Renters need better policies to cope with natural disasters, new research shows

by Georgia Institute of Technology

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

After Hurricane Katrina, 29% of single-family homes were damaged in Louisiana versus 35% of rental units, but while 62% of homeowners received disaster recovery assistance, only 18% of renters received similar aid.

Louisiana isn't unique. Renters are an especially vulnerable population after natural disasters. They are generally less able to afford to move but are more likely to pay exorbitant markups when rental options are depleted. How renters are affected after a disaster is a key indicator of climate vulnerability, yet most political discourse and public policies focus on single-family homeowners.

New joint research from the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Brookings Institution is some of the first to expose the disaster impact on rental housing markets, examining whether the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) disaster recovery policies work effectively to protect renters.

The researchers sought to answer the question of how the rental market shifts after a natural disaster and whether rents increase. They used data from 2000 to 2020 that broke down rental rates by ZIP code and quarter in major metro areas in California, Michigan, Arkansas, Georgia, and Florida. Any presidentially declared major disasters were included, totaling 180,000 ZIP code-based rental rate data points.

The researchers combined federal emergency information with proprietary rental price data and stakeholder interviews. Brookings also hosted a workshop to provide qualitative insights and lived experiences from federal, state, and local government officials; tenants; and nonprofit organizations.

"I think the marriage between the two, the quantitative analysis and qualitative insights, is something that really makes this report unique," said Brian An, assistant professor in the School of Public Policy in Georgia Tech's Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts.

Their quantitative analysis showed that rents do increase after disasters—by 4% to 6% for the first disaster; rents elevate for the first three years and then stabilize over the next few years, but they do not revert to the initial rate for at least five years. Subsequent disasters also increase the rent by 2 to 3 percentage points and have lasting impacts. On average, ZIP codes in high climate-risk areas where multiple disasters often serially occur experience 12% higher rents.

Renters need more representation, according to the qualitative analysis. Stakeholders wanted better renter protections even outside of disasters but also noted that disaster relief needed to be more equitable and come from federal resources.

Policy typically favors single-family homeowners over renters in multifamily apartments. But after Hurricane Katrina, HUD imposed new rental development requirements in the Community Development Block Grant—Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR), the largest federal funding for disaster recovery.

For their analysis, the researchers scanned thousands of pages in federal register notices to track what types of rental development requirements were in place in the largest federal funds and whether those stipulations improved renters' situation. They found rents appreciated at a much slower rate in areas with the CDBG-DR grants than those without.

The An group's analysis suggests that the new requirements embedded in CDBG-DR seem to be working, but a more thorough investigation is needed. For example, in its follow-up study, the team is investigating which requirements are more effective than others and whether similar policies could be more broadly applied to help renters.

The authors also note that more fundamental policy changes for renters are imperative, such as universal renter protections, disaster assistance prioritizing low-income renters, and state and local government requirements to enforce tenant protections and rental housing in exchange for federal funding.

"We embarked on this research for evidence-based policymaking," An said. "While CDBG-DR has played a major role in disaster recovery, no one has examined their efficacy on rental housing until now. A major part of the challenge was due to the complexities in tracking the fund allocation notices and understanding nuanced rental requirements. But rigorous efforts and evaluations can inform policy design, our research demonstrates."

After the report was published by Brookings, HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research invited the researchers to present their findings to its staff.

"The unique academic-practitioner collaboration with philanthropic support is what made our research policy relevant, with actionable insights," An said. "We need more policy research and evidence to build a resilient future for all renter populations."

More information: Disasters and the rental housing community: Setting a research and policy agenda. www.brookings.edu/articles/dis … l-housing-community/

Provided by Georgia Institute of TechnologyNew research shows that US renters are hit the hardest when a hurricane strikes

Most LGBTQ+ Orthopaedic Trainees and Professionals Report Workplace Bias

75% of survey respondents report bullying, discrimination, or being treated differently

28-Feb-2024 , by Wolters Kluwer Health: Lippincott

Newswise — Waltham — February 28, 2024 —Most lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning (LGBTQ+) orthopaedic trainees and professionals openly identify their sexual orientation or gender identity to at least some colleagues, but many report experiencing bullying, discrimination, or differential treatment in their workplaces, according to research presented in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® (CORR®), a publication of The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons®. The journal is published in the Lippincott portfolio by Wolters Kluwer. 

