Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Harry Radzuan, Lecturer in Project Management, London South Bank University; University of Manchester

Picture yourself strolling through Christmas markets, sipping mulled wine. Would you want to spend more time exploring the city or waiting for a taxi in the cold?

City breaks during the Christmas holiday period often promise festive lights, markets and cosy cafés – but how much of that depends on something as ordinary as a bus stop or as simple as a bike lane? Our spatial mapping using geographic information systems (GIS) of city accommodation, attractions, public transport stops and cycle paths reveals how accessibility shapes tourism in cities.

Accessibility isn’t just about convenience. It’s the difference between a stress-free festive getaway and hours stuck in traffic. It’s also about being inclusive of people with different accessibility needs (think about people using wheelchairs, strollers, crutches or mobility scooters). Tourism activities drive 10% of global GDP and account for about 9% of global carbon emissions. But poor connectivity can weaken these benefits.

Research shows that a lack of accessible transport stops people exploring. For tourists, this means fewer opportunities to discover local attractions – or worse, missing out on entire destinations. That’s a bigger problem for people with mobility needs.

Accessibility gaps don’t just inconvenience tourists; they marginalise communities. Poorly connected neighbourhoods lose out on visitor spending, cultural exchange and everyday opportunities.

The UK government’s inclusive transport strategy indicates that inaccessible bus stops and train stations prevent disabled people from participating in social activities. The result is not just fewer trips but fewer chances to work, study and connect, which creates a bigger problem – transport poverty.

Cities that integrate transport with tourism infrastructure don’t just move people, they move economies. Better accessibility boosts travellers’ confidence, satisfaction, and encourages greater spending. Since tourists often allocate a large share of their budget to local travel, making destinations easier to navigate directly increases how much they spend and how long they stay.

Read more:
Dreaming of a green Christmas? Here are five ways to make it more sustainable

GIS can help plan transport and tourism. Visitors to Copenhagen, Denmark’s capital, use GIS to plan cycle-friendly routes with details about the path, distance, cycling duration, complexity and slope conditions to help them navigate the city.

GIS also allows researchers like us to visualise what the naked eye misses. In 2024, Edinburgh welcomed 5.05 million overnight visitors, generating £2.56 billion in tourism spending.

But while the Royal Mile and city centre boast strong bus networks, facilities that promote active travel (such as bike parking and bike lanes) are lacking beyond the centre. Around Arthur’s Seat, a popular place that people visit for walking, climbing and other recreational activities, there are fewer than ten bike parking spaces in the entire area. Due to the lack of active travel options, people may choose to drive, which causes further congestion.

In Manchester too, bike parking is concentrated in specific areas despite the strong cycle network around the city. This can limit the amount of cycling if people cannot easily park their bikes beyond the city centre area.

Smart tourism meets sustainable transport

The carbon footprint from air travel is high, and the amount of long-distance flights is projected to increase by 25% by 2030. Meanwhile, car travel accounts for the majority of global tourism journeys (around 77%), largely due to its flexibility, affordability and independence – but it is not the most sustainable method, of course.

Encouraging the use of buses and bikes isn’t just green, it’s strategic.
With GIS mapping, we can pinpoint where new bike lanes and bus routes can be expanded to link tourist attractions, accommodations and restaurants, to create seamless, low-carbon journeys.

Imagine cycling from your hotel to a historic site, hopping on an electric bus to a museum and strolling to dinner, all without a car. That’s not a fantasy; it’s a blueprint for sustainable tourism.

Our research shows that sustainable tourism depends on active community participation and inclusive planning whether in tourism or transport, proving that equitable access to resources leads to long-term sustainability.

During our recent fieldwork, two young wheelchair users’ faces lit up when we discussed active travel such as wheeling as well as cycling and walking. Their enthusiasm is a reminder that these groups’ travel needs should be strengthened and prioritised in future mobility planning, not treated as an afterthought.

With open-access GIS technology and datasets available, these blind spots can be exposed, giving policymakers the help they need to design fairer, more inclusive cities. Interactive GIS maps can support smart tourism apps, offering live bus schedules and bike sharing availability.

