Developing a programme theory for a transdisciplinary research collaboration: Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health.

Background: Environmental improvement is a priority for urban sustainability and health and achieving it requires transformative change in cities. An approach to achieving such change is to bring together researchers, decision-makers, and public groups in the creation of research and use of scientific evidence. Methods: This article describes the development of a programme theory for Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health (CUSSH), a four-year Wellcome-funded research collaboration which aims to improve capacity to guide transformational health and environmental changes in cities. Results: Drawing on ideas about complex systems, programme evaluation, and transdisciplinary learning, we describe how the programme is understood to "work" in terms of its anticipated processes and resulting changes. The programme theory describes a chain of outputs that ultimately leads to improvement in city sustainability and health (described in an 'action model'), and the kinds of changes that we expect CUSSH should lead to in people, processes, policies, practices, and research (described in a 'change model'). Conclusions: Our paper adds to a growing body of research on the process of developing a comprehensive understanding of a transdisciplinary, multiagency, multi-context programme. The programme theory was developed collaboratively over two years. It involved a participatory process to ensure that a broad range of perspectives were included, to contribute to shared understanding across a multidisciplinary team. Examining our approach allowed an appreciation of the benefits and challenges of developing a programme theory for a complex, transdisciplinary research collaboration. Benefits included the development of teamworking and shared understanding and the use of programme theory in guiding evaluation. Challenges included changing membership within a large group, reaching agreement on what the theory would be 'about', and the inherent unpredictability of complex initiatives.

Systemic inequalities in indoor air pollution exposure in London, UK.

Deprived communities in many cities are exposed to higher levels of outdoor air pollution, and there is increasing evidence of similar disparities for indoor air pollution exposure. There is a need to understand the drivers for this exposure disparity in order to develop effective interventions aimed at improving population health and reducing health inequities. With a focus on London, UK, this paper assembles evidence to examine why indoor exposure to PM2.5, NOx and CO may disproportionately impact low-income groups. In particular, five factors are explored, namely: housing location and ambient outdoor levels of pollution; housing characteristics, including ventilation properties and internal sources of pollution; occupant behaviours; time spent indoors; and underlying health conditions. Evidence is drawn from various sources, including building physics models, modelled outdoor air pollution levels, time-activity surveys, housing stock surveys, geographical data, and peer-reviewed research. A systems framework is then proposed to integrate these factors, highlighting how exposure to high levels of indoor air pollution in low-income homes is in large part due to factors beyond the control of occupants, and is therefore an area of systemic inequality. POLICY RELEVANCE: There is increasing public and political awareness of the impact of air pollution on public health. Strong scientific evidence links exposure to air pollution with morbidity and mortality. Deprived communities may be more affected, however, with limited evidence on how deprivation may influence their personal exposure to air pollution, both outdoors and indoors. This paper describes different factors that may lead to low-income households being exposed to higher levels of indoor air pollution than the general population, using available data and models for London (i.e. living in areas of higher outdoor air pollution, in poor-quality housing, undertaking more pollution-generating activities indoors and spending more time indoors). A systems approach is used to show how these factors lead to systemic exposure inequalities, with low-income households having limited opportunities to improve their indoor air quality. This paper can inform actions and public policies to reduce environmental health inequalities, considering both indoor and outdoor air.

Portable air purification: Review of impacts on indoor air quality and health.

A systematic literature review was carried out to examine the impact of portable air purifiers (PAPs) on indoor air quality (PM2.5) and health, focussing on adults and children in indoor environments (homes, schools and offices). Analysed studies all showed reductions in PM2.5 of between 22.6 and 92.0% with the use of PAPs when compared to the control. Associations with health impacts found included those on blood pressure, respiratory parameters and pregnancy outcomes. Changes in clinical biochemical markers were also identified. However, evidence for such associations was limited and inconsistent. Health benefits from a reduction in PM2.5 would be expected as the cumulative body of scientific evidence from various cohort studies shows positive impacts of long-term reduction in PM2.5 concentrations. The current evidence demonstrates that using a PAP results in short-term reductions in PM2.5 in the indoor environment, which has the potential to offer health benefits.

