Search

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a method by which a policy, programme or project falling outside traditional health fields, may be judged as to its potential effects on the health of a population to mitigate negative impacts and strengthen the positive ones. Proposals are analysed from the perspective of all the determinants of health. In France, HIAs are mainly applied to urban development projects where social cohesion (SCo) is a major issue. Although the HIA method is well structured as a step-by-step process, there are no guidelines for assessing SCo. This article opens with literature review to clarify the concept of SCo and to understand how the built environment influences SCo and how social environment influence health. Drawing on this work, this paper presents an analytical framework to assess SCo, integrating both the spatial and physical dimensions of urban design and the perceptions of the neighbourhood characteristics. Following a brief overview of the key findings from applying this framework to HIA of an urban development project, the paper discusses its related strengths and weaknesses. The framework could be a useful tool for HIA as it embraces knowledge from both urban planning and social sciences. It also allows for an overall analysis of all the indicators without relying on a checklist. Nevertheless, it should be tested further to improve its validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the year 2003 when the first walkability scale was published to date, person-environment fit models and empirical research, some of which was published in Health Promotion International , have encapsulated healthy communities in 'neighborhood walkability'. While there is no doubt that neighborhood walkability positively influences health-seeking behaviors and health, recent models suggest that their measurement and conceptualization have not emphasized the role played by psychosocial and personal factors in aging in place. Thus, the development of scales measuring human ecosystem factors has not recognized all critical factors suited for older adults. In this paper, we aim to draw on relevant literature to frame a more holistic construct, hereby referred to as Socially Active Neighborhoods (SAN), that would better support aging in place in older populations. Through a narrative review based on a systematic search of the literature, we define the scope of SAN and delineate some contextual implications for gerontology, health promotion and psychometric testing. SAN, unlike neighborhood walkability in its current measurement and conceptualization, incorporates critical theory-informed psychosocial factors (i.e. safety and disability friendliness of neighborhood infrastructure) that can encourage older adults with physiological and cognitive limitations to maintain physical and social activities as well as health in later life. The SAN is the result of our adaptation of key person-environment models, including the Context Dynamics in Aging (CODA) framework, that recognizes the role of context in healthy aging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The last decade has seen many of the ‘community’ concepts in health (community empowerment, community capacity) replaced by ‘social’ concepts (social capital, social cohesion). The continuous re-labelling of roughly similar phenomena may be a necessary stratagem to attract attention to the economic and power inequalities that arise from undisciplined markets. Social concepts also have an advantage over community ones by directing that attention to higher orders of political systems. The latest construct being wielded by health practitioners, researchers and policy-makers are the twinned concepts of social inclusion and social exclusion. These represent a conceptual sophistication over social capital and social cohesion. Like their predecessors, however, there are risks in their adoption without a critical examination of the premises that underpin them. For example, how can one ‘include’ people and groups into structured systems that have systematically ‘excluded’ them in the first place? The cautions expressed in this article do not dissuade use of the concepts. Their utility, however, particularly at a time when not only inequalities, but also their rate of growth, is increasing, requires careful questioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]