University of East Anglia

About: University of East Anglia is a education organization based out in Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Climate change. The organization has 13250 authors who have published 37504 publications receiving 1669060 citations. The organization is also known as: UEA.

Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction Strategies in Four African Countries

Abstract: This paper compares and contrasts rural livelihoods in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Malawi, with a view to informing rural poverty reduction policies within Poverty Reduction Strategy Plans (PRSPs). Low household incomes in rural areas of all countries are associated with low land and livestock holdings, high reliance on food crop agriculture, and low monetisation of the rural economy. These adverse factors are in some instances made more difficult by land sub-division at inheritance, declining civil security in rural areas, deteriorating access to proper agronomic advice and inputs, and predatory taxation by decentralised district councils. Better off households are distinguished by virtuous spirals of accumulation typically involving diverse livestock ownership, engagement in non-farm self-employment, and diversity of on-farm and non-farm income sources. Lessons for PRSPs centre on the creation of a facilitating, rather than blocking, public sector environment for the multiplication of non-farm enterprises; seeking creative solutions to the spread of technical advice to farmers; and examining critically the necessity for, and impact of, tax revenue collection by district councils on rural incomes and enterprise.

Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being

Abstract: The concept of ecosystem services (ES), the benefits humans derive from ecosystems, is increasingly applied to environmental conservation, human well-being and poverty alleviation, and to inform the development of interventions. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) implicitly recognize the unequal distribution of the costs and benefits of maintaining ES, through monetary compensation from ‘winners’ to ‘losers’. Some research into PES has examined how such schemes affect poverty, while other literature addresses trade-offs between different ES. However, much evolving ES literature adopts an aggregated perspective of humans and their well-being, which can disregard critical issues for poverty alleviation. This paper identifies four issues with examples from coastal ES in developing countries. First, different groups derive well-being benefits from different ES, creating winners and losers as ES, change. Second, dynamic mechanisms of access determine who can benefit. Third, individuals' contexts and needs determine how ES contribute to well-being. Fourth, aggregated analyses may neglect crucial poverty alleviation mechanisms such as cash-based livelihoods. To inform the development of ES interventions that contribute to poverty alleviation, disaggregated analysis is needed that focuses on who derives which benefits from ecosystems, and how such benefits contribute to the well-being of the poor. These issues present challenges in data availability and selection of how and at which scales to disaggregate. Disaggregation can be applied spatially, but should also include social groupings, such as gender, age and ethnicity, and is most important where inequality is greatest. Existing tools, such as stakeholder analysis and equity weights, can improve the relevance of ES research to poverty alleviation.

Effect of an indwelling pleural catheter vs chest tube and talc pleurodesis for relieving dyspnea in patients with malignant pleural effusion: the TIME2 randomized controlled trial.

Abstract: Context Malignant pleural effusion causes disabling dyspnea in patients with a short life expectancy. Palliation is achieved by fluid drainage, but the most effective first-line method has not been determined. Objective To determine whether indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) are more effective than chest tube and talc slurry pleurodesis (talc) at relieving dyspnea. Design Unblinded randomized controlled trial (Second Therapeutic Intervention in Malignant Effusion Trial [TIME2]) comparing IPC and talc (1:1) for which 106 patients with malignant pleural effusion who had not previously undergone pleurodesis were recruited from 143 patients who were treated at 7 UK hospitals. Patients were screened from April 2007-February 2011 and were followed up for a year. Intervention Indwelling pleural catheters were inserted on an outpatient basis, followed by initial large volume drainage, education, and subsequent home drainage. The talc group were admitted for chest tube insertion and talc for slurry pleurodesis. Main Outcome Measure Patients completed daily 100-mm line visual analog scale (VAS) of dyspnea over 42 days after undergoing the intervention (0 mm represents no dyspnea and 100 mm represents maximum dyspnea; 10 mm represents minimum clinically significant difference). Mean difference was analyzed using a mixed-effects linear regression model adjusted for minimization variables. Results Dyspnea improved in both groups, with no significant difference in the first 42 days with a mean VAS dyspnea score of 24.7 in the IPC group (95% CI, 19.3-30.1 mm) and 24.4 mm (95% CI, 19.4-29.4 mm) in the talc group, with a difference of 0.16 mm (95% CI, −6.82 to 7.15; P = .96). There was a statistically significant improvement in dyspnea in the IPC group at 6 months, with a mean difference in VAS score between the IPC group and the talc group of −14.0 mm (95% CI, −25.2 to −2.8 mm; P = .01). Length of initial hospitalization was significantly shorter in the IPC group with a median of 0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 0-1 day) and 4 days (IQR, 2-6 days) for the talc group, with a difference of −3.5 days (95% CI, −4.8 to −1.5 days; P Conclusion Among patients with malignant pleural effusion and no previous pleurodesis, there was no significant difference between IPCs and talc pleurodesis at relieving patient-reported dyspnea. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN87514420

Spatial regression methods in dendroclimatology: a review and comparison of two techniques

Abstract: We review and compare two alternative spatial regression methods used in dendroclimatology to reconstruct climate from tree rings. These methods are orthogonal spatial regression (OSR) and canonical regression (CR). Both the OSR and CR methods have a common foundation in least-squares theory and converge to the same solution when all p candidate tree-ring predictors of climate are forced into the model. However, the perfomance of OSR and CR may differ when only subsets p' < p predictors are used. Theory cannot predict how either method is likely to perform when best-subset selection is applied, especially with regards to reconstruction accuracy. Consequently, empirical comparisons of OSR and CR are made using three tree-ring and climate networks from western Europe and eastern North America that have been used in previous dendroclimatic studies. These comparisons rely on a suite of regression model verification statistics to validate the accuracy of the climatic reconstructions produced by the best-subset models. The results indicate little real difference between OSR and CR, with each performing equally good or bad depending on the amount of recoverable climatic information in the tree rings. Canonical regression may perform slightly better in high signal-to-noise cases; conversely, OSR may perform slightly better when the signal-to-noise ratio is low. None of these apparent differences are large enough to select one method in preference to the other, however, and many more comparisons would be needed to determine if such indications are generally valid.