Plenary 2 Chair: David Worthington

Health Impact Assessment: Making the Difference

Hugh Barton

Reader, Sustainable Settlements, University of the West of England

Health Impact Assessment: Making the Difference

7th International HIA Conference

PUTTING HUMAN WELL-BEING AT THE CORE OF PLANNING

Hugh Barton

Director, WHO Collaborating Centre for Healthy Cities and Urban Policy

University of the West of England, Bristol

Healthy Urban Planning in Manchester

1853 2003

TyphoidCholera

Dysentery

Scrofula

Asthma

ObesityStress & mental health

Heart disease

“Traffic will be to 21st century public health what sewage was to 19th century public health”

PIA National Congress 2005

Four challenges…

• Breaking free from our institutional and professional silos

• Involving stakeholders effectively in decision-making

• Tying the knot between health and sustainability

• Knowing how to judge what is a healthy plan or policy (getting it right)

Key elementsof the spatial planning system

• Sustainability appraisal / Strategic environmental assessment

• Community strategies

• Local development frameworks: core strategies and area action plans

WHO Healthy Cities Network Phase IV (2003-2007) in the WHO European Region (Designated, Applicants, Associate)

SVN

BLR

January 2006

Seixal

Amadora

Geneva

Milan

Bologna

JerusalemPadua

Udine

Arezzo

Copenhagen

Sandnes

HelsingborgStockholm

Dresden

Glasgow

Newcastle

Liverpool

ManchesterSheffield

Stoke-on-Trent

Bursa

Vienna Györ

Rijeka

Lodz

74 Cities51 designated22 applicants

1 associate

Yalova

ÇankayaViana do Castelo

Liège

Belfast

Camden

Montijo

Stirling

Sunderland

Turin

Turku

Ljubljana

San Fernandode Henares

Poznan

Brno

Brighton

Horsens

Eskisehir/Tepebasi

Kuopio

Celje

Pecs

Kadiköy

Jurmala

Aydin

Brussels

Avanos

Vitoria-Gasteiz

Kirikkale

Zagreb

Izhevsk

Trabzon City

Rennes

Østfold County Council

Istanbul

Dublin

LeganésSant Andreaude la Barca

SienaÜrgüp

Athens

Cheboksary

Kinel-Cherkassy District

Novocheboksark

Kaunas

Kuressaare

Yevpatoria

Venice

Spectrum appraisal

Designed to …• Work with all the partners / stakeholders• Integrate health, social, economic,

environmental perspectives, thus be inclusive in the criteria applied

• Encourage shared learning and consensus-building

• Scope the key issues – identifying those requiring deeper study

The Spectrum process

• agree relevant health / sustainability objectives

• agree specific planning criteria

• develop / refine the project in the light of the criteria

• assess the project – identifying awkward issues

• undertake detailed studies as necessary

• improve or change the project accordingly

Spectrum Appraisal

Grading the scheme against health and sustainability criteria

EXCELLENT The local delivery criterion is fully satisfied

GOOD The criterion is generally satisfied

NEGOTIABLE Success depends on further work and negotiation

PROBLEMATICAL Not likely to be satisfactorily fulfilled without major reassessment

