Search

COVID-19 is the most recent respiratory pandemic to necessitate better knowledge about city planning and design. The complex connections between cities and pandemics, however challenge traditional approaches to reviewing literature. In this article we adopted a rapid review methodology. We review the historical literature on respiratory pandemics and their documented connections to urban planning and design (both broadly defined as being concerned with cities as complex systems). Our systematic search across multidisciplinary databases returned a total of 1323 sources, with 92 articles included in the final review. Findings showed that the literature represents the multi-scalar nature of cities and pandemics - pandemics are global phenomena spread through an interconnected world, but require regional, city, local and individual responses. We characterise the literature under ten themes: scale (global to local); built environment; governance; modelling; non-pharmaceutical interventions; socioeconomic factors; system preparedness; system responses; underserved and vulnerable populations; and future-proofing urban planning and design. We conclude that the historical literature captures how city planning and design intersects with a public health response to respiratory pandemics. Our thematic framework provides parameters for future research and policy responses to the varied connections between cities and respiratory pandemics.

As the science of well-being moves towards an understanding of the influence of social experiences shared by many on individual and group-level well-being (‘community well-being’), a new approach to measuring well-being is required. It needs to bridge the contextually-specific social experiences best uncovered by social research methods, and psychological diagnoses made using conventional psychometric scales and diagnostic interviews. We build on our previous work on a new psychosocial model of a major influence on contemporary community well-being, the process by which people form, maintain and change their understandings of risk from urban and industrial projects, and any subsequent effects on individualpsychosocial well-being. We utilise this model, and propose a mixed qualitative and quantitative methodology to argue for; 1) the incorporation of theemic(subject’s) perspective in the conceptual underpinnings of measurement scales; and 2) the synthesis of quantitative and qualitative assessments of well-being. This gives validity and contextual precision to scales which measure experiences of well-being that are geographically and socio-culturally-located. The resulting data offers both context of scale, and depth of insight. Additionally, our proposition combines theories and methods from psychology, social anthropology, sociology, social epidemiology, public health and community development. This evinces the importance of drawing on broad ranging perspectives to develop tools which capture the complex and multi-dimension nature of well-being - where psychological responses are shaped by collective social experiences.

HNA (health needs assessment) is a systematic method of identifying the unmet health and healthcare needs of a population and recommending changes to meet these unmet needs. It is used to improve health and other service planning, priority setting, and policy development. HNA is an example of public health working outside the formal health sector and presenting back to colleagues. Successful HNAs will also ensure that non-health agencies benefit from their findings. This chapter will describe why HNA is important and what it means in practice. Professional training and clinical experience teach that a health professional must systematically assess a patient before administering any treatment that is believed to be effective. This systematic approach is often omitted when assessing the health needs of populations

HIA and EA are approaches and processes that support better, healthier, and more sustainable policy development and decisionmaking. When undertaken well, and when valued and applied, they can also help to support better, more informed, transparent and democratic policy development and decision- making processes. However, they are not a panacea; rather, they constitute one important piece of the policy development and decision- making puzzle. Public health practitioners need to increase their knowledge and understanding of EA and HIA. They should improve their links with EA and HIA specialists. They also need to proactively and consistently undertake and commission assessments of health either within EA or as stand alone HIAs. Public health practitioners would also do well to oversee and scrutinize the scope of work for, and the findings of, EAs and HIAs that are commissioned and undertaken by others in the localities in which they work. By doing so, public health practitioners can help to advance the agenda of improving health for all by acting on the upstream determinants of health and bringing together key actors across society.

Quality is much sought after in, and a basic foundation for, good impact assessment (IA). However, the term is rarely defined, has an uncertain relationship with IA effectiveness, and it means different things to different stakeholders, which can lead to debates over the legitimacy associated with an IA process. Thus, IA quality needs conceptualising to position research and practice within broader understandings. This paper contributes to this conceptualisation by identifying nine dimensions of quality through a process of literature review drawing on three fields of study in which quality and quality management have already been debated and conceptualised: education; health care; and business. This approach sidesteps the plural views on quality existing within the field of IA itself which might otherwise bias the identification of quality dimensions. We therefore propose that the dimensions of IA quality are: Efficiency; Optimacy; Conformance; Legitimacy; Equity; Capacity Maintenance; Transformative Capacity; and Quality Management. A literature review of IA research and practice confirms the relevance of the identified quality dimensions to IA. We identify, to an extent, the relationship between quality and effectiveness. Quality aligns with procedural and transactive effectiveness, partly aligns with normative effectiveness and is distinct from, but helps to deliver, substantive effectiveness.

