̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Paul Linden

No ‘safest spot’ to minimise risk of COVID-19 transmission on trains

sc604 — Wed, 22 Jun 2022 04:00:00 +0000

̽��ֱ��researchers, from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and Imperial College London, developed a mathematical model to help predict the risk of disease transmission in a train carriage, and found that in the absence of effective ventilation systems, the risk is the same along the entire length of the carriage.

̽��ֱ��model, which was validated with a controlled experiment in a real train carriage, also shows that masks are more effective than social distancing at reducing transmission, especially in trains that are not ventilated with fresh air.

̽��ֱ��results, reported in the journal Indoor Air, demonstrate how challenging it is for individuals to calculate absolute risk, and how important it is for train operators to improve their ventilation systems in order to help keep passengers safe.

Since COVID-19 is airborne, ventilation is vital in reducing transmission. And although COVID-19 restrictions have been lifted in the UK, the government continues to highlight the importance of good ventilation in reducing the risk of transmission of COVID-19, as well as other respiratory infections such as influenza.

“In order to improve ventilation systems, it’s important to understand how airborne diseases spread in certain scenarios, but most models are very basic and can’t make good predictions,” said first author Rick de Kreij, who completed the research while based at Cambridge’s Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. “Most simple models assume the air is fully mixed, but that’s not how it works in real life.

“There are many different factors which can affect the risk of transmission in a train – whether the people in the train are vaccinated, whether they’re wearing masks, how crowded it is, and so on. Any of these factors can change the risk level, which is why we look at relative risk, not absolute risk – it’s a toolbox that we hope will give people an idea of the types of risk for an airborne disease on public transport.”

̽��ֱ��researchers developed a one-dimensional (1D) mathematical model which illustrates how an airborne disease, such as COVID-19, can spread along the length of a train carriage. ̽��ֱ��model is based on a single train carriage with closing doors at either end, although it can be adapted to fit different types of trains, or different types of transport, such as planes or buses.

̽��ֱ��1D model considers the essential physics for transporting airborne contaminants, while still being computationally inexpensive, especially compared to 3D models.

̽��ֱ��model was validated using measurements of controlled carbon dioxide experiments conducted in a full-scale railway carriage, where CO2 levels from participants were measured at several points. ̽��ֱ��evolution of CO2 showed a high degree of overlap with the modelled concentrations.

̽��ֱ��researchers found that air movement is slowest in the middle part of a train carriage. “If an infectious person is in the middle of the carriage, then they’re more likely to infect people than if they were standing at the end of the carriage,” said de Kreij. “However, in a real scenario, people don’t know where an infectious person is, so infection risk is constant no matter where you are in the carriage.”

Many commuter trains in the UK have been manufactured to be as cheap as possible when it comes to passenger comfort – getting the maximum number of seats per carriage. In addition, most commuter trains recirculate air instead of pulling fresh air in from outside, since fresh air has to be either heated or cooled, which is more expensive.

So, if it’s impossible for passengers to know whether they’re sharing a train carriage with an infectious person, what should they do to keep themselves safe? “Space out as much as you reasonably can – physical distancing isn’t the most effective method, but it does work when capacity levels are below 50 percent,” said de Kreij. “And wear a high-quality mask, which will not only protect you from COVID-19, but other common respiratory illnesses.”

̽��ֱ��researchers are now looking to extend their 1D-model into a slightly more complex, yet still energy-efficient, zonal model, where cross-sectional flow is characterised in different zones. ̽��ֱ��model could also be extended to include thermal stratification, which would offer a better understanding of the spread of an airborne contaminant.

̽��ֱ��research was funded in part by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).

Reference:
Rick JB de Kreij et al. ‘Modelling disease transmission in a train carriage using a simple 1D-model.’ Indoor Air (2022). DOI: 10.1111/ina.13066

Researchers have demonstrated how airborne diseases such as COVID-19 spread along the length of a train carriage and found that there is no ‘safest spot’ for passengers to minimise the risk of transmission.

