 Let me get started here. So I am very pleased to welcome you to the, what is it, the fourth lecture and urban planning series talk. Today we have Shinpei Tse, who is the founder and now advisor at Make Public, a firm that specializes in social impact assessments that work towards justice. Shinpei has a very impressive bio, which I will try to illustrate. So previously she served as the executive director at Gale Institute, where she built the nonprofit organization from the ground up. Bridge design and planning with critical issues, such as public health, criminal justice and equity, and led the development of a new data standard for public life. Shinpei is a serial social entrepreneur. She has served as the deputy executive director at Transit Center, where she contributed to its establishment as a national philanthropy and founded and directed the cities and transportation program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where she led a project with Senator Bill Bradley and Senator Tom Ridge to reform and fund the federal transportation program. Shinpei's other past roles include deputy director of transportation alternatives, the chief operating officer of Project for Public Spaces and founding member of ZGF Architects NYC office. She also worked for Fortune 500 companies to develop internet strategies. She's on the board of IOB and transportation alternatives and is a commissioner for the New York City Public Design Commission. So as well, Shinpei started a post as the director of policy for cities and transportation at Uber as of this month. So with that, let's welcome Shinpei Se. Oh, great to be here. I was teaching here this past summer and it was such a wonderful experience. So it's really great to share some of my work with you and my experiences with a slightly different part of GSAP and continue the conversations that we had over the summer on social impact and equity and justice. So what I thought I'd do today is just give you a sense of how did I come up with this approach and way of working with cities? Where did they come from exactly? And it gives you a sense, I think, of the challenges I think cities are facing today. My most recent thing, which is helping to change the approach of working with cities at Uber is super new, so I can't, I don't really have much to talk about there, but I think we're, I'm basically bringing all these experiences together and especially on why I think social impact metrics, changing the conversation around the evidence base is so important. So I just wanted to kick things off by sharing this is the house I grew up in. We were an immigrant family. It was outside of Syracuse. It was a very good school district. It was, it kind of hit all the marks of, you know, the so-called American dream. It was a, you know, stand around the house. We were a single family. We had, we had one car, but we had two, you know, garage spots for a car. So, you know, it like kind of hit all these different things. And this is the neighborhood the house is in. It was on the cul-de-sac. And this is where my friends lived and my school wasn't so far away, but because we're in a cul-de-sac, we didn't actually have a lot of ways of getting out except for this one exit. And that this exit was a Doberman. And I like dogs very much, but when you are eight years old and there's an unleashed Doberman, it is very scary. So, you know, there's one of those neighborhoods that I think was designed in a certain way that kind of promoted a certain kind of movement. It did not have sidewalks. You were really forced to walk around. And it wasn't until I moved to a city that I understood that things could be really different. So, living in that cul-de-sac, you know, it was hard to see friends. It was hard to get to school. It was hard to have social connections. When I moved to Boston, this is in Cambridge right outside of Boston, Harvard Square, it was one of those places where there was just a lot of people walking around. And it was kind of a revelation to me that that actually could happen. So, you imagine, you know, people across the U.S. make, you know, we came here to pursue something, to pursue ambitions, and we were in this very isolated situation and then had this experience of like, oh, it doesn't need to be that way. And I just, it started these questions. Like, why is it so, why does it work in this way in the Cambridge setting and not in the Syracuse setting? And then I was at school, at graduate school in London and it had the same questions, you know, completely different set of people, completely different culture. I know people think British English is similar to American English, but it is very different in many ways. And, you know, I stood out and yet there were some great similarities in the way that the streets performed, the public spaces performed, the way that people interacted. And that was really incredible to me. It was like a democratization of space that we share that was a really transformative experience. And then it led to other questions like, why do we then do stuff like this where we cut off the city from the water when it seems like really we want something like this, you know, where people can jump into the water, jump into a harbor and really enjoy being in the city. You know, what kind of city are we actually building for? Why is it so hard to get there? And you know, this is a really common experience, right? Where everyone wants to go a certain direction, but that's just not the way the city is designed for you to go. And, you know, I started on this inquiry of trying to figure out why that is, which is, you know, some of the school, but then what do you do about it? How do you actually, you know, chip away at this? Because it seemed to crop up everywhere. As I was doing this, I was starting to realize too that transportation