Many interventions exist which aim to reduce people’s exposures to urban pollutants. They may range from behavior changes like taking less densely-trafficked roads, to localized initiatives like closing down streets in front of schools during school drop-off and pick-up times, to wider schemes such as low emission zones. But, are they effective at reducing exposures? Are they acceptable to the community or feasible to implement?
Research in ATHLETE involved examining the effectiveness of interventions in scientific literature as well as carrying out an international Delphi consensus study to understand which interventions are effective, but also acceptable and feasible to implement, and able to impact a large number of people.
Find out what the evidence tells us are effective, acceptable, feasible, and impactful urban interventions and how they have been prioritized for action in this 1-page policy briefing note. Notably, we found that for any action or intervention put in place, it was important for local community leaders to address barriers like accessiblity and affordability, continued maintenance, and safety. Interventions are better accepted when they align with local needs and values, with clear communication about what is being done and why.
Want to know more? See how the Born in Bradford study has contributed to generating the evidence base around these exposures by reading our evidence briefing.
Co-producing interventions for change
We worked with our local schools and communities to co-produce acceptable and feasible interventions to reduce children’s urban exposures during their school commutes – these included pupils taking alternate routes to schools, walking buses, and awarness-raising information campaigns.
These interventions were enthusiastically embraced but were not effective at reducing exposures. We found that it is difficult to rely on individual behavior change to reduce exposures to urban traffic air pollution. Implemented co-produced interventions were acceptable and feasible because they did not require changes to the environment which need buy-in from the local government or financial support, such as putting in cycle and scootering lanes, closing down streets to traffic, or building cycle and storage facilities at schools.
The success and sustainability of the interventions relied on many factors including the support of school staff and parents to facilitate walking buses, the ability of parents to incorporate alternate routes into their schedules if there were multiple children to drop off, and the good-will of other parents to respond to anti-idling campaigns. This suggests that interventions which exist in the background, without requiring individual actions, would be more beneficial.
Learn about our co-production method and how to co-produce with your community to bring about shared understanding and lasting change. Find more resources here!
What kind of challenges might you, as a decision-maker, come across when implementing effective interventions? What could help overcome them?
We undertook in-depth interviews with decision-makers in local government departments working to reduce urban exposures in Bradford, UK and Grenoble, France. We interviewed officials and elected representatives across the local governments including from departments of infrastructure, planning, transportation, environment, public health, food, and air quality. These interviews focused on the interventions identified from our international Delphi consensus study: affordable and improved public transportation, cycling infrastructure, green infrastructure, and building regulations to improve indoor air quality.
There were several common barriers and enablers across these identified interventions.
Stakeholders identified that intervention implementation is shaped by deeply embedded structural, cultural, political, and financial dynamics. The centralisation of power in the can leave local governments with limited power and financial control to actualise their ambitions and short-term political cycles can make long-term sustainable change more difficult. Poor communication between departments, levels of government, and with the communities can result in distrust. For communities, this may be amplified by language barriers and ingrained social resistance to change if there isn’t an understanding of why change is needed.
Strong political leadership and long-term policy commitments and momentum, central investment, coordination and partnerships between (e.g. transport and housing) departments, and better communication and engagement efforts such as taking community-led messaging approaches would help stakeholders implement effective change. Bringing communities along with decision-making, including increasing awareness of the issue, highlighting the health benefits, and explaining how the proposed actions would benefit health are recommended.
Find out more – resources:
- Watch our short video on air pollution video and our air pollution documentary
Find out more about air pollution from:
- Our ATHLETE partners, the Health and Environment Alliance
- The World Health Organization
- The UK Department of for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
- Public Health England
- The UK Chief Medical Officer’s annual report in 2022 on air pollution
- Find out how you can design urban streets for children in this free Streets for Kids online course
