Suchergebnisse

How can English and American Studies be instrumental to conceptualizing the deep instability we are presently facing? How can they address the coordinates of this instability, such as war, terrorism, the current economic and financial crisis, and the consequent myriad forms of deprivation and fear? How can they tackle the strategies of de-humanization, invisibility, and the naturalization of inequality and injustice entailed in contemporary discourses? This anthology grew out of an awareness

Climate services' main function has been to provide technical scientific evidence for decision-making in formal institutions. This article makes a case for recognising the diverse functions and meanings of climate services across the spectrum of institutions constituting climate governance. The article reports on research that identified climate services needs for building resilience in Bergen city (Norway) through a collaborative back-casting workshop with actors variously engaged in climate governance. Participants' discussions raised four key observations on climate services. First, they saw the potential for using climate information in a diverse set of formal and informal institutions. Second, they considered how to adapt information to these diverse settings. Third, they looked at how information could enhance existing initiatives, rather than demanding 'new' products. And fourth, participants' proposed climate services highlighted their diverse functions, and led the authors to suggest classifying services according to their principal functions. The article finishes by proposing a field of 'social climate services' that configures relationships between scientists and social actors, built on technologies of humility, for enriching the ongoing culturally and politically charged debates and practices around climatic change in informal institutional settings. Social climate services function can include enabling people to voice their concerns, learn, critically reflect on changes to culture and identity, build social networks, and try out new practices.

This Research Topic "Extreme Events in the Developing World" showcases a selection of articles that develop our knowledge of extreme events in the developing world. Papers range from those presenting recent evidence for and future likelihood of changes in the occurrence and exposure to extreme events, together with examples of the impacts of extreme events in a variety of sectors. Papers also consider the range of climate services responses to this challenge, highlighting the need for new types of weather and climate information, new methods of producing and communicating that information in order to reduce risk, as well as providing some key examples of success stories, with a particular focus on Africa. Our intention here is to balance some of the bad news with what might work, and how we might learn from such examples. ; UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC); UK Government's Department for International Development (DFID); UKRI Global Challenges Research Fund Africa-SWIFT project; NASA GPM project. ; https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate ; dm2022 ; Geography, Geoinformatics and Meteorology

Over thirty international participants, mostly academics with different disciplinary backgrounds, climate service providers, government science advisors and consultants, joined four daily 6 hour remote sessions, discussing the ethics of climate services. Following a unanimous vote in favour of creating a code of ethics on the first day, the workshop spent the next three days discussing ethical issues in climate services, debating a code of ethics' structure and content, and considering different methods for its implementation and enforcement. The workshop was organized by an interdisciplinary group of environmental social scientists and philosophers from the University of Leeds as part of the project REACT: Responsible Evidence and Advice for Climate and Technology. Developing a framework for responsible evidence and fair provision of Climate Services.

Little has been documented about the benefits and impacts of the recent growth in climate services, despite a growing call to justify their value and stimulate investment. Regional Climate Outlook Forums (RCOFs), an integral part of the public and private enterprise of climate services, have been implemented over the last 20 years with the objectives of producing and disseminating seasonal climate forecasts to inform improved climate risk management and adaptation. In proposing guidance on how to measure the success of RCOFs, we offer three broad evaluative categories that are based on the primary stated goals of the RCOFs: 1) quality of the climate information used and developed at RCOFs; 2) legitimacy of RCOF processes focused on consensus forecasts, broad user engagement, and capacity building; and 3) usability of the climate information produced at RCOFs. Evaluating the quality of information relies largely on quantitative measures and statistical techniques that are standardized and transferrable, but assessing the RCOF processes and perceived usability of RCOF products will necessitate a combination of quantitative and qualitative social science methods that are sensitive to highly variable regional contexts. As RCOFs have taken up different formats and procedures to adapt to diverse institutional and political settings and varied technical and scientific capacities, objective evaluation methods adopted should align with the goals and intent of the evaluation and be performed in a participatory, coproduction manner where producers and users of climate services together design the evaluation metrics and processes. To fully capture the potential benefits of the RCOFs, it may be necessary to adjust or recalibrate the goals of these forums to better fit the evolving landscape of climate services development, needs, and provision.

