Study details Population and Plan details and Outcomes assessed* Results Notes setting method of appraisal Authors Country: General Comments: Limitations identified Fischer, T., Matuzzi, European Union See case studies See case studies below by author(s): below Problem of the overall None M., Nowacki, J. context within which Setting (eg SEA is applied: urban/rural) Limitations identified Year: discretionary planning Various (see individual by review team: 2009 appears to support at – case studies where None least potentially – “the applicable) Citation: consideration of Environmental Impact various aspects that Population: Evidence gaps &/or Assessment Review Vol may go beyond those (size, characteristics…) recommendations for 30 (3) (2009)200–210 traditionally considered. Doi:10.1016/ Various (see individual While legalistic future research: j.e.i.a.r.2009.10.005 planning traditions case studies where appear to lead to a applicable) limitation of the factors Aim of Source of funding: for assessment to those Based on a review of legally required, they eight SEAs a discussion Financial assistance often appear to be used of the extent to which from European Union subsequently more health aspects are consistently.” considered in EU Directive based SEAs is clear from the “What analysis provided in this Study design: paper, is that SEA case studies health related factors identified from EU and are considered in EC then analysed for health Directive based SEA, but considerations current practice suggests that some Quality score: gaps remain towards + achieving planning systems that can External validity effectively deliver health inclusive SEA.” ++
Study details Population and setting Plan details and method of appraisal Outcomes assessed* Results Notes Authors Fischer, T., Matuzzi, M., Nowacki, J. Year: 2009 Citation: Environmental Impact Assessment Review Vol 30 (3) (2009)200–210 Doi:10.1016/ j.e.i.a.r.2009.10.005 Aim of Based on a review of eight SEAs a discussion of the extent to which health aspects are considered in EU Directive based SEAs Study design: SEA case studies identified from EU and then analysed for health considerations Quality score: + External validity ++ Country: European Union Setting (eg urban/rural) Various (see individual case studies where applicable) Population: (size, characteristics…) Various (see individual case studies where applicable) See case studies below See case studies below General Comments: Problem of the overall context within which SEA is applied: discretionary planning appears to support – at least potentially – “the consideration of various aspects that may go beyond those traditionally considered. While legalistic planning traditions appear to lead to a limitation of the factors for assessment to those legally required, they often appear to be used subsequently more consistently.” “What is clear from the analysis provided in this paper, is that health related factors are considered in EC Directive based SEA, but current practice suggests that some gaps remain towards achieving planning systems that can effectively deliver health inclusive SEA.” Limitations identified by author(s): None Limitations identified by review team: None Evidence gaps &/or recommendations for future research: Source of funding: Financial assistance from European Union
Spatial_planning_for_Health_Review2_Final_1_April_2010_rev_21_April.docx