The consequences of the corona crisis are extensive and will be felt by society for a long time to come. Together we are working toward a one-and-a-half-meter society, but what will it look like? We let three experts shine their light on the post-corona era.
This time professor Eveline Wouters talks about the implications of the envisioned society for long-term care, we ask spatial planner and professor Luca Bertolini about the potential role of smart cities in regulatory compliance, and building consultant Adriaan de Jong updates us on the effects of the measures on the construction industry.
To what extent can a "smart city" contribute to compliance with a one-half-meter society?
I have, I'm afraid, an unorthodox point of view, because for me smart is not just digital technology. The design of physical space and of public life can also be smart. Above all, smart can be done by the people themselves. Moreover, besides the many opportunities, digital technology also has risks: privacy, dependence on a limited number of powerful companies and neglect of other types of solutions, with corresponding loss of resilience.
My vision of the smart city in the one-half-meter society therefore contains several kinds of ingredients. Yes, digital technology plays a role, but so do interventions in physical space and public life, and especially appealing to people's sense of responsibility, imagination and organizing ability. I will mention a few in the mobility domain.
A first ingredient of the "smart one-and-a-half-meter city" is radically more street space for people walking and biking, so that people can move freely but also spend time freely. Plenty of destinations (schools, stores, amenities, workplaces) within walking or biking distance. This is also good for households who rely more on their immediate neighborhood for recreation and exercise, and for businesses that depend on the influx of people on bikes and on foot.
A second ingredient is sharply reducing the maximum speed limit to 30, 20 and, in some streets, even 10 kilometers per hour. At these speeds, motorized and non-motorized traffic can share space a lot easier and safer. After all, there is time to react (smartly!) to each other, which creates space.
A third ingredient: public transportation. That's complicated. One and a half meters means only about a quarter of pre-crisis capacity. That capacity was there primarily to handle peak loads. That's no longer possible; those peaks have to come off. This can be done, for example, by spreading work and opening hours, and sometimes working from home, studying, shopping and using online facilities. And yes, an app that indicates the occupancy of public transportation can give people the opportunity to be even smarter about it.
By the way, these ideas are not that original. Currently, they are all being tried out in cities around the world, where streets are being closed to motorized traffic, maximum speeds are being lowered, and the relief of public transport is also being considered. A lot less in the Netherlands, it seems. People attribute it to the fact that here we are already further along in making space for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Perhaps. However, I dare doubt that it is enough in this situation. It is also argued that such interventions raise big questions. This is true. Creativity and caution are indeed called for, and thus the opportunity to fail, and to learn from failure. Then do all interventions temporarily, monitor the effects, discuss them with citizens and adjust if necessary. In short: experiment! What is smarter than that?
In conclusion. There are always more solutions to the same problem. The crucial question is which solutions not only solve the problem, but also take steps in a direction that is desirable for more reasons - making the city more livable, attractive, sustainable, or equitable, for example. After all, smart is above all about not forgetting the big picture.
What are the implications for the halfway house society in the care sector?
Health wide
Long-term care, which includes rehabilitation care, elder care, nursing home care and disability care, is care where proximity and touch are important. For example, in caring for people with dementia, sensory-level experiences are very important for well-being and making contact. Sometimes it is the only way to communicate. Many of the developments in this sector have therefore undergone a transformation in recent years (before corona). Where it used to focus primarily on illness, the focus shifted to wellness and quality of life in its breadth. Nursing homes therefore became more and more a home, and less a hospital. "From illness and care to health and behavior" was the motto.
The halfway house society has now drawn a line through this. Whereas the elderly and family members can continue to touch and meet within the confines of their own homes, this is no longer possible in nursing homes. This raises resistance and many questions: to what extent does this measure affect health? In the context of "positive health," health is defined as more than the absence of disease (positive health is "the ability of people to cope with physical, emotional and social life challenges and to exercise as much self-direction as possible"). How is this ensured for residents in a nursing home? We now, because of this one and a half meters, only consider the dangers to physical health. As a result, however, there is a great danger to emotional and social health aspects and, on balance, net health. The question is therefore to what extent the balance is tipping in the wrong direction. This is also where the public discussion is beginning to focus as the numbers become more favorable. This is now cautiously leading to a relaxation of measures.
