Minutes
Meeting
URBAN-NEXUS
DIALOGUE CAFÉ 2012, BARCELONA
Health and quality of life in urban areas - Partnership Approaches
Date
17th & 18th October 2012
Place
Aula Magna, Casa Convalescència, Hospital de Sant Pau, Barcelona. Spain.
Participants
ANNEX 1: List of participants
Generic Concerns, objectives and structure of the Dialog Café
The main concerns of this Dialogue Café (DC henceforth) were to explore and bridge the scientific
and policies realms of researches and practices related to quality of life (QoL henceforth) in urban
areas, as to the health related issues within the European cities’ environments. Some of the main
hypothesis of the dialogue included the following research questions:
Are health and QoL aspects included in early stages of policy planning? Which social aspects are
related to QoL and are they linked to urban planning and design? Is people’s QoL influenced by
urban structure, patterns and flows? Are there tools to measure positive health effects of
biodiversity and the natural environment to promote healthy urban design (“Green cities”)? Which
is the kind of information needed?
In order to address those complex and challenging issues in a participative way, the DC has been
organized around three main sessions, each structured within a first presentations part followed by
roundtables debates, in which different topics were discussed and reported simultaneously to
constitute the final DC follow-up report. The three sessions were:
Session 1. Integrating health and quality of life aspects in urban management, urban policies
and urban environment. General discussion on the Synthesis Report
Session 2. City experiences in dealing with health and quality of life.
Session 3. Common interests and opportunities: implementation from local to regional
scales and from national to European scales
Furthermore sites visit “The Llobregat Delta: meeting point for dwellings, agriculture, nature, health
and industry. Conflict or challenge” was organized on October 17th afternoon in order to tackle a living
example of conflictive land uses and related quality of life and health aspects debated along the day.
Detailed structure, issues addressed and results of the Dialog Café.
Day One, October 17th
Welcome and Introduction to URBAN-NEXUS Barcelona DC.
Welcome from Dr. Toni Durá, head of Geography dept, Dr. Mart Grisel introduce Urban
Nexus project and Núria Blanes (UAB university, WP3) officially open the dialog
introducing the structure and sessions functioning.
SESSION 1 Integrating health and quality of life aspects in urban management, urban policies
and urban environment. General discussion on the Synthesis Report.
Introductory Presentations (from 9:50 to 10:30)
‒
Miquel Sáinz (UAB, WP3) presents “The Synthesis Report on Health and Quality of life”
addressing its structure, methods and outputs. Concepts and definitions of health and QoL
are related to urban structure and management mainly exploring the nexus between
health and: i) environmental stressors and alleviators ii) Socio-economic (and cultural)
stressors and alleviators iii) urban structure and management types.
‒
Leendert Van Bree (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Netherlands)
presented “Urban environmental health concepts – health protection and health promotion”.
This presentation emphasized those healthy and sustainable cities should face challenges
relate to: urban-rural functional connections, climate proof, ecological footprint (energy,
transport, resources and food supply), historical and cultural identity. Health was defined
as an environmental hygiene, psycho-physical and social wellbeing value. The main goals
for policy makers were illustrated as health-risk decreasing related objectives. Graphs on
air pollution, benzene, PM10 concentrations explained the multidimensional perspectives
on health concept. Finally a roadmap for sustainable and healthy cities was presented.
‒
Margarita Triguero (CREAL, Barcelona) presented “Urban policies and health determinants:
transport and open natural green/blue spaces”. As a regard of the links between transports
and public health, Margarita illustrated some examples from a recent article developed on
the basis of the Metro Barcelona scenarios replacing car trips by bike and public transports
increasing. After have demonstrated the usefulness of such policy approach for transports
managements, she put forward the benefits evidences of living within a green and blues open
spaces urban environment. Finally, Phenotype FP7 project was briefly presented in order to
assess the main research questions related to health and urban environment comparing
different EU cities.
Breakout sessions (6 roundtables debates, from 11:00 to 13:00)
The objective of such roundtable debates was to further elaborate and discuss on the contents of
the Synthesis Report (SR henceforth). Three main topics based on the table of contents of the SR
were proposed to be discussed. Each topic was addressed following four research questions, which
resumed answers are illustrated in the following paragraphs.
First Topic on Environmental stressors and alleviators

Which would be the definition for quality of life considering solely environmental
stressors and alleviators? How quality of life is influenced by them?
