Climate Suitability for Stable Malaria Transmission in Zimbabwe Under Different Climate Change Scenarios

Climate is one factor that determines the potential range of malaria. As such, climate change may work with or against efforts to bring malaria under control. We developed a model of future climate suitability for stable Plasmodium falciparum malaria transmission in Zimbabwe. Current climate suitability for stable malaria transmission was based on the MARA/ARMA model of climatic constraints on the survival and development of the Anopheles vector and the Plasmodium falciparum malaria parasite. We explored potential future geographic distributions of malaria using 16 projections of climate in 2100. The results suggest that, assuming no future human-imposed constraints on malaria transmission, changes in temperature and precipitation could alter the geographic distribution of malaria in Zimbabwe, with previously unsuitable areas of dense human population becoming suitable for transmission. Among all scenarios, the highlands become more suitable for transmission, while the lowveld and areas with low precipitation show varying degrees of change, depending on climate sensitivity and greenhouse gas emission stabilization scenarios, and depending on the general circulation model used. The methods employed can be used within or across other African countries.     

Atmospheric effects from post-nuclear fires

During a large nuclear war, the atmosphere would be loaded with huge quantities of pollutants, which are produced by fires in urban and industrial centers, cultivated lands, forests and grasslands. Especially detrimental are the effects of light absorbing airborne particles. An analysis of the amounts of the various types of fuels which could burn in a nuclear war indicates that more than 10¹⁴ g of black smoke could be produced by fires started by the nuclear explosions. Due to this, the penetration of sunlight to the earth's surface would be reduced greatly over extended areas of the northern hemisphere, maybe even globally. This could temporarily cause extreme darkness in large areas in midlatitudes and reduce crop growth and biospheric productivity.This situation would last for several weeks and cause very anomalous meteorological conditions. Much solar radiation would be absorbed in the atmosphere instead of at the earth's surface. The land areas and lower atmosphere would, therefore, cool and the overlying atmosphere warm, creating strong vertical thermal stability in a highly polluted atmosphere. For extended periods and in large parts of the world, weather conditions would be abnormal. The resulting cold, probably freezing, temperatures at the ground would interfere severely with crop production during the growing season and cause extreme conditions for large sections of the biosphere. The combination of lack of sunlight, frost and other adverse meteorological conditions would add enormously to the already huge problems of the survivors.     

Compromise not consensus: designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation

With the escalating costs of landslides, the challenge for local authorities is to develop institutional arrangements for landslide risk management that are viewed as efficient, feasible and fair by those affected. For this purpose, the participation of stakeholders in the decision-making process is mandated by the European Union as a way of improving its perceived legitimacy and transparency. This paper reports on an analytical-deliberative process for selecting landslide risk mitigation measures in the town of Nocera Inferiore in southern Italy. The process was structured as a series of meetings with a group of selected residents and several parallel activities open to the public. The preparatory work included a literature/media review, semi-structured interviews carried out with key local stakeholders and a survey eliciting residents’ views on landslide risk management. The main point of departure in the design of this process was the explicit elicitation and structuring of multiple worldviews (or perspectives) among the participants with respect to the nature of the problem and its solution. Rather than eliciting preferences using decision analytical methods (e.g. utility theory or multi-criteria evaluation), this process built on a body of research—based on the theory of plural rationality—that has teased out the limited number of contending and socially constructed definitions of problem-and-solution that are able to achieve viability. This framing proved effective in structuring participants’ views and arriving at a compromise recommendation (not, as is often aimed for, a consensus) on measures for reducing landslide risk. Experts played a unique role in this process by providing a range of policy options that corresponded to the different perspectives held by the participants.