{"id":285,"date":"2019-10-02T09:08:04","date_gmt":"2019-10-02T13:08:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/?page_id=285"},"modified":"2019-10-02T10:21:40","modified_gmt":"2019-10-02T14:21:40","slug":"community-report","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/community-report\/","title":{"rendered":"Community Report"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a href=\"https:\/\/drive.google.com\/file\/d\/1yZfBqFTSi6-KWA60W57qnr2kupdbS9Tf\/view\">Download the Community Report here<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"750\" height=\"996\" src=\"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/files\/2019\/10\/SUS-Report-10-2.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-300\" srcset=\"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/files\/2019\/10\/SUS-Report-10-2.png 750w, https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/files\/2019\/10\/SUS-Report-10-2-226x300.png 226w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 750px) 100vw, 750px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Report on the workshop \u2018How Does Infrastructure Shape\nEquity and Well-being Across the Urban-Rural Gradient\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This work is\nlicensed under a<a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/\"> <\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/\">Creative Commons\nAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Corresponding author<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"mailto:melissa.gilbert@temple.edu\">melissa.gilbert@temple.edu<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Authors<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Dirk Kinsey,\nRebecca Croog, Stephen Dickinson, Shrobona Karkun, Jeronimo Rodriguez, Melissa\nGilbert, Victor Gutierrez, Hamil Pearsall, Christina Rosan, Laura Toran, Rachel\nValletta.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Contributors<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Sarah Heck, Matthew\nMarcus, Naida Elena Montes, Alisa Shockley, Melissa Tolosa and Workshop\nParticipants (See Annex 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Acknowledgements<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>We would like to\nthank all participants who took part in this process. This workshop is\nsupported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. 1929834 and\nTemple University in partnership with Drexel University, Hunter College, CUNY,\nIndiana University-Bloomington, Oak Ridge National Labs, The Franklin\nInstitute, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, the Sustainable\nBusiness Network, and Planet Philadelphia. Any opinions, findings, and\nconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the\nauthor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science\nFoundation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This publication can be downloaded from <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cla.temple.edu\/center-for-sustainable-communities\/\">https:\/\/www.cla.temple.edu\/center-for-sustainable-communities\/<\/a>. Parts of this publication may be reproduced, provided the source is stated, in the form: Center for Sustainable Communities (2019), Report on the NSF Sustainable Urban Systems workshop \u2018How does Infrastructure Shape Equity and Well-being Across the Urban-Rural Gradient\u2019. Center for Sustainable Communities, Temple University, Philadelphia<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"606\" height=\"324\" src=\"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/files\/2019\/10\/image.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-294\" srcset=\"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/files\/2019\/10\/image.png 606w, https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/files\/2019\/10\/image-300x160.png 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 606px) 100vw, 606px\" \/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Executive Summary<\/a><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>The workshop entitled \u2018How Does Infrastructure\nShape Equity and Well-being across the Urban-Rural Gradient?\u2019 took place on\nSeptember 11th to September 13th, 2019 at Temple University\u2019s Center for\nSustainable Communities (CSC). It was supported by the National Science\nFoundation (NSF) under Grant No. 1929834 and Temple University in partnership\nwith Drexel University, Hunter College, CUNY, Indiana University Bloomington,\nOak Ridge National Labs, The Franklin Institute, the Delaware Valley Regional\nPlanning Commission, the Sustainable Business Network, and Planet Philadelphia.\nThe event aimed to contribute to the next generation convergence science for\nsustainable systems, a key area highlighted in the NSF report on Sustainable\nUrban Systems (SUS) research<a href=\"#_ftn1\"><sup>[1]<\/sup><\/a>. The\nworkshop was attended by 68 participants representing a range of disciplines,\nincluding the social, engineering, health, data and environmental sciences, and\nsectors, including researchers, practitioners, industry leaders, government\nagencies, educators, journalists, and community organizers. The workshop\naddressed the impact of infrastructure on equity and well-being across the\nurban-rural gradient through a case study of the Philadelphia metropolitan\nregion. This area emerged in the planning process as a compelling and important\nsite to explore infrastructure across the urban-rural gradient due to its aging\ninfrastructure, prevalence need for environmental justice, and dearth of\nregional sustainability planning despite an extensive network of nonprofits and\ncity politicians committed to these issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The workshop provided this diverse group of\nsustainability researchers and practitioners with an opportunity to familiarize\nthemselves with each other\u2019s disciplinary backgrounds, and theoretical and\npractical expertise in sustainability. The participants explored how the\nintegration of sets of knowledge and skills across diverse perspectives can\ndevelop a sustainability science to better understand and address how\ninfrastructure shapes equity and well-being across the urban-rural gradient. As\na result, attendees left the workshop with a shared understanding of these\nconcepts and a readiness to continue working collaboratively on sustainability\nresearch. Recurring topics of discussion included:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>How to create and evaluate models\nfor knowledge co-production<\/li><li>How to meaningfully prioritize\nequity and wellbeing in sustainability research and planning<\/li><li>How to incorporate an analysis of\nhealth outcomes, disparities and impacts into infrastructure research<\/li><li>Possible re-conceptualizations of\nthe urban-rural gradient<\/li><li>The need for comparative research\non infrastructure systems<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>While participants did not reach consensus on\na single framework, they demonstrated how substantive engagement with each\nother\u2019s disciplinary backgrounds and sustainability expertise might produce a\nsynergistic transdisciplinary scientific research approach. Participants felt\nthat the workshop gave them an increased understanding of the significance of\nthe challenges ahead for improving how infrastructure impacts health,\nwell-being, and environmental sustainability. Participants also believed that\ncontinued co-produced research and transdisciplinary approaches to research\nwill produce the knowledge needed to address this urgent set of challenges. They\nexpressed an interest in continuing to collaborate and expand the network of\nparticipants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The workshop concluded with discussions of how\nto disseminate the outcomes of the event through this report, publications,\nmedia dissemination and public activities with various stakeholders. A\nconcluding meeting among the workshop organizers and interested others\nreflected on and synthesized the three days of presentations and discussions\nand explored the way forward. This meeting served to clarify the processes for\nthe continuation of the participants\u2019 work, lay out plans for upcoming\npublications and outreach, and discuss potential funding sources for building a\nresearch network.