We hope this research will give people an idea of the types of risk for an airborne disease on public transport

Rick de Kreij

Seksan Mongkhonkhamsao via Getty Images

Woman wearing a mask on public transport

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Curbing COVID-19 in schools: Cambridge scientists support CO2 monitor rollout

sc604 — Mon, 17 Jan 2022 12:44:06 +0000

Scientists from Cambridge, Surrey and Imperial College London are supporting the rollout of portable monitors to UK schools as part of project CO-TRACE. ̽��ֱ��researchers behind the collaboration have produced materials to help teachers use the monitors, which have been rolled out to schools nationwide.

̽��ֱ��level of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in a closed space is a good indicator of air quality and can signpost the need for ventilation. As the virus that causes COVID-19 is airborne, ensuring the air is properly refreshed using ventilation is crucial for reducing its spread. ̽��ֱ��device displays levels of CO2 and colour coding to indicate good, normal, or poor ventilation. Well ventilated spaces should have CO2 levels consistently below 800 parts per million (ppm), with readings above 1500ppm indicating poor ventilation or overcrowding.

“CO2 monitors allow teachers to assess the ventilation in their classrooms for the first time,” said Imperial’s Dr Henry Burridge, co-investigator on the project. “This is especially important during colder months when ventilation is typically lower due to colder outdoor temperatures, causing COVID-19 and other airborne diseases like the common cold and flu to linger and spread more easily.”

̽��ֱ��monitors mean teachers can see CO2 levels change in real-time as windows are opened and air is refreshed, allowing them to balance ventilation and warmth. Teachers can also use the monitors to know when it is safe to close windows slightly, which could help them keep classrooms more comfortable. As well as being a good ‘proxy’ for ventilation, lower CO2 levels have been linked to improved learning outcomes and better cognitive performance.

̽��ֱ��team behind the CO-TRACE project uses experimental modelling, numerical simulations, full-scale observations, and infection risk modelling to understand how the potential for COVID-19 spread changes with indoor air flows, ventilation levels, and the number of people in a space. In 2021, the researchers used monitored CO2 to indicate how much exhaled breath was present within classrooms, and their models found that seasonal variation in classroom ventilation levels could lead to airborne infection risks in winter being roughly double those in summer. This highlights that monitoring excess CO2 could be of significant benefit in mitigating airborne infection risk.

̽��ֱ��portability of the CO2 monitors, supplied by the Department for Education (DfE), means schools can move them around to test different areas, starting with those they suspect may be poorly ventilated.

“ ̽��ֱ��monitors empower teachers to strike a balance between good ventilation and warmth during winter,” said Professor Paul Linden from Cambridge’s Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, co-investigator on the programme. “We are pleased that the Government is taking evidence-based action to address air quality and COVID-19 spread in schools.”

̽��ֱ��monitors are accompanied by advice from the project which guides appropriate actions from teacher based on the CO2 readings in classrooms. Recommendations include opening higher windows before lower ones, and closing windows slowly when ventilation is good.

Schools with areas that are consistently low in air quality despite ventilation should consider using air cleaners. For such schools, the DfE is distributing between 7,000 and 8,000 air cleaning units.

When the project was announced in 2021, then-Education Secretary Gavin Williamson said: “Providing all schools with CO2 monitors will help them make sure they have the right balance of measures in place, minimising any potential disruption to education and allowing them to focus on world-class lessons and catch up for the children who need it. By keeping up simple measures such as ventilation and testing, young people can now enjoy more freedom at school and college.”

̽��ֱ��project is funded by the EPSRC, part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).

Adapted from an Imperial College story.

UK schools have received more than 300,000 CO2 monitors as part of a government initiative to reduce COVID-19 spread in classrooms.

̽��ֱ��monitors empower teachers to strike a balance between good ventilation and warmth during winter

Paul Linden

Olivier Le Moal

CO2 monitor

Yes

Scientists develop model to assess COVID-19 infection risk in offices and schools

sc604 — Wed, 06 Oct 2021 10:56:27 +0000

̽��ֱ��model – developed by researchers at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, Imperial College London and the ̽��ֱ�� of Leeds – uses monitored CO2 and occupancy data to predict how many workers are likely to be infected by an asymptomatic but infectious colleague.

