Design as the Mediator of New Social Health Culture. Towards a Co-benefits Model

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the need for change, raising questions about the current approach to health. The re-definition of the role of health and well-being towards an interdisciplinary approach is knowledge-driven and technology-enabled and the focus of innovation is shifting from the treatment of disease to prediction and prevention. The new model of the ‘co-benefit belt' through design activates a process of systemic improvement and extends beyond the digital, pursuing the logic of interaction. The role of Design as a mediator is emphasized, lending itself to emergency situations, to the design of protection devices by implementing multifunctional and shared protection dynamics, intervening in rethinking the universe of devices with Human Centered Design approaches, optimizing methods and processes. The case study presented describes the development of the research project funded by the Campania Region, "Smart&Safe”. Design for new individual protection devices”, among the initiatives to fight against Covid-19. The research proposes an update in the redesign of individual Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), to explore a new dimension of the project that highlights the transition to an Individual and Intelligent Protection System (IIPS), reflecting on the various levels of safety faced during health emergencies. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

The agile city

This chapter outlines the wide-reaching benefits of active mobility in cities;the environmental advantages seen through reduced air pollution;and the social benefits, with fewer pedestrian deaths, improved city parking, and increased green space, and the economic link between active transport and increased city retail prices. Recent global events have nudged cities towards recentring people and their free movement at the heart of cities. Active transportation and mobility will only become the norm in cities when all stakeholders grasp the environmental, social, and economic co-benefits offered by providing citizens with meaningful opportunities to walk and cycle and to integrate these activities with options such as mass transit and ridesharing. The first notable event is the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on city life. Prioritizing walking and cycling provides related and significant co-benefits for individuals, local businesses, and governments at all levels. © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved.

Urban policy interventions to reduce traffic-related emissions and air pollution: A systematic evidence map.

BACKGROUND: Urban areas are hot spots for human exposure to air pollution, which originates in large part from traffic. As the urban population continues to grow, a greater number of people risk exposure to traffic-related air pollution (TRAP) and its adverse, costly health effects. In many cities, there is a need and scope for air quality improvements through targeted policy interventions, which continue to grow including rapidly changing technologies. OBJECTIVE: This systematic evidence map (SEM) examines and characterizes peer-reviewed evidence on urban-level policy interventions aimed at reducing traffic emissions and/or TRAP from on-road mobile sources, thus potentially reducing human exposures and adverse health effects and producing various co-benefits. METHODS: This SEM follows a previously peer-reviewed and published protocol with minor deviations, explicitly outlined here. Articles indexed in Public Affairs Index, TRID, Medline and Embase were searched, limited to English, published between January 1, 2000, and June 1, 2020. Covidence was used to screen articles based on previously developed eligibility criteria. Data for included articles was extracted and manually documented into an Excel database. Data visualizations were created in Tableau. RESULTS: We identified 7528 unique articles from database searches and included 376 unique articles in the final SEM. There were 58 unique policy interventions, and a total of 1,139 unique policy scenarios, comprising these interventions and different combinations thereof. The policy interventions fell under 6 overarching policy categories: 1) pricing, 2) land use, 3) infrastructure, 4) behavioral, 5) technology, and 6) management, standards, and services, with the latter being the most studied. For geographic location, 463 policy scenarios were studied in Europe, followed by 355 in Asia, 206 in North America, 57 in South America, 10 in Africa, and 7 in Australia. Alternative fuel technology was the most frequently studied intervention (271 times), followed by vehicle emission regulation (134 times). The least frequently studied interventions were vehicle ownership taxes, and studded tire regulations, studied once each. A mere 3 % of studies addressed all elements of the full-chain-traffic emissions, TRAP, exposures, and health. The evidence recorded for each unique policy scenario is hosted in an open-access, query-able Excel database, and a complementary interactive visualization tool. We showcase how users can find more about the effectiveness of the 1,139 included policy scenarios in reducing, increasing, having mixed or no effect on traffic emissions and/or TRAP. CONCLUSION: This is the first peer-reviewed SEM to compile international evidence on urban-level policy interventions to reduce traffic emissions and/or TRAP in the context of human exposure and health effects. We also documented reported enablers, barriers, and co-benefits. The open-access Excel database and interactive visualization tool can be valuable resources for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers. Future updates to this work are recommended. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Sanchez, K.A., Foster, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., May, A.D., Ramani, T., Zietsman, J. and Khreis, H., 2020. Urban policy interventions to reduce traffic emissions and traffic-related air pollution: Protocol for a systematic evidence map. Environment international, 142, p.105826.

Climate policy and the concept of co-benefits in India.

Until the late 1990s, developing countries had perceived the pursuit of development as coming into conflict with the mitigation of climate change. Research showed that mitigation and development can go hand in hand, giving rise to the co-benefits approach. In this paper, the relationship between aiming for development and aiming for climate change mitigation is analyzed from the perspective of the developing country India. While industrialized countries prefer the approach of co-benefits of mitigation, developing countries tend to follow the development-first paradigm with mitigation co-benefits, as a literature and document study show. India had a long way to come from the notion that mitigation was threatening economic growth to adopting the co-benefits approach. The paradigms of "differentiated responsibilities" and of having a right to emit as much as the industrialized countries are deeply rooted. This is also shown by India's reaction to the current economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Public Health Measures to Address the Impact of Climate Change on Population Health-Proceedings from a Stakeholder Workshop.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization identified climate change as the 21st century's biggest health threat. This study aimed to identify the current knowledge base, evidence gaps, and implications for climate action and health policymaking to address the health impact of climate change, including in the most underserved groups. METHODS: The Horizon-funded project ENBEL ('Enhancing Belmont Research Action to support EU policy making on climate change and health') organised a workshop at the 2021-European Public Health conference. Following presentations of mitigation and adaptation strategies, seven international researchers and public health experts participated in a panel discussion linking climate change and health. Two researchers transcribed and thematically analysed the panel discussion recording. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (1) 'Evidence is key' in leading the climate debate, (2) the need for 'messaging about health for policymaking and behaviour change' including health co-benefits of climate action, (3) existing 'inequalities between and within countries', and (4) 'insufficient resources and funding' to implement national health adaptation plans and facilitate evidence generation and climate action, particularly in vulnerable populations. CONCLUSION: More capacity is needed to monitor health effects and inequities, evaluate adaptation and mitigation interventions, address current under-representations of low- or middle-income countries, and translate research into effective policymaking.