was such a huge determining factor for the way that we, the built environment and the public realm has been defined. So one of the places I stopped was when Faye mentioned that Project for Public Spaces and learned about, you know, William White's work and how you think about small spaces to see value in the social life of small spaces that it's not about big developments all the time. It's not about the money. It is, there's huge value in looking at people and what they're doing. I also spent some time at Transportation Alternatives where I learned a lot about civic engagement and advocacy, how to work with policy and policy makers, and learned very much on how you can change policy, actually, and actually transform the built environment. So, you know, I think sometimes as planners, designers, when we look at plans, it's, you know, unless you're maybe you're working for the city, it's hard to imagine how you can actually make a change and it was through advocacy that I learned so much about that function of change. So we were one of the programs that I helped create was on Play Streets. How do you close a street to cars and open it up for kids to play, especially in neighborhoods that don't have a lot of play equipment. And it was actually through research, partnerships with local communities, doing, creating evidence-based showing the impact that the pilot project Play Street became a program of the New York City Public Health Department so now any neighborhood can ask for a Play Street. It's codified, there's a way to get it. It's not this black box of, you know, how do we do this? It's sanctioned, and it's something that happens all over the city. I was, I wanted to take that learning and think about how do you scale. So I was at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace thinking about global policy and the climate and energy program and just thinking about ways of like, how do you, how do we continue this? You know, it doesn't, how do we not start with a campaign from zero, but continue to replicate these positive improvements and looking at policy opportunities to do that. One of the biggest things that made an impression on me was the idea that transportation, again, could be hugely beneficial if you just focus on it because carbon emissions from the surface transportation is the fastest growing sector. You know, it's fastest growing sector for carbon. It has the greatest warming effect. And so, you know, a lot of people at the time, this was several years ago, we focused on, for example, power supply and, you know, electrification, for example, but actually, mode shift made a huge difference. And that was the hypothesis. So I was just looking for evidence and helping people to find ways of linking these positive changes in the built environment to other bigger policy opportunities. It's super hard to pull everyone together. The city is, you know, all the different things that you wanna measure in the city is managed by all these different agencies, but the human side of it makes all the difference. Bringing everyone together, using those policy opportunities, using a framework ends up being hugely important in trying to advance change. And many times, the ideas, you know, like the Play Streets came from Transportation Alternative Specific Organization, but they, it took, you know, agency champions, it took a mayor that said to the Public Health Department, we have a plan that we want to work on reducing carbon emissions through Plan YC. All those things in alignment then helps to generate and accelerate that change much more quickly. So, you know, I just went through a whole lot of different ideas, but I think the fundamentals are that, you know, change does happen, but how do you accelerate it? Those are the questions I'm landing on, and how do you center people within that change so that we're not thinking about, you know, just carbon as a number, but also that experience I mentioned, you know, wow, people can interact, they can mingle, that experience of the public realm, that's what we want to preserve, and there's value in doing that. So, you know, the pioneers of people first approaches, I'm sure you've heard of them, Jane Jacobs, William Huy and Yen Gale, you know, Jane Jacobs was a journalist that helped create arguments for how to think about the streets differently, think about their public space differently. William Huy used observational analysis, he was the one who pioneered video analysis and just trying to understand what actually stood out to people. And Yen Gale studied public spaces quite deeply, and this is just a snippet of all the journals that he studied, he really tried to create methodology around the study of spaces, and that's what everyone tried to do, they tried to give the social impact some kind of framework, some way of understanding so that they could be used in a policy conversation. And so while I was at Gale Institute, that was set up actually to think about those systemic change opportunities, it was to transform the way cities are shaped by making public life, so Yen's work was focused on what he called life outside of your private home and your car public life, what he called public life, a driver for design policy and governance. So what does that mean? When you're measuring public life, you're counting people, you're telling age, you're mapping how they spend time together, the social dimensions, the public space, observing design, spatial interaction and evaluating spatial components, so it's very much focused on the intersection of space and social interactions. And so at Institute, that's what we focused on, we made some tools for measuring public life, we tried to apply those tools with community-based organizations across the country, we even made a open data standard so that you can analyze the data collected with