Exposure to indoor and outdoor air pollution from solid fuel combustion and respiratory outcomes in children in developed countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Epidemiological studies have shown a positive association between exposure to outdoor and indoor solid fuel combustion and adverse health effects. We reviewed the epidemiological evidence from Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand on the association between outdoor and indoor exposure to solid fuel combustion and respiratory outcomes in children. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models. We identified 74 articles. Due to limited evidence on other exposures and outcomes, we performed meta-analyses on the association between indoor wood burning exposure and respiratory outcomes. The RR for the highest vs the lowest category of indoor wood exposure was 0.90 (95% CI 0.77-1.05) considering asthma as an outcome. The corresponding pooled RRs for lower respiratory infection (LRI) and upper respiratory infection (URI) were 1.11 (95% CI 0.88, 1.41) and 1.11 (95% CI 0.85, 1.44) respectively. No association was found between indoor wood burning exposure and risk of wheeze and cough. Inconsistent and limited results were found considering the relationship between indoor wood burning exposure and other respiratory outcomes (rhinitis and hay fever, influenza) as well as indoor coal burning exposure and respiratory outcomes in children. Results from epidemiological studies that evaluated the relationship between the exposure to outdoor emissions derived from indoor combustion of solid fuels are too limited to allow firm conclusions. We found no association between indoor wood burning exposure and risk of asthma. A slight, but not significant, increased risk of LRI and URI was identified, although the available evidence is limited. Epidemiological studies evaluating the relationship between indoor coal burning exposure and respiratory outcomes, as well as, studies considering exposure to outdoor solid fuels, are too limited to draw any firm conclusions.

Exposure to indoor air pollution across socio-economic groups in high-income countries: A scoping review of the literature and a modelling methodology.

Disparities in outdoor air pollution exposure between individuals of differing socio-economic status is a growing area of research, widely explored in the environmental health literature. However, in developed countries, around 80% of time is spent indoors, meaning indoor air pollution may be a better proxy for personal exposure. Building characteristics - such as build quality, volume and ventilation - and occupant behaviour, mean indoor air pollution may also vary across socio-economic groups, leading to health inequalities. Much of the existing literature has focused on inequalities in exposure to outdoor air pollution, and there is thus a lack of an evidence base reviewing data for indoor environments. In this study, a scoping review of the literature on indoor air pollution exposures across different socio-economic groups is performed, examining evidence from both monitoring and modelling studies in the developed world. The literature was reviewed, identifying different indoor pollutants, definitions for socio-economic status and pre- and post- housing interventions. Based on the review, the study proposes a modelling methodology for evaluating the effects of environmental policies on different socio-economic populations. Using a sample size calculation, obstacles in obtaining sufficiently large samples of monitored data are demonstrated. A modelling framework for the rapid quantification of daily home exposure is then outlined as a proof of concept. While significant additional research is required to examine inequalities in indoor exposures, modelling approaches may provide opportunities to quantify exposure disparities due to housing and behaviours across populations of different socio-economic status.

Evaluating Housing Health Hazards: Prevalence, Practices and Priorities in Delhi's Informal Settlements.

Housing quality is crucially linked to health and sustainability goals, yet there is limited research on informal housing and settlements where housing quality is poor, and the health risks are expected to be greatest. This paper describes the investigation of housing conditions in a low-income resettlement colony in Delhi. A novel transdisciplinary methodology to evaluate multiple housing health hazards and establish intervention priorities in participation with the community was developed. Findings from housing surveys and indoor environmental monitoring were contrasted with a participatory self-assessment-revealing the widespread prevalence of hazards and suboptimal housing conditions as well as substantial differences in priorities, and thus perspectives, between participants and researchers. Focus group discussions explored the findings and built consensus on priorities. Our findings uncovered how poor housing conditions affect daily practices and thus are likely to adversely affect socio-economic development and gender equality. We highlight limitations in current frameworks to assess housing hazards and argue that a transdisciplinary approach is vital to provide a holistic understanding and to develop effective interventions. These insights are crucial to inform inclusive solutions for adequate housing and human settlements that can support improved health and help achieve the sustainable development goals.