UNACCEPTABLE The criterion cannot be satisfied

Spectrum Appraisal for Health

1 Personal lifestyles with healthy exercise

2 Social cohesion

3 Housing quality

4 Access to work

5 Accessibility

6 Local, low-input food production

7 Safety and the feeling of safety

8 Equity and social capital

9 Air quality and aesthetics

10 Water and sanitation quality

11 Land and mineral resources

12 Climate stability

HUP Strategic Objectives Local sustainability criteria

NATURAL RESOURCES

1 Wildlife habitats

2 Land and food

3 Water and air

4 Materials in use and after use

5

Energy in buildings

PLACE 1 Housing stock

2 Open space

3 Local heritage/values

4 Safety, privacy & noise

5 Quality of the public realm

LOCAL ACTIVITIES 1 Community & social facilities

2 Motorised movement

3 Employment

4 Non-motorised movement

5 Shops and leisure

COMMUNITY 1 Housing affordability

2 Project viability

3 Local job creation

4 Stakeholder involvement

5 On-going management

Spectrum Appraisal for Health

1 Personal lifestyles with healthy exercise

2 Social cohesion

3 Housing quality

4 Access to work

5 Accessibility

6 Local, low-input food production

7 Safety and the feeling of safety

8 Equity and social capital

9 Air quality and aesthetics

10 Water and sanitation quality

11 Land and mineral resources

12 Climate stability

HUP Strategic Objectives Local sustainability criteria

NATURAL RESOURCES

1 Wildlife habitats

2 Land and food

3 Water and air

4 Materials in use and after use

5

Energy in buildings

PLACE 1 Housing stock

2 Open space

3 Local heritage/values

4 Safety, privacy & noise

5 Quality of the public realm

LOCAL ACTIVITIES 1 Community & social facilities

2 Motorised movement

3 Employment

4 Non-motorised movement

5 Shops and leisure

COMMUNITY 1 Housing affordability

2 Project viability

3 Local job creation

4 Stakeholder involvement

5 On-going management

Spectrum Appraisal for Health

1 Personal lifestyles with healthy exercise

2 Social cohesion

3 Housing quality

4 Access to work

5 Accessibility

6 Local, low-input food production

7 Safety and the feeling of safety

8 Equity and social capital

9 Air quality and aesthetics

10 Water and sanitation quality

11 Land and mineral resources

12 Climate stability

HUP Strategic Objectives Local sustainability criteria

NATURAL RESOURCES

1 Wildlife habitats

2 Land and food

3 Water and air

4 Materials in use and after use

5

Energy in buildings

PLACE 1 Housing stock

2 Open space

3 Local heritage/values

4 Safety, privacy & noise

5 Quality of the public realm

LOCAL ACTIVITIES 1 Community & social facilities

2 Motorised movement

3 Employment

4 Non-motorised movement

5 Shops and leisure

COMMUNITY 1 Housing affordability

2 Project viability

3 Local job creation

4 Stakeholder involvement

5 On-going management

Spectrum Appraisal for Health

NATURAL RESOURCES

1 Wildlife habitats

2 Land and food

3 Water and air

4 Materials in use and after use

5

Energy in buildings

PLACE 1 Housing stock

2 Open space

3 Local heritage/values

4 Safety, privacy & noise

5 Quality of the public realm

LOCAL ACTIVITIES 1 Community & social facilities

2 Motorised movement

3 Employment

4 Non-motorised movement

5 Shops and leisure

COMMUNITY 1 Housing affordability

2 Project viability

3 Local job creation

4 Stakeholder involvement

5 On-going management

HUP Policy area

EXCELLENT The criterion is fully satisfied

GOOD The criterion is generally satisfied

NEGOTIABLE Success depends on further work and negotiation

PROBLEMATICAL Not likely to be satisfactorily fulfilled without major reassessment

UNACCEPTABLE The criterion can not be satisfied

Local Delivery Criteria: Score

The health map

Intervention: a new town bypassThe health map

Direct effects

Travel patterns

Destinations

Landscape

Habitats

Drainage

Indirect effects

Greenhouse emissions

Air quality

Active travel

Social networks

Economic efficiency

Development pressures

More landscape impacts

Knock on effects on travel and activities…

Health determinants

• Physical exercise

• Social capital

• Income and jobs

• Accessibility and inclusion

• Aesthetic quality?

• Air quality

• Climate risks

The health map

The health map:

• places spatial planning in the context of health, and vice-versa

• integrates an sustainability approach to settlements with the determinants of health

• locates the interests of many different agencies

• provides a tool for integrated health and sustainability appraisal

7th International Health Impact Assessment

Conference

Health Impact Assessment: Making the Difference

Supported by: