Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- CONTENTS -- Acknowledgements -- Preface -- 1 Exploring Exclusion, Poverty, and Women's Health -- 2 Poverty, Exclusion, and Women's Health: Using Feminist Action Research to Problematize and Address Poor Women's Health -- 3 Research Context and Methods -- 4 The Women's Stories -- 5 Poor Women's Exclusion and Health -- 6 Negotiating the "Other" Identity: Legitimacy, Power, and Discourses of Health and Poverty -- 7 Lofty Ideals and Lived Experiences: The Research Team as Feminist Action Research -- 8 Women's Health and Social Justice: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions -- Epilogue -- Bibliography -- Index

In the study presented here, we examined factors that shape women's employability and their impact on women's subjective health and well-being in four British Columbian communities. Although the economic contexts of the urban, rural, remote, and reserve communities were diverse, they intersected with gender roles and cultural norms to provide a picture of women's employability that was remarkably consistent. In all the communities, the women reported difficulties making ends meet; caregiving overload; chronic stress and worry; and, in many cases, violence and abuse. Our intersectional analysis allowed us to gain a deeper understanding of women's lived experiences of being defined as employable.

This article considers how feminist theories have and can contribute to action research, while acknowledging some of the tensions that arise when applying and building feminist theories. While feminist theorizing undoubtedly occurs in some action research, whether it is named or not, the gap appears to be in linking local knowledge to existing theoretical frameworks. Feminist theories, even though they are always partial and contested, have acted as an intentional counter to dominant theories about human experiences and strategies for change. They prompt people to ask new questions and to see power dynamics and relationships that may otherwise be missed or misread. As a result, they have an important role to play in any action research with transformative intentions.

In this paper we examined discourses of mothers who use substances. Focus groups were conducted at two different treatment programmes with diverse women who identified as mothers challenged by substance use. Real scenarios were presented to the participants and feedback was sought about how the women within the scenarios managed their situations and the actions taken by legal, media, and health authorities. Through the use of three lenses - rights, risks, and evidence - we identified four major discourses in the participants' talk. The `good mother', `bad mother', `thwarted mother' and `addicted mother' discourses revealed the multiple and at times contradictory ways the women made sense of their lives. Within all of the discourses the mother-child bond and the importance of providing necessary supports to mothers with substance-use problems were central. The women's discourses highlighted the challenges of negotiating the prevailing attitudes, practices and stigmas of being a substance-using mother while trying to do the right thing for their children.

Although feminist researchers have increasingly called for participatory and action-oriented research, there have been few analyses of the diverse actions that can occur. We theorized the actions considered and implemented in a feminist participatory action research project (FPAR). For three years we collaborated intensively with a group of diverse women on low income who were involved in a FPAR project designed to reduce social isolation and other self-identified health problems. Our data set included tape recordings of 32 one-on-one interviews, 15 research meetings, and extensive fieldnotes. Our findings indicated that actions occurred on both individual and collective levels; some had been enacted prior to the project and were shared to promote ongoing or new actions, while others arose as a consequence of the women's involvement in the project. Additionally, some actions were implemented and actualized while others, though discussed at length, remained hopes for the future. While the research participants reported the benefits of being involved in such projects, they also spoke of the potential risks. Our findings revealed the complexities of taking action in FPAR and highlight important considerations for others wishing to engage in this type of research.

In the last few decades there has been a resurgence of interest in the social causes of health inequities among and between individuals and populations. This 'social determinants' perspective focuses on the myriad demographic and societal factors that shape health and well-being. Heeding calls for the mainstreaming of two very specific health determinants - sex and gender - we incorporate both into our analysis of the health gap experienced by girls and women in Canada. However, we take an intersectional approach in that we argue that a comprehensive picture of health inequities must, in addition to considering sex and gender, include a context sensitive analysis of all the major dimensions of social stratification. In the case of the current worldwide economic downturn, and the uniquely diverse Canadian population spread over a vast territory, this means thinking carefully about how socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, immigrant status, employment status and geography uniquely shape the health of all Canadians, but especially girls and women. We argue that while a social determinants of health perspective is important in its own right, it needs to be understood against the backdrop of broader structural processes that shape Canadian health policy and practice. By doing so we can observe how the social safety net of all Canadians has been eroding, especially for those occupying vulnerable social locations.

Abstract
The impacts of wildfires along the wildland urban interface (WUI) on atmospheric particulate concentrations and composition are an understudied source of air pollution exposure. To assess the residual impacts of the 2021 Marshall Fire (Colorado), a wildfire that predominantly burned homes and other human-made materials, on homes within the fire perimeter that escaped the fire, we performed a combination of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) filter sampling and chemical analysis, indoor dust collection and chemical analysis, community scale PurpleAir PM2.5 analysis, and indoor particle number concentration measurements. Following the fire, the chemical speciation of dust collected in smoke-affected homes in the burned zone showed elevated concentrations of the biomass burning marker levoglucosan (medianlevo = 4147 ng g−1), EPA priority toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (median Σ16PAH = 1859.3 ng g−1), and metals (median Σ20Metals = 34.6 mg g−1) when compared to samples collected in homes outside of the burn zone 6 months after the fire. As indoor dust particles are often resuspended and can become airborne, the enhanced concentration of hazardous metals and organics within dust samples may pose a threat to human health. Indoor airborne particulate organic carbon (median = 1.91 μg m−3), particulate elemental carbon (median = .02 μg m−3), and quantified semi-volatile organic species in PM2.5 were found in concentrations comparable to ambient air in urban areas across the USA. Particle number and size distribution analysis at a heavily instrumented supersite home located immediately next to the burned area showed indoor particulates in low concentrations (below 10 μg m−3) across various sizes of PM (12 nm–20 μm), but were elevated by resuspension from human activity, including cleaning.

