28 404 603). The overall 12-week cancellation rate would be 72·3 per cent. Globally, 81·7 per cent of operations for benign conditions (25 638 922 of 31 378 062), 37·7 per cent of cancer operations (2 324 070 of 6 162 311) and 25·4 per cent of elective caesarean sections (441 611 of 1 735 483) would be cancelled or postponed. If countries increased their normal surgical volume by 20 per cent after the pandemic, it would take a median of 45 weeks to clear the backlog of operations resulting from COVID-19 disruption. Conclusion: A very large number of operations will be cancelled or postponed owing to disruption caused by COVID-19. Governments should mitigate against this major burden on patients by developing recovery plans and implementing strategies to restore surgical activity safely.