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Workshop deliverables developed by the\norganizers<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>This report on workshop outcomes\nto be posted on research centers from each participating university<\/li><li>A concept paper as well as\nmanuscripts for papers in a special issue of a journal that articulates the\ngaps within and proposed priority areas for research on how infrastructure\nshapes equity and well-being across the urban-rural gradient<\/li><li>Presentations of workshop outcomes\nto The Franklin Institute\u2019s Climate and Urban Systems Partnership (CUSP)\nnetwork and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission\u2019s Climate\nAdaptation Forum<\/li><li>A public broadcast and podcast about the process and outcomes of the\nworkshop on the radio show Planet Philadelphia<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Introduction<\/a><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>Given the inherent complexity of sustainability challenges, gathering\nresearchers and practitioners from different disciplines and backgrounds is a\npowerful way to envision and create a more sustainable society. For several\ndecades, scientific and policy communities have explored infrastructure,\nequity, and health in relation to sustainability generally, as well as in\nspecific (primarily urban) places. However, they have largely ignored the\ninterrelations among these three realms, and the ways in which these\ninterrelations manifest across urban and rural spaces. Moreover, academics\nconducting research on these topics often operate within disciplinary silos\nwhere they tend to reproduce the same findings, encounter the same limitations,\nand lose sight of the many potential collaborators within nonprofits, policy\ncircles, media, and neighborhoods who might contribute more holistic and\nnuanced understandings of sustainability<a href=\"#_ftn2\"><sup>[2]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This workshop, hosted by Temple University&#8217;s Center for Sustainability\nCommunities, set out to break down these disciplinary silos and engage\nnon-academic collaborators in order to build new frameworks for sustainability\nscience research centering around infrastructure analysis. The workshop\nanswered the National Science Foundation\u2019s (NSF) call to develop the next\ngeneration of convergent Sustainable Urban Systems (SUS) research through\nlaying the groundwork for a science of equity and well-being across the\nurban-rural gradient. These new collaborations are intended to incorporate\nmultiple conceptual approaches, visions, and tools in order to robustly address\ncontemporary and future sustainability challenges. From the workshop\npresentations, discussions, and brainstorming sessions, we identified key gaps\nand opportunities within sustainability research\/policies, such as the need to\nmore accurately conceptualize the urban-rural gradient, to integrate assessment\nof health impacts into infrastructure analysis, and develop effective and\nethical models for knowledge co-production. Ultimately, the outcomes of this\nworkshop, namely the relationships forged among different academics,\npolicymakers, and practitioners, are intended to support the advancement of the\nnext generation of SUS convergence science<a href=\"#_ftn3\"><sup>[3]<\/sup><\/a>.<br><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Aims and structure of the workshop<\/a><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Aims<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The overall aim of the workshop was to contribute to the NSF\u2019s call to\ndevelop a convergence science of sustainable urban systems by exploring how\ninfrastructure shapes equity and well-being across the urban-rural gradient\nwith a transdisciplinary group of participants.&nbsp; <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The expected outcomes of the workshop were to:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Identify methodological challenges and data gaps, and develop\nnew conceptual frameworks and research questions for a convergence science of\nequity and well-being for SUS across the urban-rural gradient;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/li><li>Identify challenges and develop new models of co-production\nof actionable knowledge for SUS; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/li><li>Determine the scalability of the conceptual frameworks\ndeveloped in the Philadelphia metropolitan area to other cities and regions in\nthe US and globally.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Structure<\/a> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The workshop took place over the course of three days and consisted of a\ncombination of formal presentations, a keynote address, panel discussions, and\nbreakout group discussions. Each day addressed one of the workshop objectives\nand advanced a research agenda about how infrastructure shapes equity and\nwell-being across the urban rural gradient, as it is described below. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Day 1: Identify the gaps and challenges in the study\nof equity and well-being in Sustainable Urban Systems with a focus on\ninfrastructure systems along the urban-rural gradient: Day 1 featured panels\nand breakout sessions aimed at conceptualizing dimensions of the proposed\nresearch agenda, reviewing case studies and identifying collective gaps in our\nknowledge pertaining to the integration of the five themes of the workshop: sustainable\ninfrastructure, equity, health and well-being, urban-rural gradient, and\nco-production of knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Day 2: Define research questions, methods, and objectives to address the\ngaps and challenges identified in Day 1 and their scalability: Day 2 focused on\nmethodological approaches to address the challenges identified on Day 1,\nincluding how best to co-produce knowledge, through a panel discussion and two\nbreakout sessions in which participants further developed and refined research\nquestions, and discussed the scalability of the research agenda. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Day 3: Discuss the dissemination of workshop and next steps (Organizing\nCommittee and Interested Others): Day 3 featured reflections on the workshop,\nalong with small group planning sessions in which deliverables and next steps\nwere discussed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A total of 68 experts attended the workshop. The organizing committee\nexplicitly aimed to ensure the participation of people from diverse backgrounds\nin terms of disciplines, sectors, stage of career, gender, race and ethnic\norigin. Workshop participants included 30 academic researchers at various stages\nof their careers from natural science, social science, engineering, public\nhealth, and medical fields, and an additional 38 participants from local and\nstate government, industries, non-profits, and community organizations. The\nparticipation was broad but attendance by some participants, particularly\npolicymakers and community organizers was limited to a few sessions because of\ntheir time constraints. With the workshop\u2019s focus on data production,\nparticipants directly discussed the importance of overcoming such constraints\nin future initiatives.<br><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Day 1: Identify the gaps and\nchallenges in the study of equity and well-being in Sustainable Urban Systems,\nwith a focus on infrastructure systems along the urban-rural gradient<\/a><em><\/em><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Opening Remarks:<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Michele Masucci, Vice\nPresident for Research, Temple University<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Melissa Gilbert, Director,\nCenter for Sustainable Community, Temple University<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Kay Wood, Producer and Host\nof Planet Philadelphia<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Michele Masucci, Vice President for Research at Temple University,\nwelcomed participants to Temple University and explained how this workshop was\npart of a broader strategy to promote environmental and global change research\nat the university. Melissa Gilbert, Director of the Center for Sustainable\nCommunities at Temple University, welcomed participants on behalf of the\norganizing committee and explained the objectives and deliverables of the\nworkshop. Kay Wood, producer and host of Planet Philadelphia, an environmental\nradio show, explained that she was developing a radio show and podcast based on\nthe workshop and that she and graduate students would be conducting interviews\nthroughout the workshop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Conference presentations I: Setting\nthe Framework: How infrastructure shapes equity along the urban-rural gradient.