Nature writing in Britain is probably as popular as it has ever been, but it remains critically undervalued. It is also frequently misunderstood. One source of misunderstanding is the view that nature writing supports the myth of stable order --social, moral, ecological-- while another is that it performs a consolatory aesthetics designed primarily to restore its readers to the natural world. These views overlook the significant conflicts that have been embedded within British nature writing ever since it emerged as a modern form in the late eighteenth century. Many of these conflicts are coeval with modernity. How can we know 'nature', and is it really possible to describe it? To what extent is 'nature' a projection of our own individual and collective (national) imaginings? How much can we appreciate it when there is so little of it left? The product of a collaboration between four leading scholars in the field, this project will be the first full-length study of its kind of modern British nature writing, beginning in 1789 with Gilbert White's seminal study, The Natural History of Selborne, and ending in 2014 with Helen Macdonald's prize-winning memoir, H is for Hawk. Between the two lies the jagged history of a genre that emerges under the sign of a triple crisis: the crisis of the environment; the crisis of representation; and the crisis of modernity itself. Emphasis will be placed on non-fictional prose, not because it is the 'truest' form of nature writing, but because it brings out one of the genre's most fundamental tensions: between the desire to set up a mimetic relation to the natural world and the awareness of the impossibility of doing so, for 'nature' is always other to what we imagine it to be, even if we are a part of it ourselves. Methods will be drawn from environmental history and philosophy as well as literary criticism, working together in the spirit of the environmental humanities, which seek to show how text- and discourse-based perspectives on culture, ethics, and history can work together with more empirical forms of scientific research, e.g. those connected with ecology, to produce enhanced understandings of changing human interactions with the natural world. The project will offer fresh readings of some of the classic texts of British nature writing, interpreting these in the light of current understandings of fractured subjectivity, post-equilibrium ecology, and the tangled relationship between humans and other animals in what some recent critical theorists have taken to calling an increasingly 'post-human', even a definitively 'post-natural', world. These understandings are seen by some as underlying the so-called 'new nature writing' that has emerged in Britain over roughly the last three decades; but this writing is not as 'new' as it appears, and one of the tasks of the project will be to confirm the historical grounding of contemporary debates. Only by seeing nature writing historically, it will be argued, can it be defended against the peremptory view that it practises a naive realism, or the hasty conclusion that it adopts a largely devotional attitude to the natural world. On the contrary, nature writing is a highly self-reflexive form: well aware of its own limited understandings, finely attuned to the inadequacy of its own language, and keenly conscious of the illusory nature of its attempts to achieve a three-way reconciliation between self, text, and world. Whether nature writing has potential to transform the world it describes is moot, but nature writing is not an escapist form and the project -- which will combine academic work with a variety of public engagement activities involving co-participants of all backgrounds and ages -- will show how it engages productively with a modern world that is both inhabited by possibly irremediable crisis and haunted by possibly irretrievable loss.

The Climate Change Committee's third Risk Assessment (CCRA3) set out a comprehensive analysis of climate-related risks. In response, UK Government published the Third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3). However, there is a large gap between what we need to be doing to protect the wellbeing of the environment, people and the economy in the UK and what we are doing. Further, we should be looking to leverage the co-benefits of action to improve wellbeing outcomes through adaptation. The Maximising UK adaptation to climate change hub (the Hub) will help catalyse existing knowledge, especially that existing in the Devolved Administrations, to advance progress in the UK towards the Government's adaptation programme. The Hub links UK national and regional adaptation networks and knowledge exchange organisations with multidisciplinary researcher expertise across eight HEIs, to produce a UK-wide research network on adaptation, and to deliver rapid policy- and practitioner-responsive research. This powerful new science-policy mechanism will be a new national capability for an effective and transformational programme of adaptation. Key to the Hub is leveraging the activities, networks and knowledge of existing adaptation partnerships and knowledge exchange organisations who are already doing the work. These organisations identified five priorities, based on their current bottlenecks and frustrations: Assess and address barriers to awareness and engagement with adaptation; Explore the efficacy of Welsh and Scottish approaches to wellbeing and future generations for adaptation for UK wide justice-oriented approaches; Increase understanding of system complexity by establishing an inter-sectoral community of practice; Address aspects of policy, legislation and regulation that hold back the adaptation vision proposed in the NAP; Enhance the accessibility and understanding of climate model results for decision-makers. Working in teams of universities and knowledge exchange organisations throughout the UK will carry out activities that can help increase levels of capacity and knowledge to address these challenges. We will: Carry out training and capacity building on adaptation as the means to network and bring different communities of practice together; Generate more useful data by integrating different risk and exposure models together, and working with end users to provide the data they need; Funding collaborations of researchers and practitioners to trial transformational adaptation in order to collect data on what works; Address policy challenges in real-time, supporting UK governments to accelerate adaptation; Bring together adaptation researchers who will be funded under the same research programme to improve how we do, and communicate, adaptation research. Research related activities will involve: i) place-based research in each of the Hub's spokes (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales); ii) the delivery of a programme of grants, across the sector, through a Flexible Fund, encouraging academic and practitioner collaboration on climate adaptation at local and national scale, and focusing on implementation projects to generate insight into what works, and projects that analyse, so as to overcome, institutional and policy barriers to action; and iii) coordination with UKRI's wider transformative adaptation programme, to synthesise findings from research and maximise their translation into actionable insights. At the end of the three years, we will have produced integrated sectoral pathways to a well-adapted UK, a better understanding of the policy landscape and new advisory mechanisms to support policymakers, accelerated action on adaptation by starting projects that were in the pipeline, and better ways of embedding vulnerability and justice-oriented approaches into adaptation priorities.