AbstractIntroductionMany HIV‐positive individuals in Africa have advanced disease when initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) so have high risks of opportunistic infections and death. The REALITY trial found that an enhanced‐prophylaxis package including fluconazole reduced mortality by 27% in individuals starting ART with CD4 <100 cells/mm3. We investigated the cost‐effectiveness of this enhanced‐prophylaxis package versus other strategies, including using cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) testing, in individuals with CD4 <200 cells/mm3 or <100 cells/mm3 at ART initiation and all individuals regardless of CD4 count.MethodsThe REALITY trial enrolled from June 2013 to April 2015. A decision‐analytic model was developed to estimate the cost‐effectiveness of six management strategies in individuals initiating ART in the REALITY trial countries. Strategies included standard‐prophylaxis, enhanced‐prophylaxis, standard‐prophylaxis with fluconazole; and three CrAg testing strategies, the first stratifying individuals to enhanced‐prophylaxis (CrAg‐positive) or standard‐prophylaxis (CrAg‐negative), the second to enhanced‐prophylaxis (CrAg‐positive) or enhanced‐prophylaxis without fluconazole (CrAg‐negative) and the third to standard‐prophylaxis with fluconazole (CrAg‐positive) or without fluconazole (CrAg‐negative). The model estimated costs, life‐years and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALY) over 48 weeks using three competing mortality risks: cryptococcal meningitis; tuberculosis, serious bacterial infection or other known cause; and unknown cause.ResultsEnhanced‐prophylaxis was cost‐effective at cost‐effectiveness thresholds of US$300 and US$500 per QALY with an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$157 per QALY in the CD4 <200 cells/mm3 population providing enhanced‐prophylaxis components are sourced at lowest available prices. The ICER reduced in more severely immunosuppressed individuals (US$113 per QALY in the CD4 <100 cells/mm3 population) and increased in all individuals regardless of CD4 count (US$722 per QALY). Results were sensitive to prices of the enhanced‐prophylaxis components. Enhanced‐prophylaxis was more effective and less costly than all CrAg testing strategies as enhanced‐prophylaxis still conveyed health gains in CrAg‐negative patients and savings from targeting prophylaxis based on CrAg status did not compensate for costs of CrAg testing. CrAg testing strategies did not become cost‐effective unless the price of CrAg testing fell below US$2.30.ConclusionsThe REALITY enhanced‐prophylaxis package in individuals with advanced HIV starting ART reduces morbidity and mortality, is practical to administer and is cost‐effective. Efforts should continue to ensure that components are accessed at lowest available prices.

The international effort toward climate services, epitomised by the development of the Global Framework for Climate Services and, more recently the launch of Copernicus Climate Change Service has renewed interest in the users and the role they can play in shaping the services they will eventually use. Here we critically analyse the results of the five climate service prototypes that were developed as part of the EU funded project EUPORIAS. Starting from the experience acquired in each of the projects we attempt to distil a few key lessons which, we believe, will be relevant to the wider community of climate service developers. ; The authors wish to acknowledge all of those who contributed indirectly to the development of the EUPORIAS prototypes, through scientific discussion, review, data provision, stakeholder engagement and facilitation: for SPRINT, Adam Scaife, Anca Brookshaw, Alberto Arribas, Emily Wallace, Jeff Knight, Margaret Gordon, Kate Brown, Brent Walker, Mathew Richardson, Jodie Wild, and the DfT-led stakeholder group; for RESILIENCE, Melanie Davis for conceiving the prototype and for her vision on Climate Services. In the LMTool, Clinton Devon Estates, the National Farmers Union, and all the farmers involved in the development of the tool. The UK Government Department for Transport is acknowledged for providing financial support, in parallel to that received from EUPORIAS, for the SPRINT prototype. The visualisation, project UKKO, within RESILIENCE prototype was done by Moritz Stefaner. EUPORIAS was funded by the European Commission through the 7th Framework Programme for Research, grant agreement 308291. ; Peer Reviewed ; Postprint (published version)