This study examines whether there is active planning for health improvement in the English spatial planning system and how this varies across two regions using a combination of telephone surveys and focus group interviews in 2005 and 2010. The spatial planning profession was found to be ill-equipped to consider the health and well-being implications of its actions, whilst health professionals are rarely engaged and have limited understanding and aspirations when it comes to influencing spatial planning. Strategic Environmental Assessment was not considered to be successful in integrating health into spatial plans, given it was the responsibility of planners lacking the capacity to do so. For their part, health professionals have insufficient knowledge and understanding of planning and how to engage with it to be able to plan for health gains rather than simply respond to health impacts. HIA practice is patchy and generally undertaken by health professionals outside the statutory planning framework. Thus, whilst appropriate assessment tools exist, they currently lack a coherent context within which they can function effectively and the implementation of the Kiev protocol requiring the engagement of health professionals in SEA is not to likely improve the consideration of health in planning while there continues to be separation of functions between professions and lack of understanding of the other profession.

Health impact assessment (HIA) has matured as a form of impact assessment over the past two decades. The use of HIA methods and approaches has expanded rapidly, and it now has applications in both the public and private sectors and in an increasing number of countries around the world. This paper presents an overview of the historical and recent international developments in HIA, before detailing the existing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to practice. It draws upon the HIA literature, five workshops on ‘Current issues in HIA practice’ held at International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) conferences between 2006 and 2011, and the experience of the authors.

An important issue for the geography of health in urban areas concerns how urban change arising from renewal of inner-city areas relates to health of urban populations. In this paper we examine ways in which urban regeneration schemes in Britain are attempting to incorporate consideration of health impact into their planning and development. It concentrates especially on diverse ways that different stakeholders perceive the outcomes of these schemes and the significance for health. The paper is based on two case studies of urban development projects, focusing on housing improvement and training for unemployed people, in a London borough where levels of deprivation are high and various forms of social exclusion affect large numbers of people. The methods used aimed to represent the views of different types of stakeholders, by means of interviews and focus groups with a range of stakeholders in these schemes. Health impact assessment needs to be evidence based. We discuss the evidence for potential health impact of regeneration projects through effects on housing and employment as determinants of health. We focus especially on the ways in which this evidence can be viewed and used by different stakeholders, and how far their perceptions seemed to match with research findings from public health. We consider the potential and the limitations for health improvement associated with urban regeneration in view of the case studies presented here.

In 2013 Medact, an organization with extensive experience in documenting the health consequences of violent conflict (Medact 2004, 2008), initiated a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of potential mil...

We report here on the development of a practical guide for health impact assessment (HIA) of urban regeneration schemes which sets out an approach to rapid prospective HIA. We provide a succinct account of our approach, illustrated by two case studies in East London, and discuss how the process of HIA must be adapted to different types of regeneration projects. The case studies are described in more detail in Cave and Curtis (2001). In this paper we focus on how the HIA process was adapted to suit different types of regeneration programmes.

The lending and technical support provided by the International Monetary Fund affect the determinants of health and healthy equity. Most health determinants lie outside the control of the health sector, and thus non-health-sector policies have profound positive and negative effects on population health. Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is an instrument for identifying the effect of policies, plans, programs, and projects on population health and health equity. It is a feasible, cost-effective, and transparent process that has been adopted by several financial institutions, including members of the World Bank Group. Adopting HIA would assist the IMF in ensuring that the potential health consequences of its policies are identified and addressed.

This chapter will describe why health needs assessment (HNA) is important and what it means in practice. Professional training and clinical experience teaches that a health professional must systematically assess a patient before administering any treatment that is believed to be effective. This systematic approach is often omitted when assessing the health needs of populations.

This chapter deals with strategic environmental assessment (SEA) follow-up, which we define as: Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of a strategic initiative and relevant environmental factors for management of, and communication about, the environmental performance of that strategic initiative.

Gary Krieger and colleagues (June 19, p 2129) present a polarising narrative, pitting themselves, as private sector consultants, against health impact assessment (HIA) as conceptualised in the Gothenburg Consensus. Krieger and colleagues represent one per spective among HIA practitioners, who all share a commitment to the protection and enhancement of health and wellbeing. The private sector’s use of HIA has not evolved independently of the public sector. Krieger and colleagues omit to note that the International Finance Corporation is a government-owned entity. Demand by govern ments for the accountability of fi nancial institutions has been a driver for the private sector’s use of impact assessment, including HIA. The interplay between public and private sectors has led to guidance for, and commissioning of, HIAs. Krieger and colleagues also do not acknowledge their role in writing the International Finance Corporation guidance for HIA. The environmental health areas frame work and the social determinants of health are not incompatible approaches. Public health is best served by acknowledging the dynamic between environmental and social factors, and refl ecting this in integrated analysis—an approach common to most HIA practice including that articulated by the environmental health areas framework. Krieger and colleagues write that the operationalis ation of HIA is the key. We state that transparency, accountability, and having a wide scope are also crucial to achieving the promise of “tangible results” from large projects. We do not agree with Krieger and colleagues’ Comment, but welcome their contribution. We call on them, and others, to come together to develop a post-Gothenburg inter national HIA consensus that moves the fi eld forward.