Inclusive destination planning isn’t just a policy goal. It shapes people’s travel experiences. The choices cities make about transport modes and accessibility determine whether holidays feel effortless, or exhausting.

So, what kind of Christmas travel do you want? One spent exploring joyfully, or one stuck waiting for a taxi in the cold? Before you book that festive getaway, check the map. Does your destination offer easy, sustainable access from one place to another? Will you be stuck in traffic – or will you have the freedom to walk, cycle and easily hop on a bus?

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Harry Radzuan receives funding from the British Academy/Leverhulme to conduct this research.

Siti Intan Nurdiana Wong Abdullah receives funding from British Academy/Leverhulme to conduct this research.

Jiaying Xue does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How bus stops and bike lanes can make or break your festive city trip – https://theconversation.com/how-bus-stops-and-bike-lanes-can-make-or-break-your-festive-city-trip-269961

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Harry Radzuan, Lecturer in Project Management, London South Bank University; University of Manchester

Across the UK, millions of households are struggling to afford to heat their homes. Energy poverty has risen sharply since 2021, with around 6 million households unable to keep warm without cutting back on essentials.

At the same time, the UK faces a race to meet net zero by 2050, including delivering 70GW of solar power by 2035 (that’s enough energy to power 35 million homes).

Brownfield sites – the abandoned or disused lands that dot the UK’s cities and towns as a result of de-industrialisation – could be an untapped asset.

As a multidisciplinary sustainability researcher, I have seen how brownfield has slowly been incorporated into urban planning in the UK – from locally managed brownfield assets and datasets through to combined brownfield datasets and eventually to a national register.

To date, there are still more than 37,000 brownfield sites in England alone, many in deprived areas where property values are low and investment scarce. These sites range from as small as 0.001 hectares (0.00000386 square miles) to 157,945 hectares (610 square miles), according to the UK government’s brownfield land register.

Although different countries have different interpretations of what constitutes brownfields, they are often fenced off, contaminated or derelict – a symbol of neglect rather than renewal.

My team’s recent study shows that repurposing this land for community-based renewable energy projects, such as solar farms, wind turbines or ground source heat pumps, could not only help boost the renewable energy uptake, but also cut carbon footprint and tackle energy poverty.

Read more:
Green belt land just isn’t that green anymore

The idea is simply to transform brownfield land from environmental liability and eyesore into local renewable energy generators. Even the smallest brownfield site can house a small number of solar PVs, rooftop wind turbines or a deep-borehole ground-source heat collector.

In the US, this is already happening. Since 1999, the Brightfields Initiative has converted disused industrial sites in California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New York and Virginia into solar farms. The US Environmental Protection Agency has also created a national RE-Powering Mapper tool to find suitable brownfield lands for renewable energy projects.

The UK has yet to adopt a similar approach. Since launching in 2017, the current brownfield register mainly tracks potential housing sites, which may limit its redevelopment opportunity due to the site contamination that may require a high cleanup cost and a long restoration period before it can be safe for habitation. Energy development is rarely considered, even though many brownfield sites sit near densely populated areas that would benefit most from cheaper, cleaner power.

The good news is that momentum is building. The energy bill was amended in July 2023 to encourage solar installations on rooftops and brownfield land. In 2024, the government launched its brownfield passport consultation to seek ways to speed up redevelopment of derelict land. Our research supports this effort, and suggests that energy generation should be a formal part of that strategy.

Turning brownfields into brightfields

Brownfield redevelopment isn’t just about land use, it is also about energy justice, where fair access to affordable and sustainable, clean energy can be guaranteed.

This involves three principles. Distributive justice is the element of ensuring a fair allocation of energy resources and burdens between individuals and communities. In this case, brownfield renewable energy can supply affordable energy directly to low income households, who tend to live in underdeveloped areas, reducing their dependence on volatile fossil fuel prices.

This can be more affordable because community-owned renewables avoid profit-driven pricing, reduce transmission losses by generating energy locally and benefit from lower operating costs once the systems are installed. This means savings can be passed directly to households.