<\/a> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Moderator: <\/em><\/strong><strong>Victor Gutierrez<\/strong>, Assistant Professor of Geography and Urban Studies, Temple University<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Eduardo Brond\u00edzio<\/strong>, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology and Director, Center for the\nAnalysis of Social-Ecological Landscapes (CASEL), Indiana University\nBloomington <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Simi Hoque<\/strong>,\nAssociate Professor of Engineering, Drexel University <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Eugenia South<\/strong>,\nAssistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of\nPennsylvania<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Hallie Eakin,<\/strong>\nProfessor and Senior Sustainability Scientist, Julie Ann Wrigley Global\nInstitute of Sustainability, Arizona State University <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Lara Roman,<\/strong>\nResearch Ecologist, Philadelphia Field Station \u2013 Northern Research Station,\nUSDA Forest Service<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Catherine Brinkley,<\/strong> Assistant Professor, Community and Regional Development, UC Davis <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This session introduced participants to each of the five themes of the\nworkshop (sustainable infrastructure, equity, well-being, urban-rural gradient,\nand co-production of knowledge) in relation to the main question of the\nworkshop through a series of presentations from experts in the fields. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Eduardo Brond\u00edzio used his work examining rural family networks in the\nAmazon to discuss the concept of an <strong><em>urban-rural gradient<\/em><\/strong> and critiqued\nthe urban-centric focus, arguing for a reconceptualization based on the\ninterdependencies of urban and rural places. <\/li><li>Simi Hoque discussed <strong><em>sustainable infrastructure<\/em> <\/strong>focusing\non the close relationship between it and human well-being, and defining\nsustainable infrastructure as those infrastructures that support living well\nwith minimal harm to the environment. She challenged the participants to think\nclosely about how infrastructure shapes both cities and non cities in the\ncontext of accelerated urban population growth, and might produce harms and\nbenefits across an urban-rural gradient. Her concerns include how to extend the\nservices provided by infrastructure to rural areas as well. <\/li><li>Gina South argued for centering a framework of <strong><em>health\nand well-being<\/em><\/strong> in all levels of infrastructure planning, implementation\nand evaluation. She used a series of examples from her own work in Philadelphia\npertaining to urban greening initiatives and the resulting positive health\nimpacts to illustrate the strong link between infrastructural conditions and\nhealth outcomes. <\/li><li>Hallie Eakin used her research on household vulnerability in\nMexico City to highlight the imperative of <strong><em>equity<\/em> <\/strong>and justice in infrastructure\nplanning and the importance of recognizing non-expert knowledges, perspectives\nand values as a foundation for equitable processes. <\/li><li>Lara Roman raised important questions regarding the <strong><em>co-production\nof knowledge<\/em><\/strong> and collaborative processes for co-managing natural\nresources including what institutional arrangements best facilitate\nco-production of knowledge, how can we alleviate burdens placed on participants\nfrom outside academia, and ensure the meaningful inclusion of marginalized\nvoices in our research processes? <\/li><li>In discussing the <strong><em>urban-rural gradient, <\/em><\/strong>Catherine\nBrinkley, shared her approach to conceptualizing connections between urban and\nrural areas through recognizing the complexity of the urban-rural interface, an\narea that she has researched extensively through studies of food systems in US\ncities. She argued for better methods for identifying the interfaces between\nurban and rural systems as a means of further developing our understanding of\nhow these systems relate and where sustainability initiatives might be most\nuseful and impactful.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Several related themes emerged across the presentations. Multiple\npresenters used case studies across the Global North and the Global South to\nillustrate the complexity and context-specific nature of these systems. The\nissue of inequity in knowledge production and the imperative for more equitable\nknowledge co-production was central to many presentations. Finally, a common\nthread that ran through all of the presentations was the need to think about\nsustainability issues comprehensively, in their full complexity, from multiple\nperspectives and scales, and with particular attention paid to the\ninterconnections of places and systems. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Conference presentations II: Case\nstudies: How infrastructure shapes equity along the urban-rural gradient.<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Moderator:<\/em><\/strong><strong> Hamil Pearsall<\/strong>,\nAssociate Professor of Geography and Urban Studies, Temple University<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Christine Knapp,<\/strong> Director of the Office of Sustainability, City of Philadelphia<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Laura Toran,<\/strong>\nProfessor of Earth and Environmental Science, Temple University<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jerome Shabazz,<\/strong>\nExecutive Director, Overbrook Environmental Education Center <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Nagiarry Porcena-Meneus<\/strong>, Community Organizer, Tookany\/Tacony-Frankford Watershed Partnership,\nInc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Russ Zerbo,<\/strong>\nAdvocate at Clean Air Council<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Erik Johanson<\/strong>,\nDirector of Innovation, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Brett Fusco<\/strong>,\nManager, Office of Long-range Planning, Delaware Valley Regional Planning\nCommission<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This session provided case studies by policymakers,\npractitioners, and researchers that explored how infrastructure shapes equity\nand well-being along the urban-rural gradient in the Philadelphia metropolitan\narea. Topics addressed included stormwater runoff, the urban heat island\neffect, and the need to engage community members in sustainability work in ways\nthat value their dignity and expertise. Each panelist presented not just\nchallenges, but potential solutions and current interventions. While all of the\npanelists highlighted important measures being pursued and implemented,\npanelists representing local and regional government tended to highlight the\npositive outcomes of sustainability initiatives, while those representing\ncommunity organizations expressed concerns about how the dearth of\nrepresentation of marginalized communities in decision-making may negatively impact\nthe effectiveness of interventions while increasing existing inequalities. Collectively,\nthe panelists highlighted two key themes: 1) The necessity of emphasizing\nenvironmental justice within any examination of Philadelphia&#8217;s current or\nfuture sustainability challenges and 2) the need for Philadelphia\u2019s existing\ninfrastructure systems to both address the historical legacies which have\nproduced distinct environmental justice issues, while simultaneously\npositioning themselves to effectively adapt to future challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Keynote\nAddress: Leslie Richards, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation<em><\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In her keynote address, Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation, Leslie\nRichards told her impressive story of becoming the first woman to head\nPennsylvania\u2019s Department of Transportation (PennDOT). Richards described her\nown role and that of PennDOT as both maintaining and developing Pennsylvania\u2019s\ntransportation infrastructure, and engaging in \u201cbeyond the Pavement work,\u201d\nmeaning programs and initiatives which address social and environmental issues.