"This juxtaposition of increased visibility and persistent discrimination highlights the need for continued efforts toward creating a more supportive environment in orthopaedic surgery," say senior author Julie Balch Samora, MD, PhD, MPH, an orthopaedic surgeon at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues. 

Internet-based survey quantified adverse experiences 

The researchers analyzed data provided by 156 individuals who completed a voluntary survey when they registered online for membership in Pride Ortho, a mentorship and inclusivity initiative for LGBTQ+ orthopaedic surgeons and allies. Most respondents (64%) identified as LGBTQ+, with 50% being at the attending stage of their careers and most others being trainees (27% medical students, 12% residents, and 5% fellows). 

Key findings of the survey were: 

• Of the 100 LGBTQ+ respondents, 94 said they were out in their workplace (open about their identity), but 31 of those 94 were out only to certain co-workers 

• Most LGBTQ+ respondents, 74%, reported either “yes” or “maybe” to questions about perceived experiences of bullying, discrimination, or being treated differently in the workplace  

• Of the straight or heterosexual respondents, 92% answered “no” to experiencing any sort of bullying, discrimination, or being treated differently 

• There was no geographic variation in reported experiences of bullying and discriminatory behaviors 

Creating safer, more inclusive environments 

The authors note that bullying and discrimination can deter individuals from beginning and completing their training in orthopaedic surgery. While they favor enforcing no-tolerance policies against bullying and discrimination, they caution that focusing purely on punitive measures has been shown to be ineffective in addressing the root problem in the workplace. 

Dr. Samora’s group suggests additional steps that healthcare institutions can take to support LGBTQ+ orthopaedic trainees and professionals and improve their sense of belonging and engagement: 

• Establish protective reporting policies and procedures 

• Continuously collect feedback from all professionals in the workplace about their perceptions of the environment and current policies, and refine policies as needed 

• Implement diversity and sensitivity training programs such as training about implicit bias, allyship, and bystander intervention 

• Promote LGBTQ+ surgeons into leadership roles 

"Addressing these issues is key to creating a more diverse and empathetic workforce within orthopaedic institutions," Dr. Samora and her co-authors conclude, "which in turn can lead to improved patient care and a better work environment."  

Read Article [ How Much Bullying and Discrimination Are Reported by Sexual and Gender Minorities in Orthopaedics? ]  

Wolters Kluwer provides trusted clinical technology and evidence-based solutions that engage clinicians, patients, researchers and students in effective decision-making and outcomes across health care. We support clinical effectiveness, learning and research, and clinical surveillance and compliance, as well as data solutions. For more information about our solutions, visit https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/health. 

### 

About Wolters Kluwer 

Wolters Kluwer (EURONEXT: WKL) is a global leader in information, software, and services for professionals in health care, tax and accounting, financial and corporate compliance, legal and regulatory, and corporate performance and ESG. We help our customers make critical decisions every day by providing expert solutions that combine deep domain knowledge with specialized technology and services.  

Wolters Kluwer reported 2022 annual revenues of €5.5 billion. The group serves customers in over 180 countries, maintains operations in over 40 countries, and employs approximately 20,900 people worldwide. The company is headquartered in Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands.  

For more information, visit www.wolterskluwer.com, follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and YouTube. 

A year of celebrations

28 February 2024

Credit: D Dominguez

2024 marks CERN’s 70th anniversary, with a packed programme of events that connect CERN’s heritage with its exciting future. This will culminate in a grand celebration for the CERN community on 17 September followed by a high-level official ceremony on 1 October. Kicking off proceedings in CERN Science Gateway on 30 January is a public event exploring CERN’s science. Two events on 7 March and 18 April will showcase how innovation and technologies in high-energy physics have found applications in daily life and medicine, while the transformative potential of global collaboration is the topic of a fourth public event in mid-May. Events in June and July will focus on open questions in the field and on the future facilities needed to address them, and public events will also be organised in CERN’s member states and beyond. The full programme can be found at: cern70.web.cern.ch/.

Q&A: Why the U.S. Is an Outlier on COVID Vaccines for Kids

Experts weigh in on why the U.S. departs from its peers in recommending 

COVID-19 boosters for young children.

By Steven Ross Johnson

|

Feb. 28, 2024, 

Q&A: COVID Shots for Kids

More

JOSEPH PREZIOSO|GETTY IMAGES

A young child receives a Moderna COVID-19 vaccination at Temple Beth Shalom, June 21, 2022, in Needham, Mass.