This innovative interdisciplinary project aims to develop an easy-to-use, evidence-based resource which can be used in decision-making in drought risk management. To achieve this, we will bring together information from drought science and scenario-modelling (using mathematical models to forecast the impacts of drought) with stakeholder engagement and narrative storytelling. While previous drought impact studies have often focused on using mathematical modelling, this project is very different. The project will integrate arts, humanities and social science research methods, with hydrological, meteorological, agricultural and ecological science knowledge through multi-partner collaboration. Seven case study catchments (areas linked by a common water resource) in England, Wales and Scotland will be selected to reflect the hydrological, socio-economic and cultural contrasts in the UK. Study of drought impacts will take place at different scales - from small plot experiments to local catchment scale. Citizen science and stakeholder engagement with plot experiments in urban and rural areas will be used as stimuli for conversations about drought risk and its mitigation. The project will: (i) investigate different stakeholder perceptions of when drought occurs and action is needed; (ii) examine how water level and temperature affect drought perception; (iii) explore the impact of policy decisions on drought management; (iv) consider water users' behaviours which lead to adverse drought impacts on people and ecosystems and; (v) evaluate water-use conflicts, synergies and trade-offs, drawing on previous drought experiences and community knowledge. The project spans a range of sectors including water supply; health, business, agriculture/horticulture, built environment, extractive industries and ecosystem services, within 7 case-study catchments. Through a storytelling approach, scientists will exchange cutting edge science with different drought stakeholders, and these stakeholders will, in turn, exchange their knowledge. Stakeholders include those in: construction; gardeners and allotment holders; small and large businesses; local authorities; emergency planners; recreational water users; biodiversity managers; public health professionals - both physical and mental health; and local communities/public. The stakeholder meetings will capture various data including: - different stakeholder perceptions of drought and its causes - local knowledge around drought onset and strategies for mitigation (e.g. attitudes to water saving, responses to reduced water availability) - insights into how to live with drought and increase individual/community drought resilience - the impact of alternating floods and droughts The information will be shared within, and between, stakeholder groups in the case-studies and beyond using social media. This information will be analysed, and integrated with drought science to develop an innovative web-based decision-making utility. These data will feedback into the drought modelling and future scenario building with a view to exploring a variety of policy options. This will help ascertain present and future water resources availability, focusing on past, present and future drought periods across N-S and W-E climatic gradients. The project will be as far as possible be 'open science' - maintaining open, real-time access to research questions, data, results, methodologies, narratives, publications and other outputs via the project website, updated as the project progresses. Project outputs will include: the decision-making support utility incorporating science-narrative resources; hydrological models for the 7 case-study catchments; a social media web-platform to share project resources; a database of species responses/management options to mitigate drought/post-drought recovery at different scales, and management guidelines on coping with drought/water scarcity at different scales.