\nThis work includes programming which is focused on sustainability, but also\naddresses issues of social equity through programing such as creating a system\nby which formerly incarcerated people receive a PennDOT ID upon release,\ncreating a gender neutral option on licenses, and hiring policies aimed at\ngreater inclusion of persons with disabilities. Richards also spoke to the\ntransportation challenge of an urban-rural gradient, noting that shifts in\nlabor markets and demographics are resulting in a growing population living\noutside of urban centers who have a need for transit which serves both urban\nand non-urban communities. Rural areas tend to be underserved and the already\nlimited transit access in those areas is particularly vulnerable to shifts in\nfunding. Richards emphasized the fact that while the department continues to\nmove away from highway-based transportation and focus on the aspects of\nmultimodal transit, the transition to more sustainable transit presents its own\nchallenges. Electric and self-driving vehicles, while exciting for their\npotential contribution to sustainability, may require modifications to existing\nfunding mechanisms in that PennDOT receives almost all of their funding from\nthe gas tax which is in steep decline due to these changes. She concluded with\nthe vision of PennDOT as creating a better quality of life built on\ntransportation excellence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Breakout group discussion I: Identify\ngaps in knowledge and expertise in various themes of the workshop<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Chair:<\/em><\/strong><strong> Hamil Pearsall<\/strong>,\nAssociate Professor of Geography and Urban Studies, Temple University<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Moderators:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Sustainable\nInfrastructure:<\/em><\/strong><strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>Simi\nHoque, Associate Professor of Engineering, Drexel University&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Equity:<\/em><\/strong>&nbsp;Christina\nRosan, Associate Professor of Geography and Urban Studies, Temple\nUniversity&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Health\nand Well-Being:<\/em><\/strong> Jeremy Mennis, Professor of Geography\nand Urban Studies, Temple University&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Urban-Rural\nGradient:<\/em><\/strong>&nbsp;Eduardo Brond\u00edzio, Distinguished\nProfessor of Anthropology, Indiana University <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Co-Production\nof Knowledge:<\/em><\/strong> Rachel Valletta, Environmental\nScientist, The Franklin Institute, Director of the Climate and Urban Systems\nPartnership&nbsp;and Bill Solecki, Professor of Geography and Environmental\nScience, Hunter College<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the first breakout session, each group identified gaps in knowledge\nwithin one of the themes of the workshop: sustainable infrastructure, equity,\nhealth and well-being, the urban-rural gradient, and co-production of knowledge.\nThe knowledge gaps identified in this session were used as a basis for the\ndevelopment of research questions in later breakout sessions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Sustainable Infrastructure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The discussion centered around the high level of uncertainty associated\nwith the future of sustainable infrastructure, concerns around securing long-term\nfunding, and the equitable distribution of costs and benefits across\ncommunities. A related question was how to best frame equity in relation to\ntechnological developments and changing needs. Main concerns and discussion\npoints centered on the feasibility of developing, funding and scaling up\nsustainable infrastructure, convincing stakeholders and taxpayers of its\nimportance, identifying possible trade-offs, measuring impacts at multiple\nlevels (social, spatial, environmental and economic) and concern about who\ncarries the associated burden or benefits. The group also discussed the\nincreasingly complex nature of infrastructure planning processes wherein\nstakeholders are given more active roles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The group identified three key gaps in knowledge:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>There is a lack of\n     knowledge as to how best to manage uncertainty associated with the future\n     of infrastructure development.<\/li><li>There is a lack of\n     certainty as to whether infrastructure can truly be sustainable in the\n     long term.<\/li><li>There is a lack of\n     ability to quantify direct and indirect impacts (both positive and\n     negative) of infrastructure development.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Equity<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The group discussed the possibility and potential of\nequitable planning for sustainable infrastructure. There was a general\nagreement that current planning practices are focused on addressing the\nproblematic legacy of structural and historical inequalities; however,\nparticipants from several local groups noted that planning processes are still\nin many ways difficult for community members to access and participate in\nsubstantively. The group agreed that academia has put forth critiques of\ninequity of planning processes, planning for equitable infrastructure provision\nis still hampered by jurisdictional barriers, outdated planning tools, unfair\npolitical processes, the existence and legacy of structural racism, etc. Thus,\nexisting planning tools and governance are inadequate to conceptualize and\naddress equity holistically and across scales. Additionally there is a general\nlack of knowledge on the part of policy experts and planners as to what equity\nmeans to many communities. Finally, urban centric views of habitats and regions\ndo not address the diversity of challenges and needs across the urban-rural\ngradient. A focus on equity across the gradient is crucial for sustainability\nplanning along the gradient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The group identified three key gaps in knowledge:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>There is a lack\n     of knowledge about the diversity of urban and rural spaces, and their\n     mutual relationships.<\/li><li>There is a need\n     for better conceptual frameworks and implementation models which recognize\n     the multiscalar and multidimensional nature of inequity.<\/li><li>The governance\n     tools are inadequate to plan for sustainable urban-rural-regional equity.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Health and Well-Being<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The group discussed the relationship between health outcomes and\ninfrastructure with special focus on issues of equity and environmental\nsustainability. There was a general consensus that health and well-being are\nrelated to physical environments and infrastructure. For example, behavioral\nhealth outcomes are frequently related to infrastructure characteristics.\nHowever, the group acknowledged that typically health receives little attention\nor consideration in discussions of infrastructure development. One key\nconsideration for this group was how best to investigate causal links between\ninfrastructure and health outcomes. The group discussed leveraging new\ntechnologies and big data, as well as natural experiments to query causal\nlinkages. Identifying causal relationships is even more challenging within an\nurban-rural framework given the need for a clearer conceptualization of the\nurban-rural gradient. Finally, there was a significant conversation regarding\nwhether research priorities should be placed on addressing health disparities\nor improving overall health outcomes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The group identified three key gaps in knowledge:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>There is a lack of understanding as to how infrastructure impacts health and well-being in the context of the urban-rural gradient. <\/li><li>There are no clear      methodological pathways for investigating health and well-being in the      context of the urban-rural gradient. Can new kinds of data and natural      experiments be leveraged to address these questions?