The international effort toward climate services, epitomised by the development of the Global Framework for Climate Services and, more recently the launch of Copernicus Climate Change Service has renewed interest in the users and the role they can play in shaping the services they will eventually use. Here we critically analyse the results of the five climate service prototypes that were developed as part of the EU funded project EUPORIAS. Starting from the experience acquired in each of the projects we attempt to distil a few key lessons which, we believe, will be relevant to the wider community of climate service developers. ; The authors wish to acknowledge all of those who contributed indirectly to the development of the EUPORIAS prototypes, through scientific discussion, review, data provision, stakeholder engagement and facilitation: for SPRINT, Adam Scaife, Anca Brookshaw, Alberto Arribas, Emily Wallace, Jeff Knight, Margaret Gordon, Kate Brown, Brent Walker, Mathew Richardson, Jodie Wild, and the DfT-led stakeholder group; for RESILIENCE, Melanie Davis for conceiving the prototype and for her vision on Climate Services. In the LMTool, Clinton Devon Estates, the National Farmers Union, and all the farmers involved in the development of the tool. The UK Government Department for Transport is acknowledged for providing financial support, in parallel to that received from EUPORIAS, for the SPRINT prototype. The visualisation, project UKKO, within RESILIENCE prototype was done by Moritz Stefaner. EUPORIAS was funded by the European Commission through the 7th Framework Programme for Research, grant agreement 308291. ; Peer Reviewed ; Postprint (published version)

The international effort toward climate services, epitomised by the development of the Global Framework for Climate Services and, more recently the launch of Copernicus Climate Change Service has renewed interest in the users and the role they can play in shaping the services they will eventually use. Here we critically analyse the results of the five climate service prototypes that were developed as part of the EU funded project EUPORIAS. Starting from the experience acquired in each of the projects we attempt to distil a few key lessons which, we believe, will be relevant to the wider community of climate service developers. ; The authors wish to acknowledge all of those who contributed indirectly to the development of the EUPORIAS prototypes, through scientific discussion, review, data provision, stakeholder engagement and facilitation: for SPRINT, Adam Scaife, Anca Brookshaw, Alberto Arribas, Emily Wallace, Jeff Knight, Margaret Gordon, Kate Brown, Brent Walker, Mathew Richardson, Jodie Wild, and the DfT-led stakeholder group; for RESILIENCE, Melanie Davis for conceiving the prototype and for her vision on Climate Services. In the LMTool, Clinton Devon Estates, the National Farmers Union, and all the farmers involved in the development of the tool. The UK Government Department for Transport is acknowledged for providing financial support, in parallel to that received from EUPORIAS, for the SPRINT prototype. The visualisation, project UKKO, within RESILIENCE prototype was done by Moritz Stefaner. EUPORIAS was funded by the European Commission through the 7th Framework Programme for Research, grant agreement 308291. ; Peer Reviewed ; Postprint (published version)

The international effort toward climate services, epitomised by the development of the Global Framework for Climate Services and, more recently the launch of Copernicus Climate Change Service has renewed interest in the users and the role they can play in shaping the services they will eventually use. Here we critically analyse the results of the five climate service prototypes that were developed as part of the EU funded project EUPORIAS. Starting from the experience acquired in each of the projects we attempt to distil a few key lessons which, we believe, will be relevant to the wider community of climate service developers. ; The authors wish to acknowledge all of those who contributed indirectly to the development of the EUPORIAS prototypes, through scientific discussion, review, data provision, stakeholder engagement and facilitation: for SPRINT, Adam Scaife, Anca Brookshaw, Alberto Arribas, Emily Wallace, Jeff Knight, Margaret Gordon, Kate Brown, Brent Walker, Mathew Richardson, Jodie Wild, and the DfT-led stakeholder group; for RESILIENCE, Melanie Davis for conceiving the prototype and for her vision on Climate Services. In the LMTool, Clinton Devon Estates, the National Farmers Union, and all the farmers involved in the development of the tool. The UK Government Department for Transport is acknowledged for providing financial support, in parallel to that received from EUPORIAS, for the SPRINT prototype. The visualisation, project UKKO, within RESILIENCE prototype was done by Moritz Stefaner. EUPORIAS was funded by the European Commission through the 7th Framework Programme for Research, grant agreement 308291. ; Peer Reviewed ; Postprint (published version)