When it comes to vaccinations for COVID-19, the U.S. stands apart in recommending booster shots for children.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines call for children 6 months and older to get an “updated” COVID-19 vaccine – a tweak in terminology from a “booster” to reflect a new formula for the shots. In contrast, England last year called for boosters for children as young as 6 months if they were in a clinical risk group, while the U.S. stance also has differed from recommendations of European Union members like Germany and France. The World Health Organization additionally considers healthy children between 6 months and 17 years old to be a “low priority” for COVID-19 vaccination.

READ: 

Florida Defies CDC in Measles Outbreak

Among U.S. public health experts, opinions on COVID-19 boosters for young children are somewhat mixed. For insight on the issue, U.S. News & World Report spoke separately with Dr. Aaron Glatt, chair of the Department of Medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital in New York and a spokesman for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and author of the new book, “Tell Me When It's Over: An Insider's Guide to Deciphering Covid Myths and Navigating Our Post-Pandemic World.”

The following interview excerpts have been edited for length and clarity.

Why do you think other countries have not made similar recommendations when it comes to COVID-19 booster shots for children?

Glatt: I think there are different opinions as to the overall public health benefit for vaccinating very young children. While I think we all can agree they would benefit in general from the vaccine, that benefit is not a mortality benefit, and it’s not clear it would be a significant benefit. Is it worth the time, effort and the possible minimizing of public health advice when there isn’t as clear cut a case for it as you would have, for example, in an elderly patient?

I strongly recommend people to get vaccinated if they are at high risk from COVID – whether they have underlying medical problems, whether it’s based upon age, or both. But it’s hard to make a strong “you must do this'' recommendation for a COVID-19 vaccine in a 5-year-old kid, especially if they have previously gotten the vaccine or previously had COVID. I think the rest of the world said they were not going to make their stand here.

READ: 

Measles Outbreaks Show Vaccines Are Key

Offit: The goal of this vaccine is to prevent serious illness. That’s the goal. So the question then becomes: Who is getting seriously ill? That generally falls into four groups: the elderly, those who have high-risk medical conditions, people who are pregnant or people who are immunocompromised, and that’s why those countries make those recommendations.

I think that the reason the U.S. broadly recommends boosters for children is because we think that a nuanced recommendation – meaning targeting high-risk groups – is a garbled recommendation, and the best way to get those high-risk groups vaccinated is to recommend the vaccine for everyone.

Are there concerns that having broader COVID-19 recommendations for children might exacerbate some parents’ anxieties about vaccines in general? 

Offit: Only if they were mandated. If the vaccine was mandated as a booster, I think that would do it. We saw that happening as the pandemic came winding down and there were some universities that still mandated a vaccine for college students – that created a pushback, and frankly, an understandable pushback.

Glatt: I want parents to get their children their measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, their diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus vaccine. I want them to get the stuff that I think is essential.

Related: 

CDC: Kindergarten Vaccination Exemptions Reach Record High

In the scheme of things, the COVID vaccine is not as essential as those other vaccinations, so I’m going to spend my time and effort recommending those over the COVID vaccine, though not to the exclusion of the COVID vaccine. But when they’re hesitant already, let’s get in the ones that are much more important from a public health point of view.

Has the public’s view of public health agencies eroded since the beginning of the pandemic? If so, do you think it’s forced leaders to be more judicious about how they spend their remaining credibility when making recommendations?

Glatt: Unfortunately, we’re in an era where people just don’t listen to what their doctor says automatically. Today, patients question, and patients Google. We have to get around the idea that there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. In the European countries where they have chosen not to recommend the vaccine boosters to all children, I think they’re basically saying that they have chosen not to go that route because it’s just not worth the amount of time, effort and credibility by saying, ‘This is essential,’ when it may not be essential.

Offit: I think we’re living in an unusual time. What you’re seeing is a large percentage of this country that doesn’t trust the government and doesn’t want the federal government in their life. The Food and Drug Administration and the CDC suffer from that, and I feel that the pandemic has made things much worse in that regard. The anti-vaccine movement has been emboldened and is much better funded than ever before, and I would argue that they have more funding than those groups that are trying to put good information out there.