<\/li><li>There needs to be a      sustained discussion regarding interventions which aim to narrow the gap      in health disparities vs. improving overall health.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Co-production of Knowledge<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The group discussed their experiences of using co-production of knowledge\nmodels in contexts ranging from science education at The Franklin Institute to\nresearch on hydraulic fracking regulation. They agreed on the importance of\nco-production of knowledge in addressing the complex interrelationships between\nenvironmental quality and social equity, but also brought up the potential pitfalls\nand obstacles of these co-production approaches. In particular, the discussion\ncentered on the necessity of sustained relationship building in co-production\nmodels and the challenges that funding, evaluation and the urgency of the\nissues being addressed presents to long term relationship building.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The group identified three key gaps in knowledge:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>There is a lack of\n     critical evaluation of co-production projects. Many models exist but it is\n     often difficult to know which models are most appropriate for specific\n     situations and contexts.<\/li><li>There is a lack of both\n     funding for co-production research&#8211;especially for compensation of\n     community partners&#8211;and critical evaluation of failure (what didn\u2019t work)\n     in the co-production literature.<\/li><li>There needs to be more discussion\n     of ethics and inclusion and transparency about what these partnerships can\n     and cannot do. Dignity, recognition, and self-empowerment are essential\n     concepts in guiding collaborations with non-academic partners. What\n     happens when the participatory process brings up an opinion that does not\n     fit with the academic researchers\u2019 aims\/values?<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Urban-Rural Gradient<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The group first focused on working on the definitions of the urban-rural\ngradient, its spatial and physical characteristics, and how to best assess the\nassociated sustainability challenges. The group agreed that the nature and\ncharacteristics of the gradient are highly context dependent. Variables to be\nconsidered in characterizing the urban-rural gradient include: demographics,\nspatial extent, identities, prevalent land covers, modes of production,\neconomic diversity, environmental risk exposure and scale. Characterizing these\nsystems has to be done carefully, because definitions have important\nimplications in terms of informing research, policy initiatives and resource\nallocation. The discussion focused in particular on the governance of\nurban-rural gradients, with consideration for the mutually dependent\nrelationship between the urban and the rural, how to manage these\nrelationships, and where within these systems power is situated. The group\ndiscussed the role of capital in informing the decisions that produce\ninequitable infrastructure processes across the urban-rural gradient, along\nwith emphasizing how innovations developed in rural areas, such as small\ndecentralized, voluntary systems designed to address the absence of centralized\ncapacity, can provide valuable lessons for urban areas. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The group identified three key gaps in knowledge:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>There is a need for\n     conceptualizations of urban-rural relationships that can represent their\n     multidimensional nature.<\/li><li>There is a need for an\n     understanding of the historical and emerging challenges and opportunities\n     in the governance of urban-rural relationships.<\/li><li>There is a need for an\n     understanding of how best to integrate different conceptual frameworks in\n     order to understand the multiple processes that constitute urban-rural\n     relationships. <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Day 2: Defining research questions,\nmethods, and objectives to address the gaps and challenges identified in Day 1\nand their scalability<\/a><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Panel session I: Conceptual and\nmethodological opportunities for data production in transdisciplinary\nSustainable Urban Systems<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Moderator: <\/em>Victor Gutierrez, <\/strong>Assistant Professor of Geography and Urban Studies, Temple University<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Robert\nCheetham,<\/strong> President and CEO, Azavea<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jennifer\nBaka<\/strong>, Assistant Professor of Geography, Penn State\nUniversity<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Alan\nWiig<\/strong>, Assistant Professor of Urban Planning and\nCommunity Development, University of Massachusetts<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Rachel\nValletta<\/strong>, Environmental Scientist, Franklin Institute,\nDirector of the Climate and Urban Systems Partnership<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Emily\nGrubert<\/strong>, Assistant Professor of Civil and\nEnvironmental Engineering, Georgia Tech<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Akira\nRodriguez<\/strong>, Joint Lecturer, University of Pennsylvania\nWeitzman School of Design School of Social Policy and Practice<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Michelle\nKondo<\/strong>, Research Social Scientist, USDA- Forest\nService, Philadelphia Field Station<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Rhiannon\nJerch<\/strong>, Assistant Professor of Economics, Temple\nUniversity<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This panel featured a range of differing views\nconcerning data collection, production and access, ensuring the utility of data\nfor sustainability questions, and the challenges of knowledge co-production.\nPanelists spoke of employing a variety of different data sources, including\nhistorical data to address such challenges. A key discussion related to the\nrole of private and public sector organizations in data creation and\nmaintenance. Some felt that governments should be competing for access to as\nmuch data as private companies in order to create good policy, while others expressed\nconcern over individual privacy and suggested that the government has\nsufficient data to create good policies, but is deploying that data\nineffectively. There was general concern around the role of biases in the\nproduction and deployment of data for sustainability challenges. Panelist\ntended to frame the utility of data in terms of how the data is being mobilized\nand who benefits most from its use. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Regarding co-production, there were differing\nviews about the means by which knowledge is co-produced and what the\ncomposition of research partnerships should be. Several panelists recognized\nco-production as a \u201cgold standard\u201d for engaged research, but argued that\nresearchers need to think more critically about what is being asked of\ncommunity partners and how exactly those communities might benefit from\nengaging in these projects. The issue of temporary or precarious research\nfunding and the associated difficulties in maintaining community partnerships\nand compensating community partners was stressed by several panelists. Many\npanelists framed compensating community partners as an ethical imperative.