Suchergebnisse

AbstractReaching net‐zero for global greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 will require a portfolio of new technologies and approaches, potentially requiring direct removal and sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide using negative emissions technologies (NETs). Since energy and climate systems are fundamentally interconnected it is important that we understand the impacts of policy decisions and their associated controversies in other related technologies and sectors. Using a secondary analysis of data from a series of deliberative workshops conducted with lay publics in the United Kingdom, we suggest that perceptions of CO2 removal technologies were negatively impacted by risk perceptions and recent policy decisions surrounding shale gas and fracking. Using the social amplification of risk framework, we argue that heightened risk perceptions have extended via "ripple effects" across these technologies. Participants' attitudes were underpinned by deeper misgivings regarding the actions and motives of experts and policymakers; a pervasive discourse of "but they told us it was safe" regarding fracking negatively affected people's trust in assurances of the safety and efficacy of CO2 removal. This has the potential to undermine attempts to build societal agreement around future deployment of CO2 removal technologies.

Societal issues involving policies and publics are generally understudied in research on ocean-based Negative Emission Technologies (NETs), yet will be crucial if novel techniques are ever to function at scale. Public attitudes are vital for emerging technologies: publics influence political mandates, help determine the degree of uptake by market actors, and are key to realizing broader ambitions for robust decision-making and responsible incentivization. Discourses surrounding ocean NETs will also have fundamental effects on how governance for the techniques emerges, shaping how they are defined as an object of governance, who is assigned the authority to govern, and what instruments are deemed appropriate. This Perspective brings together key insights on the societal dimensions of ocean NETs, drawing on existing work on public acceptability, policy assessment, governance, and discourse. Ocean iron fertilization is the only ocean NET on which there exists considerable social science research thus far, and we show that much evidence points against its social desirability. Taken in conjunction with considerable natural science uncertainties, this leads us to question whether further research is actually necessary in order to rule out ocean iron fertilization as an option. For other ocean NETs, there is a need for further research into social dimensions, yet research on analogous technologies shows that ocean interventions will likely evoke strong risk perceptions, and evidence suggests that the majority of ocean NETs may face a greater public acceptability challenge than terrestrial NETs. Ocean NETs also raise complex challenges around governance, which pose questions well-beyond the remit of the natural sciences and engineering. Using a conceptual exploration of the ways in which different types of discourse may shape emerging ocean NETs governance, we show that the very idea of ocean NETs is likely to set the stage for a whole new range of contested futures.

Background: Due to the current coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis, workplaces have had to make significant alterations in the way they conduct business. This, in addition to the current financial instability, may put workers at risk of experiencing job insecurity and, in turn, lower wellbeing. Job insecurity is a key determinant of wellbeing, but little is known on how it is impacted by public health crises, and more specifically how it relates to workers' positive and negative wellbeing in the midst of a pandemic. Research is lacking on resilience levers that workplace interventions should target to support wellbeing in times of insecurity. Objective: Framed from a multidisciplinary perspective (public health, positive and organizational psychology), the study explores (1) workers' job (in)security during the COVID-19 pandemic one to two weeks after social distancing measures were implemented by Canadian governments, (2) how job (in)security relates to wellbeing during the pandemic, and (3) the potential positive effects of workplace-related resilience levers. Method: 1,073 Canadian workers working full-/part-time or who were temporarily laid off completed an online survey, including measures of wellbeing at work or in general, job security and potential resilience levers (workplace disaster preparedness, policy, social capital). Results: Multiple regression findings highlight that marginalized workers (e.g., women, migrants, people facing financial hardships) reported lower job security, and having temporarily lost one's job was negatively associated with job security. Low job security was related to lower scores across measures of wellbeing. Distress was high in the sample. Workplace disaster preparedness, policy and social capital were associated with higher wellbeing. The effects of these resilience levers tended to be stronger at higher job security levels. Discussion: Recommendations include a systemic, collaborative approach that includes policies fostering job security as well as resilience-promoting interventions in the workplace to protect/increase the wellbeing of workers during COVID-19.

Research highlights several risk and resilience factors at multiple ecological levels that influence individuals' mental health and wellbeing in their everyday lives and, more specifically, in disaster or outbreak situations. However, there is limited research on the role of these factors in the early days of the COVID-19 crisis. The present study examined if and how potential risk factors (i.e., reduction in income, job insecurity, feelings of vulnerability to contracting the virus, lack of confidence in avoiding COVID-19, compliance with preventative policies) and resilience factors (i.e., trait resilience, family functioning, social support, social participation, and trust in healthcare institutions) are associated with mental health and well-being outcomes, and whether these resilience factors buffer (i.e., moderate) the associations between risk factors and said outcomes. One to two weeks after the government recommended preventative measures, 1,122 Canadian workers completed an online questionnaire, including multiple wellbeing outcome scales in addition to measures of potential risk and resilience factors. Structural equation models were tested, highlighting that overall, the considered risk factors were associated with poorer wellbeing outcomes, except social distancing which was associated with lower levels of stress. Each of the potential resilience factors was found to have a main effect on one or more of the wellbeing outcomes. Moderation analysis indicated that in general these resilience factors did not, however, buffer the risk factors. The findings confirm that the COVID-19 crisis encompasses several stressors related to the virus as well as to its impact on one's social, occupational, and financial situation, which put people at risk for lower wellbeing as early as one to two weeks after the crisis began. While several resilience factors emerged as positively related to wellbeing, such factors may not be enough, or sufficiently activated at that time, to buffer the effects of the numerous life ...

AbstractLimited research explores the well‐being of multiply marginalized workers. Aiming to illustrate the application of intersectionality‐inspired analysis to the fields of management and occupational health, we examined how being a sexual minority (non‐heterosexual), having low income, and identifying as a woman are associated with well‐being outcomes (e.g., impaired performance, troublesome symptoms, positive mental health). A survey was completed by 331 Québec workers. We used regression analysis to examine individual, additive, and interactive relationships between marginalized statuses and outcomes. Having multiple marginalized statuses was associated with impaired performance, troublesome symptoms and less positive mental health. The most negative outcomes were reported by low‐income gay or bisexual workers. Organizational policies and managers should consider intersecting identities to better support marginalized workers' well‐being.