Seasonal climate forecasts (SCFs) have significant potential to support shorter-term agricultural decisions and longer-term climate adaptation plans, but uptake in Europe has to date been low. Under the European Union funded project, European Provision Of Regional Impacts Assessments on Seasonal and Decadal Timescales (EUPORIAS) we have developed the Land Management Tool (LMTool), a prototype seasonal climate service for land managers, working closely in collaboration with two stakeholder organizations, Clinton Devon Estates (CDE) and the National Farmers Union (NFU). LMTool was one of several prototype climate services selected for development within EUPORIAS, including those for the UK transport network, food security in Ethiopia, renewable energy production, hydroelectric energy production in Sweden, and river management in two French basins. The LMTool provides SCFs (1?3 months ahead) to farmers in the Southwest UK, alongside 14-day site specific weather forecasts during the winter months when the skill of seasonal forecasts is greatest. We describe the processes through which the LMTool was co-designed and developed with the farmers, its technical development and key features; critically examine the lessons learned and their implications for providing future climate services for land managers; and finally assess the feasibility of delivering an operational winter seasonal climate service for UK land managers. A number of key learning points from developing the prototype may benefit future work in climate services for the land management and agriculture sector; many of these points are also valid for climate services in other sectors. Prototype development strongly benefitted from; working with intermediaries to identify representative, engaged land managers; an iterative and flexible process of co-design with the farmer group; and from an interdisciplinary project team. Further work is needed to develop a better understanding of the role of forecast skill in land management decision making, the potential benefits of downscaling and how seasonal forecasts can help support land managers decision-making processes. The prototype would require considerable work to implement a robust operational forecast system, and a longer period to demonstrate the value of the services provided. Finally, the potential for such services to be applied more widely in Europe is not well understood and would require further stakeholder engagement and forecast development. ; This work was supported by the EUPORIAS project, funded by the European Commission 7th Framework Programme for Research, grant agreement 308291, and the Joint UK BEIS/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101).

Key stakeholders from the cancer research continuum met in May 2021 at the European Cancer Research Summit in Porto to discuss priorities and specific action points required for the successful implementation of the European Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). Speakers presented a unified view about the need to establish high‐quality, networked infrastructures to decrease cancer incidence, increase the cure rate, improve patient's survival and quality of life, and deal with research and care inequalities across the European Union (EU). These infrastructures, featuring Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) as key components, will integrate care, prevention and research across the entire cancer continuum to support the development of personalized/precision cancer medicine in Europe. The three pillars of the recommended European infrastructures – namely translational research, clinical/prevention trials and outcomes research – were pondered at length. Speakers addressing the future needs of translational research focused on the prospects of multiomics assisted preclinical research, progress in Molecular and Digital Pathology, immunotherapy, liquid biopsy and science data. The clinical/prevention trial session presented the requirements for next‐generation, multicentric trials entailing unified strategies for patient stratification, imaging, and biospecimen acquisition and storage. The third session highlighted the need for establishing outcomes research infrastructures to cover primary prevention, early detection, clinical effectiveness of innovations, health‐related quality‐of‐life assessment, survivorship research and health economics. An important outcome of the Summit was the presentation of the Porto Declaration, which called for a collective and committed action throughout Europe to develop the cancer research infrastructures indispensable for fostering innovation and decreasing inequalities within and between member states. Moreover, the Summit guidelines will assist decision making in the ...