张生——资料检查和直播间1818的精选内容

张生，多年传统电影行业的经验丰富人士，不仅是一位才华横溢的艺术家，还是现在汇成了个人直播大师的新形态。本文将深入介绍张生个人资料及其直播间1818中最受欢迎的内容，为热爱电视剧和电影的访客提�inas。

第一个聚精点是张生的创造力与才能。张生在电影行业中有着广泛的经验，从幅画到剧本制作、导演和制片人等多个角色，展现了他非凡的艺术造型。通过其成绩所传递给世人，张生以丰富多彩的身份成为一个值得关注的影响者。此外，他不仅在电影制作中有着深入理解和洞察力，同时也受到了广泛赞誉，被认为是现代中国电影的一个重要人物。

接下来，我们介绍张生直播间1818最受欢迎的内容。作为个人直播亲子活动，张生创造了一个娱乐和教育相结合的空间。在1818直播间中，张生不单是以自己对电影艺术的热情为导向，还展现了他作为一位家长的心，通过各种亲子活动和角色扮演等手段与观众分享喜好。直播中，张生不断尝试新颖的内容创造，引起大家的共鸣，成为一个关于家庭和电影世界的桥梁。

最后，我们将对张生个人资料进行详细介绍。从其成长经历到工作之路上所遇到的重要事件，每一个细节都是他艺术道路上的痕迹。张生的生活中不仅体现了他对电影深厚情感的支持和执着，更显示了他作为一个公众人物的社交能力与善良。张生在1818直播间所展现出的人格性和聪明才华，不难想象其在电影行业及艺术界有着不可忽视的地位和影� Written evidence (ECOS-013) from the British Retail Consortium

Report of ECONOMIC & SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE UK’S RECESSION AND PANDEMIC on retailers and supply chains

Executive Summary

In February 2020, just before the COVID-19 pandemic, BRC research showed that only 6% of retailers in our membership had seen sales drop by more than a third. However, within weeks of lockdown measures being introduced, over half (57%) reported having reduced their workforce and around one quarter were operating at less than a quarter of the staff they employed prior to COVID-19[1].

Since then we have conducted additional research in May 2020, August 2020, November 2020, January 2021 and March 2021. As anticipated, retailers were experiencing an ongoing crisis which was deepening over the period of our surveys. The extent to which they had been impacted by COVID-19 depended very much upon their store model – particularly in relation to having a large proportion of either ‘bricks and mortar’ stores or eCommerce operations, but also geographical location and whether their business was predominantly B2C (for consumers) or B2B (for other businesses).

COVID-19 has had a profound impact on the UK retail industry – with sales in the 3 months to March plunging by nearly 70%[2]. The total value of grocery and non-grocery products sold online over this period increased by around £4 billion (26%) compared to last year, while footfall on our high streets fell by more than a third in the three months from February to April. This is despite 190 retailers that we surveyed being allowed to open during lockdown – with most of those opening only partially[3].

This research has shown how this unprecedented crisis was affecting UK consumers, who were buying less and spending more on essential items such as food. The report also looks at the challenges faced by retailers in their supply chains, which have been severely disrupted since lockdown measures came into effect – with many facing significant difficulties finding skilled staff or getting products delivered in time[4].

We believe this research highlights a number of key issues that should be addressed to help the UK recover from COVID-19. These include:

The importance of providing support for businesses which have been forced to reduce their workforce, and ensuring they are able to adapt as demand picks up

Finding innovative ways to stimulate economic activity in our high streets once it is safe to do so

Improving the resilience and agility of retail supply chains. As well as ensuring that businesses can access support, we would encourage policymakers to explore how existing tax reliefs (for instance those relating to apprenticeships) could be used in innovative ways to help tackle these challenges

Protecting and supporting retailers who have been forced to close for longer periods as a result of the pandemic, including providing financial support where needed

[1] This also included around 40% that were able to adapt their business model or scale up online services in order to mitigate the impact. However these businesses still reported experien CVT/CVR, which was not significantly different from other retailers (Figure 2). We found a small increase in total number of employees over this period: we estimated that between January 2020 and March 2021 there was an average annualised rise of about 3% across all our members.

Table A-5 Summary statistics by time period (%)

Average % CVT/CVR for retailers in BRC membership from January to March 2020; February to April 2020; May 2020; August 2020; November 2020 and January 2021.

February-April data are estimates based on survey results received in May.

CVT/CVR, change in total turnover and cash flow relative to the same period of 2019. CVR = Change in Cash Flow Relative to the Same Period last year

Figure A-5: Monthly changes in estimated annualised average CVT/CVR for retailers from January - March 2021 compared with 2019, by time period (%)

Sources of information are based on BRC member surveys and national data sets. The figures may vary due to the use of estimates rather than actual survey responses.

The latest update was conducted in February 2021 and has been weighted for membership distribution. Please see Appendix A-5 for a detailed breakdown by industry subsectors.

Average CVT/CVR: average annualised change compared to the same period last year, as per Table A-5 above; standard deviation (SD) calculated using unweighted data from BRC member surveys in each month, and then weighting with membership distribution at that time.

Note: CVT = total turnover (sales); CVR = cash flow[19]. For a fuller understanding of the underlying factors affecting changes in average CVT/CVR between months please see Appendix A-6 below.