those tools in a way across, comparably across different geographies. And this was created from working, we discovered that Gale, the private practice had its own way of analyzing the data, Copenhagen had its own way, and San Francisco had its own way, and it was very, very hard to share data, so we created this protocol. But what I thought was interesting was you can create a great space and still miss a huge part of the social impact aspect, and that's what led me to make public, and why we say social impact analysis can work towards justice. So, just a quick update or brief on make public, it's a social mission-oriented firm, it does social impact evaluations of the public realm, it aims those evaluations at equitable outcomes, it works in conjunction with local community groups to build capacity, and it works to connect in policy for systemic change. And why do we do this? This is my partner, Larissa, why are we doing this? So, an example of this is of a successful public space is the Highline, right? And if you took all the metrics from the public life metrics, the space aspect, the way that people interacted with it, the telling of age and gender, the components, the quality of the space, you would say that it's basically extremely successful, right? There's so many people on it, there's a lot of social interaction, there's a lot of engagement with the space. And in economic terms, it's quite successful from a city's perspective, right? That it generates a billion in tax revenue, it will generate a billion tax revenue over the next 20 years. There's all this development in the neighborhood as a result of this space. And it was a neighborhood that, frankly, I think the city officials wondered what would happen in this neighborhood and this was an abandoned rail track. So, it was a question. But there is a social aspect that was ignored in the creation of the space and I don't think it was out of maliciousness or it was not deliberate, it was just not completely in the forefront of the process. And if you talk to one of the co-founders of the Highline, he'll say that we failed to design a park that really benefits the neighbors. He'll openly say that. And some of the social analysis, the social impact analysis, is that the majority of the visitors of the five million visitors a year are tourists. They're not from the neighborhood. Even though New York City is one of those cities where it's so dense that everyone should really have access to a neighborhood park of some kind and feel like that park is theirs. And that disproportionately, the visitors are white compared to the rest of the neighborhood. So there's just some kind of inequities that are starting to show up in as the Highline continues to perform successfully as like a public space, but without looking at the whole spectrum of social impacts, you start to wonder how well it actually does perform. And this is what Robert said, like what we should have asked, what can we do for you? Not what we should design. And that's really an inspiration we took to create make public. As a result of that experience, Robert went on to create the Highline Network and to work with other infrastructure repurposed projects. And I think that he would agree, and I think others within that network and people across the country now that are working on those kinds of projects, if by not measuring the social value we measure economic impact that's always part of the calculation, we measure environmental impact that's been codified in all the environmental impact policies, but we don't really measure social impact. Not doing that leads to inequities, at least to health inequities, access inequities and social inequity. And I think we all now understand this, but it's also interesting to see how recently we can still continue to miss these opportunities to integrate the value of the social impact in a sustaining way. So we have to continuously demonstrate the value that the public realm can receive, can achieve through the social impacts that it makes contribution to health and wellbeing. These are social determinants. The public health field is now thinking about the public realm because of the social determinants because there's a link to space and how well and how healthy people are that there's safety considerations that these are, we have a whole department in New York City called the Mayor's Office on Criminal Justice, they focus on crime prevention, they focus on improving perceptions of safety, and there's research that shows that the more time people spend outside, the more they feel that their neighborhood is safe. But it actually obviously works in the opposite direction where if they don't feel safe, they won't spend time outside in the neighborhood, then ultimately becomes unsafe. And then finally, there's a social resilience piece where resilience at the community level, research shows that resilience at the community level can often exceed an investment in physical infrastructure. So the social resilience ends up being much more valuable than what you might build. Right now a lot of talking resiliency is a debate over sea walls versus more integrated resiliency investments that might improve a neighborhood and also add to its social resiliency, its ability to interact with neighbors, to build public stewardship, to build engagement with the space. And these are questions that people should ask it, like where should we be spending our money? How should we be thinking about the future as we think about bolstering our neighborhoods and supporting them? So MakePublic is set up to help create that evidence base. It's a private firm. We wanted to show that there is value in the market for doing so, and that social impact indicators can do a lot. And this is how they can contribute to the policy conversations. They set objectives to hold