The recent Casey Review (2016) and Integrated Communities Strategy Green Paper (2018) have revived integration as a national policy priority. The problem these strategies address is the perceived lack of integration of immigrants and ethnic minorities. The fix they propose combines English Language provision and the promotion of 'fundamental British values' with curbs on immigration and interventions to address what are viewed as harmful cultural practices. Whilst most will agree that integration is desirable, there are different views on what integration is and how best to achieve it. Our approach is distinctive in at least three ways. First, we view integration as a process involving everyone, not just immigrants and ethnic minorities. The drawback of approaches that single out certain populations as 'unintegrated' is that they relieve other, 'integrated' populations of responsibility for integration. Integration, we argue, can only work if it involves everyone, where everyone shares its responsibilities and benefits. Second, we view integration as beginning in the situated practices and local contexts of everyday life. The drawback of approaches that stress fundamental national values is they trade in abstractions that may have little bearing on people's day-to-day concerns. Integration, we argue, should be pursued and achieved through social intercourse grounded in everyday life, not (only) through the promotion of abstract national values. Third, we view integration as a bottom-up phenomenon, where the aim of policy should be to capture and encourage existing best practices whilst simultaneously attenuating local barriers to integration. The drawback of approaches pitched at the national level is they are less sensitive to variation in local context. Integration, we argue, must begin with and attend to the specificities of local context. Our Everyday Integration approach reclaims and retools integration for academic and policy purposes. Our approach represents a step change in the scholarship on integration. Integration has been criticised for its assimilationist undertones and lack of conceptual clarity, leading some to abandon it in favour of cognate concepts such as incorporation or inclusion. Given integration's continued policy relevance, however, our aim instead is to redefine and reclaim it in ways that identify and then remedy its earlier shortcomings. We begin with integration as an assortment of locally grounded everyday practices and mobilities that facilitate meaningful and constructive social exchange. We will develop this approach as our main scholarly intervention to integration. Our approach is designed to achieve maximum impact for the everyday users and agents of integration. Integration is not just a matter of fostering good relations between citizens and migrants in national contexts. Rather, integration occurs through the grounded practices, exchanges, and mobilities of everyday life in local contexts. Our policy interventions are designed to capture and facilitate existing good practices whilst simultaneously addressing remaining barriers to integration. Working with the Mayor of Bristol, the Bristol City Council, and a wide range of City and Community Partners, we will use our research findings to co-produce and implement an Integration Strategy for Bristol. We will then distil the insights from our research and Strategy to formulate an Integration Toolkit that can be flexibly adapted for other urban contexts across Britain. Rather than simply seeing the lack of integration as a problem, we contend that a focus on the ways in which different groups of mobile and settled residents of the city already experience and practice integration - that is, the people who are its everyday architects and agents - can provide insights and creative approaches for scholars and policymakers seeking to understand and foster integration.

This project will develop sound methods for future climate change data for building designers to use for new buildings and refurbishments that could last to the end of this century. The principal application output will be a draft Technical Memorandum (TM) for the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, CIBSE, suitable for practising designers. This will be supported by extensive case studies to validate the new weather data design methodology and be used in research tasks described later. 'Story lines' relevant to different scenarios for the climate and built environment will be developed as well as risk levels in building design to enable designers to use the weather data with confidence. The TM will provide CIBSE with a consistent methodology for the selection and use of future data for its new Design Guide, a fundamental document used by designers of buildings and their services and a supporting document for the Government's Building Regulations. The basis for this project will be the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) future scenarios to be published in 2008 (UKCIP08) from which may be derived probabilities of different weather outcomes over this century. Academic outputs will include an extensive assessment of the carbon reduction potential of active and passive systems and designs for new and refurbished buildings. They will utilise case studies with PC simulation of the building and systems, employing the new probabilistic weather data. These assessments will provide designers and policy makers with guidelines to help reduce the growth in greenhouse gases (GHGs) from buildings, which at present contribute about 50% of the UK emissions. Other academic outputs will provide the theoretical basis underlying the proposed consistent PC-based and manual design methodology with coincident, probabilistic future weather data parameters such as solar radiation, air temperature, wind speed and direction. It is known that solar radiation and air temperature have peak values at different times and on different days but current design methods do necessarily separate them so that over-design often occurs. A related academic output will be a theory underpinning the selection of the proposed new Design Reference Year (DRY) which will facilitate building design (including passive and active heating and cooling systems and comfort assessment) with simulation on a PC. The DRY will replace the currently unsatisfactory Design Summer Year. Solar radiation data, not covered in detail in the HadRM3 and UKCIP02 models, will be developed to satisfy designers' requirements. Likewise wind data (crucial to include since wind drives natural ventilation) although the confidence level will be lower. Rainfall duration and quantity are also important in the building design process because of drainage and rain penetration damage and designers' requirements will again be reviewed.'Urban heat island' effects (urban areas are often hotter than the nearby rural areas), briefly mentioned in the present Guide, will be incorporated in the new data, developing on SCORCHIO work to provide more realistic urban weather data. Local modification or downscaling will also be applied to generate data for other sites in the UK. This will enable the new Guide to cover more than the current 14 sites for which data were developed by Manchester for CIBSE.To ensure that the new, probabilistic outputs will be useful to professionals, and to reflect best practice in design, there will be strong stakeholder involvement through the formation of a Stakeholders Group, including Corresponding Members, which will include CIBSE, architects and software houses and housebuilders. Policy interests will be reached via the Department for Communities and Local Government, and DEFRA and their contractors, such as BRE. There will be links to the Manchester-led EPSRC SCORCHIO urban heat island and climate change project, UKCIP and the Tyndall Centre.

This research project involves a partnership between two networks from the 2010/11 AHRC ‘Researching Environmental change’ programme. The ‘Performance Footprint’ network brings expertise in using site-specific performance to promote awareness of environmental change in diverse settings. The ‘Living Flood Histories’ network has explored how situated flood narrative and memorialisation practices can bring new insights in how to engage public groups, at changing flood risk. This proposed 12 month project responds to an invitation from the Environment Agency (EA) to explore how situated performance and flood narratives might be used to engage ‘hard to reach’ urban floodplain groups, at risk from flooding but without recent flood experience. Such groups may be disconnected in both physical and human terms (e.g. divided by urban planning, lacking in community cohesion), proving unresponsive to recent policy initiatives emphasising the importance of community-led adaptation planning in dealing with flood risk. This project aims to stimulate awareness of these issues, and encourage local resilience-building, by researching and facilitating two inter-related, site-specific performance events, in direct collaboration with local volunteers. The chosen sites in Bristol (Eastville) and Bradford (Shipley) have been identified by the EA, and feature heavily canalised watercourses partly hidden from public view. The research process will begin by reviewing the findings of the contributing research networks, and considering their application in the project context. How might situated narratives and performances best be framed to encourage local engagement with flood risk? Can the ‘after the flood’ memorialisation practices of other communities be used as a creative means to inform ‘before the flood’ resilience-building in the chosen site contexts? Can creative participation be employed as a means for: developing and enhancing ‘a watery sense of place’; exploring uncertainty around future climate scenarios; understanding issues around ‘distributed responsibility’ for flood risk response. Local engagement strategies will be developed in collaboration with facilitation experts. Volunteer participants will be involved in a project development period, with regular creative workshops and discussions extrapolating the research concerns. A key objective will be to use the process of working towards creative outcomes to help generate a context in which expert and local knowledges are equally valued. Dialogues will be facilitated between local participants, flood scientists and other experts, EA and local council representatives. The development period will lead towards participatory public performance events, presented in the context of festive community gatherings (e.g. street parties). A model of ‘distributed performance’ will be pioneered, involving a range of interconnected presentations offered by various groups and individuals in different microsites within the floodplain vicinity. This will maximise potential for local involvement, and emphasise the ecological theme of connectivity between people and places. Responses to these events among residents will be sought, and the outcomes of the two projects cross-referred, in order to develop research findings. Project outcomes will be captured and disseminated through: a guidance/action pack for potential future users; interdisciplinary research articles and presentations; documentation presented on collaborating networks’ websites. The research results will be of interest to a wide range of disciplines and professions: researchers in theatre/performance studies, physical and cultural geography, social history; professionals in flood risk management (EA, local authorities); social engagement professionals. Attention will be given to how the research can generate sustainable follow-through in the case study settings, and how the research outcomes are cascaded to other urban flood risk groups.

