details Population and Plan details and Outcomes Results Notes setting method of appraisal assessed* Authors Country: Plan: Outcomes measured: The HIA derived Limitations identified France, C. England Review of adopted a) Process outcomes: relevant objectives for by author(s): Cambridgeshire Structure (i) Health outcomes health & compared None Plan 1991-2006 and considered: Y Setting (eg urban/rural) against plan policies: Year: to emerging revised (ii) Health Urban/ rural mix detailed matrices Limitations identified 2004 “the Structure Plan recommendations comparing the 13 by review team: incorporated in plan: Author was part of the Population: objectives against the Citation: Method of appraisal: Y (size , characteristics…) policies allowed health authority input to Environmental Impact (iii) Evidence of being analysis of the potential HIA Assessment Review implemented: NR HIA (termed HIR- Cambridgeshire County health benefits and (iv) Post-adoption 24 (2004) 189–198 Health Impact Review) negative health impacts Evidence gaps &/or evaluation: NR that could arise from the recommendations for Aim of study: b) Specific issues: Structure Plan. Through future research: The extent to which (i) Physical activity: Y this analysis, it was - the health care sector (ii) Mental wellbeing: NR found that the Structure and land-use (iii) Air / noise quality etc: Plan went some way Source of funding: planners can work Y towards addressing the (iv) Unintentional injury: Y together to wider determinants of Unknown (v) Other health: Y incorporate health health such as healthy Specify: issues into a strategic lifestyle, employment, good quality housing, a land-use planning - supportive communities clean safe environment document. - housing & fuel poverty and sustainable - inequality (including disability, elderly, transport.” unemployed) design: - public transport Working closely with Review of single case - flooding those developing the study. - jobs Structure Plan meant that there was a real Quality score: c) Knowledge outcome: opportunity to input into + Planners health the process and provide knowledge or skills: NR changes as the External validity document emerged. d) Other outcome: Y/N + Staff in land-use Specify: planning and health
details Population and setting Plan details and method of appraisal Outcomes assessed* Results Notes Authors France, C. Year: 2004 Citation: Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24 (2004) 189–198 Aim of study: The extent to which the health care sector and land-use planners can work together to incorporate health issues into a strategic land-use planning document. design: Review of single case study. Quality score: + External validity + Country: England Setting (eg urban/rural) Urban/ rural mix Population: (size , characteristics…) Cambridgeshire County Plan: Review of adopted Cambridgeshire Structure Plan 1991-2006 and to emerging revised Structure Plan Method of appraisal: HIA (termed HIR- Health Impact Review) Outcomes measured: a) Process outcomes: (i) Health outcomes considered: Y (ii) Health recommendations incorporated in plan: Y (iii) Evidence of being implemented: NR (iv) Post-adoption evaluation: NR b) Specific issues: (i) Physical activity: Y (ii) Mental wellbeing: NR (iii) Air / noise quality etc: Y (iv) Unintentional injury: Y (v) Other health: Y Specify: - supportive communities - housing & fuel poverty - inequality (including disability, elderly, unemployed) - public transport - flooding - jobs c) Knowledge outcome: Planners health knowledge or skills: NR d) Other outcome: Y/N Specify: The HIA derived relevant objectives for health & compared against plan policies: “the detailed matrices comparing the 13 objectives against the policies allowed analysis of the potential health benefits and negative health impacts that could arise from the Structure Plan. Through this analysis, it was found that the Structure Plan went some way towards addressing the wider determinants of health such as healthy lifestyle, employment, good quality housing, a clean safe environment and sustainable transport.” Working closely with those developing the Structure Plan meant that there was a real opportunity to input into the process and provide changes as the document emerged. Staff in land-use planning and health Limitations identified by author(s): None Limitations identified by review team: Author was part of the health authority input to HIA Evidence gaps &/or recommendations for future research: - Source of funding: Unknown
Spatial_planning_for_Health_Review2_Final_1_April_2010_rev_21_April.docx