Evidence-informed urban health and sustainability governance in two Chinese cities

Abstract

Sustainable development is best supported by intersectoral policies informed by a range of evidence and knowledge types (e.g. scientific and lay). Given China's rapid urbanisation, scale and global importance in climate mitigation, this study investigates how evidence is perceived and used to inform urban health and sustainability policies at central and local levels. Well-informed senior professionals in government/scientific agencies (12 in Beijing and 11 in Ningbo) were interviewed. A thematic analysis is presented using deductive and inductive coding. Government agency participants described formal remits and processes determining the scope and use of evidence by different tiers of government. Academic evidence was influential when commissioned by government departments. Public opinion and economic priorities were two factors that also influenced the use or weight of evidence in policymaking. This study shows that scientific evidence produced or commissioned by government was routinely used to inform urban health and sustainability policy. Extensive and routine data collection is regularly used to inform cyclical policy processes, which improves adaptive capacity. This study contributes to knowledge on the 'cultures of evidence use'. Environmental governance can be further improved through increased data-sharing and use of diverse knowledge types. POLICY RELEVANCE• Insights are provided into the 'cultures of evidence use' in urban sustainability and health governance in two Chinese cities, noting the complex interconnections between national policy agendas, the public and evidence. Policies are centrally led and informed by officially commissioned scientific evidence.

Do policy actors have different views of what constitutes evidence in policymaking?

“…Lorenc et al (2014Lorenc et al ( , p. 1046 emphasise the need for "more focused attention to the institutional and socio-political context through which knowledge passes, and to the cultural differences that may impact on the generation and use of evidence", echoing Weiss's (1979) exhortation to examine how research is used. Following the call for more empirical investigation of cultures of evidence use (Oliver and Boaz, 2019;Pineo et al, 2021), we contribute to this literature by empirically examining whether there are different cultures of evidence in the contexts of Scotland and Wales, and what their characteristics are.…”

“…We add to the literature by improving understanding of what evidence means to policy actors. Given the continued call for more empirical investigation of cultures of evidence use (Oliver and Boaz, 2019;Pineo et al, 2021), our research aims to contribute to this literature by empirically examining whether there are different cultures of evidence in the contexts of Scotland and Wales, and what their characteristics are. The paper demonstrates how cultures of evidence are not bounded by institutional, professional, or territorial criteria.…”

The CUSSH programme: supporting cities’ transformational change towards health and sustainability

“…The practical translation of transdisciplinary working within the project is to encourage broad participation in team meetings and project governance to integrate diverse perspectives, to adopt participatory, behavioural science and social research methods, and to elicit knowledge from local communities and policymakers (e.g. see Dianati et al , 2019 and Pineo et al , 2021c )…”

Climate change projections for sustainable and healthy cities

“…As well as differences in geography and climate, the relevant planning and environmental governance systems are different across the CUSSH partner cities (Table 1), which requires consideration in the research and modelling process if outputs are to be useful. For instance, an analysis of the use of evidence in urban health and sustainability policymaking in the Chinese CUSSH partner cities demonstrated the importance of national policy and extensive use of officially commissioned environmental health research and monitoring indicators (Pineo et al 2021). The environmental governance practices in Beijing and Ningbo are comparatively stronger with regard to the use of such data in policymaking, demonstrating the importance of understanding what Oliver & Boaz (2019) call 'cultures of evidence use'.…”