Procedural justice emphasises fairness and inclusion in energy-related decision making. In other words, brownfield development should integrate greater public participation, enabling communities to co-design and co-own energy solutions (such as Brixton Energy in London).

Recognition justice involves acknowledging individual and collective energy needs, values and rights. Many brownfield sites lie in areas long burdened by environmental damage. Renewable energy projects can therefore revitalise the land, create jobs and improve local wellbeing.

Community energy, where residents jointly own and manage renewable energy, delivers on all three of these principles. Community energy projects create local jobs, generate income that stays in the area and build trust between citizens and local authorities.

But renewable brownfield redevelopment is not simple. Contamination, complex regulations and financing challenges have slowed progress for decades. Developers also frequently shy away from uncertain cleanup costs or lengthy approvals. These barriers can be overcome through targeted policy support, such as grants for site remediation, streamlined planning processes and public-private partnerships that can reduce financial risks while ensuring community participation.

By developing brownfield for renewable energy, multiple issues can be addressed using existing resources while reaping benefits beyond free sustainable energy. It can enrich energy poor households, enhance biodiversity, provide cleaner air, create safe neighbourhoods and increase property values. This reduces the competition for fresh land development, often termed as greenbelt.

With coordinated policies, community participation and a clear national vision, the energy system can become more just.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Harry Radzuan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How abandoned land can power a fair energy transition – https://theconversation.com/how-abandoned-land-can-power-a-fair-energy-transition-269730

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tobias Hillenbrand, PhD candidate, Innovation, Economics, Governance and Sustainable Development, UNU-MERIT, United Nations University

Across the EU, immigration is one of the most divisive topics in politics today. Germany, a country once known for its “Willkommenskultur” (welcome culture), is a case in point.

The German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has recently said that Syrians no longer have “grounds for asylum in Germany”, and that they will be encouraged to return voluntarily. Some could also be deported in the near future.

Polling suggests that tough approaches to immigration resonate well with the public, reflecting a broader shift toward more negative immigration attitudes.

What determines whether people in a host country like Germany welcome or reject refugees? This is what my colleagues Bruno Martorano, Laura Metzger and Melissa Siegel and I sought to better understand in a recent paper.

Through a survey experiment, we tested how different factors would affect whether participants express concern for refugees’ wellbeing, or consider them a threat.

The study was designed to assess the effects of different factors on people’s attitudes towards refugees. For example, whether a participant held humanitarian values (is committed to help fellow humans in need). We measured this based on their responses to a frequently-used set of four questions. Humanitarian considerations have received little attention in earlier studies in this area.

We also measured if people’s views changed depending on the amount of adversity refugees faced (such as whether they were fleeing war), and the personal characteristics of the refugees – their age and gender, and whether they were part of families.

We surveyed more than 2,000 participants in 2023, using short, professionally-produced videos about Syrian refugees in Turkish refugee camps.

Some participants watched a control video, which provided only some background information. Others watched one of four videos: two emphasised the humanitarian situation of Syrian refugees in refugee camps in Turkey, the other two stressed challenges that the immigration of these refugees may imply for German society.

One of the “humanitarian message” videos and one of the “threat message” videos focused on families with small children among the refugees. The other two highlighted young refugee men.

After they watched the videos, we surveyed respondents about their views and concerns about the refugees.

Humanitarian compassion

On average, respondents overall showed a moderate level of concern for the wellbeing of Syrian refugees. They were somewhat more worried about the impact on Germany’s welfare system, security and cultural life. Fears that refugees might take away jobs were less common.

We identified a strong correlation between how humanitarian someone generally is, and the compassion that respondent expressed toward the refugees. We also found that exposure to short videos highlighting the humanitarian plight of refugees made participants care significantly more for most aspects of refugees’ wellbeing, compared to those who only saw the control video.