Since there is a mix of stressors and responses in urban environment quality of life
is difficult to define as subjectively depends to such stressors resolutions. Although
many agree on the definition given by Leendert, others underline the need of
include happiness and equity issues in the concept of QoL. However such
indicators of happiness have been calculated mainly using GDP related measures
and there’s a need of introducing new, integrated and equity based approaches.

Which practices / examples from the Synthesis report were most encouraging / could
be a step forward for your work?
Concrete case studies in the boxes were the most useful examples, as the recent
focus on noise. However people felt the lack of real and detailed information the
processes (how to put in practices the given examples), negotiations and concrete
costs-benefits of implementing some suggested solution. Furthermore the
usefulness of proposed solutions is threatened by their contest dependency, so
that cycling, as green roofs etc are very contest dependent and could not serve
general suggestions.

What needs to be more precisely described and/or envisioned in our joint
forthcoming work (to be able to decide on the right moves)?
Many issues arose here, from detailed case examples (NY One million trees
programs to Izmir in Turkey or Mersey forest) to general concerns as more
exposure of children to natural areas. The bigger concerns to be tackled are how to
address a functional multilevel governance, how to not generalize best practices in
a top-down policy structure (like the case of EU Directives), or how to deal with
the safety of green spaces improving them at the same time. Educations, as green
jobs, were at the center of the debates, responsible to promote and push for
behavioural transitions. The qualitative dimension of the ecosystem services (the
more detailed knowledge on their functioning) it has been considered also a
fundamental research milestones around the topic of improving urban green
spaces.

What would you describe as gaps in science, policy and practice at present (with
reference to the evidence presented in the Synthesis Report)?
This was one the most diverse and rich answered questions and gaps were
individuated: between policy and practices, between the needs and the technical
solutions, the innovation in research and the put in practice and gaps between the
funding for learning and the funding for build on next steps. The needs are then to
integrate different approaches between research-policy and practice, integrate
multi-criteria assessment in valuations still made basically with cost benefit
analysis, integrate ecosystem services in planning and finally diminish the gap
between people and politics. Examples from Malmo and Amsterdam were used to
explain what has been done in order to tackle different gaps (participative
processes using 2.0 technologies, include more qualitative ecological concern in
planning green areas
Second Topic on Socio-economic and cultural stressors and alleviators
 Which would be the definition for quality of life considering solely socio-economic
and cultural stressors and alleviators? How quality of life is influenced by them?
Responses around the definition and attributes of a good QoL underlined mainly
the access (equitable) to good sanitation, housing, green spaces, affordable and
good quality food, to jobs, to safety conditions, quite places and social mixed
neighbourhoods. Tourism can be considered both as negative or positive impacts
on QoL. Another good point was around the subjective perception of QoL and so
the possibility of addressing QoL out of quality socio-economic standards.
 Which practices / examples from the Synthesis report were most encouraging / could
be a step forward for your work?
Bristol, surrounded by farmland allowing a sustainable and local chain of
production – consumption, represented a good example, as Malmo with its green
spaces, pedestrian walkable streets and children playing outside. Other practices
as green roofs, or social inclusion programs were also mentioned.
 What needs to be more precisely described and/or envisioned in our joint
forthcoming work (to be able to decide on the right moves)?
Very different answers here explored a range of responses going from the case
studies to policy guidelines. However, more concrete needs were about: land uses
management and planning issues, the gender aspects of QoL, the migration policies
and dynamics, regulatory frameworks needed for landlords and last but the least
explaining the trend (and how to invert it) of increasing health budget.
 What would you describe as gaps in science, policy and practice at present (with
reference to the evidence presented in the Synthesis Report)?
The main concerns were about how to include and involve vulnerable people
(disabled, minor ethnic groups, low incomes etc), how to introduce the concept of
happiness in QoL assessment, how to sustain local food production. Gaps are about
that, and the role of national states, the role of public spaces and the role of new
rules (like sharing is caring versus competitive models).
Third Topic on Urban structure and urban management types

Which would be the definition for quality of life considering solely the urban
structures and urban management types? How quality of life is influenced by them?
Spatial patterns of urban distribution do influence QoL, the question was “is the
QoL of determinate city structure sustainable?” This was one of the paradoxes of
QoL and urban structure, since some land use like a sprawled city constitute from
single houses with swimming pools that do represent an unsustainable urban
pattern although this can be considered as highly trendy and constitute an urban
QoL symbol. Much more debate was spent also on how to regenerate neglected
neighbourhoods avoiding gentrification processes, which in turn represent the
most dramatic consequences of enhancing QoL within some urban restoration and
renewal plan. Lastly more standard discourses around indexes of noise-trafficpollution were addressed as part of the relationship health-QoL and urban
structure and management.