A tool for assessing the climate change mitigation and health impacts of environmental policies: the Cities Rapid Assessment Framework for Transformation (CRAFT).

Background: A growing number of cities, including Greater London, have set ambitious targets, including detailed policies and implementation plans, to reach global goals on sustainability, health, and climate change. Here we present a tool for a rapid assessment of the magnitude of impact of specific policy initiatives to reach these targets. The decision-support tool simultaneously quantifies the environmental and health impacts of specified selected policies. Methods: The 'Cities Rapid Assessment Framework for Transformation (CRAFT)' tool was applied to Greater London. CRAFT quantifies the effects of ten environmental policies on changes in (1) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, (2) exposures to environmental hazards, (3) travel-related physical activity, and (4) mortality (the number of attributable deaths avoided in one typical year). Publicly available data and epidemiological evidence were used to make rapid quantitative estimates of these effects based on proportional reductions in GHG emissions and environmental exposures from current baseline levels and to compute the mortality impacts. Results: The CRAFT tool estimates that, of roughly 50,000 annual deaths in Greater London, the modelled hazards (PM 2.5 (from indoor and outdoor sources), outdoor NO 2, indoor radon, cold, overheating) and low travel-related physical activity are responsible for approximately 10,000 premature environment-related deaths. Implementing the selected polices could reduce the annual mortality number by about 20% (~1,900 deaths) by 2050. The majority of these deaths (1,700) may be avoided through increased uptake in active travel. Thus, out of ten environmental policies, the 'active travel' policy provides the greatest health benefit. Also, implementing the ten policies results in a GHG reduction of around 90%. Conclusions: The CRAFT tool quantifies the effects of city policies on reducing GHG emissions, decreasing environmental health hazards, and improving public health. The tool has potential value for policy makers through providing quantitative estimates of health impacts to support and prioritise policy options.

Participatory Action Research as a Framework for Transdisciplinary Collaboration: A Pilot Study on Healthy, Sustainable, Low-Income Housing in Delhi, India.

To tackle global challenges, research collaborations need to integrate multiple disciplinary perspectives and connect with local practices to find solutions that are sustainable and impactful. This paper discusses how participatory action research (PAR) is used as a framework for transdisciplinary collaboration to integrate different disciplines and identify healthy and sustainable housing solutions appropriate for local development practices and policy. By analyzing a transdisciplinary research collaboration investigating housing interventions for low-income settlements in Delhi, reflections and recommendations are provided for other projects wishing to use a similar methodology. It is found that the PAR framework has successfully guided the integration of contrasting methods and improved the impact of research outcomes, resulting in the emergence of new shared practices. However, it proves to be challenging and requires heightened communication and engagement to achieve understanding between all disciplines and practices. It is recommended that focus is given to developing relationships and effective communication channels and that time should be preallocated for reflection. The work provides insights for integrating academic disciplines, the community, and relevant stakeholders in the cocreation of evidence that is paramount to formulate effective solutions to global challenges.

Application of an indoor air pollution metamodel to a spatially-distributed housing stock.

Estimates of population air pollution exposure typically rely on the outdoor component only, and rarely account for populations spending the majority of their time indoors. Housing is an important modifier of air pollution exposure due to outdoor pollution infiltrating indoors, and the removal of indoor-sourced pollution through active or passive ventilation. Here, we describe the application of an indoor air pollution modelling tool to a spatially distributed housing stock model for England and Wales, developed from Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) data and containing information for approximately 11.5 million dwellings. First, we estimate indoor/outdoor (I/O) ratios and total indoor concentrations of outdoor air pollution for PM2.5 and NO2 for all EPC dwellings in London. The potential to estimate concentration from both indoor and outdoor sources is then demonstrated by modelling indoor background CO levels for England and Wales pre- and post-energy efficient adaptation, including heating, cooking, and smoking as internal sources. In London, we predict a median I/O ratio of 0.60 (99% CIs; 0.53-0.73) for outdoor PM2.5 and 0.41 (99%CIs; 0.34-0.59) for outdoor NO2; Pearson correlation analysis indicates a greater spatial modification of PM2.5 exposure by housing (ρ = 0.81) than NO2 (ρ = 0.88). For the demonstrative CO model, concentrations ranged from 0.4-9.9 ppm (99%CIs)(median = 3.0 ppm) in kitchens and 0.3-25.6 ppm (median = 6.4 ppm) in living rooms. Clusters of elevated indoor concentration are found in urban areas due to higher outdoor concentrations and smaller dwellings with reduced ventilation potential, with an estimated 17.6% increase in the number of living rooms and 63% increase in the number of kitchens exceeding recommended exposure levels following retrofit without additional ventilation. The model has the potential to rapidly calculate indoor pollution exposure across large housing stocks and estimate changes to exposure under different pollution or housing policy scenarios.