READ: 

States Reconsider Vaccine Exemptions

Measles is a good example. We eliminated measles in this country in the year 2000, and the reason we did it was because of one thing: school mandates. But now you have an erosion, where somewhere around 35% of parents are questioning whether school mandates are necessary. You have a paper that was published by the CDC in November of last year showing that more kindergartners are opting out of school vaccines for nonmedical reasons.

I think it’s just a sort of zeitgeist that the CDC is suffering from right now. I do think, though, the CDC should be out there every other day explaining why they are doing what they’re doing, and explaining the science for why they’re doing what they’re doing.

How does public health contend with vaccine misinformation and the diminishing trust in public health agencies to effectively promote its recommendations?

Offit: We all want the same thing: We want to keep people from dying and being hospitalized from COVID-19. That’s what we want. The question is how best to do it. It’s the CDC’s belief that the best way to do it is to have a universal recommendation for everyone 6 months of age. That’s fine – then get out there and make that case and show why that’s true.

The goal of this vaccine is to keep people out of the hospital, so are people who are boosted much less likely to be hospitalized who are not in those high-risk groups? If that’s the case, they can prove that. But I think the solution is to be out there on the record in a very strong, clear, definitive way as to explain why you are making the decisions you are making.

Glatt: I think it’s possible to have a nuanced approach. A 5-year-old kid that has never had COVID and never got any vaccine might be a different priority than a 5-year-old kid who got two doses of vaccine and had COVID. There certainly are circumstances that the recommendations do not take into account.

I do think that as a clinician, when I advocate for public health, it’s much easier for me to take those kinds of factors into account. The CDC is limited to a certain extent, and I don’t think they’re wrong, but that’s just not the place where I as a physician would want to go and make my do-or-die stand

 

Urban nature is often plentiful but inaccessible, says study

by Sarah Stanley, Eos

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

Living near parks, trees, streams, coastlines, and other green and blue natural features may promote physical and mental well-being.

With those benefits in mind, dozens of mayors from the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, which includes large cities from Seattle to São Paulo, Stockholm to Shanghai, and more, signed the Urban Nature Declaration in 2021. In it, they agreed to work toward two goals: reaching at least 30% coverage of each city's total area with green space and ensuring that no less than 70% of its population can access nearby green and blue spaces within 15 minutes—all by 2030.

Now, research published in GeoHealth by Greta K. Martin and colleagues suggests that most of the 96 C40 cities, not just the 31 declaration signatories, have achieved the green space coverage goal, but fewer than half have achieved the accessibility target.

Many studies of green space and health outcomes use the normalized difference vegetation index, which uses visible and near-infrared light to measure vegetation density. However, this metric does not capture the accessibility, usability, or category of green spaces. There is not a standardized measurement metric for blue spaces.

So to evaluate the cities' progress, the researchers developed a new analytical framework that uses satellite imagery from the European Space Agency's WorldCover and Sentinel-2A data sets to determine the coverage area and location of natural spaces within each city. This framework allowed them to use multiple metrics for tracking each city's progress toward the Urban Nature Declaration targets.

They found that 80% of the 96 cities have achieved at least 30% green space coverage, but only 47% of the cities have natural spaces that are easily accessible to at least 70% of people living there. In some cities, natural spaces are highly concentrated, whereas in others the spaces are more dispersed.

The researchers also developed a method for translating the two goals into a metric used for many epidemiological studies. In the future, this metric will help them investigate the health benefits of expanding natural space in cities.

More information: Greta K. Martin et al, Tracking Progress Toward Urban Nature Targets Using Landcover and Vegetation Indices: A Global Study for the 96 C40 Cities, GeoHealth (2024). DOI: 10.1029/2023GH000996

Provided by Eos

This story is republished courtesy of Eos, hosted by the American Geophysical Union. Read the original story here.

Wetlands, parks and botanical gardens the best ways to cool cities during heat waves, finds study

 

Predatory insects protect apples from pests when flowers are planted on farms, finds study

by University of Reading

Damage to apples by Dysaphis plantaginea, where fruits are reduced in size and malformed

, with puckering around the calix (left) and D. plantaginea-damaged apples beneath a 

non-damaged, full-sized apple (right).

 Credit: Journal of Applied Ecology (2024). DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.14598

Bugs including hoverflies, lacewings and ladybirds play an important role in keeping Britain's apples healthy, a new study has shown.

Wildflower strips planted around apple orchards provide a habitat for predatory insects that prey on pests that deform and damage apples.