Applications of the infection model have demonstrated that most workers in well-ventilated, quiet offices are unlikely to infect each other via airborne particles, but the risk becomes greater if the space is poorly ventilated or if the workers are involved in activities that require more speaking. For instance, the model predicts each infected person could infect two to four others in an adequately ventilated but noisy call centre. Risks are also likely to increase if the infected individual is a ‘super spreader’.

̽��ֱ��model also suggests that halving the occupancy of an office could reduce the risk of airborne transmission four-fold. ̽��ֱ��results are reported in the journal Indoor and Built Environment.

In areas with lower ventilation rates and high occupancy, CO2 levels are higher, so monitoring them can provide a warning to building managers to identify areas where the risk of airborne transmission of COVID-19 are higher. Achievable interventions can then be made, for instance, to improve ventilation or change worker attendance patterns to reduce occupancy.

In shared spaces such as offices and classrooms, exposure to infectious airborne matter builds up, and room occupancy may vary. By using carbon dioxide levels as a proxy for exhaled breath, the model can assess the variable exposure risk as people come and go.

“Ventilation is complicated and airflow is invisible, so it’s hard for people to appreciate the effects in the home or workplace,” said co-author Professor Paul Linden from Cambridge’s Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. “Commercially available CO2 monitors are being installed in schools and I would recommend their installation in the workplace.”

“Our work emphasises the importance of good ventilation in workplaces and in schools,” said lead author Dr Henry Burridge, from Imperial College London. “ ̽��ֱ��model demonstrates that by managing the ventilation and occupancy levels of shared spaces we can manage the risk of airborne infection by a virus such as that which causes COVID-19.”

“ ̽��ֱ��appropriate use of tools such as CO2 monitoring can give building managers a much better understanding of their own ventilation systems and how they are performing for each activity undertaken in the space,” said Professor Andrew Curran, Chief Scientific Adviser at the Health and Safety Executive and lead for the PROTECT study. “For most businesses, a COVID-19 control strategy will involve a blended combination of measures identified through a risk assessment – there is no silver bullet.”

̽��ֱ��research was funded by the PROTECT COVID-19 National Core Study and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, part of UK Research and Innovation).

Reference:
Henry C Burridge et al. ‘Predictive and retrospective modelling of airborne infection risk using monitored carbon dioxide.’ Indoor and Built Environment (2021). DOI: 10.1177/1420326X211043564

Adapted from an HSE press release.

As more UK workers and students return to offices and schools, a new model has been developed to predict the risk of airborne COVID-19 infection in such environments.

Ventilation is complicated and air flow is invisible, so it’s hard for people to appreciate the effects in the home or workplace

Paul Linden

Israel Amdrade via Unsplash

People in office sitting in front of computers

Yes

Many ventilation systems may increase risk of COVID-19 exposure, study suggests

sc604 — Tue, 29 Sep 2020 16:28:46 +0000

A team from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge found that widely-used ‘mixing ventilation’ systems, which are designed to keep conditions uniform in all parts of the room, disperse airborne contaminants evenly throughout the space. These contaminants may include droplets and aerosols, potentially containing viruses.

̽��ֱ��research has highlighted the importance of good ventilation and mask-wearing in keeping the contaminant concentration to a minimum level and mitigating the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

̽��ֱ��evidence increasingly indicates that the virus is spread primarily through larger droplets and smaller aerosols, which are expelled when we cough, sneeze, laugh, talk or breathe. In addition, the data available so far indicates that indoor transmission is far more common than outdoor transmission, which is likely due to increased exposure times and decreased dispersion rates for droplets and aerosols.

“As winter approaches in the northern hemisphere and people start spending more time inside, understanding the role of ventilation is critical to estimating the risk of contracting the virus and helping slow its spread,” said Professor Paul Linden from Cambridge’s Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMTP), who led the research. “While direct monitoring of droplets and aerosols in indoor spaces is difficult, we exhale carbon dioxide that can easily be measured and used as an indicator of the risk of infection. Small respiratory aerosols containing the virus are transported along with the carbon dioxide produced by breathing, and are carried around a room by ventilation flows. Insufficient ventilation can lead to high carbon dioxide concentration, which in turn could increase the risk of exposure to the virus.”