Additionally, we gave participants the possibility to sign pro-refugee policy petitions within the survey. Only a quarter of respondents overall signed a petition calling for increased funding for Syrian refugees abroad. An even smaller share supported a petition for more admissions of Syrians to Germany. But highlighting the humanitarian plight of refugees largely increased the share of respondents advocating for more support for refugees abroad.

The limits of this kind of messaging were also apparent. Watching the humanitarian videos did nothing to reduce immigration-related fears, nor did it increase acceptance for allowing refugees into the country.

Scepticism of (some) refugees

Those who watched videos of young male refugees were significantly less likely to support allowing more refugees into the country. Our data suggests that this is likely due to heightened concerns about negative cultural effects among those who viewed a video featuring young refugee men, rather than economic concerns or participants feeling more physically threatened.

Those who watched the videos highlighting families were more concerned about the refugees’ safety. Yet, they also expressed greater concerns that refugees may represent a burden for the welfare state.

The videos did not impact all respondents equally. For example, among respondents who identified as politically leftwing, seeing a video with a humanitarian message was associated with fewer cultural concerns about immigration, compared to the control group. For right-leaning respondents, we observed the opposite: seeing one of the humanitarian videos was associated with more concerns.

In addition, it was remarkable how differently east and west Germans reacted to our experiment. The political legacy of eastern Germany – the region which used to be the socialist authoritarian German Democratic Republic (GDR) until 1990 – is relevant in explaining persistent differences between the eastern and western German populations. It has been well established that east and west Germans differ in their values, preferences and voting behaviour, including support for the anti-immigration party AfD.

While similar at baseline, we found that exposure to the four videos affected the views of east Germans more negatively than those of west Germans, regardless of the exact message or the group of refugees the video highlighted. For example, focusing on refugee families largely boosted the share of west Germans who supported increasing support for refugees abroad. Among east Germans though, it had if anything the reverse effect.

It was remarkable how different these populations reacted to the very same message. Their reactions diverge more strongly than across any other divide, such as age or education.

Taken together, our results suggest that people’s opinions on immigration are more complex than a simple pro- v anti-immigration split. Whether a political message is effective or not – that is, whether it changes minds – depends on the framing of the message itself, as well as the views and values held by the people receiving that message.

Tobias Hillenbrand does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What makes people welcome or reject refugees? What research in Germany reveals – https://theconversation.com/what-makes-people-welcome-or-reject-refugees-what-research-in-germany-reveals-269436

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Hunter, Professor of Medicine, University of East Anglia

With flu season arriving early and NHS leaders encouraging people with symptoms to wear masks in public, a question arises: do masks actually work against the flu?

The short answer is that the evidence remains surprisingly weak. Studies conducted before the COVID pandemic generally found that masks made little to no difference in the spread of flu in everyday settings. There is little reason to think this has changed, although the COVID pandemic has taught us more about when masks can be helpful in reducing the spread of respiratory diseases.

This matters because flu cases began rising earlier than usual this year and are higher than we would normally expect at this point in the season.

While the number of people being admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of flu is still at moderate levels, the number of daily admissions is increasing. There are real concerns that we are heading towards an especially bad winter. This year, Australia suffered its worst flu season in at least 20 years.

The main flu strain currently circulating in the UK is a type of influenza A known as H3N2 – subclade K. This strain probably appeared first in the US, from where it has spread globally, extending the flu season in Australia and New Zealand and causing the early start of the flu season in Europe.

Crucially, this strain is quite different from the one used in this year’s vaccine. This means the vaccine may be less effective at preventing infection, although it should still help protect against severe illness.

Against this backdrop, Daniel Elkeles, the chief executive of NHS Providers, told Times Radio that if you’re coughing and sneezing “then you must wear a mask when you’re in public spaces, including on public transport, to stop the chances of you giving your virus to somebody else”.

The government guidance is less forthright, with a government spokesperson stating that people should consider wearing a mask in such circumstances, not that they must wear one.

Before the COVID pandemic, there had been several studies investigating the benefits of face coverings for respiratory viruses, including influenza. The most thorough of those reviews concluded that overall, masks made little or no difference to the spread of flu, either in the home or in public places.