Which practices / examples from the Synthesis report were most encouraging / could
be a step forward for your work
Rural – urban relationship, as Bristol, or Malmo case where the most cited, while
also Bologna or other biking related cities where mentioned. Green roofs and other
technical stuffs were also mentioned however raising concerns upon the high cost
of such solution emphasized the un-sustainability for their application in southern
European countries.

What needs to be more precisely described and/or envisioned in our joint
forthcoming work (to be able to decide on the right moves)?
The advises here were around the lack of more cases, as the lack of some urban
scale integrated approach in any case, remaining very specific examples.
Furthermore the monetary aspect of the solution proposed was never taken in
account. Some participant suggested that more economic oriented tools are
needed in order to evaluate the feasibility of any proposals. From another side,
when proposed solution are about greening a more detailed analysis of ecosystem
services functions and functioning would allow a better understanding of green
spaces, useful both for the design and management stages of green areas.

What would you describe as gaps in science, policy and practice at present (with
reference to the evidence presented in the Synthesis Report)?
A gap in science has emerged to be the understanding of ecosystem services and
functioning when green spaces are planned. Furthermore gaps in practices and
policy agenda constitute a real problem when new governance models should be
putted in forces. However, the most gap identified was the un clear pattern QoL
should follow, since the definition of QoL in relation to different urban
environment and flows (metabolisms) do not take into account per se the
sustainability dimensions, neither the economic well being related to the
happiness states.
Session 2 City experiences in dealing with health and quality of life
Introductory presentations (13:45 to 14:15)
‒
Milan Obradovic (Malmö City Administration) presented “Political will is a must
for technical solutions - a healthy environment is a human right”. In this talk
technical solutions to face traffic noise (speed regulation, reducing cars journey,
quiet sides design of urban form), or air pollution (increasing bus lines, electric
cars, titan oxide on pavements, bicycle lanes) were addressed as potential healthy
urban environment depending mainly on political wills. More detailed info on the
Malmo case study were given not just as a regards of urban transit management
but also on how to improve green roofs, rainwater management and recreation.
‒
Núria Calzada (Public Health Agency, Barcelona) presented “Health in the
neighbourhoods”. In this presentation a portrait of some deprived Barcelona
neighbourhoods was assessed analyzing mainly the deprivation index, and the
usefulness of some social program like the activa’t project (activities in the public
parks) or baixem al carrer (volunteers taking elder people outside their homes).
The limitation in assessing that were dependent from the scarcity of data and the
average of the population benefitted from such programs. The strengths were
represented by the satisfaction of users and real intersectoral work between
neighbourhoods and municipality.
Break-out session (from 14:15 to 15:45)
In this second roundtable break-out sessions, based on what the speakers explained, the aim was to
determine examples that could be applicable to all Europe, solutions only being adopted for specific
problems not generalized throughout Europe or possibilities of implementation of technical
approaches. In this second section the participants had been asked to write down flow chart
schemas answering the two main questions of 1) How can we define and integrate the concept of
“quality of life” in urban policies and planning between administrative and geographical scales? And
2) How to apply tools and solutions fixing urban quality of life issues for all European cities in time of
economic crisis?
Results from the first round of debates on question 1) How can we define and integrate the concept
of “quality of life” in urban policies and planning between administrative and geographical scales?
Depending on the table the approaches and languages used to explain the
integration of QoL in urban policies differed from organized flow chart schemes to
fuzzy and mixed issues-concerns-ideas over how to deal with this. From an
integrated and critically resumed version of such brainstorming we can identify
some common points, like for example approaching the bottom up versus top
down planning and management issue, whereas QoL should be assessed and
directed from EU or national schemes of standards better than from local people
and their lifestyles and wishes? From that scales issues emerge in almost all the
debates as a concern related to how and who should address which level of QoL
and how to improve the communication-integration between the put in practices
of all the theories-suggestions? In fact as much as participation (people
involvement) is taking into account more fragmented and contest dependent
solution are presented and promoted, rising the problem of national or European
coordination between different actions and standards. In many tables the local
built examples tried to drive the debate thanks to such solution oriented
approaches, although as for the transition town initiatives the problem stands in
coordination between national socio-economic regimes and local wills to break
with such top-down oriented (and sometimes unsustainable) patterns of
developments. Participative democracy views seems to have suggested a more
uniform and accepted policy on how to integrate people in such cross scale
coordination.
