There is untapped potential in urban planning behaviour change policies that can simultaneously improve air quality, support net-zero targets, and benefit communities and public and planetary health more broadly. There is evidence siloed thinking restricts the policy making process in optimising air quality interventions for co-beneficial outcomes. Systems-based approaches create holistic insights and solutions which can address complex cross-cutting issues by bringing together context-specific evidence, an array of expertise and perspectives whilst merging social and environmental sciences to engage in action. Horizon scanning academic and non-academic literature can generate insight into the current state of play of air quality interventions, their related outcomes and co-benefits including pathways to healthier cities. It also allows insight into the gaps between science and policy for an evaluation of how to generate science-to-policy discussions. Structured decision-making is a systems approach in which stakeholders are engaged throughout a decision-making process to identify and co-create shared objectives and values around a complex issue, such as urban air quality. This work brings together systems-based approaches to assess the state of play and optimal next steps for addressing urban air quality, investigating the role that co-benefits could play in inciting ambitious change for sustainable cities. The poster will present initial findings from horizon scanning air quality interventions, co-benefits and pathways to healthy cities, which will inform the next steps of generating a structured decision-making tool for assessing the opportunities and challenges of co-created and co-beneficial actions for air quality change. This work is carried out in collaboration with the World Economic Forum Global Future Council on the Future of Clean Air, where academics and stakeholders are working together to address air pollution globally.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cowell et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: