Search

An emergent consequence of climate change is its potential impacts on transatlantic flight routes and durations, with studies suggesting that future optimal paths will likely lead to decreased (increased) eastbound (westbound) journey times. However, these earlier works all rely on a class of flight planning algorithms (based on the so‐called 'shooting method') that are fundamentally different to those typically used by the aviation industry (based on the so‐called 'network method'). To help resolve any ambiguities associated with these differences and better align both the academic and operational communities, we have therefore conducted an evaluation of methods of estimating time‐optimal flight routes to relate the result obtained from the shooting method with the result obtained from the network method, using identical data from an ensemble of eight different climate models included within the CMIP5 project. Our findings suggest that, contrary to the existing literature, journey times will likely be shorter, irrespective of direction of travel and season, although the magnitude of this difference is negligible given the typical duration of transatlantic flights. Trajectory prediction (TP) results are largely dependent on the characteristics of the ensemble, their method of generation, the projected climate scenario and the temporal periods considered. Importantly, we conclude the choice of TP models is not a crucial factor in assessing the impact of climate change on flight durations—as long as this sample size (i.e., number of trajectories used in deriving statistics) is large. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As climate change continues to increase both the frequency and intensity of environmental hazards and disasters, the need for a cohesive national mitigation policy grows. As the environmental federalism scholarship indicates, the inherent tension in federal, state, and local policy implementation highlights that despite a national need, environmental quality is a local public good. To complicate matters, there is disagreement about the optimal level of decision‐making regarding the adoption and implementation of environmental policy. This study addresses this gap by considering the role of policy ambiguity and conflict in policy implementation. The analysis relies on primary qualitative data collected from open‐ended interviews with 22 local government officials in 12 municipalities following Hurricane Harvey. Through the lens of policy ambiguity and conflict, we find confirmatory support for the idea that policies with less ambiguous goals are more likely to be implemented. Furthermore, we find that policy conflict arises when local governments perceive there is little for the community to gain by implementing the federal program. Thus, the level of protection afforded to citizens varies greatly between communities and is influenced heavily by politics. This research supports the Ambiguity‐Conflict Model of policy implementation, an oft‐cited but rarely tested theoretical framework for assessing the intergovernmental politics of policy implementation. It also demonstrates the barriers to local implementation of federal environmental policy in a nested system of government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of resilience has been increasingly adopted on the European Union's (EU) policy agenda as a principle for agro‐food policy‐making. However, resilience is an ambiguous concept, allowing for different understandings and uses in the context of agro‐food policy‐making. This study analyses whether and how resilience is framed and contributes to framing in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post‐2020 reform process by policymakers and stakeholders. Combining deductive and inductive coding, we analysed 123 policy documents of EU institutions and stakeholders related to the CAP post‐2020 reform debate and the associated Farm‐to‐Fork Strategy. Five distinct resilience frames were identified: (1) income resilience frame, (2) farmers' supply chain position resilience frame, (3) climate change impact resilience frame, (4) disease resilience frame and (5) ecological resilience frame. Whereas the resilience concept has been deployed by various actors, they differ in their preferred policy actions towards greater resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]