Changing thread another important view was related to the distinction between
QoL and health since it obviously seems easier to developed a less participative
and contest dependent model for addressing health in city (notwithstanding
geographical differences) than QoL. However, many agreed that the concept of
focusing on (both rural and urban) Ecosystem Services could work in order to
tackle both concepts within an ecological sustainability framework.
Furthermore, as reported in the graph below, some table dealt with an integrated
thematic focus of interests on how to address QoL in urban management,
emphasizing the role of citizen participation, integrated management, the role of
monetary action in supporting such processes and the issue of lack of trust on
public institutions.
Another examples of how to organize the discourse has been developed framing
scales and topics as illustrated in the next table below. In this version the emphasis
was placed over the access issue, to basic need as food, jobs, public spaces etc.
Results from the second round of debates on question 2) How to apply tools and solutions fixing urban
quality of life issues for all European cities in time of economic crisis?
Notwithstanding that in some tables economic crisis has been seen like the frosting
solution agent (because of the costly technical solutions) from the other side many
recognized and saw in crisis the element of the opportunity to change model, to
innovate, to experiment transitions. As the cost of inaction would be dramatic the
concerns were around how to act, better than if it is the case or not to act. Do exist
in fact cheap solutions, like the 30Km/h zones for cars, improve social fairness,
bikes use, degrowth and urban farming, education and behavioural change, foster
social cohesion by cooperatives, enhance the functions of Ecosystem Services,
invest in green jobs etc. However, such solutions are radical alternatives and
changes to our contemporaneous life style (or socio-economical regime), which
implies a shock for tradeoffs chains that dominated our societal functioning. Such
shock, reflecting the vision of “fix the problem by eliminating the source” is
problematic because of the politics institutional lock in within a complex cross
scales mechanisms of middle and long term agreements with private corporationsstakeholders etc (which should be broken in order to start a transition to different
development models). In such panorama a shared opinion between different tables
was the concerns on how to empowering local communities, as they got the wills,
knowledge and feeling about QoL.
Site visit (from 16:00 to 19:00)
The Llobregat Delta: meeting point for dwellings, agriculture, nature, health and industry. Conflict or
challenge?
A site visit was planned to show an example of landscape matrix where multiple land uses gathers.
The Llobregat Delta served as a case example due to its multifunctional character. It is a meeting
point for nature protection, industry (including an airport, a port, a sewage treatment plant, among
other industries), agriculture, sports and leisure, and the urban fabric. All this mixture located in a
single area can be the precursor of a conflict or a challenge.
A first stop at the Nature Park information centre “Espais Naturals del Riu” and Cal Llauquer Tower
helped to build a panoramic view of the landscape matrix where multiple land uses gathers. From
the top of the tower we could appreciate the different elements forming this rich landscape. We
could observe the last stretch of river Llobregat flowing to the Mediterranean sea, different water
infrastructures (sewage and desalination), and the port logistic zone. Closer we saw the nature
reserve composed by wetlands and lagoons, coastal pine grooves on dunes, beaches and dune
vegetation. Behind them some farming fields, industrial parks and the airport, and urban areas.
Next stop at the plane spotting zone there was a talk about the airport and its relation with “El Prat
de Llobregat” municipality and the surrounding elements. Barcelona-El Prat airport occupies about
a third of El Prat’s territory. The airport and the derived economic activities are the main business
in El Prat. For all these, its territorial and socio-economic influence is so important over El Prat
municipality. Which is the relation between El Prat citizens and the airport? Is it linked somehow to
the local identity? What mitigation or compensation measures were applied to reduce noise effects
on population due to the construction of the new airport terminal? These are questions that were
been discussed during this stop.
Afterwards, the outdoor sports and facilities area was the focus of the stop as recently new facilities
are available to citizens facilitating the practise of different outdoor activities and, consequently,
encouraging healthy habits. Questions like following ones were discussed:



How far local government can improve people’s health and quality of life through outdoor
activities using green infrastructure available?
Which are the most ‘successful’ facilities? And which are the ‘unsuccessful’ ones?
Which problems have been faced from local authorities?