̽��ֱ��team showed that airflow in rooms is complex and depends on the placement of vents, windows and doors, and on convective flows generated by heat emitted by people and equipment in a building. Other variables, such as people moving or talking, doors opening or closing, or changes in outdoor conditions for naturally ventilated buildings, affect these flows and consequently influence the risk of exposure to the virus.

Ventilation, whether driven by wind or heat generated within the building or by mechanical systems, works in one of two main modes. Mixing ventilation is the most common, where vents are placed to keep the air in a space well mixed so that temperature and contaminant concentrations are kept uniform throughout the space.

̽��ֱ��second mode, displacement ventilation, has vents placed at the bottom and the top of a room, creating a cooler lower zone and a warmer upper zone, and warm air is extracted through the top part of the room. As exhaled breath is also warm, most of it accumulates in the upper zone. Provided the interface between the zones is high enough, contaminated air can be extracted by the ventilation system rather than breathed in by someone else. ̽��ֱ��study suggests that when designed properly, displacement ventilation could reduce the risk of mixing and cross-contamination of breath, thereby mitigating the risk of exposure.

As climate change has accelerated since the middle of the last century, buildings have been built with energy efficiency in mind. Along with improved construction standards, this has led to buildings that are more airtight and more comfortable for the occupants. In the past few years however, reducing indoor air pollution levels has become the primary concern for designers of ventilation systems.

“These two concerns are related, but different, and there is tension between them, which has been highlighted during the pandemic,” said Dr Rajesh Bhagat, also from DAMTP. “Maximising ventilation, while at the same time keeping temperatures at a comfortable level without excessive energy consumption is a difficult balance to strike.”

In light of this, the Cambridge researchers took some of their earlier work on ventilation for efficiency and reinterpreted it for air quality, in order to determine the effects of ventilation on the distribution of airborne contaminants in a space.

“In order to model how the coronavirus or similar viruses spread indoors, you need to know where people’s breath goes when they exhale, and how that changes depending on ventilation,” said Linden. “Using this data, we can estimate the risk of catching the virus while indoors.”

̽��ֱ��researchers explored a range of different modes of exhalation: nasal breathing, speaking and laughing, each both with and without a mask. By imaging the heat associated with the exhaled breath, they could see how it moves through the space in each case. If the person was moving around the room, the distribution of exhaled breath was markedly different as it became captured in their wake.

“You can see the change in temperature and density when someone breathes out warm air – it refracts the light and you can measure it,” said Bhagat. “When sitting still, humans give off heat, and since hot air rises, when you exhale, the breath rises and accumulates near the ceiling.”

Their results show that room flows are turbulent and can change dramatically depending on the movement of the occupants, the type of ventilation, the opening and closing of doors and, for naturally ventilated spaces, changes in outdoor conditions.

̽��ֱ��researchers found that masks are effective at reducing the spread of exhaled breath, and therefore droplets.

“One thing we could clearly see is that one of the ways that masks work is by stopping the breath’s momentum,” said Linden. “While pretty much all masks will have a certain amount of leakage through the top and sides, it doesn’t matter that much, because slowing the momentum of any exhaled contaminants reduces the chance of any direct exchange of aerosols and droplets as the breath remains in the body’s thermal plume and is carried upwards towards the ceiling. Additionally, masks stop larger droplets, and a three-layered mask decreases the amount of those contaminants that are recirculated through the room by ventilation.”

̽��ֱ��researchers found that laughing, in particular, creates a large disturbance, suggesting that if an infected person without a mask was laughing indoors, it would greatly increase the risk of transmission.

“Keep windows open and wear a mask appears to be the best advice,” said Linden. “Clearly that’s less of a problem in the summer months, but it’s a cause for concern in the winter months.”

̽��ֱ��team are now working with the Department for Transport looking at the impacts of ventilation on aerosol transport in trains and with the Department for Education to assess risks in schools this coming winter.

Reference
Rajesh K. Bhagat et al. ‘Effects of ventilation on the indoor spread of COVID-19.’ Journal of Fluid Mechanics (2020). DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2020.720.

