Equitable infrastructure: Achieving resilient systems and restorative justice through policy and research innovation.

Recent major investments in infrastructure in the United States and globally present a crucial opportunity to embed equity within the heart of resilient infrastructure decision-making. Yet there is a notable absence of frameworks within the engineering and scientific fields for integrating equity into planning, design, and maintenance of infrastructure. Additionally, whole-of-government approaches to infrastructure, including the Justice40 Initiative, mimic elements of process management that support exploitative rather than exploratory innovation. These and other policies risk creating innovation traps that limit analytical and engineering advances necessary to prioritize equity in decision-making, identification and disruption of mechanisms that cause or contribute to inequities, and remediation of historic harms. Here, we propose a three-tiered framework toward equitable and resilient infrastructure through restorative justice, incremental policy innovation, and exploratory research innovation. This framework aims to ensure equitable access and benefits of infrastructure, minimize risk disparities, and embrace restorative justice to repair historical and systemic inequities. We outline incremental policy innovation and exploratory research action items to address and mitigate risk disparities, emphasizing the need for community-engaged research and the development of equity metrics. Among other action items, we recommend a certification system-referred to as Social, Environmental, and Economic Development (SEED)-to train infrastructure engineers and planners and ensure attentiveness to gaps that exist within and dynamically interact across each tier of the proposed framework. Through the framework and proposed actions, we advocate for a transformative vision for equitable infrastructure that emphasizes the interconnectedness of social, environmental, and technical dimensions in infrastructure planning, design, and maintenance.

The choice of message and messenger to drive behavior change that averts the health impacts of wildfires: an online randomized controlled experiment.

BACKGROUND: To reduce the negative health effects from wildfire smoke exposure, effective risk and health communication strategies are vital. We estimated the behavioral effects from changes in message framing and messenger in public health messages about wildfire smoke on Facebook. METHODS: During September and October 2021, we conducted a preregistered online randomized controlled experiment in Facebook. Adult Facebook users (n = 1,838,100), living in nine wildfire-prone Western U.S. states, were randomly assigned to see one of two ad versions (narrative frame vs. informational frame) from one of two messengers (government vs. academic). We estimated the effects of narrative framing, the messenger, and their interactions on ad click-through rates, a measure of recipient information-seeking behavior. RESULTS: Narrative frame increased click-through rates by 25.3% (95% CI = 22.2, 28.4%), with larger estimated effects among males, recipients in areas with less frequent exposure to heavy wildfire smoke, and in areas where predominant political party affiliation of registered voters was Republican (although not statistically different from predominantly-Democrat areas). The estimated effect from an academic messenger compared to a government messenger was small and statistically nonsignificant (2.2%; 95% CI = - 0.3, 4.7%). The estimated interaction effect between the narrative framing and the academic messenger was also small and statistically nonsignificant (3.9%; 95% CI = - 1.1, 9.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Traditional public service announcements rely heavily on communicating facts (informational framing). Shifting from a fact-focused, informational framing to a story-focused, narrative framing could lead to more effective health communication in areas at risk of wildfires and in public health contexts more broadly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Date registered: August 19, 2021; Registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JMWUF.

Natural hazards compound COVID-19 impacts on small businesses disproportionately for historically underrepresented group operators.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic small businesses made headlines as hard hit by customer losses, revenue declines, and business closures. Yet, the impacts have been felt disproportionately by small businesses that suffered interruption due to pre-existing socioeconomic stressors and/or concurrent natural hazards experienced during the pandemic. To illuminate those compound impacts, we conducted a survey of over 1350 U S.-based small businesses. Our findings indicate that those businesses that experienced concurrent natural hazards during the pandemic were associated with relatively greater negative impacts. But importantly, enterprises that are historically underrepresented group operated (HUGO)-minority, women, and veteran-operated businesses- saw largely amplified negative impacts from COVID-19. In terms of the magnitude of COVID-19 impacts, the effect size of belonging to HUGO was more than twice as large as the effect size of experiencing a concurrent natural hazard during the pandemic. These results provide evidence for the disproportionate impacts that HUGOs face due to the pandemic, which are exacerbated when compounded by natural hazards. Given these results, there is evidence that the opportunity gap between HUGO and non-HUGO businesses is significant ahead of additional stressors or shocks. This opportunity gap is further accelerated when compounded with other events, here the compounding of natural hazards and COVID-19. Additional interventions need to be offered to HUGO businesses in areas with high likelihood of overlapping incidents. Further work is required to address social inequity and economic fragility of HUGO businesses, especially those that face the complexity of additional shocks, such as natural hazards.

Does resilience yield dividends? Co-benefits of investing in increased resilience in Cedar Rapids.

Cedar Rapids, IA, offers a unique case study in planning for increased resilience. In 2008, Cedar Rapids experienced severe flooding. Rather than simply rebuilding, the city of Cedar Rapids began to invest in a resilient flood control system and in the revitalization of its Downtown neighborhood. This paper develops a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model for the regional economy of Cedar Rapids to quantify 'resilience dividends': net co-benefits of investing in increased resilience. A resilience dividend includes benefits to the community even if another disaster does not occur. We build a CGE model of Cedar Rapids at two different time periods: one in 2007, before the flooding, and one in 2015, after the flooding and initial investment in resilience. We show that a positive economic shock to the economy results in larger co-benefits for key economic indicators in 2015 than in 2007. Our approach illustrates how co-benefits are distributed throughout the economy.

Multidisciplinary life cycle metrics and tools for green buildings.

Building sector stakeholders need compelling metrics, tools, data, and case studies to support major investments in sustainable technologies. Proponents of green building widely claim that buildings integrating sustainable technologies are cost effective, but often these claims are based on incomplete, anecdotal evidence that is difficult to reproduce and defend. The claims suffer from 2 main weaknesses: 1) buildings on which claims are based are not necessarily "green" in a science-based, life cycle assessment (LCA) sense and 2) measures of cost effectiveness often are not based on standard methods for measuring economic worth. Yet, the building industry demands compelling metrics to justify sustainable building designs. The problem is hard to solve because, until now, neither methods nor robust data supporting defensible business cases were available. The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Building and Fire Research Laboratory is beginning to address these needs by developing metrics and tools for assessing the life cycle economic and environmental performance of buildings. Economic performance is measured with the use of standard life cycle costing methods. Environmental performance is measured by LCA methods that assess the "carbon footprint" of buildings, as well as 11 other sustainability metrics, including fossil fuel depletion, smog formation, water use, habitat alteration, indoor air quality, and effects on human health. Carbon efficiency ratios and other eco-efficiency metrics are established to yield science-based measures of the relative worth, or "business cases," for green buildings. Here, the approach is illustrated through a realistic building case study focused on different heating, ventilation, air conditioning technology energy efficiency. Additionally, the evolution of the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability multidisciplinary team and future plans in this area are described.