The proposed research review will look at the contemporary rise of community philosophy groups in the UK and globally, and how individuals and communities use them to enhance well-being, belonging, self-expression and public reasoning. There is growing interest in the idea of philosophy as a way of life that we can practice to live happier and more flourishing lives. But can philosophy really bring people together and create communities, or is it more of a solitary activity? What communities has it created in the past? What forms do community philosophy groups take today? And how could this project encourage their growth? One of the main aims of the research review is to identify and bring together what research exists on community philosophy groups, in order to stimulate future research in this area. At the moment, academic research into community philosophy groups has not been brought together in a single scoping study, with the result that this dynamic area has not received sufficient academic attention. This would be the first comprehensive review of existing academic literature on philosophy groups, and would play a valuable role for future researchers. The project would also have a practical component, and would act as a catalyst for the growth of the grassroots philosophy movement, strengthening ties between academics, think-tanks and philosophy groups; increasing academic and media awareness of philosophy groups; and setting up a new 'philosophy hub' website, with an interactive map to help people find their nearest philosophy group, and to help philosophy groups attract new members. Finally, the project would seek to increase the role of philosophy groups in the British government's 'national initiative on well-being', which at the moment is dominated by a social scientific and technocratic approach. The project would show how philosophy groups empower people to reason their way towards their own definitions of well-being and flourishing, rather than having definitions imposed upon them. Grassroots philosophy groups therefore have an important role to play in making the 'national initiative on well-being' more humanistic, participatory and democratic. The project's collaborative partners include organisations closely involved with the 'national initiative on well-being', including the RSA and the new economics foundation.

It is important for the Government to be able to predict the future energy needs of UK industries, homes and transport to ensure sufficient supply. At the same time, the UK needs to plan to reduce energy use in order to meet climate change reduction targets. At the moment the UK Government uses an Energy Demand Model which makes future energy predictions based on estimates of economic growth, the price of fuel and the number of households there will be in the future. This technique for predicting future energy needs is deficient, because it fails to take account of the fact that household demand for goods and services is the major driver of the economic performance of industry, and that the way households spend today is likely to be very different in the future. My fellowship takes a 'whole systems' approach to understanding the UK's demand for energy. The link between household spends and industrial energy use can be determined by quantifying the total energy required in the supply chain of producing a product. It is also possible to capture the energy that is embedded in goods exported abroad and goods imported to the UK from other countries with very different energy efficiency standards in their factories. I will develop a new indicator of energy demand: 'the UK's Energy Footprint' which shows the full amount of energy associated with products bought by UK consumers between 2005 and 2015. I have met with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to ensure that this new indicator will be reported alongside the Carbon Footprint. Instead of simply looking at the changing goods and services bought by an average household, this fellowship will consider the differing expenditure profile of up to 60 different household types between 2005 and 2015. For this, I will use geodemographic expenditure profiles developed by CallCredit, a credit reference company. The main user of geodemographic data is the business sector understanding their consumers, so it is important that the data is current and constantly kept up-to-date. Producers of this type of data do not keep previous years' profiles as a readily available product. This means that their data has never been used to understand the changing geodemographic profile in the UK or elsewhere. I have made an agreement with CallCredit to exclusively acquire a decade's worth of expenditure data from their archive. This means that it will be possible for the first time to determine whether the energy needs of the UK have altered due to households buying different types of products or whether the change is due to the mix of households in the UK changing. I will use mathematical analyses to calculate the drivers of the change in UK energy demand. The research will be able to determine what effect the recession had on the energy demand of different households. I will then focus on using predictions of the changing household types and predictions on how lifestyles may change in the future to estimate what the UK's demand for energy will be in 2030. There is uncertainty as to how the UK's infrastructure might have to change in order to cope with an aging population or the trend for homeworking. This fellowship will address this by determining the energy requirements of these futures by forming scenarios which calculate the UK's energy needs when there are greater proportions of these types of household present in the UK's demography. Outputs from this research will also be used to verify the BEIS's future energy demand scenarios and provide new inputs to their Energy Demand Model. This work therefore has great importance in ensuring the UK can meet the energy needs of its businesses and people, and become more sustainable, now and in the future.

HealthMod is a large research programme that brings together scientists, policymakers, and charities interested in using economic policies to improve people's health. We particularly want to improve the health of people who experience disadvantage or discrimination in their lives, as they tend to spend much more of their lives in poor health and also die younger, and the situation has got worse over the past decade. Local and national governments make decisions on various economic policies, such as changes to taxes, welfare, job creation, and social housing. These policies have long-term effects on people's health, as they influence important aspects of healthy living, like having enough money, good work, decent housing, safe neighbourhoods, and supportive communities. In HealthMod, we want to help policymakers, charity organisations and communities themselves understand how these policies affect people differently, based on characteristics like gender, income, and where they live. Our research would show whether planned new policies are likely to support long and healthy lives for everyone, or whether they would make inequalities worse. Our programme has three work areas: Computer modelling for Health: We will develop computer models to show how different kinds of policies might affect the economic situation and long-term health of each person in Britain. These models help policymakers understand the impact of policies on people in their area, especially whether they narrow or widen unfair health inequalities, so they can make informed decisions. All models we develop will be freely available for researchers and policymakers to use. Policy and Advocacy Engagement: Government organisations and charities seeking to promote healthier policy decisions are partners in our programme. Together we will decide on the most urgent questions that our modelling can help answer. This will ensure that the models we build can inform real decisions. We will create websites, videos, and training courses to explain how our models work and how to use them effectively. Citizen's Engagement and Democratisation of Modelling: We believe it is vital to involve people who may be affected by economic policies. We will host workshops where individuals experiencing issues such as poverty or poor health can share their thoughts and experiences. These insights will shape our models, making them more relevant and inclusive. We will also work with a broader group of citizens to understand which policy outcomes are most important for society. Our goal is to create high-quality, trustworthy computer models that incorporate policymaker and community perspectives. This research will guide the best way to design, explain and use computer modelling for policy decisions that seek to improve health and reduce health inequalities.