Ventilation systems in many modern office buildings, which are designed to keep temperatures comfortable and increase energy efficiency, may increase the risk of exposure to the coronavirus, particularly during the coming winter, according to research published in the Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

As winter approaches in the northern hemisphere and people start spending more time inside, understanding the role of ventilation is critical to estimating the risk of contracting the virus and helping slow its spread

Paul Linden

stux

Ventilation

Yes

Licence type:

Public Domain

Going green: why don't we all do it?

lw355 — Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:20:54 +0000

For those of us who pay fuel bills, saving energy by insulating our homes or perhaps installing solar panels seems to make perfect sense. It saves money, therefore as rational human beings why don’t we all do it?

It’s a question that preoccupies Dr Franz Fuerst from the Department of Land Economy. “If you just follow the bottom line, you should see a lot more investment in energy efficiency purely from a profit-maximising perspective. And we should see even more if we take the costs of climate change into account. Why it’s not happening is a puzzle that keeps me awake at night,” he admits.

Fascinated to find the factors at play, Fuerst and his colleague Ante Busic-Sontic started supplementing their economic models with insights derived from psychology.

According to their newly developed theoretical framework, our personalities – as described by the ‘Big Five’ personality traits of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism – have a major influence on our decisions about investing in energy efficiency because of the way they relate to our attitudes to risk and the environment.

To provide evidence for the theory, they analysed data from the Understanding Society survey (previously called the British Household Panel Survey), which since 2009 has surveyed some 50,000 households and 100,000 individuals every year. “It’s a rich data set that captures all possible indicators for a household, including energy efficiency decisions and attitudes as well as personality traits,” says Fuerst.

They found that personality traits matter in terms of investment decisions in energy efficiency, even when controlled for drivers such as income, gender and education, although some personality traits are more strongly associated with investment decisions than others.

“Making any investment is almost always a risky undertaking. This is particularly true for many energy efficiency investments that require upfront capital expenditure while the actual energy savings and payback periods occur at a later time, which introduces risk. But what is considered an acceptable level of risk differs widely across people and households.”

This makes attitudes toward risk an interesting factor to consider when explaining energy efficiency investment decisions. “Openness, which is generally related to lower risk aversion, has a distinct impact on investment behaviour and is our strongest trait,” he explains. “Neuroticism and Agreeableness lead people to be more risk averse, while Extraversion has a positive association with risk. Conscientiousness instead shows only a weak impact on investment behaviour through the risk channel.”

They also found sizeable differences between personality traits and environmental attitudes and the same personality traits and actual investment outcomes. “We find that with rising income, personality traits become more important as factors that determine green investment. Your personality traits don’t get a chance to manifest themselves if you lack the money to invest.”

Given policymakers’ limited success in encouraging more of us to invest in energy efficiency, understanding how personality affects these decisions could help us develop more effective policies and incentives, Fuerst believes.

“Because perceived risk and risk aversion are the two key mediating factors, there is scope for developing more bespoke financial products that are attractive if you have a very low appetite for risk.”

There is already a range of financing options available that involve transferring some or all of the investment risk from the property owner to a private or public sector third party but these are currently focused on larger organisations and businesses and have yet to be rolled out to households on a large scale. Additionally, information campaigns can help to increase the awareness among the risk averse that the ‘do nothing’ option is by no means risk-free and might in fact be the riskiest choice. “For example, via the larger exposure to future energy prices, tightening regulations or a potential drop in market value for properties with poor energy efficiency,” he says.

Environmental decisions, are affected not just by personality and attitudes to risk, but also by urban design and social conditions – factors that Professor Doug Crawford-Brown and PhD student Rosalyn Old are exploring.

“Cities are increasingly incorporating sustainability metrics in the way buildings are built, the materials and resources used by occupants, and how waste is disposed of,” Crawford-Brown explains. “But how can we ensure cities will meet these metrics and perform sustainably? One of the most important challenges is to understand how people are motivated to act sustainably, and how those motivations are stimulated by the design and operations of communities.”

To understand more about the take up and use of green technologies, Old is studying the ̽��ֱ��’s North West Cambridge (NWC) Development, an extension to the city that is currently being built. “House builders are under pressure to include green technologies in new buildings, yet the take up and use of these technologies is uncertain,” she says. “This is a good opportunity to look at what’s special about NWC, how energy and carbon can be saved in a development like this, and learn lessons that can be transferred to future sites.”

