Search

Throughout history, coastal zones have been vulnerable to the dual risks of erosion and flooding. With climate change likely to exacerbate these risks in the coming decades, coasts are becoming an ever more critical location on which to apply hydro-morphodynamic models blended with advanced numerical and statistical techniques, to assess risk. We implement a novel depth-averaged hydro-morphodynamic model using a discontinuous Galerkin based finite element discretisation within the coastal ocean model {\em Thetis}. Our model is the first with this discretisation to simulate both bedload and suspended sediment transport, and is validated for test cases in fully wet and wet-dry domains. These test cases show our model is more accurate, efficient and robust than industry-standard models. Additionally, we use our model to implement the first fully flexible and freely available adjoint hydro-morphodynamic model framework which we then successfully use for sensitivity analysis, inversion and calibration of uncertain parameters. Furthermore, we implement the first moving mesh framework with a depth-averaged hydro-morphodynamic model, and show that mesh movement can help resolve the multi-scale issues often present in hydro-morphodynamic problems, improving their accuracy and efficiency. We present the first application of the multilevel Monte Carlo method (MLMC) and multilevel multifidelity Monte Carlo method (MLMF) to industry-standard hydro-morphodynamic models as a tool to quantify uncertainty in erosion and flood risk. We use these methods to estimate expected values and cumulative distributions of variables which are of interest to decision makers. MLMC, and more notably MLMF, significantly reduce computational cost compared to the standard Monte Carlo method whilst retaining the same level of accuracy, enabling in-depth statistical analysis of complex test cases that was previously unfeasible. The comprehensive toolkit of techniques we develop provides a crucial foundation for researchers and stakeholders seeking to assess and mitigate coastal risks in an accurate and efficient manner.

This thesis is an interdisciplinary study of the conflicts and tensions in the role of NHS complaints managers. The thesis sets out to explore the contradictions inherent in the role of complaints managers and the ways complaints managers deal with these contradictions. The interdisciplinary theoretical underpinning of the research is informed by conceptualizations of the complaints manager in the specific socio-legal sense of 'complaints handler'/third-party dispute handler;' a broader public administration framework, of 'administrator'/bureaucrat, and finally a wide-ranging sociological/social psychological framework, as 'social actor'. Thus the thesis draws on an eclectic range of literature from socio-legal studies, public administration, sociology, and social psychology. It also draws on non-theoretical social policy literature in relation to the policy context of the thesis. In relation to methodology, the research uses a qualitative approach. It is based on in depth telephone interviews recorded with thirty NHS complaints managers, which were transcribed verbatim and are the focus of systematic analysis. The complaints managers' interviews are supplemented with documentary analysis of job descriptions and person specifications of NHS complaints managers and email interviews with 'NHS complaints experts' (who are not complaint managers) who have a specialist knowledge of the complaints manager role. Three key areas emerged as the principal findings of the research: The complaints manager's role encompasses inherent contradictions, regardless of the personal style or individual approach of the complaints manager; Complaints managers exhibited opposing stances (that is very different responses/reactions) to the inherent contradictions in their role in relation to 'organization orientation' versus 'complainant orientation'; There were different types of complaints managers. Accordingly, a typology of complaints managers was generated with specific reference to their responses and reactions to the inherent contradictions in their role, in terms of complainant orientation versus organization orientation. In conclusion, the thesis argues that there are without doubt fundamental contradictions in the role of NHS complaints managers in terms of reconciling complainants' rights with organizational requirements. However, ultimately, individual complaints managers respond and react very differently to the inherent contradictions in their role.