Is there really "nothing you can do"? Pathways to enhanced flood-risk preparedness

Whilst policy makers have tended to adopt an ‘information-deficit model’ to bolster levels of flood-risk preparedness primarily though communication strategies promoting awareness, the assumed causal relation between awareness and preparedness is empirically weak. As such, there is a growing interest amongst scholars and policy makers alike to better understand why at-risk individuals are underprepared. In this vein, empirical studies, typically employing quantitative methods, have tended to focus on exploring the extent to which flood-risk preparedness levels vary depending not only on socio-demographic variables, but also (and increasingly so) the perceptual factors that influence flood risk preparedness. This study builds upon and extends this body of research by offering a more solution-focused approach that seeks to identify how pathways to flood-risk preparedness can be opened up. Specifically, through application of a qualitative methodology, we seek to explore how the factors that negatively influence flood-risk preparedness can be addressed to foster a shift towards greater levels of mitigation behaviour. In doing so, we focus our analysis on an urban community in Ireland that is identified as ‘at risk’ of flash flooding and is currently undergoing significant flood relief works. In this regard, the case study offers an interesting laboratory to explore how attitudes towards flood-risk preparedness at the individual level are being influenced within the context of a flood relief scheme that is only partially constructed. In order to redress the dearth of theoretically informed qualitative studies in this field, we draw on Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) to help guide our analysis and make sense of our results. Our findings demonstrate that flood-risk preparedness can be undermined by low levels of efficacy amongst individuals in terms of the preparedness measures available to them and their own personal capacity to implement them. We also elucidate that the ‘levee effect’ can occur before engineered flood defences are fully constructed as the flood relief works within our case study are beginning to affect people’s perception of flood risk in the case study area. We conclude by arguing that 1) individuals’ coping appraisals need to be enhanced through communication strategies and other interventions which highlight that future floods may not replicate past events; and 2) the concept of residual risk needs to be communicated at all stages of a flood relief scheme, not just upon completion.

The effect of changing the built environment on physical activity: a quantitative review of the risk of bias in natural experiments.

BACKGROUND:
Evidence regarding the association of the built environment with physical activity is influencing policy recommendations that advocate changing the built environment to increase population-level physical activity. However, to date there has been no rigorous appraisal of the quality of the evidence on the effects of changing the built environment. The aim of this review was to conduct a thorough quantitative appraisal of the risk of bias present in those natural experiments with the strongest experimental designs for assessing the causal effects of the built environment on physical activity.

METHODS:
Eligible studies had to evaluate the effects of changing the built environment on physical activity, include at least one measurement before and one measurement of physical activity after changes in the environment, and have at least one intervention site and non-intervention comparison site. Given the large number of systematic reviews in this area, studies were identified from three exemplar systematic reviews; these were published in the past five years and were selected to provide a range of different built environment interventions. The risk of bias in these studies was analysed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool: for Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ACROBAT-NRSI).

RESULTS:
Twelve eligible natural experiments were identified. Risk of bias assessments were conducted for each physical activity outcome from all studies, resulting in a total of fifteen outcomes being analysed. Intervention sites included parks, urban greenways/trails, bicycle lanes, paths, vacant lots, and a senior citizen's centre. All outcomes had an overall critical (n = 12) or serious (n = 3) risk of bias. Domains with the highest risk of bias were confounding (due to inadequate control sites and poor control of confounding variables), measurement of outcomes, and selection of the reported result.

CONCLUSIONS:
The present review focused on the strongest natural experiments conducted to date. Given this, the failure of existing studies to adequately control for potential sources of bias highlights the need for more rigorous research to underpin policy recommendations for changing the built environment to increase physical activity. Suggestions are proposed for how future natural experiments in this area can be improved.

Comparison of excess radiological risk of building materials and industrial by-products according to I-index (EU-BSS) and revised room model (IAEA SSG-32)

To get a better insight into the radiological features of industrial by-products that can be reused in building materials a review of the reported scientific data can be very useful. The current study is based on the continuously growing database of the By-BM (H2020-MSCA-IF-2015) project (By-products for Building Materials). Currently, the By-BM database contains individual data of about 431 by-products and 1095 building and raw materials. It was found that in case of the building materials the natural radionuclide content varied widely (Ra-226: <DL-27851 Bq/kg; Th-232: <DL-906 Bq/kg, K-40: <DL-17922 Bq/kg), more so than for the by-products (Ra-226: 7-3152 Bq/kg; Th-232: <DL-1350 Bq/kg, K-40: <DL-3001 Bq/kg). The average Ra-226, Th-232 and K-40 contents of the reported by-products were respectively 2.52, 2.35 and 0.39 times higher than the building materials. The gamma exposure of bulk building products was calculated according to IAEA Specific Safety Guide No. SSG-32 and the European Commission Radiation Protection 112 based I-index (EU BSS). It was found that in most cases the I-index without density consideration provides a significant overestimation in excess effective dose.