Food waste is a multi-faceted and complex problem for urban circular economies with far-reaching environmental impacts. Effectively addressing this problem requires a comprehensive understanding of the food waste impacts on food, energy, water, and climate (FEWC) systems. Despite complex dynamics in the FEWC nexus, the most popular guidance for food waste management is the food waste hierarchy framework - which fails to account for ensuing impacts on all nexus elements. Aiming to optimise the framework, we adopt a participatory approach to develop the first comprehensive and replicable system dynamics model of the FEWC footprints of urban food waste throughout the agri-food supply chain. The quantitative model compares different food waste management options, and relevant policies in Bristol, UK (2018-2030). Unlike the guidance of the traditional waste hierarchy framework, our findings show that the preferability of each option can vary for each sector within the supply chain and for each FEWC element. Our results show that increasing food surplus redistribution in the supply sectors and reducing food waste in consumer sectors are the most preferable approaches to reduce the environmental impacts of food. Feeding food leftover to pets at household level also has a promising impact. Other options involve trade-offs between energy and carbon footprints, while having minimal impact on water footprint. We conclude that the traditional food waste hierarchy is too simplified to provide reliable guidance for environmentally sustainable food waste management and policy. Instead, we present an improved food waste hierarchy framework that accounts for the scale of preferability of each option for different sectors and different FEWC nexus elements. This novel framework thus provides more nuanced and more robust understanding of food waste impacts on the FEWC nexus in urban circular economies, thereby enabling the development of policy and management options that are optimised for environmental sustainability.

This paper sets out the main findings from two rounds of interviews with senior representatives from the UK’s urban development industry: the third and final phase of a 3-year pilot, Moving Health Upstream in Urban Development’ (UPSTREAM). The project had two primary aims: firstly, to attempt to value economically the health cost-benefits associated with the quality of urban environments and, secondly, to interview those in control of urban development in the UK in order to reveal the potential barriers to, and opportunities for, the creation of healthy urban environments, including their views on the use of economic valuation of (planetary) health outcomes. Much is known about the ‘downstream’ impact of urban environments on human and planetary health and about how to design and plan healthy towns and cities (‘midstream’), but we understand relatively little about how health can be factored in at key governance tipping points further ‘upstream’, particularly within dominant private sector areas of control (e.g. land, finance, delivery) at sub-national level. Our findings suggest that both public and private sector appeared well aware of the major health challenges posed by poor-quality urban environments. Yet they also recognized that health is not factored adequately into the urban planning process, and there was considerable support for greater use of non-market economic valuation to help improve decision-making. There was no silver bullet however: 110 barriers and 76 opportunities were identified across a highly complex range of systems, actors and processes, including many possible points of targeted intervention for economic valuation. Eight main themes were identified as key areas for discussion and future focus. This findings paper is the second of two on this phase of the project: the first sets out the rationale, approach and methodological lessons learned.

This paper sets out the rationale and process for the interviewing methodology utilized during a 3-year research pilot, ‘Moving Health Upstream in Urban Development’ (UPSTREAM). The project had two primary aims: firstly, to attempt to value economically the health cost benefits associated with the quality of urban environments and secondly, to engage with those in control of urban development in the UK in order to determine what are the barriers to and opportunities for creating healthy urban environments, including those identified through the utilisation of economic valuation. Engagement at senior level with those who have most control over key facets of planning and development implementation—such as land disposal, investment, development delivery and planning permission—was central to the approach, which encompassed the adoption of ‘elite interviewing’, a method developed in the USA in the 1950s and used in the political sciences but relatively unutilized in the health and environmental sciences [1]. Two rounds of semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 15 senior decision-makers from the UK’s main urban development delivery agencies, both public and private. The ‘elite interviewing’ approach successfully enabled the UPSTREAM project to capture and analyse the information received from the interviewees, all of whom held influential or leadership posts in organisations that are important actors in the process of planning, developing and constructing the built environment in the UK. Having academic and practitioner research leads on an equal footing created some minor tensions, but it also appeared to strengthen the rigor of the approach through a broad knowledge of context ‘in-house’. This form of co-production at times challenged academic traditions in qualitative analysis, but it also appeared to build trust with interviewees and provided greater clarity of the real-world context under investigation. Findings from this study are written up in a separate paper.

Focusing on commercial office real estate as both a manifestation of and a conduit of cross-border capital flows, this paper refers to the concepts of topology and topography in a theoretical and empirical exploration of contemporary ‘network economy’ spatial implications for the ‘polycentric urban region’ (PUR). A body of research has cast doubt on the normative European representation of the multi-centre PUR as a balanced, sustainable spatial development model. Yet, the model has continued to be propagated in European territorial strategy and has been influential internationally. Academic perspectives and qualitative evidence reviewed in the paper shed a light on mutual dependencies and recursive relations between network economy global structural processes, international office real estate investment practices mediated by city governments, and the spatial configuration of density. Commercial investment and city planning actor practices chime with urban agglomeration, spatial concentration and density. Quantitative evidence of associations between urban density and office real estate investment returns and capital flows is found. It is concluded that network economy topology, politics and the city are in a dialectical relationship with the PUR territorial governance agenda for spatially balanced regional development.

Poor quality urban environments substantially increase non-communicable disease. Responsibility for associated decision-making is dispersed across multiple agents and systems: fast growing urban authorities are the primary gatekeepers of new development and change in the UK, yet the driving forces are remote private sector interests supported by a political economy focused on short-termism and consumption-based growth. Economic valuation of externalities is widely thought to be fundamental, yet evidence on how to value and integrate it into urban development decision-making is limited, and it forms only a part of the decision-making landscape. Researchers must find new ways of integrating socio-environmental costs at numerous key leverage points across multiple complex systems. This mixed-methods study comprises of six highly integrated work packages. It aims to develop and test a multi-action intervention in two urban areas: one on large-scale mixed-use development, the other on major transport. The core intervention is the co-production with key stakeholders through interviews, workshops, and participatory action research, of three areas of evidence: economic valuations of changed health outcomes; community-led media on health inequalities; and routes to potential impact mapped through co-production with key decision-makers, advisors and the lay public. This will be achieved by: mapping system of actors and processes involved in each case study; developing, testing and refining the combined intervention; evaluating the extent to which policy and practice changes amongst our target users, and the likelihood of impact on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) downstream. The integration of such diverse disciplines and sectors presents multiple practical/operational issues. The programme is testing new approaches to research, notably with regards practitioner-researcher integration and transdisciplinary research co-leadership. Other critical risks relate to urban development timescales, uncertainties in upstream-downstream causality, and the demonstration of impact.

This article focuses on how short-termism impacts on the quality of urban development and, in turn, both population and planetary health. The first section of the paper clarifies key terms - short-termism, health, urban development and upstream - then summarises the context of urban development in the United Kingdom, and the evidence linking urban environments to population and planetary health. The main analysis section draws on data from interviews with 132 participants carried out between May and September 2021. Using the Commercial Determinants of Health framework, six thematic areas are identified: Policy & Political Economy; Legislation and Regulation; Commercial Actors; Underlying Drivers (Power); Externalities; and Partnership. Analysis suggests 16 key messages, the majority of which point to the need for stronger government intervention, a position supported by private sector, if fairly enacted.