Green infrastructure (GI) is recognised globally as an essential component of liveable and sustainable places. It is generally defined as encompassing most vegetated elements in the built environment, for example trees, shrubs, wetlands and other planting. It is widely acknowledged that GI provides numerous benefits to health and well-being and there is a substantial body of research demonstrating these benefits. Despite this there is still considerable uncertainty amongst the multiple stakeholders of 'what good GI is'. Currently, there is no overarching benchmark or standard for GI. This Innovation Fund will address this by developing a national benchmark for GI. The Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments at the University of the West of England, Bristol are already developing a local benchmark for GI with the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust through a Knowledge Transfer Partnership. This benchmark is, however, focussed on local priorities in Gloucestershire and the West of England. This Innovation Fund will expand the local benchmark to ensure it can be used across England in a wider range of GI initiatives. This benchmark will allow an assessment of the process of GI creation, from policy, through to planning, design, delivery and long-term management, ensuring that current good practice has been adopted at all stages. The stakeholders, or end-users, for the national benchmark include planners, property developers, ecologists, urban designers, landscape architects, engineers, public health professionals, urban foresters, community safety officers and maintenance contractors. The objectives are as follows: - To work with a range of end-users to expand the local benchmark into a national benchmark and ensure that it is fit-for-purpose and user-friendly. - To apply this national benchmark to a series of GI demonstration projects including new commercial and residential developments and retrofitting initiatives across England to demonstrate its effectiveness. The national benchmark will then be formally launched and made available online for anyone to use for free. User documentation and reports detailing the demonstration projects will be available on a website for the benchmark. The outcome of the Innovation Fund is ultimately the delivery of high quality GI. This will maximise the benefits provided by GI including to nature conservation, health and well-being, economic growth, climate change adaptation and resilience. The key impacts include: Allowing developers to demonstrate to planning authorities, stakeholders and customers that they are providing high quality GI, which will act as a selling point for their developments. Enabling local authorities to communicate their expectations for GI in new developments and retrofitting projects (e.g. of social housing) and its maintenance; easily identify those planning applications that are meeting their requirements for the GI elements of developments; and demonstrate the quality of their own GI assets. Allowing built environment consultants to demonstrate compliance with a respected and recognised benchmark to their clients. Enabling policy makers to develop more effective policies, by being able to specify their expectations for GI at a national and local level in a range of contexts. This will improve clarity on the requirements for GI. Benefit residents and communities in both new and existing neighbourhoods who will gain from the provision of high quality GI and the associated benefits. This will ultimately improve, for example, their quality of life, health and well-being, environmental quality, resilience to climate change and the local economy. Benefit broader society which will have more consistent access to high quality GI and the associated positive outcomes from this including, for example, improved population health and well-being, inward investment, biodiversity, climate change adaptation and environmental justice.

The 2007 floods prompted the UK Government's "Pitt review", which came up with the idea that we need to start to deal with the causes of flooding upstream of the affected communities, rather than rely solely on the downstream engineering solutions. This stimulated a range of organisations to introduce "natural" features into the landscape that may have benefits in terms of reducing flooding (so called "Natural Flood Management, NFM"). Having introduced features these organisations, and local stakeholders working with them, are increasingly asking "Are these features working?" This has highlighted to funders, those implementing the features and scientists alike that there are gaps in the evidence of how individual features (e.g. a single farm pond or a small area of tree planting) work and what are potential downstream benefits for communities at risk of flooding. Stakeholders want both questions answered at the same time, making this one of the most important academic challenges for hydrological scientists in recent years. The only way to quantify the effects of many individual features at larger scales is to use computer models. To be credible, these models also need to produce believable results at individual feature scales. Meeting this challenge is the focus of this research project. Consequently, our primary objective is to quantify the likely effectiveness of these NFM features for mitigating flood risk at large catchment scales in the most credible way. In this context, credibility means being transparent and rigorous in the way that we deal with what we do know and what we don't know when addressing this problem using models. In doing this we need to address particular scientific challenges in the following ways: * We need to show that our models are capable of reproducing downstream floods while at the same time matching observed local hydrological phenomena, such as patterns of soil saturation. Integral to our methodology are observations of these local phenomena to further strengthen the credibility of the modelling. * We use the same models to predict NFM effects by changing key model components. These changes to the components are made in a rigorous way, initially based upon the current evidence. * As evidence of change is so critical, our project necessarily includes targeted experimental work to address some of the serious evidence gaps, to significantly improve the confidence in the model results. * This rigorous strategy provides us with a platform for quantifying the magnitude of benefit that can be offered by different spatial extents of NFM implementation across large areas. By addressing these scientific goals we believe that we can deliver a step change in the confidence of our quantification of the likely effectiveness of NFM measure for mitigating flood risk at large catchment scales.