The forth stop at the Vegetable public gardens showed how these gardens provide a space for
leisure through the mixture of gardening and agriculture; favouring elderly, disabled, and
unemployed people. Here it was commented the response of citizenship to this kind of initiatives,
as well as to know the links between gardening and local identity.
Last stop was at the Sailing club beach, on the coastal fringe where different areas of important
natural values are found; sea, beach, littoral pine groves, and wetlands provide a variety habitats.
The delta platform is very rich in invertebrates and fishes, holding also important marine bird
fauna, and some cetaceans. Beaches keep flora and fauna communities typical of coastal
sandbanks. Additionally, this is a key location in migration routes between Africa and Northern
Europe. In this biodiversity hotspot it coincide different human activities like sunbathing, walking,
jogging, cycling, the practise of different sports as well as enjoying a relaxed time in the beach.
Day Two, October 18th
SESSION 3. Common interests and opportunities: implementation from local to regional
scales and from national to European scales
Introductory presentations (from 9:10 to 9:55)
‒
Jeroen Matthijssen (Landskapsarkitekt Göteborg, Sweden) presented “Simulating urban
climate: an opportunity to improve quality of life”. Within this talk technical tools on how to
design urban structures taking into account winds and microclimate were illustrated using
specific software. Methodological introductions explained how and why to assess climate
site specific factors and therefore managing the design process. Simulations and daily
practises in the case study of Nya Hovas were presented to illustrate practical examples.
‒
Gaetano Licitra (ARPAT, Italy) presented “Quiet areas in cities and agglomerations: a
comparison of experiences implementing European Noise Directive CE/49/2002”. After a
brief introduction on what are the benefits of quite areas (QA henceforth) for health and
QoL, this presentation addressed the definitions of QA as reported by the European
Directive CE/49/2002, and framing between QA in agglomeration and open spaces.
Approaches and standard in order to identify the quite areas were explained within their
complex and context specific backgrounds because of the different perceptions and
sensibilities. Design examples (as the quite facades) were illustrated in order to split from
just quite areas to noise protection and creation of acoustic quality environments.
Conclusions remarked the importance of planning and design for the creation and
preservation of QA, as to built a strong set of indicators shared between member states.
‒
Itziar Aspuru (Tecnalia, Basque Country) presented “Environmental comfort and urban
design: Examples of the Basque Country”. Conceptual models of environmental experiences
were used in order to illustrate the links and flows between environmental quality and
citizen experience. The specific focus on urban climate represented a key view in three
similar project presented along the presentation: the renewal of Plentzia municipality, the
Indautxu and Plaza Nueva squares in Bilbao. Methodologies and tools on how to enhance
urban micro-climate comfort wished to assess such comfort and integrate these
parameters in urban planning practice. Finally GRETA project proposal (GReen
infrastructure enhancing biodiversity and EcosysTem services in urban Areas) was
presented as a new initiative to assess and clarify the relationship between urban
ecosystem services and QoL.
‒
Margaret Douglas (NHS Lothian, Scotland) presented “Building partnerships for Health in
Edinburgh”. This presentation emphasized the key role of building cross sectors
partnership in order to enhance health in the case of Edinburg. Barriers and potential
synergies between different sectors and scales were individuated. Focusing on health
facilities for wider health benefits stand principles for new buildings and social
programmes emphasized the importance of walk ability oriented practices which in turn
do influence spatial planning practices. Final remarks constitutes the call for integration
and network building for bridging the gaps between planning and citizen QoL.
‒
Yordan Radev (University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy, Bulgaria)
presented “The challenge of the new technologies and the spatial planning in favour of
humans’ health and quality of life in the cities”. Undeniably the role of new technologies
plays a fundamental games in the societal metabolism innovation framework, and different
solution where presented within this talk. However, the same presentation was smart in
critically address which real connections such innovations play between general
environmental issues and citizen QoL. Passive modes (wind ventilation etc) as design
concepts were illustrated in order to assess the positive effects of innovation in buildings
and urban environments. However this presentation last call was for an integrated
implementation within the whole planning and urban management of such innovations
and monitoring as improved indicators of these qualitative implementations should be
enhanced.
Breakout session 1 (from 9:55 – 11:00)
Scenery: Tables of 8 people (including the chairperson). In the table, each speaker
will have several DIN-A3 with photograph & controversial sentence, with and
arrow with 0 to 100% agreement. This will be shown to the participants and with
colored stickers, each participant should indicate the percentage of agreement and
a reason why, and while doing it, explaining it. The results of this session will be
included in the follow up report.