They also concluded that N95 masks (tight-fitting, high-filtration masks) were no better than surgical masks in everyday settings. However, the authors were only able to identify a single low-quality study to support this finding.

In a review my colleagues and I conducted on the effectiveness of masks on the spread of respiratory infections prior to COVID, we found a similar poor effect overall. But individual studies in the review often gave very different results to each other.

Weaker studies were more likely to suggest masks work

Some studies suggested a strong protective effect, while others showed greater infection risk when people wore masks. Better-quality studies, such as randomised trials, generally found little or no benefit. In contrast, weaker study designs were more likely to suggest that masks worked.

The COVID pandemic added new evidence. The most robust recent review of masks and COVID in the community concluded that mask wearing was associated with a reduced risk of COVID transmission outside of healthcare settings. There was insufficient evidence to comment on the relative effectiveness of N95 respirator masks compared to standard surgical masks in public spaces, but in hospitals the balance of evidence was that there was little difference between the two types of mask.

These real-world studies contrast sharply with laboratory studies, which have generally found masks to be highly effective at reducing the amount of virus people release into the air and showing that properly fitted N95 masks are more effective than surgical masks for COVID and flu.

In the flu study, the researchers reported that a properly fitted N95 mask reduced the amount of flu virus released into the air by more than 94%. However, a poorly fitting N95 mask performed no better than an ordinary surgical mask – a crucial finding that suggests the gap between laboratory and real-world effectiveness may come down to how people actually wear masks.

The COVID lesson

Some of the most convincing evidence for the effectiveness of masks at preventing COVID was the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) COVID infection survey. In this survey, up to 150,000 people were screened every two weeks for the virus whether or not they had symptoms. For part of the time, the survey also collected data on mask wearing.

My colleagues and I analysed data from the ONS survey and concluded that, in adults, always wearing a mask at work or in enclosed spaces – or both – was associated with about a 20% reduction in the risk of catching COVID during the time the delta variant was the dominant strain of the virus. But after the appearance of the omicron variant, there was little if any reduced risk in mask wearers.

In children, mask wearing was associated with less of a reduction in risk of testing positive for COVID, and during the omicron period there was even a small increased risk.

Evidence for the value of masks for flu remains less clear, suggesting little if any benefit. Nevertheless, I would still encourage people who are at risk of severe disease if they catch the flu to wear a mask in crowded indoor environments – especially if they have not yet received the vaccine.

If someone is ill with the flu, it is best that they should stay at home. If they have to go out into crowded indoor environments, then I would also encourage them to wear a mask. I would not encourage mask wearing in children, given the lack of clear benefit and potential for improper use.

For most people, the overall evidence does not support routine mask wearing. I would also not encourage the general public to wear N95 masks because these masks need to be properly fitted for them to be effective. Nevertheless, wearing a mask is a personal decision, and people should be free to decide on what makes them feel most comfortable.

Paul Hunter consults for the World Health Organization. He receives funding from National Institute for Health Research and has received funding from the World Health Organization and the European Regional Development Fund

– ref. As flu cases spike, is it time to start wearing masks again? – https://theconversation.com/as-flu-cases-spike-is-it-time-to-start-wearing-masks-again-271904

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Francesca Spiga, Research Fellow in Research Synthesis, University of Bristol

Cannabis dependence is on the rise, according to the latest data on drug use and dependence published by NHS England.

Although cannabis use has remained stable over the past decade in England and Wales, dependence on the drug has risen significantly. In 2024, 6.7% of people aged 16 to 64 showed signs of drug dependence – compared with only 3.8% in 2014. This rise in drug dependence has mainly been attributed to an increase in the number of adults reporting cannabis dependence.

In England’s substance misuse treatment services alone, 86% of children aged 14-17 enrolled in treatment between 2024 and 2025 were there for cannabis problems – making it by far the most commonly used substance among young people.

Trends are slightly different in adults, with 21% of those in treatment reporting issues with cannabis use alongside opiates. Among people entering treatment for substance misuse, 22.2% were there for cannabis problems – continuing a steady climb since 2022 (20.9%).