\nOther ethical issues related to co-production of knowledge were discussed,\nincluding unintended consequences, power asymmetries in research on\/with vulnerable\ncommunities, and insider-outsider dynamics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Synthesis of sessions on\nconceptualizations and case studies<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Rachel Valletta<\/strong>, Environmental\nScientist, Franklin Institute, Director of the Climate and Urban Systems\nPartnership<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Bill Solecki<\/strong>, Professor of Geography\nat Hunter College and Founder Director, Emeritus, CUNY Institute for\nSustainable Cities <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Christina Rosan<\/strong>, Associate\nProfessor of Geography and Urban Studies, Temple University <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Three members from the organizing committee\nprovided a synthesis of the presentations and discussions over the course of\nthe workshop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Rachel Valletta reflected on issues of\nknowledge co-production, with particular emphasis on the discussions relating\nto how researchers develop and maintain long-term relationships. Valletta drew\nfrom her own work with The Franklin Institute in arguing that creating\nsustainable communities means maintaining relationships with those communities\nengaging with researchers. She suggested that the participants consider\nthemselves as part of Philadelphia\u2019s learning ecology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Bill Solecki highlighted the importance of\n\u201csocial infrastructure\u201d or the immaterial and social dimensions of the\nurban-rural gradient. He suggested that making social infrastructure visible\nmay have powerful implications for sustainable transitions. Solecki then moved\non to what he deemed to be a bigger question; what are the intersecting\nelements which connect infrastructure, the urban-rural gradient and equity? To\nanswer that question, Solecki proposed four goals; 1) making the process and\ninteractions that constitute the urban-rural gradient more transparent,\nvisible, understandable; 2) investigating the governance systems that shape\nthese processes; 3) emphasizing flexibility, dynamism, urgency in our\napproaches to sustainable transformations; and 4) focusing on the process of\nurbanization, the always emergent nature of urban systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Christina Rosan challenged participants to\nmore clearly articulate what equity is and how we are or should be measuring\nit. She reiterated Valletta and Solecki\u2019s assertion that linkages\nexist between infrastructure and equity, adding that we should also be\nconsidering rights in this framework. She defined infrastructure fundamentally\nas the ability of people to live in communities and have access to goods and\nservices and argued that stronger networks of infrastructure creates security\nand well-being. She pointed to the block to block inequities in Philadelphia in\nsuggesting our units of analysis must be more granular. She concluded that\ngiven how complex the urban-rural gradient is as a system, the job of\nparticipants should be to clearly articulate the nature and extent of this\nsystem (to make it visible) in order that communities and governments can best\nadvocate for and produce equitable systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Summary of the previous day<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Hamil Pearsall,\nAssociate Professor of Geography and Urban Studies, presented a synthesis of\nthe research gaps emerging from the themes in Breakout Session I. The following\ncross-cutting gaps were proposed to the groups. Groups were then encouraged to\ncompose questions that would address these gaps:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>A better conceptualization and measurement of how inequity impacts\n     health and well-being across the urban-rural gradient;<\/li><li>A conceptualization of the distribution of costs and benefits of\n     infrastructure across rural-urban processes;<\/li><li>Methods to quantify the impacts of infrastructure on health and\n     well-being;<\/li><li>Definitions of good governance tools for managing infrastructure\n     to improve urban-rural regional equity;<\/li><li>Models of co-production that are effective in fostering collaboration\n     across the urban-rural gradient; and<\/li><li>Determining what a focus on infrastructure across an urban-rural\n     framework might reveal about connections between health and well-being.<\/li><li>Need to better understand the tradeoffs among all\n     stakeholders and communities, also which items are commensurable with each\n     other across different communities and along the urban-rural gradient;<\/li><li>Need for an explicit focus on environmental and\n     non-human impacts of infrastructure;<\/li><li>Need to understand the causal chain and mechanisms.<\/li><li>Thinking about health and\n     other equity in the context of power structures that revolve around money\n     so we need to have this conversation in a way that speaks to those with\n     power and money in a way that is not a moral argument but some other argument<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Break out group discussions II:\nBrainstorm research questions<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Facilitators:<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Simi Hoque<\/strong>, Associate Professor of Engineering, Drexel\nUniversity&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Christina Rosan<\/strong>, Associate Professor of Geography and Urban\nStudies, Temple University&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Jeremy Mennis<\/strong>, Professor of Geography and Urban Studies, Temple\nUniversity&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Rachel Valletta<\/strong>, Environmental Scientist, The Franklin Institute,\nDirector of the Climate and Urban Systems Partnership&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Bill Solecki,<\/strong> Professor of Geography and Environmental Science,\nHunter College<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Eduardo Brond\u00edzio,<\/strong> Distinguished Professor of\nAnthropology, Indiana University <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Workshop\nparticipants reconvened in smaller groups to conceptualize research questions\nthat have the potential to be pursued as projects. Each group had participants\nwith expertise and interests from each of the workshop themes. At the end of\nthe session, the facilitators presented the questions to the larger audience. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Emerging questions\nfrom this session are as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Questions on framing relationships in the urban-rural gradient<ol type=\"a\"><li>How do we\n      study the individual connections to infrastructure and the impacts on\n      health and well-being? What are the best mechanisms to capture human\n      experience?<\/li><li>What are\n      the trade-offs, feedbacks and amplifying effects between the services\n      provided by different types of infrastructure? How does this vary across\n      urban and rural gradients and over time?<\/li><li>How are\n      different institutional arrangements governing appropriation and\n      provisioning of infrastructures interacting, aligning and conflicting\n      along urban and rural gradients?<\/li><li>How do we\n      design research that test for causal mechanisms among infrastructure,\n      well-being and equity outcomes?<\/li><li>What\n      criteria determines good governance, investment and management of\n      infrastructure across the urban-rural gradient? What are the appropriate\n      temporal scales and spatial scales to identify the criteria?<\/li><li>What roles\n      can multiscalar infrastructure (such as transportation networks,\n      waterways, cultural institutions) and the understanding of such\n      infrastructure play in connecting urban-rural people? Are there kinds of\n      infrastructure that can facilitate bridging relationships among people?<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Questions\n     on infrastructure investment, health, and equity<ol type=\"a\"><li>What do we\n      know about the distribution of benefits of public and private investment\n      in green infrastructure?<\/li><li>Can (and\n      if yes, how can) new investments and transformations in existing\n      infrastructure help to improve health and health equity in systems across\n      the urban-rural gradient?<\/li><li>How can\n      infrastructure adapt to past and changing economic processes (such as\n      deindustrialization)?<\/li><li>How can we\n      develop and implement information infrastructure and how effective is it\n      in improving health and equity?<\/li><li>How do we\n      implement program evaluations that can measure effect size and\n      cost\/efficiency of interventions given specific goals?