Integrated decision-making about housing, energy and wellbeing: a qualitative system dynamics model.

BACKGROUND: The UK government has an ambitious goal to reduce carbon emissions from the housing stock through energy efficiency improvements. This single policy goal is a strong driver for change in the housing system, but comes with positive and negative "unintended consequences" across a broad range of outcomes for health, equity and environmental sustainability. The resulting policies are also already experiencing under-performance through a failure to consider housing as a complex system. This research aimed to move from considering disparate objectives of housing policies in isolation to mapping the links between environmental, economic, social and health outcomes as a complex system. We aimed to support a broad range of housing policy stakeholders to improve their understanding of housing as a complex system through a collaborative learning process. METHODS: We used participatory system dynamics modelling to develop a qualitative causal theory linking housing, energy and wellbeing. Qualitative interviews were followed by two interactive workshops to develop the model, involving representatives from national and local government, housing industries, non-government organisations, communities and academia. RESULTS: More than 50 stakeholders from 37 organisations participated. The process resulted in a shared understanding of wellbeing as it relates to housing; an agreed set of criteria against which to assess to future policy options; and a comprehensive set of causal loop diagrams describing the housing, energy and wellbeing system. The causal loop diagrams cover seven interconnected themes: community connection and quality of neighbourhoods; energy efficiency and climate change; fuel poverty and indoor temperature; household crowding; housing affordability; land ownership, value and development patterns; and ventilation and indoor air pollution. CONCLUSIONS: The collaborative learning process and the model have been useful for shifting the thinking of a wide range of housing stakeholders towards a more integrated approach to housing. The qualitative model has begun to improve the assessment of future policy options across a broad range of outcomes. Future work is needed to validate the model and increase its utility through computer simulation incorporating best quality data and evidence. Combining system dynamics modelling with other methods for weighing up policy options, as well as methods to support shifts in the conceptual frameworks underpinning policy, will be necessary to achieve shared housing goals across physical, mental, environmental, economic and social wellbeing.

Impact of climate change on the domestic indoor environment and associated health risks in the UK.

There is growing evidence that projected climate change has the potential to significantly affect public health. In the UK, much of this impact is likely to arise by amplifying existing risks related to heat exposure, flooding, and chemical and biological contamination in buildings. Identifying the health effects of climate change on the indoor environment, and risks and opportunities related to climate change adaptation and mitigation, can help protect public health. We explored a range of health risks in the domestic indoor environment related to climate change, as well as the potential health benefits and unintended harmful effects of climate change mitigation and adaptation policies in the UK housing sector. We reviewed relevant scientific literature, focusing on housing-related health effects in the UK likely to arise through either direct or indirect mechanisms of climate change or mitigation and adaptation measures in the built environment. We considered the following categories of effect: (i) indoor temperatures, (ii) indoor air quality, (iii) indoor allergens and infections, and (iv) flood damage and water contamination. Climate change may exacerbate health risks and inequalities across these categories and in a variety of ways, if adequate adaptation measures are not taken. Certain changes to the indoor environment can affect indoor air quality or promote the growth and propagation of pathogenic organisms. Measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions have the potential for ancillary public health benefits including reductions in health burdens related heat and cold, indoor exposure to air pollution derived from outdoor sources, and mould growth. However, increasing airtightness of dwellings in pursuit of energy efficiency could also have negative effects by increasing concentrations of pollutants (such as PM2.5, CO and radon) derived from indoor or ground sources, and biological contamination. These effects can largely be ameliorated by mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) and air filtration, where such solution is feasible and when the system is properly installed, operated and maintained. Groups at high risk of these adverse health effects include the elderly (especially those living on their own), individuals with pre-existing illnesses, people living in overcrowded accommodation, and the socioeconomically deprived. A better understanding of how current and emerging building infrastructure design, construction, and materials may affect health in the context of climate change and mitigation and adaptation measures is needed in the UK and other high income countries. Long-term, energy efficient building design interventions, ensuring adequate ventilation, need to be promoted.