Flower margins had been established next to five dessert apple orchards in the U.K. A research team led by the University of Reading found that only 48% of trees had fruit damage compared to 80% in orchards without flowers.

In 2020, 200,000 metric tons of dessert apples worth £158 million were produced in the United Kingdom. The two-year study, published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, suggests farmers could harvest up to an additional 2,420 kg per hectare (6.9%) of undamaged, premium apples by installing flower margins on orchards.

Lead author Charlotte Howard, from the University of Reading, said, "By looking after our creepy crawlies, we can take better care of our apples. Planting flower margins near fruit trees is a sustainable way of preventing damage to crops as it reduces reliance on insecticides. We will get more good bugs on farms and better British food in supermarkets as more flower strips are added next to orchards."

Good margins for better harvests

The study utilized large, mature wildflower margins more than five meters wide and included grasses and flowers chosen to supply year-round food sources. The long-established nature of the margins gave time for diverse communities of predatory insects to build up.

The research team found that flower margins reduced not only the spread of aphids on trees, but also how many fruits were attacked on infested trees. Apples near flower borders had over a third less chance of fruit damage even during peak aphid outbreaks. Significant reductions in damaged crop extended up to 50 meters into orchards from the floral habitat.

Simple conservation measures like dedicating orchard edge habitat for wildflowers could reduce reliance on pesticide sprays over the long term. Allowing pollinators and biocontrol insect species to thrive supporting sustainable food production.

More information: Charlotte Howard et al, Perennial flower margins reduce orchard fruit damage by rosy apple aphid, Dysaphis plantaginea (Homoptera: Aphididae), Journal of Applied Ecology (2024). DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.14598

Provided by University of Reading Flower power on Indian farms helps bees, boosts livelihoods

Cannabis oil found to be effective treatment for canine discoid lupus erythematosus

NOT CBD OIL BUT THC OIL

A female, mixed-breed dog, 2 years old, presented with epidermal depigmentation, on the 

nasal bridge. (A) Macroscopic image showing depigmentation in the nasal planum prior to

 treatment with Cannabis oil (date: 05/31/2022). (B) Macroscopic image showing the

 reduction and stabilization of depigmentation in the nasal planum after 1 year 

and 3 months of treatment with Cannabis oil (date: 09/19/2023). 

Credit: Frontiers in Veterinary Science (2024). DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1309167

A team of veterinary students and scientists at the Federal University of Santa Catarina, in Brazil, working with the Cannabis Development and Innovation Center, also in Brazil, has found that oral administration of cannabis oil to dogs can reduce symptoms of discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), a canine autoimmune-based skin disorder.

In their study, published in the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science, the group tested the effectiveness of cannabis oil with a dog suffering from DLE after traditional treatments made no improvements.

DLE is a disorder that affects the skin on the nose and ears of dogs. It is characterized by inflammation, loss of hair and pigment, redness and sometimes crusting ulcers. Currently, it is treated by giving the dogs corticosteroids, drugs that calm inflammation—the same types of drugs given to humans with similar types of skin problems.

In this new study, a two-year-old mixed breed dog suffering from DLE was not responding to the standard treatment, so the research team tried a new approach—giving the dog cannabis oil.

Prior research has shown that different types of cannabis oil can reduce inflammation in both dogs and humans. Prior research has also failed to find any detrimental side effects. Thus, it was deemed safe to treat the dog in this case with a mix of the oils.

Cannabis oils typically come in two different types: those based on cannabidiol (CBD) and those based on tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—both have anti-inflammatory effects. The latter is the one responsible for the "high" associated with consuming or smoking cannabis.

Because cannabis oil had not been used before to treat DLE, the researchers tried a variety of oils with different levels of CBDs, THCs or both. They eventually found that a mixture of 3 to 1 CBD to THC worked best.

Initially, the dog was given a single drop orally once a day for three days to test for any negative reactions. Upon finding none, they gave it a drop a day for several weeks and found signs of DLE disappearing. After a year, all symptoms were gone. To prevent new outbreaks, the dog was thereafter given smaller doses on a recurring basis. The researchers report no further recurrences.

More information: Maria Eduarda Schmitz da Silva et al, Case report: Cannabinoid therapy for discoid lupus erythematosus in a dog, Frontiers in Veterinary Science (2024). DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1309167

© 2024 Science X Network

38% of surveyed Danish dog owners put their dogs on unlicensed cannabinoids