the city agencies accountable. They can gather evidence. They demonstrate tangible value. They pull people together. They pull the different agencies together and they make better inclusive spaces. And I think what's really important is I think there's a tendency to examine impacts in the short term, yet people aim projects at a very much long-term arc. So you might look, a real estate developer might look at the return on investment within five years, but they'll make claims about improving the well-being of the neighborhood or reducing crime, improving perceptions of safety. That happens over time, happens gradually, and it happens if you make investment into the people. So we want to help set up the way that you can look at this and track progress over time. You look at use like the public life tools do. You can look at the social network, but then you start moving into perception, actual participation, such as voting rates, and then you're able to then build up to social change. Social change doesn't happen overnight. It doesn't happen with the launch of one project. It happens over time. And those indicators that we are setting up are closely linked to equity. They're linked to access and distributive justice, representation. Do you feel like you're part of the neighborhood? Do you feel like that represents you and agency? Can you take action? Do you feel that you have agency to do something? It's transformative. I think that's kind of the ultimate mark of when someone feels completely that they have full agency, that they feel completely like they belong. So unlike my experience growing up we had a questionable agency. We were immigrants in the neighborhood where we didn't know our neighbors. It was really hard to meet other people. Having participation, having the option, the decision to participate ends up giving people that sense of agency. And it's not just about the design. It's also about the process. Can you say something? Can you participate in the way that spaces are shaped? It is about the design though because people, it is about our physical space. It is about the way that it supports people in its physicality. But it's also about the operations, the maintenance, the programs. What do you do in that space? How do people use it? How do you support people using it? And I just went through a whole bunch of metrics and words on their page. So I wanted to give you an example of what that might look like. So for example, we have been working with the Bronx Documentary Center on this project. Claremont illuminated in the neighborhood. Claremont, there's a set of stairs. It's a very steep, hilly neighborhood. There's a set of stairs that everyone's scared of. People don't use it. It's dark. And the Bronx Documentary Center decided to clean it up, light it well, and show and use their documentary program to show stories from the neighborhood through the stairwell. And so what we might do, as we think about the social impact framework, is to define social metrics in a framework. So this would be done in conjunction with the community group, with the Bronx Documentary Center, with, ideally with the residents of the neighborhood, that we would start saying, what are the goals? What is the theme of this goal? And then we would use research and social science research to show and to create some of the indicators, basically substantive ways of measuring. What would we measure? We're trying to define those flags, those signals of what we can look for to make sure that the goals of that project are baked into what happens. We create tools to measure. So these are examples of the tools. They are a combination of observational survey tools, as well as actual surveys, so intercept surveys, where you go and talk to people and you could go further to create qualitative ethnographic interviews, to basically gather all the data that you would then analyze to better understand whether or not perception shifted and whether or not people's uses have moved. We also really believe in the not wanting to protect this as intellectual property, that these were methods that we wanted to constantly be giving away, constantly be giving to the community groups that we were working with to build local capacity so that when they are, when the Bronx Documentary Center is asked by, let's say, this NYCHA about investment, should they improve that stairwell in Claremont? They can say yes and here's why. This is the methodology we use. This is the tool we use. This is how we understand how the data results, like we want people to become versed in talking about this so that they can engage with policymakers. And so that's something else that we've built into the practice. And we analyze the data. We help create the analysis. Some of it starts like, we're literally teaching people about setting up these kind of measures, how they're baked in. We hand over the formulas so that they can see what's going on. But, for example, one of the early findings from Claremont is that during the event, there was huge sense of belonging, of representation while the event was happening. There was very, very little beforehand. And what people really wanted as a result of seeing it once was that it happened regularly. So I think sometimes, an example of how the city decision can go in a different way is they might say like, oh yeah, people, that went well. We lighted the stairwell. We'll just keep on lighting it and maybe put some plantings and that will be enough. But what our early research showed is that actually doing those, the program made a big difference in the way people thought about that space. The fact that they saw images of themselves and their neighbors is actually what made a big difference, that they were seeing people. So it was not just like physical light that illuminated the stairwell. It was the images of