As European Green Capital 2015 and one of the Rockefeller 100 Resilient Cities, Bristol has challenged itself to transform by 2065 into a place where citizens 'flourish' by working together to create wellbeing, and achieve this equitably and sustainably. The Bristol Urban Area can legitimately claim to be in the vanguard of such urban transformation, and yet its development pathway remains characterised by paradox, and the need to deal with some stark realities and to challenge a 'business-as-usual' mind-set if progress towards aspirational goals is to be sustained. This proposal addresses a fundamental issue: what is stopping Bristol from bridging the gap between its current situation and the desired future as encapsulated in the City's various visions and aspirations? We have forged a partnership focused on the contiguous City of Bristol and South Gloucestershire urban area. We have secured the full backing of the two local authorities, Bristol Green Capital Partnership and Bristol Health Partners, the LEP, the local business community, citizen groups, and academics from across both Universities, with tangible commitments of support. Dissolving siloes through partnership, and a genuine interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration, is core to our approach, and hence both Universities have committed to share equally the financial resources with external partners in a three-way split. It is a key strength of this project that we are able to leverage extensively on internationally leading research assets, including: 'Bristol is Open', the FP7-funded Systems Thinking for Efficient Energy Planning (STEEP), the Horizon 2020 REPLICATE project, ongoing work at the £3.5m EPSRC/ESRC International Centre for Infrastructure Futures (ICIF) and co-produced and co-designed research such as the AHRC/ESRC Connected Communities and Digital Economy funded projects including REACT Hub, Tangible Memories and Productive Margins. We also have access to a wealth of highly valuable data sources including the 2015 State of Bristol Report, Bristol's Quality of Life Survey, and the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents & Children that has followed the health of 14,500 local families since the 1990s. We intend to build on the ICIF cognitive modelling approach which identifies the importance of challenging established mental models since these entrench a 'business-as-usual' mind-set. At the heart is co-creation and co-production, and an acknowledgement that citizen behaviour and action are essential to the delivery of desired societal outcomes such as wellbeing, equality, health, learning, and carbon neutrality. The work programme synthesises existing domain-specific diagnostic methodologies and tools to create a novel Integrated Diagnostics Framework. We believe strongly that unless an integrating framework is developed to bring together multiple viewpoints, the diagnosis of urban challenges will remain fragmented and understandings will potentially conflict. We will apply this framework in this pilot project to diagnosis complex problems across four 'Challenge Themes': Mobility & Accessibility, Health & Happiness, Equality & Inclusion and the 'Carbon Neutral' city. We have appointed 'Theme Leaders' who are all 'end users' of the diagnostics, ensuring that the process of investigation is cross-sectoral, interdisciplinary, participatory and grounded in real-world context and application. The legacy of the project will be threefold: firstly innovation in the diagnostic framework and methods needed to address urban challenges; secondly its application to the Bristol urban area and the resulting diagnostics synthesise across the four Challenge Themes; and finally the formation of an embryonic cadre of cross-sector city leaders with the capability to apply integrated diagnostics and challenge the prevailing 'business as usual' approaches.

The UK currently spends 70% of its entire health and social care budget on long term ("chronic") health conditions. These include diabetes, dementia, obesity, depression, COPD, arthritis, hypertension and asthma. We need to be better at: -- Understanding the cause of these illnesses -- Helping a person to avoid developing them -- Creating new treatments -- Helping the patient self-manage their conditions All these require working with a patient over months or years, outside of a traditional hospital environment. In a very real way, we need healthcare to go where the patient goes; the single place that most people spend most of their time is their home. Consequently, SPHERE project is seeking to develop non-intrusive home-based technologies for measuring health related behaviours at home over long periods of time. The requirements for these technologies are: -- They should require little or no action from the patient, since our daily lives are busy; being ill is distressing and time-consuming; and when the benefit may take months or years to achieve, there is often not much day to day motivation to be bothered with measurements or devices. -- They should work reliably in the home; a home is not a hospital or a laboratory - it is smaller, full of furniture, pets and people, often not brightly-lit and often challenging to get wireless network coverage everywhere. This poses lots of problems for researchers. -- They should be acceptable; bringing healthcare home with us doesn't mean we want to turn our homes into hospital and it definitely doesn't mean we want people spying on us! Since 2013 this has been the SPHERE vision and we have worked with scientists, doctors, engineers and more than 200 members of the public to achieve the project's initial goal of creating a cheap sensor system that can be installed in a home. More than 30 people have had the experience of living with the sensors over periods from days to months and, by the end 2017 we expect more than 200 people will have had SPHERE sensors in their own home, in many cases for months. Although the first-generation system was only completed in late 2016 and at the time of writing is still under test in the first "pilot" homes, the system is already moving into real patient applications - we are applying for ethical permission from the NHS to use SPHERE for patients recovering from surgery. Later in 2017 we will be applying for ethical permission to use SPHERE with a group of dementia patients. The initial testing of the sensor system has gone well but, especially as we start to think about large scale use of the SPHERE system across potentially hundreds or thousands of people, the team have learnt a lot from the early pilots and have some priorities for significant improvements: 1. The SPHERE video system needs to be better at evaluating the quality of someone's movement, such as getting out of a chair, even when the view of the person is blocked by items of furniture. Evaluating quality of movement is important in physical and mental health conditions. 2. The SPHERE wristband lasts for over a month on a single charge, however we want to remove as far as possible the need to charge it at all, because the more ill someone is, the less likely they are to do this. 3. Digital data gathered from sensors needs to be turned into understanding for doctors; this is especially difficult in a home environment because every home and every household is different. These are major research issues and will be the focus of the technology parts of the SPHERE programme, while the clinical parts move forward with patient populations. The NHS itself has recently said: "if the UK fails to get serious about prevention then recent progress in healthy life expectancies will stall, health inequalities will widen, and our ability to fund beneficial new treatments will be crowded-out by the need to spend billions of pounds on wholly avoidable illness."