Taking a range of technologies – from solar panels and water recycling to the district heating system and electric car charging points – that are being built into NWC, Old is modelling which technologies will be most efficient according to how people behave.

Residents have yet to move into NWC, so she is surveying equivalent demographic groups in Cambridge, such as postgraduates, key workers and families, to find out about their values, norms and attitudes so that she can model how they are likely to use the green technologies on offer.

“We can look at the energy impact given certain scenarios,” she explains. “For example, if 50% of postgraduates are ‘keen greens’ and they all cycle to their departments, the model will tell us the energy impact.”

And because the model includes the ability to interrogate different scenarios, it allows project managers to calculate the carbon savings associated with encouraging certain groups to be more environmentally conscious, opening up new ways of nudging residents to be greener.

Old hopes the model will help shape future phases of NWC, as well as other sustainable city sites and other sectors: “What we discover about how to shift people between different behavioural groups is important and can be used in policy work in many sectors. Even small changes in urban design can make a big difference.”

From wind turbines and solar photovoltaics to grey water recycling and electric vehicles, technology is making it ever easier for us to be green – yet many of us are not. Now, Cambridge researchers are discovering that our personalities and communities have a major impact on our environmental decisions, opening up new ways to ‘nudge’ us into saving energy and carbon.

One of the most important challenges is to understand how people are motivated to act sustainably, and how those motivations are stimulated by the design and operations of communities

Douglas Crawford-Brown

Josef Stuefer

Green light

Smart city, MAGIC city

Nudging people to make sustainable lifestyle choices is one thing, but can a city be nudged towards energy efficient investments, lower emissions and cleaner air?

Cities cope with pollution and uncomfortable temperatures by closing windows and installing units that heat, ventilate and air condition, which themselves guzzle energy and frustrate efforts to decarbonise.

A new interdisciplinary research project aims to halt this unsustainable trend by creating solutions that make cities cleaner with minimum use of energy. ̽��ֱ��key to progress, says project leader Professor Paul Linden, in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, is to start treating the city as a complete, integrated system.

“Experience over the past two decades suggests that when infrastructure investment works closely with innovative urban design across a city, there’s a shift towards low emissions and lower carbon travel through spontaneous citizen choices,” he explains.

̽��ֱ��£4.1 million Managing Air for Clean Inner Cities (MAGIC) project will link data fed from sensors monitoring a city’s air to an understanding of air flow inside and outside buildings, and innovations in natural ventilation processes. ̽��ֱ��idea is to develop an integrated suite of models to manage air quality and temperature (and, consequently, energy, carbon, health and wellbeing) – at the level of buildings, blocks and across the whole city.

To do so, engineers, chemists, mathematicians, architects and geographers from 12 university and industry organisations will be working together, with funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

̽��ֱ��model and associated decision support system will, for example, provide information on how traffic routes can be optimised to reduce pollution, and the cost-benefits of introducing cycling routes and green spaces. But the main value of understanding energy use and air flow, says Linden, is that a city can monitor itself continuously – it can, in effect, become its own natural air conditioner.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

̽��ֱ��world is changing: how do we respond?

sj387 — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:11:39 +0000

̽��ֱ��world is changing. ̽��ֱ��rising world population, declining resources and changing climate are reshaping where we live and how we live.

On a global scale, we need to find a way in which 7 billion people, expected to rise by another billion by 2030, can live a high quality of life that is less demanding on our planet. And to adapt, be efficient and sustainable, we need to know where to place our energies – nationally and globally – to mitigate the coming challenges. This will require knowledge from many different sources.

Earlier this year, some of the ̽��ֱ��’s leading experts in areas ranging from energy, biodiversity and public health to anthropology, architecture and economics (see below) came together to form the Cambridge Forum for Sustainability and the Environment. Across the ̽��ֱ��, there is a huge amount of research that has a direct relevance to understanding the sort of adaptive measures that might be taken to build resilience in a changing world and the Forum provides a space to make connections across these areas.

