Search

Research suggests that maternal exposure to natural environments (i.e., green and blue spaces) promotes healthy fetal growth. However, the available evidence is heterogeneous across regions, with very few studies on the effects of blue spaces. This study evaluated associations between maternal exposure to natural environments and birth outcomes in 11 birth cohorts across nine European countries. This study, part of the LifeCycle project, was based on a total sample size of 69,683 newborns with harmonised data. For each participant, we calculated seven indicators of residential exposure to natural environments: surrounding greenspace in 100m, 300m, and 500m using Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) buffers, distance to the nearest green space, accessibility to green space, distance to the nearest blue space, and accessibility to blue space. Measures of birth weight and small for gestational age (SGA) were extracted from hospital records. We used pooled linear and logistic regression models to estimate associations between exposure to the natural environment and birth outcomes, controlling for the relevant covariates. We evaluated the potential effect modification by socioeconomic status (SES) and region of Europe and the influence of ambient air pollution on the associations. In the pooled analyses, residential surrounding greenspace in 100m, 300m, and 500m buffer was associated with increased birth weight and lower odds for SGA. Higher residential distance to green space was associated with lower birth weight and higher odds for SGA. We observed close to null associations for accessibility to green space and exposure to blue space. We found stronger estimated magnitudes for those participants with lower educational levels, from more deprived areas, and living in the northern European region. Our associations did not change notably after adjustment for air pollution. These findings may support implementing policies to promote natural environments in our cit

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(IPBES) strengthens the science-policy interface by producing scientific assessments on biodiversity and ecosystem services to inform policy. IPBES fosters knowledge exchange across disciplines, between researchers and other knowledge holders, practitioners, societal actors and decision makers working at different geographic scales. A number of avenues for participation of stakeholders across the four functions if IPBES exist. Stakeholders come from diverse backgrounds, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities, businesses, and non-governmental organization. They represent multiple sources of information, data, knowledge, and perspectives on biodiversity. Stakeholder engagement in IPBES seeks to 1. communicate, disseminate, and implement the findings of IPBES products; 2. Develop guidelines for biodiversity conservation within member countries; and 3. create linkages between global policy and local actors – all key to the implementation of global agreements on biodiversity. This paper reflects on the role of stakeholders in the first work programme of IPBES (2014–2018). It provides an overview of IPBES processes and products relevant to stakeholders, examines the motivation of stakeholders to engage with IPBES, and explores reflections by the authors (all active participants on the platform) for improved stakeholder engagement and contributions to future work of the platform.

The Paris Conference of Parties (COP) has sought to initiate a global regime for the mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and, where necessary, adaptation to them. The governance challenges are immense – in the governance of the negotiations, in the governance of the complex set of mechanisms that those negotiations are generating, in the integrity mechanisms to ensure as far as possible that those mechanisms fulfil their functions (leading to a rudimentary Global Carbon Integrity System/Regime). 1 In the light of the dynamic relations between state and non-state actors within the climate negotiations, there is a growing recognition that more research is needed to explore the social dimensions of governance quality in climate mechanisms, particularly around decision-making processes. These take note of the social-political nature of climate governance and explore governance quality by looking at the participatory structures, deliberative processes, substantive products, and longer-term outcomes as the determinants of regime effectiveness. 2 Effectiveness is understood as the measure of institutional performance against a set of desired objectives. 3 and constitute a ‘thick’ set of governance values, as outlined late in this chapter and more extensively in Chapter 2 . Following the approach delineated there, the governance quality of the climate regime is not attributed to any single institutional arrangement, such as transparency, even though this is, of course, important. Evaluating the performance of an institution on the basis of a restricted set of values would constitute a somewhat ‘thin’ assessment; consequently this volume explores some of the broader parameters affecting quality of governance and institutional integrity and their possible impacts on the policy responses to climate change.