Does reframing urban policy around wellbeing support carbon mitigation?

New Zealand (‘Aotearoa’) is a highly urbanised country with one of the first governments in the world to adopt a wellbeing budget framework. That framework, in combination with the architecture for decarbonisation provided by New Zealand’s 2019 ‘Zero Carbon’ Act, means there are now institutional and policy incentives in place, and developing incrementally, to combine the pursuit of wellbeing and decarbonisation. These incentives also align with the outcomes highlighted in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This paper considers the way policy and institutional approaches to carbon mitigation are being linked to wellbeing in three interconnected urban, non-agricultural domains responsible for much of New Zealand’s carbon emissions: building, urban form and transport. Looking beyond the current Covid-19 recovery process, emerging evidence is presented to ascertain whether the wellbeing-focused policy approach, with its associated attention to co-benefits, is creating a clear institutional refocusing. In addition, other evidence suggests that New Zealanders see health and wellbeing as improving, at the same time as the country is moving towards the net zero carbon emissions target. © 2021 The Author(s).

Effects of Physical Distancing to Control COVID-19 on Public Health, the Economy, and the Environment.

Physical distancing measures are important tools to control disease spread, especially in the absence of treatments and vaccines. While distancing measures can safeguard public health, they also can profoundly impact the economy and may have important indirect effects on the environment. The extent to which physical distancing measures should be applied therefore depends on the trade-offs between their health benefits and their economic costs. We develop an epidemiological-economic model to examine the optimal duration and intensity of physical distancing measures aimed to control the spread of COVID-19. In an application to the United States, our model considers the trade-off between the lives saved by physical distancing-both directly from stemming the spread of the virus and indirectly from reductions in air pollution during the period of physical distancing-and the short- and long-run economic costs that ensue from such measures. We examine the effect of air pollution co-benefits on the optimal physical distancing policy and conduct sensitivity analyses to gauge the influence of several key parameters and uncertain model assumptions. Using recent estimates of the association between airborne particulate matter and the virulence of COVID-19, we find that accounting for air pollution co-benefits can significantly increase the intensity and duration of the optimal physical distancing policy. To conclude, we broaden our discussion to consider the possibility of durable changes in peoples' behavior that could alter local markets, the global economy, and our relationship to nature for years to come.

Synergies Between COVID-19 and Climate Change Impacts and Responses

The COVID-19 pandemic and anthropogenic climate change are global crises. We show how strongly these crises are connected, including the underlying societal inequities and problems of poverty, substandard housing, and infrastructure including clean water supplies. The origins of all these crises are related to modern consumptive industrialisation, including burning of fossil fuels, increasing human population density, and replacement of natural with human dominated ecosystems. Because business as usual is unsustainable on all three fronts, transformative responses are needed. We review the literature on risk management interventions, implications for COVID-19, for climate change risk and for equity associated with biodiversity, water and WaSH, health systems, food systems, urbanization and governance. This paper details the considerable evidence base of observed synergies between actions to reduce pandemic and climate change risks while enhancing social justice and biodiversity conservation. It also highlights constraints imposed by governance that can impede deployment of synergistic solutions. In contrast to the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governance systems have procrastinated on addressing climate change and biodiversity loss as these are interconnected chronic crises. It is now time to address all three to avoid a multiplication of future crises across health, food, water, nature, and climate systems.

Resilience Dividends and Resilience Windfalls: Narratives That Tie Disaster Resilience Co-Benefits to Long-Term Sustainability.

The need for increased disaster resilience planning, especially at the community level, as well as the need to address sustainability are clear; these dual objectives have been deemed national priorities in a number of recent US Executive Orders. Major global climate agreements, (i.e., the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, Paris Climate Agreement, and the Sustainable Development Goals) all emphasize the need to integrate disaster resilience and climate risks with continued sustainable development concerns. Current ways of assessing synergies and trade-offs across planning for disaster resilience and sustainability in investment projects that impact communities are limited. The driving research question in this paper is how researchers and practitioners may better express relative categories of co-benefits to meet this need. We draw upon the categorization of some co-benefits as contributing to the resilience dividend, which has helped communication across fields and created bridges from research to practical on-the-ground planning in recent years. Furthermore, we leverage the growing focus on the need to recognize the role of narratives in driving decisions about how and where to invest, which elucidates the inherent value of archetypes that resonate across stakeholders and disciplines to describe investments that may meet multiple objectives. We introduce the concept of a resilience windfall as an unexpected or sudden gain or advantage of resilience planning to be conceptualized alongside resilience dividends. We then assess the practicality of decerning resilience windfalls across various projects that have aspects of both resilience and sustainability. We recount five narrative vignettes that demonstrate disaster resilience interventions and associated resilience dividends and windfalls. This effort highlights the importance of considering resilience dividends and resilience windfalls during the planning, execution, and evaluation phases of disaster resilience projects. These typologies provide an important contribution to the integration agenda between disaster resilience, climate risks, and sustainable development. There are policy implications of framing incentives for interventions that address both disaster resilience and long-term sustainability objectives as well as encouraging robust tracking of both resilience dividends and windfalls.