Breakout session 2 (from 11:00 to 13:00)
Identify common interests and future opportunities (long term partnerships)
Each table had DIN-A5 papers in order to identify respectively concerns,
challenges and possible solutions to fix QoL issues in urban environments. Finally
the chairperson had indicated their most 3 selected items into a general
blackboard in order to find similarities and create groups of interested persons.
Herewith we report some of the main results about concerns-challenges and
solutions emerged from such rich brainstorming.
Concerns:
Lack of promotion / awareness of good / worst examples
Decision making and leadership  Implementation of future visions.
Improve land planning (local and regional)
Provision of pedestrian ways for daily activities (work, shopping,…)
Locked in economic regimes: a concern that we are unable to change our
(economic) way of thinking
Challenges
Improve Degrowth strategies
Socially inclusive and environmentally comprehensive policies
Make local and global perspectives and solutions work at the same time: a glocal
perspective / Balance the needs of people from a local perspective with the global
market dynamics
Research: Build/improve opportunities to dialogue between researchers and
policy makers
Break the links between economic growth and Quality of Life
Solutions
Densify our cities in a smart way concerning both: environmental and social
aspects
Make research better linked to practice and involve partners from all of Europe in
consortia
Intelligent architecture (comprehensive building / urban design) + Sustainable
planning
Re-invent democracy
difference/conflict
through
participatory
process
which
enable
Participation in decision making
Develop knowledge locally to redress balance between local and global knowledge,
value experiential knowledge and apply principles of subsidiarity
Combination of top down (action plans) and grass root initiatives
Final results consisted in the table illustrated in the following photographs in order to create
researchers-interested in groups for long term partnerships.
Closure remarks by the Stakeholder Advisory Board members
ANNEX 1:
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Title Name
Surname
Organisation
Mr
Mr
Mrs
Mrs
Mrs
Mr
Mrs
Mr
Mrs
Mrs
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mrs
Mrs
Mrs
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mrs
Mr
Mr
Mrs
Mr
Mr
Mrs
Mrs
Mrs
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mrs
Mr
Mrs
Mrs
Mrs
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
MacGregor
Corbett
Casellas
Dobrudzhalieva
Scurrell
Knothe
Olofsdotter
Nugent
Naidin
van Gent
Baró
Licitra
Peroni
Gencheva
Anguelovski
Aspuru
Kain
Martinez
Matthijssen
Langemeyer
Graham
Hollander
Milenov
Björnberg
van Bree
Chelleri
Douglas
Triguero-Mas
Cugny-Seguin
Grisel
Buser
Marton
Obradovic
Sáinz de la Maza
Pallares-Barbera
ŞimŞek
Blanes Guàrdia
Calzada
Ubach
Kamphof
Ross
Milego
Jones
May
ISOCARP
GCV Green Network Partnership
Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB)
BAMEE
Bauhaus Dessau Foundation
Medeambiente Berlin
FORMAS
European Environment Agency
EUROCITIES
Centre de Recerca en Epidemiologia Ambiental - CREAL
Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB)
ARPAT
SIRS
ASDE Ecoregions
Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB)
Tecnalia
Mistra Urban Futures
University of Twente. Faculty ITC
White architects
Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB)
Sniffer
Nicis Institute/Platform31
ASDE Ecoregions
FORMAS
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB)
NHS Lothian
Centre de Recerca en Epidemiologia Ambiental - CREAL
European Environment Agency
Nicis Institute/Platform31
U.W.E.
Regional Environmental Center
City of Malmö
Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB)
Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB)
Middle Black Sea Devolopment Agency (OKA)
Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB)
Public Healt Agency of Barcelona
Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB)
Platform 31
SUNY-ESF
Autonomous University of Barcelona
Glasgow Centre for Population Health
Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures
Alex
Ally
Antònia
Assya
Babette
Bettina
Britt
Colin
Denisa
Diana
Francesc
Gaetano
Guido
Ina
Isabelle
Itziar
Jaan-Henrik
Javier
Jeroen
Johannes
June
Koen
Kristian
Kristina
Leendert
Lorenzo
Margaret
Margarita
Marie
Mart
Michael
Miklós
Milan
Miquel
Montserrat
Murat
Núria
Nuria
Raquel
Ries
Robert
Roger
Russell
Tim
Mr
Mr
Mr
Vincent
Wolfgang
Yordan
Cousin
Hofstetter
Radev
Advancity
Climate Alliance
UACG