Given the economic, social and environmental value of the marine environment it makes sense to manage it in a way that ensures long term sustainability of both ecosystems and human uses. We can only do this if we understand the impact that human activities and management practises have on marine systems, including people. Spatial management measures such as fishery closures, marine protected areas and marine plans have emerged as a core component of the UK's marine management portfolio. In essence, spatial management aims to incorporate the diversity of human uses, consider the compatibility of different activities, and balance use with the impacts of these activities on biodiversity and people. Yet despite the extensive use of spatial management, substantial gaps in understanding exist regarding how to monitor the impacts of spatial management measures and evaluate their effectiveness across environmental, social and economic outcomes. Our research aims to systematically bring together the available evidence on existing and emerging environmental, social and economic techniques for monitoring the effects of spatial management measures and evaluating their effectiveness. In particular we will focus on examples from countries with a coastline and in a similar socio-economic and political context to the UK. By clearly and transparently describing this evidence, we will be able to explore understanding surrounding methods for how to monitor and evaluate spatial management measures, and inform the development of guidelines and future monitoring and evaluation practises across the UK. Our findings, in the form of a database, will be published alongside an article in the open-access journal Environmental Evidence, providing a highly accessible, freely available summary of the evidence. We will also produce a one-page policy summary, to disseminate our results to decision-makers, and a set of guidelines for use to facilitate application of our database. By making these outputs publicly available and easy to use we will give our work a lasting legacy beyond the life of the project. For example, researchers will be able to easily update and build on our database as desired or design research to fill evidence gaps, and decision-makers will be able to easily locate evidence of relevance to inform their monitoring and management activities. We will involve key stakeholders through our Stakeholder Group in the design of our project and discuss our results with them to ensure they are used to help inform spatial management in the UK. The evidence base collated within this project is anticipated to benefit a wide range of sectors and users of the marine environment, as well as nature conservation and academic research. These benefits will extend beyond the UK to international policy audiences facing similar challenges in determining the impact of their spatial management activities. Our extended review team demonstrates the interdisciplinarity nature of this project being composed of researchers specialising in marine and fisheries management from environmental, social, economic and policy perspectives based across academic and charitable institutions. Our existing Stakeholder Group attests to the value of this project with support from: the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), Marine Scotland Science (MSS), Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs), and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas). We will seek to extend our Stakeholder Group to incorporate all of the UK Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies during the project programme. Keywords: evaluation methods; fishery closure; marine spatial management; marine protected area; marine spatial plan; monitoring methods; systematic map

The Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence (CaCHE) will be an independent, multi-disciplinary and multi-sector consortium of academic and non-academic stakeholders. CaCHE will be UK-wide in coverage (across all four nations and at different spatial scales within), as well as UK-level in focus. It will advance knowledge and improve the evidence base for both housing policy and practice in all parts of the U.K. CaCHE will be organised as a "hub and spoke" network with its administrative core in Glasgow and a physical presence in all 5 sub-national knowledge exchange hubs in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales & the South West, the North & Midlands, and London, East & South East. Additionally, our six research themes will cross cut the different geographies depending on relevancy and appropriateness. The management team will be responsible for overall strategy, operational delivery, co-ordination, data navigation, research and KE. The management team of three academics (Gibb, Watkins and Orford) will be supplemented by a senior non-academic lead on knowledge exchange and communications (Smart), plus a full time programme manager, KE and communications, administrative and technical support staff. The evidence centre and its management team will be accountable to a funders group and an international advisory board. The main consortium members are the Universities of Glasgow, Sheffield, Bristol, Cardiff, Ulster, Reading, Sheffield Hallam, St. Andrews and Heriot-Watt, along with the National Institute of Social and Economic Research, CIH, RICS and the RTPI. The consortium has a lengthy list of institutional and individual collaborators at regional and national level and our activity will be supported 'in kind' and direct contributions from additional partners including Crisis, the Wheatley Group, NatCen, Shelter, Rightmove and several more. Our consortium also has specific project plans with four complementary ESRC investments: Urban Big Data Centre, What Works Scotland, Public Policy Institute for Wales, and the ADRC-Scotland, and will seek to collaborate with others including the What Works Centre for Wellbeing. Initially, a five year programme, CaCHE will seek to become self-financing sustained beyond this period. It will do so by regular scanning of opportunities with partners, and by also being impactful and influential through a combination of rigorous evidencing, prioritised across six research themes, which in turn will generate a new primary research agenda to be prosecuted by the evidence centre. A key way in which relevance and credibility will be sustained is through the comprehensive nature and persistence of our knowledge exchange and collaborative working with non-academic stakeholders. We will repeatedly utilise an innovative collaborative working practice - the Tobin Project Process - in order to build a consensus through rigorous and intensive examination of the key questions and priorities exercising non-academic partners and our stakeholders nationally and in each region. In this way, we will co-produce our evidence review and research strategy priorities and will fully engage, mobilise and disseminate findings with academic and particularly non-academic groups through our network of networks (i.e. drawing on existing networks of contacts via our non-academic and academic partners). CaCHE will promote and support interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary work and invest in knowledge exchange training for staff to maximise the impact of our multiple dissemination channels: non-technical briefing, summaries, academic and trade publications, targeted technical reports, high standard non technical international evidence review, blog posts, tweets, audio and visual pod casts, roadshows, seminars, conferences, workshops and media contributions. The evidence centre will support an extensive programme of staff secondments, promoting mobility between the academy and the policy and practice communi