their neighbors, the fact that they were seeing their neighborhood and their neighbors reflected. That's what made a difference. They want to see it regularly. And so that's something that the Bronx Documentary Center can go and advocate for. So we want to take this work and create those kinds of recommendations. So we want to make recommendations in policy. We want to help city agencies prioritize. I just gave you an example that conversation might play out with Bronx Documentary Center. Now that they have some evidence in hand, in benchmarks, so how would we know that what the agency does continues to track against the goals of the community because the framework articulated those goals and the funding allocations. So what should they spend money on? What should they spend money on doing? Maybe it's cheap lighting, but putting the money in programs so that they have the film go on regularly and consistently. Maybe it's in design that we want to change the way that the stairwell performs physically. And there's also in process, in continuously engaging with people. I think that civic engagement has become somewhat of a checklist that a lot of practices or big companies might just say like, okay, we took care of it, it's done. We don't have to think about it anymore. We did the civic, we did the community engagement process, right? And having these co-defined goals, the transparent indicators helps to provide ways of continuing to engage to make sure that there's engagement and to make sure that there's ongoing commitment to the space moving forward. So, you know, this is a practice that we've made as a result of these different experiences and what does it mean for me? I started with this cul-de-sac image and the story and what could we have done differently? What could have this developer done differently? What would my town have done differently? When I think about learning what I have learned over these past several years, you know, and I think that there are some really kind of tangible things. Now that we are thinking about metrics and why it's important to count instead of, you know, the dollar of the development, the house sales, maybe even car throughput or how many parking spots, which are all very typical kind of planning metrics, right, that you might use, that we were thinking about like, what is the percentage of people that feel a sense of belonging? What is the level of trust in that neighborhood? What is the number per block of social connections? What's the density of those social connections? I'm sure some of you have seen Donald Halfley Yards' great map of streets, slow streets and the social connections, like, we should be tracking those things and using those metrics. What's the percentage of people voting in this neighborhood? Do they feel like they should be voting? And what's the number per node of people's throughput rather than vehicle throughput? So there are literal shifts in metrics that we can make as we think about planning, as we think about policy conversations and, you know, the work of make public is to start to catalyze that practice and to share that practice as much as we can. So thank you very much. I'd be happy to answer any questions or have a discussion. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, no, it's such a good point. I mean, I think some people cared and the methods weren't there. And, you know, Holly White and Jan Gale's work was created in the 60s and 70s and then applied maybe marginally even now. Like it's not completely universal, right? Like it's still somewhat outside of mainstream planning practices. So I think there's that, where the methodology is really new, our secondary research, so I talked about like the creation of indicators, right? They come from social science, gets really, really wonky and academic, but what we're trying to do is make it much more visible and accessible to the community groups. So that's like multi-method kind of research. It's interdisciplinary. What we're trying to do is provide some rigor to people who, you know, may not have had like academic training, right? But to create easily accessible methods. What I found to be really interesting, you know, we did a training with the Center for Court Innovation on some of these methods. So, and specifically it was the observational surveys with the intercept surveys. They needed to do both. We were asking, we were asking, we didn't know we were asking a lot of them. So we were asking them to do a baseline, a during the intervention and then the post. So that's three times they need to go out and collect information. They felt, they were like no big deal. Compared to the stuff that agencies asked them to collect in performance metrics, let's say in workforce development and in showing how, you know, justifying the funds that they received from a public agency, they actually, they like took to the surveys really well. They were actually among the most, so I've done this kind of training with a lot of planners as well. And I think that's actually, the contrast is funny because so I was working with the Center for Court Innovation, they were all kind of professional community engagement people. They live in the neighborhood. They're really good at creating relationships with their neighbors. They were, it was so natural for them. Like it was something that they were kind of doing anyway. They were making those observations. They were asking those kinds of questions, but not in a methodical way. It was just, it was part of their job, right? To think about those things, to think about how the space was working, to talk to their neighbors and ask them how they were feeling. And we just gave them an organized, in a way I feel like we just gave them an organized way to do it. And then we gave them the data sheet that they could put their answers into and then would run some analysis and they could actually see the results of what they were doing. When I've done it with planners, I've actually found it to be a little bit, or designers, a little bit more challenging because we're sort of removed from being in the community. It's really hard for professionally trained designers to ask some of these questions or to feel like they can interact. You know, you kind of feel like interlopers sometimes. I was surprised that the methods work so well when it's embedded in the community and we also worked with them to define the metrics. So I think sometimes when I think about the surveys they have to fill out for, you know, maybe the workforce development folks into justifying, you know, they can get like a money per contract or money per placement or something like that. They just have to respond. They have no say in the creation of those goals. They just have to respond to justify the funding whereas we were saying like, to them from the very beginning, do these goals reflect what you're trying to do here? Are you, are we asking the right questions? So when they looked over the surveys as well, I was like, for them it was like, these are things that we just care about and I think that having that baked in throughout the process made it a lot easier. So that's the experience on the methods. We're not out there collecting data as you saw it's two people now, one person really because of my transition. So we're not like, we know we can't scale by collecting the data. What we need are more people who understand why it's important to count, why it is important to collect the data and to feel invested in doing so to feel like that data they're collecting helps them. It doesn't just help an agency answer their manager's questions. It really helps them understand what they should be doing in their neighborhood. And I think that's what made a difference. Now, can we, in that case, because I know you, it's like, how do we scale this, right? Like how can this be replicated over and over again? In that case, it was with 15 sites within the NYCHA system. Each site had several interventions and they were basically using the same tools on all these different interventions. So ultimately, I think hundreds is too much, but 100 types of events were happening throughout these 15 sites and we were getting a lot of data. So in that case, it worked because I think they saw it reflected from documentary centers saw it work. So then the next question is, with all these different sites, can we pull everything together and look for similarities between let's say the Claremont example I showed and then the mayor's office of criminal justice and what we were checking in with some social scientists and what is possible is certain indicators that are based on the same kind of research, you can compare, you have to be careful about sample size and you want to be aware of methodology but because we're not locking, we're sharing the method, it has to be qualified but they are comparable to some degree specific indicators but not across the board. Yeah. Sure. Together, how do you account for certain states of burglarity, so do you have to have a different model of use? Yeah, yeah. Well, I think definitely the metrics indicators have to be contextualized. So I often feel like, in the way that the Yan-Gill might have done it originally, sometimes just looking at the methods, you don't think about what is the economic context in which this is happening, what's the political context, who are the elected officials, what are the, you know, what is the agency and so you do have to contextualize it and yeah, I think those differences though make the analysis robust and interesting and the point is not to universalize places, the point is to actually show and highlight those differences and make sure they don't disappear. That's the work that we're trying to do. Yeah. I'm a company kind of very valued through pay attention to the social and related to that, we're getting that through Google Role at Uber. So can you talk a little bit about the kind of sector in a technology role that you're trying to make that happen? Yeah, I mean, I can speak very generally. You know, I think that it you know, when I think about, let's say because we're, you know, with Uber it's about transportation. You think about cities that have really great transit and really you have like a completely different pedestrian experience or a lot of different factors in play. One is, you know, land use patterns are so different but on the transportation side, much of the systems, let's say in the European context, not to be Western dominant, but just to, you know, kind of talk about an experience that people potentially can relate to where transit works really well. A lot of it is actually outsourced to private operators and that outsourcing what the agency does as a public agency, a transit agency is set performance benchmarks that then the private operators need to perform towards but they also understand that there needs to be some kind of benefit to the business in order for it to exist. So there's a lot more of that than there are in the United States and I think, you know, and obviously every region around the world is different but when you can have that performance driven kind of operation, I think there's much more of a role for the private sector than not. And obviously, you know, with technology, there's a lot of potential but also a lot of risk and, you know, thinking about the social, you know, centering people in the approach to applying technology, which is really a tool, it is not the solution. That's what, that's sort of the vision and ambition. I would say towards the private sector. In your thoughts, the main two right now is mostly surveys and interviews? And observation, observational