Graphical Abstract

International audience ; Non-technical summary We summarize some of the past year's most important findings within climate change-related research. New research has improved our understanding about the remaining options to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, through overcoming political barriers to carbon pricing, taking into account non-CO 2 factors, a well-designed implementation of demand-side and nature-based solutions, resilience building of ecosystems and the recognition that climate change mitigation costs can be justified by benefits to the health of humans and nature alone. We consider new insights about what to expect if we fail to include a new dimension of fire extremes and the prospect of cascading climate tipping elements. Technical summary A synthesis is made of 10 topics within climate research, where there have been significant advances since January 2020. The insights are based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings include: (1) the options to still keep global warming below 1.5 °C; (2) the impact of non-CO 2 factors in global warming; (3) a new dimension of fire extremes forced by climate change; (4) the increasing pressure on interconnected climate tipping elements; (5) the dimensions of climate justice; (6) political challenges impeding the effectiveness of carbon pricing; (7) demand-side solutions as vehicles of climate mitigation; (8) the potentials and caveats of nature-based solutions; (9) how building resilience of marine ecosystems is possible; and (10) that the costs of climate change mitigation policies can be more than justified by the benefits to the health of humans and nature. Social media summary How do we limit global warming to 1.5 °C and why is it crucial? See highlights of latest climate science.

International audience ; Non-technical summary We summarize some of the past year's most important findings within climate change-related research. New research has improved our understanding about the remaining options to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, through overcoming political barriers to carbon pricing, taking into account non-CO 2 factors, a well-designed implementation of demand-side and nature-based solutions, resilience building of ecosystems and the recognition that climate change mitigation costs can be justified by benefits to the health of humans and nature alone. We consider new insights about what to expect if we fail to include a new dimension of fire extremes and the prospect of cascading climate tipping elements. Technical summary A synthesis is made of 10 topics within climate research, where there have been significant advances since January 2020. The insights are based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings include: (1) the options to still keep global warming below 1.5 °C; (2) the impact of non-CO 2 factors in global warming; (3) a new dimension of fire extremes forced by climate change; (4) the increasing pressure on interconnected climate tipping elements; (5) the dimensions of climate justice; (6) political challenges impeding the effectiveness of carbon pricing; (7) demand-side solutions as vehicles of climate mitigation; (8) the potentials and caveats of nature-based solutions; (9) how building resilience of marine ecosystems is possible; and (10) that the costs of climate change mitigation policies can be more than justified by the benefits to the health of humans and nature. Social media summary How do we limit global warming to 1.5 °C and why is it crucial? See highlights of latest climate science.

International audience ; Non-technical summary We summarize some of the past year's most important findings within climate change-related research. New research has improved our understanding about the remaining options to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, through overcoming political barriers to carbon pricing, taking into account non-CO 2 factors, a well-designed implementation of demand-side and nature-based solutions, resilience building of ecosystems and the recognition that climate change mitigation costs can be justified by benefits to the health of humans and nature alone. We consider new insights about what to expect if we fail to include a new dimension of fire extremes and the prospect of cascading climate tipping elements. Technical summary A synthesis is made of 10 topics within climate research, where there have been significant advances since January 2020. The insights are based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings include: (1) the options to still keep global warming below 1.5 °C; (2) the impact of non-CO 2 factors in global warming; (3) a new dimension of fire extremes forced by climate change; (4) the increasing pressure on interconnected climate tipping elements; (5) the dimensions of climate justice; (6) political challenges impeding the effectiveness of carbon pricing; (7) demand-side solutions as vehicles of climate mitigation; (8) the potentials and caveats of nature-based solutions; (9) how building resilience of marine ecosystems is possible; and (10) that the costs of climate change mitigation policies can be more than justified by the benefits to the health of humans and nature. Social media summary How do we limit global warming to 1.5 °C and why is it crucial? See highlights of latest climate science.

International audience ; Non-technical summary We summarize some of the past year's most important findings within climate change-related research. New research has improved our understanding about the remaining options to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, through overcoming political barriers to carbon pricing, taking into account non-CO 2 factors, a well-designed implementation of demand-side and nature-based solutions, resilience building of ecosystems and the recognition that climate change mitigation costs can be justified by benefits to the health of humans and nature alone. We consider new insights about what to expect if we fail to include a new dimension of fire extremes and the prospect of cascading climate tipping elements. Technical summary A synthesis is made of 10 topics within climate research, where there have been significant advances since January 2020. The insights are based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings include: (1) the options to still keep global warming below 1.5 °C; (2) the impact of non-CO 2 factors in global warming; (3) a new dimension of fire extremes forced by climate change; (4) the increasing pressure on interconnected climate tipping elements; (5) the dimensions of climate justice; (6) political challenges impeding the effectiveness of carbon pricing; (7) demand-side solutions as vehicles of climate mitigation; (8) the potentials and caveats of nature-based solutions; (9) how building resilience of marine ecosystems is possible; and (10) that the costs of climate change mitigation policies can be more than justified by the benefits to the health of humans and nature. Social media summary How do we limit global warming to 1.5 °C and why is it crucial? See highlights of latest climate science.