Search

A key public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic is the mandate to stay home and practice physical distancing. In Canada, with essential activities such as grocery shopping, outdoor exercise and transportation, people need to be able to safely navigate dense, urban spaces while staying at least two metres or six feet apart. This pandemic has exacerbated the health inequities across neighbourhoods in cities like Toronto, Canada which are often segregated along racial and income lines. These inequities impact who has access to urban infrastructure that promotes health and quality of life. Safety in a time of COVID-19 goes beyond just exposure to the virus, it is complicated by notions of who belongs where, and who has access to what resources. The built environment has a role in maintaining and promoting physical and mental health during this pandemic and beyond it. This paper puts forwards three considerations for built environment interventions to promote health equitably: (i) addressing structural determinants of health and embedding anti-racist intersectional principles, (ii) revisiting tactical urbanism as a health promotion tool and (iii) rethinking community engagement processes through equity-based placemaking. This paper outlines four built environment interventions in Toronto, Canada that seek to address the challenges in navigating urban space safely in the short term, including street design that prioritizes pedestrians, protected cycling infrastructure, access to inclusive green space and safe, affordable housing. Longer-term strategies to create health-promoting urban environments that are equitable are discussed and may be valuable to other cities with similar urban equity concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health Impact Assessment is a key approach used internationally to identify positive or negative impacts of policies, plans and proposals on health and well-being. In 2020, HIAs were undertaken in Scotland and Wales to identify the potential health and well-being impacts of the 'stay at home' and physical distancing measures implemented at the start of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. There is sparse evidence evaluating whether the impacts predicted in HIAs occur following policy implementation. This paper evaluates the impacts anticipated in the COVID-19 HIAs against actual observed trends. The processes undertaken were compared and predicted impacts were tabulated by population groups and main determinants of health. Routine data and literature evidence were collated to compare predicted and observed impacts. Nearly all health impacts anticipated in both HIAs have occurred in the direction predicted. There have been significant adverse impacts through multiple direct and indirect pathways including loss of income, social isolation, disruption to education and services, and psychosocial effects. This research demonstrates the value of prediction in impact assessment and fills a gap in the literature by comparing the predicted impacts identified within the HIAs with observed trends. Post-COVID-19 recovery should centre health and well-being within future policies and decisions. Processes like HIA can support this as part of a 'health in all policies' approach to improve the health and well-being of populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]