Search

Background: In 2016, large-scale 20 miles per hour speed limits were introduced in the United Kingdom cities of Edinburgh and Belfast. This paper investigates the role that scientific evidence played in the policy decisions to implement lower speed limits in the two cities. Methods: Using a qualitative case study design, we undertook content analysis of a range of documents to explore and describe the evolution of the two schemes and the ways in which evidence informed decision-making. In total, we identified 16 documents for Edinburgh, published between 2006 and 2016, and 19 documents for Belfast, published between 2002 and 2016. Findings: In both cities, evidence on speed, collisions and casualties was important for initiating discussions on large-scale 20 mph policies. However, the narrative shifted over time to the idea that 20 mph would contribute to a wider range of aspirations, none of which were firmly grounded in evidence, but may have helped to neutralize opposing discourses. Discussion and conclusions: The relationship between evidence and decision-making in Edinburgh and Belfast was neither simple nor linear. Widening of the narrative appears to have helped to frame the idea in such a way that it had broad acceptability, without which there would have been no implementation, and probably a lot more push back from vested interests and communities than there was. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Previous systematic reviews investigating the effects of green and blue space (GBS) on maternal and neonatal health have mainly focused on cross-sectional evidence, limiting potential causal inferences. The last review on the topic was published in January 2024. This review focused on residential greenness effects and neonatal health only but did not include other green/blue space measures, or maternal health outcomes. This review also only included papers published up to June 2023; discounting the 15 studies that have been published since. Thus, this study will capture the growing number of studies that generate causal evidence and aims to investigate the association between GBS and maternal and/or neonatal health., Methods and Analysis: The study protocol was developed with reference to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. This review will include study designs such as experiments, quasi-experiments, longitudinal studies and more. The study independent variable must be a GBS, green space and/or blue space measure. Eligible maternal health outcomes are those reported during pregnancy and up to 1 year after pregnancy. Neonatal health outcomes are limited to neonates no older than 28 days. A total of seven online databases will be searched: Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Embase, Environment Complete, and Maternity and Infant Care Database. Abstract and full-text screenings will be undertaken by three reviewers. Risk of bias assessment will be conducted based on the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Exposure framework.A narrative synthesis will be undertaken. If sufficiently comparable studies are identified, meta-analyses using random effects models will be conducted. We will explore heterogeneity using the I 2 test., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not required as all the data will be derived from published primary studies that have already obtained ethical permissions. The findings will be disseminated through relevant conferences and peer-reviewed publications., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42023396372., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)