Cannabis is often seen as relatively harmless, but these figures tell a different story. For some, cannabis use becomes difficult to control – interfering with work, relationships and mental health. It can also lead to cannabis use disorder, a serious condition that, due to its relatively mild perceived physical harms, receives far less attention than other substance use disorders.

What is cannabis use disorder?

Cannabis remains the most commonly used illicit drug in the UK. While many people use it without major problems, some develop patterns of harmful or dependent use.

Cannabis use disorder is defined by symptoms such as difficulty cutting down cannabis use, spending excessive time using or recovering from use, and continuing to use cannabis despite negative consequences. These problems can affect education, employment and relationships, and are linked to mental health issues such as psychosis and depression.

Read more:
What is cannabis use disorder? And how do you know if you have a problem?

Despite these risks, cannabis is often perceived as “safe” compared to other drugs. The perception that cannabis doesn’t cause serious problems increases the risk of use and decreases the motivation to stop. This perception may partly explain why treatment services are now seeing such high numbers of young people with cannabis-related problems.

The latest ONS figures highlight a persistent public health challenge – one that requires more than just awareness.

Can cannabis use disorder be treated?

Treatment for cannabis use disorder isn’t straightforward. Unlike opioid dependence, there are no approved drug-based treatments for cannabis problems.

Current UK clinical guidelines recommend psychosocial interventions, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, as first-line options. But the evidence base for these therapies is surprisingly thin. Studies are small, inconsistent and often measure success in different ways – making it hard to know what really works.

Our research group recently reviewed all available trials of psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for cannabis use disorder.

We found that while psychosocial approaches such as cognitive behaviour therapy (teaching people practical strategies to change unhelpful thoughts and actions and boost motivation) and acceptance-based approaches (teaching skills to manage difficult emotions, accept challenging thoughts and stay focused on the present moment) show promise, the benefits are modest and vary widely between studies.

Other psychological strategies such as contingency management (offering rewards for meeting treatment goals) have shown some success for other substance use disorders (such as cocaine and amphetamine). But the evidence for cannabis is limited.

The benefits of prescription drug treatments for cannabis use disorder remain uncertain. No drug that has been investigated to date, including antidepressants and cannabinoid agonists (which mimic the effects of cannabis), have produced convincing results.

In short, while there are some encouraging findings, the research base is still too limited to draw firm conclusions about which interventions work best. This leaves doctors and patients with uncertainty and limited guidance on treatments.

Where do we go from here?

The rise in cannabis-related treatment demand comes at a time when recreational cannabis use is highly common and high-potency products are increasingly available. This means that it could become a more common problem, which is why developing a treatment base is so important.

But a challenge researchers face in developing suitable treatments for cannabis use disorder is deciding what counts as a good outcome.

Many trials aim to have participants achieve abstinence (complete cessation of cannabis use) – but this isn’t always realistic or even what people want. For some, reducing use rather than stopping completely can still improve mental health and quality of life.

Yet there’s no universal agreement on what constitutes meaningful change. This matters because treatment goals should reflect what people actually value. If someone wants to cut down rather than quit, measuring success only by abstinence risks overlooking meaningful progress.

So until researchers agree on a core outcome set, comparing studies and developing treatment guidelines will remain difficult.

To ensure that support is based on robust evidence, we need more research, better and bigger trials and a clearer understanding of what works – and for whom.

The good news is that with growing recognition of cannabis use disorder as a genuine public health concern, researchers have an opportunity to shape a more effective and compassionate response.

For those personally affected by cannabis use disorders, psychosocial therapies are still the most supported options. Opening a non-judgemental conversation, encouraging professional support and staying informed about what treatments are available can make a real difference.

Francesca Spiga is funded by the NIHR Evidence Synthesis Programme. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Monika Halicka is funded by the NIHR Evidence Synthesis Programme. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

– ref. Cannabis dependence is rising in England and Wales – but treatment is lagging – https://theconversation.com/cannabis-dependence-is-rising-in-england-and-wales-but-treatment-is-lagging-271642