How do combustion and non-combustion products used outdoors affect outdoor and indoor particulate matter levels? A field evaluation near the entrance of an italian university library

Particulate Matter (PM) is a well-known health risk factor and pollutes both outdoor and indoor air. Using PM as an air pollution indicator, the aims were to assess outdoor and indoor air pollution due to combustion and/or non-combustion products used outdoors and to compare the PM levels emitted by different products. PM with an aerodynamic diameter ≤10, 4, 2.5 and 1 µm (PM10, PM4, PM2.5, PM1) was simultaneously measured in two areas, respectively, indoors (with smoking ban) and outdoors (where people commonly smoke) of a university library during the morning and the afternoon of two weekdays. Both combustion and non-combustion products determined a relevant worsening of outdoor air quality, with the highest PM1 levels achieved when a single traditional cigarette (9920 µg m−3), a single e-cigarette (9810 µg m−3) and three simultaneous traditional cigarettes (8700 µg m−3) were smoked. An increase of indoor PM1 levels was found during outdoor smoking/vaping sessions, persisting also after the end of sessions. The results highlighted the need for a revision of smoke-free laws, especially for outdoor areas, to include non-combustion products. In addition, it is essential to make society aware of the dangers of smoking outdoors by implementing health promotion interventions

Dark clouds in co-creation, and their silver linings practical challenges we faced in a participatory project in a resource-constrained community in India, and how we overcame (some of) them

BACKGROUND: While any type of field-based research is challenging, building action-oriented, participatory research in resource-constrained settings can be even more so. OBJECTIVE: In this article, we aim to examine and provide insights into some of the practical challenges that were faced during the course of a participatory project based in two non-notified slums in Bangalore, India, aiming to build solutions to indoor air pollution from cooking on traditional cook stoves. METHODS: The article draws upon experiences of the authors as field researchers engaged in a community-based project that adopted an exploratory, iterative design to its planning and implementation, which involved community visits, semi-structured interviews, prioritization workshops, community forums, photo voice activities, chulha-building sessions and cooking trials. RESULTS: The main obstacles to field work were linked to fostering open, continued dialogue with the community, aimed at bridging the gap between the 'scientific' and the 'local' worlds. Language and cultural barriers led to a reliance on interpreters, which affected both the quality of the interaction as well as the relationship between the researchers and the community that was built out of that interaction. The transience in housing and location of members of the community also led to difficulties in following up on incomplete information. Furthermore, facilitating meaningful participation from the people within the context of restricted resources, differing priorities, and socio-cultural diversity was particularly challenging. These were further compounded by the constraints of time and finances brought on by the embeddedness of the project within institutional frameworks and conventional research requirements of a fixed, pre-planned and externally determined focus, timeline, activities and benchmarks for the project. CONCLUSIONS: This article calls for revisiting of scientific conventions and funding prerequisites, in order to create spaces that support flexible, emergent and adaptive field-based research projects which can respond effectively to the needs and priorities of the community

Partnership and Capacity Building of Local Governance

Partnership is about sharing of power, responsibility and achievements. According to the World Bank Public Private Partnership (PPP) promoting group, ―partnership refer to informal and shortterm engagements of non-governmental organizations, the private sector and/or government agencies that join forces for a shared objective; to more formal, but still short-term private sector engagements for the provision of specific services, for example, annual outsourcing arrangements for janitorial services for a school or operations of the school cafeteria; to more complex contractual arrangements, such as build, operate, transfer regimes, where the private sector takes on considerable risk and remains engaged long term; or to full privatizations‖ (World Bank Group 2014, 29).© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020. This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Partnerships for the Goals. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71067-9_21-1.fi=vertaisarvioitu|en=peerReviewed

Public, private and personal: Qualitative research on policymakers' opinions on smokefree interventions to protect children in 'private' spaces

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Governments use law to constrain aspects of private activities for purposes of protecting health and social wellbeing. Policymakers have a range of perceptions and beliefs about what is public or private. An understanding of the possible drivers of policymaker decisions about where government can or should intervene for health is important, as one way to better guide appropriate policy formation. Our aim was to identify obstacles to, and opportunities for, government smokefree regulation of private and public spaces to protect children. In particular, to seek policymaker opinions on the regulation of smoking in homes, cars and public parks and playgrounds in a country with incomplete smokefree laws (New Zealand).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Case study, using structured interviews to ask policymakers (62 politicians and senior officials) about their opinions on new smokefree legislation for public and private places. Supplementary data was obtained from the Factiva media database, on the views of New Zealand local authority councillors about policies for smokefree outdoor public places.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall, interviewees thought that government regulation of smoking in private places was impractical and unwise. However, there were some differences on what <it>was </it>defined as 'private', particularly for cars. Even in public parks, smoking was seen by some as a 'personal' decision, and unlikely to be amenable to regulation. Most participants believed that educative, supportive and community-based measures were better and more practical means of reducing smoking in private places, compared to regulation.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The constrained view of the role of regulation of smoking in public and private domains may be in keeping with current political discourse in New Zealand and similar Anglo-American countries. Policy and advocacy options to promote additional smokefree measures include providing a better voice for childrens' views, increasing information to policymakers about the harms to children from secondhand smoke and the example of adult smoking, and changing the culture for smoking around children.</p