From evidence
to a testable intervention.
We propose to help local partners choose, implement and evaluate changes that reduce harmful air pollution in daily life.
Measure
Establish a reliable baseline where people spend their time.
Understand
Identify sources, health priorities and practical legal options.
Intervene
Work with local partners to put a feasible change in place.
Evaluate
Test what changed, for whom, and whether we contributed.
Scale
Replicate what works. Adapt or stop what does not.
One mission. A bounded first test.
Our intended contribution is practical: combine exposure science, public health, legal feasibility and evaluation around a specific local intervention. We aim to make the method reproducible, so others can use what we learn.
Choose the opportunity before the solution
We will compare candidate interventions on expected exposure reduction, people likely to benefit, equity, feasibility, additionality, cost and how convincingly results can be evaluated. A familiar problem is not automatically the highest-impact opportunity.
Our theory of change
Each step depends on assumptions. Local partners must be able to act; the measure must change emissions or exposure; the change must persist; and the health model must fit the population and exposure studied.
Design the evaluation before acting
We intend to define the primary endpoint, comparison areas or time series, sampling plan, analysis and stopping rules in advance. Seasonality, weather, regional pollution and other policy changes must be considered. A simple winter–summer comparison is insufficient.
Evaluation should report effect size and uncertainty, distribution of benefits, implementation fidelity and adverse consequences. Independent reviewers should be able to challenge both methods and interpretation.
Why another organisation?
Europe already has strong clean-air organisations. Combining science, law and policy is not unique. Our proposed role is a small implementation and evaluation team for local exposure interventions, beginning with a bounded Dutch pilot.
| Existing work | What it already contributes | Our proposed relationship to it |
|---|---|---|
| ClientEarth ↗ | Air-quality litigation, policy and legal accountability. | Seek specialist legal input where useful; focus our own effort on delivery and evaluating exposure changes. |
| Clean Air Fund ↗ / Breathe Cities ↗ | Philanthropy, local data, community engagement and technical support for city action. | Substantial overlap. Test whether smaller residential interventions and an open evaluation protocol fill an unmet need; do not build a competing city network. |
| EXPANSE ↗ | Urban exposome research, health relationships and intervention methods. | Use and adapt existing research methods with appropriate expertise, rather than create a parallel research institute. |
| European Commission ↗ / EEA ↗ | Regulatory frameworks, assessment and public evidence. | Translate these into project-specific questions; do not imply a regulatory mandate or institutional affiliation. |
| RIVM ↗ | Dutch wood-smoke health evidence and information for public action. | Start from authoritative evidence, with a separate independent review of local data and intervention feasibility. |
These are organisations and initiatives in the wider field, not our partners or endorsers. This focused landscape review is not exhaustive.
Our first decision gate is additionality: interview prospective local users and existing organisations before committing to a standalone delivery model. If an established organisation can do this better, we should support or host the programme there instead.