Use of technology
Another consequence of the need for physical distance is the increased use of technology to bridge it. Care can continue in part through the use of digital means. Consultations, exercises and advice can and are given remotely. We see, after a period when technology in care was scaled up only sparsely, that the one-half-meter and work-at-home measure are providing a big boost in its use. Some of the barriers that were there until now are now less significant or are largely removed: utility (a key driver of technology use in general and in healthcare in particular) suddenly becomes much clearer to healthcare providers as well as patients. The risk of physical contact no longer outweighs the previously highlighted disadvantages of using applications such as image calling. Also financial barriers and barriers due to the (financial) partitions between care providers become less prominent and in some cases even completely or partially removed. More technology is also being reimbursed than before by health insurers. And nothing works better in overcoming resistance and the intention to use something than the actual experience of using it.
Now that positive experiences with remote care have been and are being exchanged on a larger scale, its use will undoubtedly continue in the future as well. However, there is also another side to the story. Not all care is suitable to be offered digitally. Also, digital care is not for everyone. Some elderly people, people with chronic conditions, socially vulnerable people and people with lower education and income do not all have equal access to digital resources and are not all equally "digital-savvy. On the one hand, they are hit harder (sick more often) by the coronavirus, but also by the measures taken against it. The expected increase in digital care will not be readily accessible to a significant group of people, and we need to be mindful of that. Perhaps the distribution will change: digital where it can be done, physical where it must be done. The transition to digital care could be very rapid thanks to the one-half-meter society. An extra reason to ensure that care remains accessible to all.
What are the implications of a one-half-meter society for the construction industry?
The entire world is dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic. Right now, efforts are being made to keep the consequences of this pandemic manageable with measures that deeply affect society. In the early stages of this crisis, premium Rutte said that with 50% of the knowledge you had to make 100% decisions and everyone understood that. By now it is clear that a decision that is workable for one person is completely unworkable for another. That distinction applies within the same industry. The call for customization grows stronger by the day.
This includes the question of the impact of a one-half-meter society on the building industry. The question can be asked whether it should have consequences for our buildings. Think about dimensions of rooms, traffic routes, sanitary facilities, etc., but also about implementation of (ventilation) installations in buildings. Here we are dealing with existing buildings and new buildings. In existing buildings, is it still possible to work with the original occupancy or should the occupancy be reduced? Should the design of new buildings take into account more floor space per person? For example, are the current regulations regarding ventilation still adequate?
There are also questions to be asked about the implications for people working together throughout the construction process. The consequences for the people involved in the design process, where this often takes place in an office environment, are different from the consequences for the executive construction. Where products are produced, things will be different from where intensive collaboration is required to assemble building or installation components.
My own contribution to the construction industry focuses primarily on consulting, mostly in the design process and sometimes on issues that arise during execution. However, this predominantly involves advice from behind the desk. Then the past period teaches me a few things:
The current digital options for working from home generally work extremely well. Kudos to all parties who play a role in this in any way!
While working with colleagues in the office, there is apparently more unnoticed coordination between business or in the corridors than you were aware of. When working from home, these consultations happen only by phone, e-mail or video calls. This makes working from home intensive and sometimes hectic.
Because many parties are now by necessity gaining experience in conducting digital consultations, I expect that this will become more widely used in the future. In doing so, I signal the following:
I have the impression that the depth of rapport in a digital consultation is less than when you are physically seated at the table together. Good to be aware of that. In addition, travel time is saved. By using this free time to record what has been discussed and then having everyone check it for correctness and completeness, the right 'conversation quality' can again be achieved. By saving on travel time, the threshold for joint consultation is lower, so that a moment for team coordination can be chosen earlier or more often. Saving on travel time means less traffic pressure and less emission of substances harmful to the environment.
Let me conclude with the following. For some time, even well before the current crisis, I have observed a tendency for everything to be manageable. These days are teaching us that this is not the case. A little more understanding for each other and for the fact that not everything is always immediately solvable is emerging again. I hope that something will remain of this, even when this crisis is over or when it has become manageable with all the efforts of scientists and policy makers.
The one-half meter society has many implications for the social domain, healthcare, our physical environment and the supervisory domain. In the coming period, we will continue to feature different experts from these sectors with their views on what implications the one-and-a-half-meter society has for his or her domain.