Through raising the profile of sustainability issues, we hope to steer ̽��ֱ�� expertise towards opportunities, catalyse new cross-disciplinary research pathways, and increase our efforts and contributions in this area.

One of the key issues to address is the increasing demographic transition from rural to urban living, and the Forum’s first topic for discussion will focus on ‘Cities’. Today, more people live in cities than in the countryside and, by 2050, this ratio is predicted to rise to 7 out of every 10 people.

What measures can be taken to make houses, traffic and use of resources more efficient? Can we use the opportunity to rethink how we maintain public health? What will the impact be on society, or biodiversity or food security? We have experts in all of these areas, and we hope the Forum can derive fresh and innovative perspectives on each of these questions and more.

Operationally, a selection of experts – likely to be a mixture of policy and decision makers working within governments or companies, technical experts and researchers – will be invited to the Forum’s monthly meetings to provide their perspective on sustainability and the greatest challenges they face in their area of expertise. This will catalyse a process of discussion and information sharing across the Forum, culminating in a set of short briefings to summarise the main conclusions.

Our aim is for these briefings to provide an overview of the intellectual landscape of an issue, and also to identify where there might be consensus, where there are significant gaps in knowledge, and where fresh ideas and emerging research priorities might fill them.

Then in March 2014, the focus of the Forum will shift to ‘Balancing biodiversity, energy, water and food security’, stimulating connections between three of the ̽��ֱ��’s Strategic Initiatives (Conservation, Food Security and Energy), and exploring the challenges we face as we place ever increasing and sometimes competing demands on our environment and the world we live in.

By its nature, environmental sustainability is a cross-cutting multidisciplinary challenge that requires the input of minds from all fields to provide the expertise that will help society make responsible decisions for the future. ̽��ֱ��Forum’s role is to provide the opportunity for stimulating these cross-disciplinary conversations.

̽��ֱ��Forum’s report on Cities is due to be published in summer 2014.

Today we commence a month-long focus on research on sustainability and the environment. To begin, Professor Lord Martin Rees and Professor Paul Linden, respectively Chair and Director of the Cambridge Forum for Sustainability and the Environment, describe how experts from across the ̽��ֱ�� have joined forces to examine how we can respond to some of the most pressing global sustainability challenges.

Environmental sustainability is a cross-cutting multidisciplinary challenge that requires the input of minds from all fields to provide the expertise that will help society make responsible decisions for the future

Martin Rees and Paul Linden

CNES 2012/Astrium Services/Spot Image

Current members of the Cambridge Forum for Sustainability and the Environment

Members of the Forum are drawn from disciplines ranging from zoology to social anthropology, architecture, engineering, and history and philosophy of science, and from cross-departmental collaborations working on biodiversity conservation, energy and global food security. Current members and the Schools they belong to are given below:

School of the Physical Sciences
Professor Lord Martin Rees (Dept of Astronomy), Chair
Professor Paul Linden (Dept of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics), Director
Dr Rosamunde Almond (Dept of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics), Executive Secretary
Professor Susan Owens (Dept of Geography)
Dr Bhaskar Vira (Dept of Geography)

School of Technology
Polly Courtice, Jake Reynolds, Nicolette Bartlett (Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership)
Dr Mike Rands (Cambridge Conservation Initiative and the Judge Business School)
Professor Peter Guthrie (Dept of Engineering)

School of the Biological Sciences
Professor Chris Gilligan (Dept of Plant Sciences and the Global Food Security Initiative)
Professor Bill Sutherland (Dept of Zoology)

School of the Humanities and Social Sciences
Dr Tiago Cavalcanti (Faculty of Economics)
Dr Douglas Crawford-Brown (4CMR and Dept of Land Economy)
Dr Helen Curry (Dept of History and Philosophy of Science)
Dr Hildegard Diemberger (Dept of Social Anthropology)

School of Arts and Humanities
Professor Koen Steemers (Dept of Architecture)

Independent of any Schools
Dr David Cleevely (Cambridge Centre for Science and Policy)
Gordana Najdanovic (Research Strategy Office)
Dr Miles Parker (Cambridge Centre for Science and Policy)
Dr Emily Shuckburgh (British Antarctic Survey)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes