IRP | Sacchita

Future Pandemic Playbook

Building urban resilience against a future disease “X”

Intent

To explore how communities and public health systems can rebuild trust, agency, and preparedness in anticipation of future pandemics, by transforming collective trauma into a catalyst for systemic change.

To design and test a participatory “Pandemic Playbook” framework that:

Surfaces lived experiences and memories of COVID-19 through collective artefacts,
Uses speculative scenario-building to imagine equitable and resilient futures, and
Facilitates role-based simulations to reconfigure relationships between communities and public health stakeholders.

The project aims to move beyond awareness toward actionable, community-led preparedness models that strengthen long-term systemic resilience

Aim

Role:
Futures Designer, Facilitator & Strategist

Duration:
4 months

Industry:
Civic Innovation & Public Health

Research Methods

Expert Interviews:

Conducted in-depth interviews with a diverse set of stakeholders including public health officials (local councils), policymakers (House of Lords), NHS doctors, and community members to understand multi-level perspectives on preparedness and systemic challenges during past pandemics.

Historical Timeline Analysis

Mapped over 2,000 years of pandemic events to uncover long-term drivers, recurring signals, and patterns related to the origin, spread, and impact of disease outbreaks, informing a deeper understanding of how responses have historically evolved.

Thematic Analysis:

Synthesized qualitative data from interviews by clustering insights to identify patterns in trust, institutional failures, and behaviours across different communities.

Systems Mapping & Causal Layered Analysis

Visualised the pandemic preparedness problem across structural, cultural, social, and mythic layers. This helped surface root causes, identify leverage points, and position the challenge as a complex “wicked problem.”

Signals and Trends Analysis

Mapped environmental, technological, and geopolitical trends (e.g. climate migration, surveillance tech, health vulnerabilities) and signals of emerging governance shifts, to contextualise possible futures and future community compositions.

Socio-Spatial Mapping of Communities

Plotted real London boroughs and community types into a 2x2 matrix based on socio-economic status and levels of community engagement/trust in governance informed by interviews, datasets, and local council data.

Historical Timeline Analysis using PESTLE

We structured our secondary research using a STEEP framework and a timeline analysis to trace how human–bat interactions and relationships have evolved and influenced each other from the past to the present.

The Future Crisis

As per predictions, by 2050, antimicrobial resistance (or other) could cause 10 million deaths annually without intervention. As of 2025, less than 30% of worldwide systems are equipped to deal with this new pandemic. - (O’Neill Report, 2016)

What might the future of urban resilience look like against a future disease “X” in the context of the United Kingdom in 2030 and 2045. This is an important social and environmental challenge because the next pandemic is not a matter of if but when, and we are not well equipped to deal with it as a society or as a government. Particular interest is in how the government can be aided in creating conditions such that communities are prepared for, and can prevent the spread of a new disease within their own boundaries.

I was interested in the years 2030(for intervention) and 2045 (impact and realisation) as it is predicted that we have a 47–57% probability of another deadly pandemic in the next 25 years, coupled with a high risk political period projection from 2025–2035 (CFGD, pg 1). The WHO and UNEP predict increased risk of zoonotic spillovers in the next 10–20 years (i.e., 2025–2045).

Key Insights

1.Top-down and ground-up approaches must work in a loop:
Real impact requires continuous feedback and collaboration between communities and policymakers, with public health teams best positioned to facilitate. This insight came from studying the systems responsible for responding to a new pandemic. Top down approaches alone have not worked without community voices, opinions and needs being taken into consideration. Grounds up approaches often lack the power, funding and resources to work and impact at scale.

2. Shift ownership and solution-building back to communities:
Move beyond extractive data collection and empower communities to set visions, co-design interventions, and track progress with public health teams supporting and amplifying these efforts. This insight came from secondary research where it became clear that while grounds up work was being done, it was many at times done in an extractive manner that did not give back to communities. This meant people often had no idea why their data was being collected and what it was being used for, whereas this data if feeded back could help the community see a clearer picture of their core issues.

3.Futures thinking and agency:
Interventions should provoke futures thinking and agency, especially among the least advantaged, using speculative and participatory methods to disrupt “business as usual” and trauma narratives. Herd immunity remains a key strategy. This insight comes from secondary research that herd immunity is our best shot for most foreseeable future pandemics.

4.Policy must be driven by community:
Effective policy should be informed by lived experience, speculative outputs, and clear community priorities and not by one-size-fits-all solutions.This insight came from the Covid 19 Inquiry that existing policy decisions made during the Covid 19 were not effective as it failed to take in other factors like social income disparities, language barriers and distrust into account when it came up with interventions.

The Research Question

How might we enable public preparedness teams within London’s local councils to focus on preparedness that is preventative rather than just being reactive? How can they evolve from problem solvers to visionary enablers - enabling communities to think and shape their own futures?

The stakeholders for this project are:

1. Preparedness teams within London - equip them with the right toolkits needed to gather insights from the ground, foster better relationships and build preparedness within communities.

2. Local people living within different boroughs in London. Collaborated with the council of Newham and the insights are contextually relevant to them.

// Community organisations and other voluntary sector organisations are important as the backbone of most community work is supported by these NGO’s , food banks, and faith groups within the areas. They knew the people and their needs the best.

// Tech enablers also become key, like “Social Pinpoint” as possible enablers within this intervention to document the data digitally and scale up ( through a knowledge management system).

Intervention & Futures Methods

Employed a 2x2 scenario framework, backcasting, and design fiction methods to provoke dialogue, question assumptions, and co-create preferable futures with communities.For the exhibition I used diegetic artefacts as a provocation to think about future scenarios as well.

Speculative & Participatory Futures

Roleplay & Simulation Workshops

Developed and facilitated future simulation workshops using character role cards and scenario immersion to help participants rehearse future pandemic responses, reflect on agency, and critique current systemic readiness.

Bias Interrogation & Co-Ideation

Integrated speculative provocations into workshops as a method to challenge personal and participant biases, spark imagination, and ideate collectively on radically different futures.

The Intervention as a Toolkit

Step 1

The Participatory Visioning Workshop

The first part of my intervention is designed to help communities:

1. Envision collective, better futures for themselves,
2. and Identify where they currently stand, and what steps they would need (and offer) to move toward that future.

To enable this, I developed four distinct scenarios for both the present and the future using two axes: level of government dependency (high ↔ low) and level of community engagement (high ↔ low).This intentionally maps how trust in public systems intersects with a community’s capacity to act collectively, both today and in 2050. It also maps existing social economic conditions and needs of people within the government for that community.

This began by plotting qualitative data from local interviews and workshops along axes of socio-economic inequality and levels of community involvement. These were overlaid with geospatial data using interactive maps from London.gov, filtering for boroughs with:
/ High ethnic diversity
/ Deep socio-economic disparities
/ Low trust in public institutions (especially policing

1.1 Present scenarios

1.2 Future Scenarios

For the preferable futures “Zone 2” , low government dependency, high community engagement, is the preferred quadrant.

The aim: build futures where people trust institutions but do not wait for them, instead taking collective action into their own hands.

Set in 2050, this future responds to compounding crises: climate migration, pandemic recurrence, energy instability, and growing socio-political fragility. In this world, resilience is built locally. Communities operate their own food systems, health services, energy micro-grids, and digital mutual aid networks. Migrant integration is made possible through inclusive design and digital tools, and AI-supported health surveillance focuses on prevention, not control.This future directly addresses the complex challenge identified in my research: the erosion of trust between communities and public systems during COVID-19, and the lack of preparedness, equity, and cohesion that exacerbated its impacts.

The problem framing: how might we strengthen that capacity and rebuild trust, not through top-down control, but through shared ownership? In this scenario, the government remains a key actor setting ethical standards, providing infrastructure, and enabling communities. But people lead. “We don’t wait for help, we organise it,” becomes the shared ethos.

Limitations include the assumption of widespread digital access, sustained social cohesion, and equitable migration outcomes, all of which require long-term investment and support. Further work is needed to prototype policy scaffolds and behavioural shifts that make this future plausible. This is a utopian future with a seemingly relative and balanced economic background for most people. But the intention is to enable communities in the now, to visualise better futures for themselves.

1.3 Back Casting Exercise

After communities imaginecollective futures for 2050, they identify barriers like social inequalities and gaps in trust that prevent them from getting there.

Using backcasting, communities work backwards from their chosen future, identifying what changes are needed in information, rules, mindsets, and resources to get there. This process equips them to articulate what support and data they need from government and what actions they can lead themselves, making the path to resilience actionable and inclusive.

These cards act as probes and hints as they backcast.

Step 2

Crisis Stimulation Speculative Game

In this speculative preparedness simulation workshop, participants use role cards to explore what to do if faced with a future disease which might spread through different modes of transmission, while having different levels of impact.  

Each person or organization reflects on the roles they played before and during past pandemics, and then imagines what roles they could play in this future crisis simulation- both in giving and receiving help. 

There are 6 different archetype diverse cards for people based on socio economic factors, ethnic bacgrounds, gender roles and age .

Participants then choose a future pandemic card and think about measures they would have to take as a community to safeguard themselves.

Why?

Past failures to anticipate: Previous pandemics caught us off guard because we didn’t speculate on different modes of disease transmission. Practicing scenario thinking helps us build “muscle memory” for future crises, rather than reactive responses. 

Distrust in government and health systems: Involving everyone in role-mapping and decision-making fosters transparency, ownership, and trust.It can help reduce resistance and motivating collective action.

A few wildcards to spicen up the game. Reality can always surprise us with wildcards in the form of environmental or man made disasters along with the pandemic, so how would we fare then?

Cards on and who would be most vulnerable as an added lens would help communities to see who the worst effected are, and how best to help them.

Now that the cards are picked and the world is built, with that future vision in mind - communities think about what help they can give and what they would expect to get to safeguard themselves.

For my final exhibition, the display included the workshop plans on the table but the main attraction was the “Museum of the future 2040” - where I invited people to choose a “Future pandemic care kit”

Diegetic artefacts were created solely for the exhibition. They served to engage visitors and draw them into the speculative world, and were received very positively - many described the experience as “bleak, but profoundly fascinating and real.”

The idea was to use the artefacts to provoke thought about what future scenarios could look like. This invited them to think about what futures they would like for themselves and how they would get there. Many people ended up choosing the glasses or the flower pot, making it Zone 1 and Zone 2, which were intended as probable and preferable futures respectively.