The estimated values for April 2020 are based on BRC member responses received in May 2020, and thus reflects retailers’ estimates rather than actual data[19]. The reported CVT/CVR increase of around 25% (relative to the same period last year) is largely consistent with other indicators at that time point. For example:

National shop sales growth in April 2020 was estimated by Kantar Worldpanel at a month-on-month increase of 39%, albeit this included some recovery from previous declines and was also driven by nonessential shops which are not represented on our survey.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported a retail sales change index of +10.2% in April, compared to March – however again this includes some degree of base effect as it compares against the period when there was no pandemic or national lockdown in place and thus reflects changes from levels which were higher prior to COVID-1 Written by Dr Lydia Bredella

The word ‘nature’ conjures up a lot of emotions. A person can be overwhelmed with joy, wonder or sadness upon seeing an oak tree; another may feel nothing but anger and disgust when encountering the same plant species in her backyard. Why? Partly because nature is something we all know differently – we have different associations, personal histories that colour our perception of what is natural (see Bredella & Levin 2018). However, a more objective and biologically grounded answer to the question lies in how much each individual person has been exposed to nature. In other words: do you live near or far from forests? Is your job as an ecologist naturalist different from someone who spends most of his workday on her computer indoors?

And while there is no doubt that the emotional associations we have with plants and animals, landscapes and places are important – they don’t necessarily tell us much about their influence on human well-being. What does matter more for our health (both physically and mentally) and happiness are objective indicators of nature exposure or lack thereof: how far we live from green space; the frequency with which we spend time in it (e.g., going to parks, camping etc); and also – as I argue in this post - whether our jobs involve working closely with plants and animals.

It has been known for some time now that spending more time outdoors or around greenery is good for health (Chaix et al. 2015; Kahn & Sheridan, 2016). What I have found in my research – which focuses on the influence of occupational nature exposure on human well-being and performance at work (Bredella, 2017) – is that not everyone benefits equally from being around plants and animals. The main reason for this variability is differences in personal experiences with nature: just as our emotional association to natural things are different depending on where we grew up and how much contact we’ve had over time (Bredella & Levin, 2018), so too is the degree of positive effects that plants and animals have on us.

Indeed – this difference in sensitivity to nature exposure also can be reflected in our genetics: I argue that some people are more prone than others to gaining well-being from occupational nature exposures, and that those individuals will likely experience greater positive health benefits when they work with plants and animals. While the science is still developing on this topic – there is growing evidence showing that individual differences in gene expression can be shaped by environmental factors such as how much time we spend around greenery (Hill et al., 2015).

This finding also brings us back to what I mentioned earlier about whether your job involves spending more or less time with plants and animals. Some individuals may be genetically predisposed to having positive emotions in nature – but if they spend most of their workday on a computer, away from the natural world (e.g., working as an accountant) then this sensitivity will go unnoticed for them. Instead, it is those with high occupational exposure who are more likely to notice and benefit from these emotional experiences in nature.

For example – my research shows that employees working closely with animals experience fewer negative symptoms associated with burnout (e.g., depression) when they live close enough to the workplace so they can spend time around greenery, as compared to those who have to commute and may be exposed less frequently to nature exposure at home (Bredella 2017). These findings also apply to individuals working with plants. I found that forest managers living near their forests – in contrast to other employees living further away from the workplace – experience more positive well-being and health when they work closely with nature (see Bredella, 2018a & b).

Finally – these benefits are also important not only on an individual level but for organizations too: as my research has shown that individuals who benefit most from their occupational nature exposure experience higher job satisfaction (Bredella, 2017), and in turn can perform better at work, thereby benefiting the organization they belong to (Bredella & Levin, 2018).

If you are one of those individuals with a strong affinity for being around plants or animals – whether as your job or not – then I encourage you to consider opportunities where nature exposure is more possible. That could be by moving closer to greenery (or working near it), or maybe taking on a hobby that involves interacting with the natural world, such as gardening, farming or volunteering at a wildlife sanctuary – just to name a few ideas. In so doing – you may very well reap some of these benefits in health and happiness.

Dr. Lydia Bredella is an Assistant Professor of Management at the University of Waterloo’s School of Accounting, Finance & Economics, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences (AHS). She received her PhD in Biological Science from UW. Dr Bredella’s research examines how nature exposure influences employee well-bee and organizational performance outcomes. Her work has been published at numerous national and international conferences as well as academic journals including Nature & Culture, Work & Stress: Theory, Policy & Practice, Organization Studies, Journal of Happiness Studies and the Academy of Management Annuals (forthcoming).

Bredella, L., 2017. The Impacts of Occupational Nature Exposure on Employee Burnout Symptoms: A Multilevel Analysis of Job Satisfaction Mediation Models Journal of Happiness Studies DOI: 10.1007/s10902-016-9547-y

Bredella, L., Levin, D.A., & Vandell, C. (2018). The benefits for employees of living and working in nature settings: A review Journal of Environmental Psychology 53, 42–53 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.04.001

Bredella, L., & Levin, D.A. (2018). The effects of living in nature on employees’ well-being and job performance Journal of Environmental Psychology 53:17–36 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.09.004

Bredella, L., & Vandell, C. (in press). The influence of nature exposure on job satisfaction and performance in forest managers Organization Studies DOI: 10.1177/0179445421916094

Kahn, B.H., & Sheridan, L.A. (2016). The Importance of Nature for Psychological and Physiological Health Journal of the Royal Society Interface 13(128): 20160507 DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2016.0507

Hill, J., Roberts, M.C., Hertz-Picciotto, I., & Delp, Ch. (2015). Gene expression patterns associated with urban upbringing and nature contact Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 25(9): 683–691 DOI: 10.1038/jes.2014.27

Chaix, A., Deheyn, D.H., & Lachance, J. (2015). Nature is Good for People and Health Journal of Environmental Psychology 39(December): 24–31 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.07.012