Health effects of home energy efficiency interventions in England: a modelling study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess potential public health impacts of changes to indoor air quality and temperature due to energy efficiency retrofits in English dwellings to meet 2030 carbon reduction targets. DESIGN: Health impact modelling study. SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: English household population. INTERVENTION: Three retrofit scenarios were modelled: (1) fabric and ventilation retrofits installed assuming building regulations are met; (2) as with scenario (1) but with additional ventilation for homes at risk of poor ventilation; (3) as with scenario (1) but with no additional ventilation to illustrate the potential risk of weak regulations and non-compliance. MAIN OUTCOME: Primary outcomes were changes in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over 50 years from cardiorespiratory diseases, lung cancer, asthma and common mental disorders due to changes in indoor air pollutants, including secondhand tobacco smoke, PM2.5 from indoor and outdoor sources, radon, mould, and indoor winter temperatures. RESULTS: The modelling study estimates showed that scenario (1) resulted in positive effects on net mortality and morbidity of 2241 (95% credible intervals (CI) 2085 to 2397) QALYs per 10,000 persons over 50 years follow-up due to improved temperatures and reduced exposure to indoor pollutants, despite an increase in exposure to outdoor-generated particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 µm or less (PM2.5). Scenario (2) resulted in a negative impact of -728 (95% CI -864 to -592) QALYs per 10,000 persons over 50 years due to an overall increase in indoor pollutant exposures. Scenario (3) resulted in -539 (95% CI -678 to -399) QALYs per 10,000 persons over 50 years follow-up due to an increase in indoor exposures despite the targeting of pollutants. CONCLUSIONS: If properly implemented alongside ventilation, energy efficiency retrofits in housing can improve health by reducing exposure to cold and air pollutants. Maximising the health benefits requires careful understanding of the balance of changes in pollutant exposures, highlighting the importance of ventilation to mitigate the risk of poor indoor air quality.

Home energy efficiency and radon related risk of lung cancer: modelling study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of reducing home ventilation as part of household energy efficiency measures on deaths from radon related lung cancer. DESIGN: Modelling study. SETTING: England. INTERVENTION: Home energy efficiency interventions, motivated in part by targets for reducing greenhouse gases, which entail reduction in uncontrolled ventilation in keeping with good practice guidance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Modelled current and future distributions of indoor radon levels for the English housing stock and associated changes in life years due to lung cancer mortality, estimated using life tables. RESULTS: Increasing the air tightness of dwellings (without compensatory purpose-provided ventilation) increased mean indoor radon concentrations by an estimated 56.6%, from 21.2 becquerels per cubic metre (Bq/m(3)) to 33.2 Bq/m(3). After the lag in lung cancer onset, this would result in an additional annual burden of 4700 life years lost and (at peak) 278 deaths. The increases in radon levels for the millions of homes that would contribute most of the additional burden are below the threshold at which radon remediation measures are cost effective. Fitting extraction fans and trickle ventilators to restore ventilation will help offset the additional burden but only if the ventilation related energy efficiency gains are lost. Mechanical ventilation systems with heat recovery may lower radon levels and the risk of cancer while maintaining the advantage of energy efficiency for the most airtight dwellings but there is potential for a major adverse impact on health if such systems fail. CONCLUSION: Unless specific remediation is used, reducing the ventilation of dwellings will improve energy efficiency only at the expense of population wide adverse impact on indoor exposure to radon and risk of lung cancer. The implications of this and other consequences of changes to ventilation need to be carefully evaluated to ensure that the desirable health and environmental benefits of home energy efficiency are not compromised by avoidable negative impacts on indoor air quality.