analysis. In other ways of connecting people, how do you think of those and, yeah, just like, what are those roles in connecting the data as a social family? Yeah, my personal belief is that we should only collect as much data as we actually need. I don't, you know, I don't, I don't, I think, but I think the question for cities is how much data do they actually need? Because there isn't a lot of inherent capacity to do data analysis. There are very few cities that have a team of data scientists and so it's hard to define that level. Technology can collect way more data than everyone and as we're all discovering these days, that they have way more data on us than we really ever realized and we may never really understand all the implications of that data, but ultimately when I think about the application of data collection and sensors, it needs to be defined by an overarching strategy of like, what are you using the data to solve? What is the minimum level of data necessary to solve that, to answer that question? Is, are there privacy protections? I think that everyone deserves their privacy. So it's out of these, I think, minimal levels towards those questions versus, you know, what can we show that technology can gather? The years need to be confidentialized. Mm-hmm. How do you draw the line of like the boundary of where you... Yeah, that was a good question. It's hard, right? Because you're not sure what are drivers and what are just kind of things happening in the background. In the very, in the creation of something like this, this is where you have a chance of identifying potential drivers when you're creating this framework because what a framework sets out is a hypothesis. It sets out the goals, but then in the indicators, it basically is suggesting these, this is what I think is happening. This is what I think we should look for. And then it's justified. So then we add metrics and it's justified through social science. So here, what I, this, we made it indicate, we made one of these frameworks on health and there was a lot more, there's another layer in there about drivers. So in public health research, because they do like way more pure reviewed studies and it has to kind of, it really needs to hold up because of the public health rigor. They really try to identify drivers such as, no, there's more economic drivers in their frameworks. They might look at environment a little bit more. And so you start to, you can bake it in when you create this big framework. But I think in the data analysis end, so then you have a percentage, right? I think it's like with any kind of data analysis, it's a number. It's a number that you have to speak to and make sense of and you have to think about like the human factors I was talking about, like who is, what's happening politically in the city? Who are there, is there, what's happening economically in the neighborhood? You know, there are some things that do have influence over what's happening in that small space and you can't really ignore that. So, you know, it's not, it's not completely scientific and black and white, but that's what, you know, learning about how to add that rigor into making the number really stick so it doesn't open yourself up to additional questions is what you end up doing. Yeah? I wanted to ask about, is it really happening in terms of climate adaptations? Yeah. How do you think or how could you be allowing to, allowing public space in what is essentially, to some extent, the employment crisis adaptation? Like how, how do we recognize all of this and how much can be forwarded and in what ways? Yeah. Well, maybe, you know, some examples of that, that seem really kind of come to mind as you talk about like, how do we deal with the public realm and as we're talking about climate adaptation come from Amsterdam, the Netherlands and other cities in the Netherlands. But the idea that you give and take that, you know, the public realm can be an absorber of shock and they can also and, you know, receive and basically account for shock. So like in Rotterdam, they have these public plazas that are basically water plazas. So when there is a flooding, they flood. They've designed buildings to accommodate flooding. You know, they might design the seawall too but they're also designed in the public realm in a way that accommodates something that you know will happen more and more frequently. But on the other hand, when it's not flooded, it's a space where the kids play. There's maybe like amphitheater seating. There's programming. There are, there's equipment on the space. So there's this acknowledgement that there are more and more frequent climate events. At the same time, it still is a shared space. It still is a space for the community. It's still a space for social, you know, for social interaction. I mean, it's a really good question because you know, we're dealing with that in New York, right? Like the big U is meant to provide someone that give and take at the same time it protects. And they recently, I don't guys saw, they recently, originally the park was, was an absorbent space. The East River Park on the Lower East Side was going to be a space that could be flooded. And they recently decided to take the wall that was along the FDR and move it to the outside of the park. So the park would not be, you know, would protect the park. It was a huge change in direction. So it, you know, I think these questions still linger. You know, the city decided that the investment they were making in the park was not worth. It wasn't designed for absorption and to the extent that Rotterdam had, right? Where people could still use the park even if it was flooded. And so they decided to completely protect it as much as possible. And, you know, there are trade-offs. That case, thank you so much. Hey, welcome. Thanks for having me. Thank you.