Usage of any items from the University of Cumbria's institutional repository 'Insight' must conform to the following fair usage guidelines.Any item and its associated metadata held in the University of Cumbria's institutional repository Insight (unless stated otherwise on the metadata record) may be copied, displayed or performed, and stored in line with the JISC fair dealing guidelines (available here) for educational and not-for-profit activities provided that• the authors, title and full bibliographic details of the item are cited clearly when any part of the work is referred to verbally or in the written form• a hyperlink/URL to the original Insight record of that item is included in any citations of the work • the content is not changed in any way• all files required for usage of the item are kept together with the main item file. You may not• sell any part of an item• refer to any part of an item without citation • amend any item or contextualise it in a way that will impugn the creator's reputation• remove or alter the copyright statement on an item.The full policy can be found here. Alternatively contact the University of Cumbria Repository Editor by emailing insight@cumbria.ac.uk. Abstract: It now widely acknowledged that the UK needs to increase renewable energy capacity and it has been claimed that community-based renewable energy projects, with high levels of public participation, are more likely to be accepted by the public than top-down development of large scale schemes and may bring additional benefits such as increased engagement with sustainable energy issues. However, little research has investigated public expectations of how people would like to participate in such projects and why. The aim of this study was to explore one rural community's response to a proposed sustainable energy project.A questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews provided quantitative and qualitative data. There was widespread support for local generation and use of renewable energy, with respondents expecting benefits from a project in terms of increased community spirit and conservation of natural resources. However, desire for active involvement was lower and residents viewed themselves participating as consultees, rather than project leaders. We suggest community renewable energy projects are likely to gain public acceptance but are unlikely to become widespread without greater institutional support.Suggested Reviewers : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 AbstractIt now widely acknowledged that the UK needs to increase renewable energy capacity and it has been claimed that community-based renewable energy projects, with high levels of public participation, are more likely to be accepted by the public than top-down development of large scale schemes and may bring additional benefits such as increase...

Objectives To understand the health and social consequences of the 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic for a rural population. Design Longitudinal qualitative analysis. Setting North Cumbria, the worst affected area in Britain. Sample Purposive sample of 54 respondents divided in six demographically balanced rural occupational and population groups. Main outcome measures 3071 weekly diaries contributed over 18 months; 72 semistructured interviews (with the 54 diarists and 18 others); 12 group discussions with diarists Results The disease epidemic was a human tragedy, not just an animal one. Respondents' reports showed that life after the foot and mouth disease epidemic was accompanied by distress, feelings of bereavement, fear of a new disaster, loss of trust in authority and systems of control, and the undermining of the value of local knowledge. Distress was experienced across diverse groups well beyond the farming community. Many of these effects continued to feature in the diaries throughout the 18 month period. Conclusions The use of a rural citizens' panel allowed data capture from a wide spectrum of the rural population and showed that a greater number of workers and residents had traumatic experiences than has previously been reported. Recommendations for future disaster management include joint service reviews of what counts as a disaster, regular NHS and voluntary sector sharing of intelligence, debriefing and peer support for front line workers, increased community involvement in disposal site or disaster management, and wider, more flexible access to regeneration funding and rural health outreach work.

No abstract

No abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

No abstract

The European Union (EU) Rural Development Regulations (RDR) provide the blueprint for EU rural development policy. A major change with the 2007-2013 funding period has been the decision to mainstream the LEADER programme as a cross-cutting axis for the local delivery of rural development. Delivery of the RDR in England (via the Rural Development Plan for England) has been devolved to the regions, and in the north-west there has been further sub-regional devolution. In Cumbria, where there is a history of successful LEADER programmes, a core group of stakeholders took the decision at an early stage to develop a proposal to deliver the whole of RDR Axes 1 and 3 funding via a mainstreamed LEADER approach. This article tracks the process of developing local action group proposals in Cumbria, and uses interpretive phenomenological analysis to explore the evolution of a local governance mechanism and provides a commentary on the tensions among mainstreaming, participation and innovation.

Biodiversity loss is a social and ecological emergency, and calls have been made for the global expansion of protected areas (PAs) to tackle this crisis. It is unclear, however, where best to locate new PAs to protect biodiversity cost-effectively. To answer this question, we conducted a spatial meta-analysis by overlaying seven global biodiversity templates to identify conservation priority zones. These are then combined with low human impact areas to identify cost-effective zones (CEZs) for PA designation. CEZs cover around 38% of global terrestrial area, of which only 24% is currently covered by existing PAs. To protect more CEZs, we propose three scenarios with conservative, moderate, and ambitious targets, which aim to protect 19, 26, and 43% of global terrestrial area, respectively. These three targets are set for each Convention on Biological Diversity party with spatially explicit CEZs identified, providing valuable decision support for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.