<\/li><li>How do we\n      utilize existing infrastructure for urban environment monitoring and\n      develop a more active way to monitor?<\/li><li>Are there\n      trade offs or limits to community involvement in infrastructure\n      development?<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Questions\n     for improving the state of knowledge on urban-rural gradient,\n     infrastructure and equity<ol type=\"a\"><li>Can\n      infrastructure ever be sustainable or equitable? How can we have both\n      equity and trade-offs?<\/li><li>How can we\n      create tools that better integrate different forms of knowledge?\n      (including knowledge of previous failures as well as incommensurate data)<\/li><li>How do\n      communities perceive, utilize, and interact with both gray and green\n      infrastructure across urban, suburban, and rural communities? <\/li><li>What kind\n      of interactions\/connections that are enabled by infrastructure foster\n      effective co-production of knowledge?<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Break-out group discussions III:\nElaborate on research questions in terms of conceptual frameworks, data\navailability, methodological approaches, and potential applications<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>During this session, the break-out groups reconvened to elaborate on one\nof the research questions. Each group discussed conceptual frameworks, data\navailability, methodological approaches, and potential applications for their\nquestions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Group\n1, Facilitator Simi Hoque<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In this session, Group 1 explored together what an\nalternative conceptual framework that uses health and equity rather than\neconomics to research infrastructure limitations. The group then put different\nsystems into that map such as the food system, water system, and criminal\njustice system. They noted that: 1) large infrastructure investments are\ninevitable because of climate change and health\/health equity needs to be\nprioritized within that context, 2) new models may arise by replacing economics\nwith health\/health equity as a key metric, and 3) this research would be\ninformed by an urban-rural comparative analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Group\n2, Facilitator Eduardo Brond\u00edzio<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Group 2 focused on how a range of variables including\nsocio-economic diversity, population size, environmental factors\/hazards, and\nthe nature of technology affect transitions in infrastructure systems and the\npotential consequence for equity along the rural-urban gradient. Group 2 was\ninterested in how these variables might be understood in relation to the\nsuccess of transitions and the ultimate outcomes for equity. The group proposed\nexamining this question by using a cross-sectional sample of cities and\nintegrating a range of data sources relevant to those cities. Ultimately the\ngroup was interested in collecting and aggregating data from across systems\nthat span the urban rural gradient (eg. energy, transportation, water) at\npoints along that gradient and over an extended time period in order to best\nunderstand the interrelations of social, technological and environmental\nvariables on transitions and equity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Group\n3, Facilitator Christina Rosan<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Group 3 developed a research agenda aimed at\nunderstanding how best to identify targets for improving sustainability with a\nparticular focus on energy systems. The group argued for the need for a\nregional perspective so that synergies can be built and recognized among\ncommunities using different, but complementary strategies. They also argued for\na network\/life cycle approach to mapping\/making visible the entirety of energy\nsystems across space and time and across the urban-suburban-rural gradient.\nGroup three argued that this approach of focusing on one sector and its impact\non the urban-suburban-rural gradient would allow us to better understand\nsynergies and conflicts across the gradient and identify ways to create\nequitable and sustainable linkages. In short, the group was looking at how data\npertaining to sustainable interventions could be gathered, evaluated and\ndisseminated so that different models for success can be applied in the\nappropriate contexts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Group\n4, Facilitator Jeremy Mennis<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Group 4 questioned\nhow existing built infrastructure, both in urban and rural contexts, can be\nadapted and transformed in response to changing social, physical, and economic\ncontexts to maximize sustainability. They focused specifically on how\nmethodological approaches, which can account for temporal dimensions of\nsustainability challenges, might be deployed in order to envision and evaluate\ntransitions. Group 4 also looked at how new information infrastructures might\nbe developed to support real-time, fine spatial-temporal scale data capture. In\nparticular, the group focused on data capture at the individual and streetscape\nlevels across the urban-rural gradient. Developing these kind of data capture\nmethodologies might prove useful for addressing questions pertaining to which\ninfrastructures are most useful for or impactful in advancing well-being and\nhealth disparities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Panel session II: Synthesis and\nscalability to other regions in the US and beyond<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Moderator:\n<\/em><\/strong><strong>Hamil Pearsall, <\/strong>Associate Professor\nof Geography and Urban Studies, Temple University<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Usama Bilal, <\/strong>Assistant Professor\nof Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Drexel University<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Eduardo Brond\u00edzio, <\/strong>Distinguished Professor\nof Anthropology, Indiana University Bloomington<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Hallie Eakin, <\/strong>Professor and Senior\nSustainability Scientist, Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability,\nArizona State University<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Peleg Kramer, <\/strong>Assistant Professor\nof Geography and Environment, Villanova University<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Joe Pierce,<\/strong> Assistant Professor\nof Geography and Environmental Sustainability; Regional and City Planning,\nUniversity of Oklahoma<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Bill Solecki, <\/strong>Professor of\nGeography and Environmental Science, Hunter College<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Mark Stone, <\/strong>Associate Professor\nof Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, University of New Mexico<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Clare Hinrichs,<\/strong> Professor of Rural\nSociology, Penn State University<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Panelists in this session reflected upon the previous\nday\u2019s conversations and discussed the issues and opportunities for scaling up\nand applying the urban-rural gradient framework to differing sites and\ncontexts. There was a consensus among each panelist regarding the opportunities\nfor and necessity of comparative research, at the national scale as well as\nwithin the global north context, the global south context and between\nnorth\/south contexts. The consensus among panelists seemed to be that\nurban-rural systems were a key arena for future research and more work was\nneeded to better conceptualize these systems. Several panelists suggested that\na \u201cgradient\u201d conceptualization of the connections across urban and rural places\nimplied a linear change and missed differentiation within systems. Many of the\npanelists favored language that framed urban-rural systems as a \u201cmosaic\u201d, while\nthe need to weigh and compare frameworks that are place based, networked,\nand\/or relational was also discussed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The richness and complexity of the questions presented\nby the frameworks discussed demanded attention to methodological issues;\npanelists posed questions about how to sample large, heterogeneous populations\nacross an urban-rural system gradient, what forms of data might be most\nappropriate for understanding such systems, what role experimentation might\nplay in implementing and evaluating interventions and whether existing forms of\nknowledge co-production are appropriate for these complex systems. Finally,\nseveral panelists reflected on the need for a better understanding of the\ncomplex governance systems guiding sustainable transformations and how social\nmovements in shaping processes and outcomes within urban-rural systems. <br><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Day 3: Discussion relating to the\ndissemination of workshop findings and next steps<\/a><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>The concluding day of the workshop focused on developing deliverables\nfrom the workshop. The morning began with Melissa Gilbert (Temple University)\noutlining the six (6) deliverables: the National Science Foundation (NSF)\ncommunity report, a collaboration that would reach the broader public\ncommunity, a policy-oriented deliverable, a podcast, a concept paper as a\nresult of the workshop, and a special journal issue covering work from this and\nother related NSF workshops. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For the broader public community, Rachel Valletta, an environmental\nscientist representing The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, PA was present\nto offer her suggestions and resources as potential partners in this endeavor.\nShe suggested holding a workshop for public participants to explore their\nunderstandings of the concept of sustainability and why it mattered to them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Brett Fusco, manager of long-range planning at the Delaware Valley\nRegional Planning Commission (DVRPC), is leading the effort to reach out to\npolicymakers from the area to disseminate the results and themes from the\nworkshop. He suggested holding an event with policymakers to receive feedback\non the results of the workshop and to develop an ongoing relationship with\npolicymakers in the Philadelphia metropolitan region. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Dr. Eduardo Brond\u00edzio, editor-in-chief of <em>Current\nOpinions in Environmental Sustainability <\/em>provided information on the\nprocess of proposing a special issues in the journal. <em>Current Opinions in Environmental Sustainability<\/em> publishes short\nreview papers of mostly recent literature on the topic from the past 2-3 years\nin a field, as well as synthesis and agenda-setting papers. The organizing\ncommittee is exploring the possibility of pursuing a special issue along the\nthemes of the workshop and is currently drafting a conceptual paper to guide\nthe development of the special issue. <br><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a>Conclusion &amp; Next Steps<\/a><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>The workshop concluded with a consensus on the need to develop a science\nof equity and well-being across the urban-rural gradient. We laid the\ngroundwork by identifying important gaps in knowledge that will anchor our work\nmoving forward including: e on are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>How to create and\nevaluate models for knowledge co-production: <\/strong>Participants agreed that\nco-production of knowledge (among academic researchers, policymakers,\neducators, and nonprofit workers, etc) must be a priority for developing a\nscience of equity and well-being across the urban-rural gradient. However, much\nmore must be done in terms of developing feasible and ethical models for this\napproach to research as well as methods for evaluating these models. <strong><\/strong><\/li><li><strong>How to meaningfully\nprioritize equity and well-being<\/strong> <strong>in\nsustainability research and policy-making: <\/strong>Participants discussed the fact\nthat academia has put forth several critiques of equity issues in planning and\npolicy-making, but has offered few solutions. They identified a significant gap\nin research, policy-making, and planning, specifically a lack of knowledge about\nwhat communities actually think about equity, infrastructure, and\nsustainability, which underscores the importance of co-produced knowledge.<strong><\/strong><\/li><li><strong>How to bring\nanalysis of health into infrastructure research: <\/strong>Participants found that\nthere is very little research that looks at the impacts of specific\ninfrastructures on health outcomes and proposed that this should be a key area\nof future research.<strong><\/strong><\/li><li><strong>Possible\nre-conceptualizations of the urban-rural gradient: <\/strong>Participants debated the\nusefulness of the concept of \u201curban-rural gradient\u201d and whether the terms\n\u201cmosaic\u201d or \u201cnetwork\u201d might be more accurate. The consensus was that\nurban-rural systems are in fact a key arena for future research given the\nsustainability challenges we are experiencing in many types of infrastructure\nsystems such as food, energy, water, transportation, education etc. Therefore\nmore thought should be put into how best to conceptualize these systems.<strong><\/strong><\/li><li><strong>Comparative research\non infrastructure systems: <\/strong>While the Philadelphia metropolitan area was the case\nstudy for exploring these topics, participants identified the need for\ncomparative research across the urban-rural gradient, between different\nurban-rural sites, and especially between the Global North and the Global\nSouth. <strong><\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Next steps include: <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Distributing this\nreport<\/strong> to community partners and others\u2019 interested in organizing similar\nworkshops.<\/li><li>Small groups <strong>maintaining\nrelationships<\/strong> and continuing to discuss their emerging transdisciplinary\nresearch projects. <\/li><li><strong>Publishing<\/strong> outcomes of the\nworkshop and developing frameworks in academic journals.<\/li><li><strong>Connecting with\norganizers of other NSF SUS workshops<\/strong> to reflect on experiences and synthesize findings for\nadditional publishing collaborations.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\" \/>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\"><sup>[1]<\/sup><\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nsf.gov\/ere\/ereweb\/ac-ere\/sustainable-urban-systems.pdf\">https:\/\/www.nsf.gov\/ere\/ereweb\/ac-ere\/sustainable-urban-systems.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\"><sup>[2]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cSustainable urban systems (SUS) are those\nthat are transforming their structures and processes with the goal of\nmeasurably advancing the well-being of people and the planet (page 5).\u201d (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nsf.gov\/ere\/ereweb\/ac-ere\/sustainable-urban-systems.pdf\">https:\/\/www.nsf.gov\/ere\/ereweb\/ac-ere\/sustainable-urban-systems.pdf<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\"><sup>[3]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cThis type of science relates to both\ndefinitions of trans-disciplinary research, in which new science and methods\nare generated as a function of deep integration across disciplines and the\nexplicit consideration of how to transition from basic scientific discovery to practitioner\napplication (page 11)\u201d.(<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nsf.gov\/ere\/ereweb\/ac-ere\/sustainable-urban-systems.pdf\">https:\/\/www.nsf.gov\/ere\/ereweb\/ac-ere\/sustainable-urban-systems.pdf<\/a>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Download the Community Report here Report on the workshop \u2018How Does Infrastructure Shape Equity and Well-being Across the Urban-Rural Gradient\u2019 This work is licensed under&#8230;<\/p>\n<div class=\"more-link-wrapper\"><a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/community-report\/\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Community Report<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":15407,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-285","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/285","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15407"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/285\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/susworkshop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}