Posted on

Successful examples

meeting

The San Francisco Indicators Project and Community Indicators Victoria are well-known tools that provide great lessons.

The indicator tools set up by public health teams in San Francisco (USA) and Victoria (Australia) have been widely used for built environment purposes. These projects provide useful lessons for organisations that are considering developing a new set of indicators.

Key findings about indicator use in these case studies (1):

Inter-sectoral relationships were important: In the cases analysed, creating and using urban health indicator tools increased inter-sectoral relationships, which supported actors to better understand each other’s opportunities and constraints. These relationships spurred new advocates for health in diverse organisations, supporting health-in-all-policies and whole-of-society approaches.

Community involvement helped overcome constraints: When using urban health indicator tools to advocate for a healthier environment, there can be challenges. In these case studies constraints to health-promoting policy and implementation included those which were legal, political and economic in nature. Community involvement developing and using the indicators helped to overcome these constraints and supported advocacy.

Pitfalls of indicator projects: A number of factors reduced the perceived relevance and authority of indicator tools, including: a high number of available indicators, lack of neighbourhood scale data and poor-quality data.

These indicator tools were used as a form of evidence that influenced local urban planning policy and decision-making when they were embedded in policy processes, networks and institutions.

Do other indicators get used in practice?

Beyond the two examples above, does the time and effort put into developing indicators, pay off?

Looking across the published literature, here are the key findings about the use of indicators by built environment policy-makers (2).

Who creates the tools matters: Both expert-led and participatory indicator projects can be underpinned by research evidence and residents’ knowledge. Participatory UHI tools with community involvement were generally more effective at supporting “health in all policies” and “whole-of-society” approaches to governing healthy cities than expert-led processes.

Indicator use in policy-making is not linear: Studies highlighted a number of technical, organisational, political, knowledge, and contextual factors that affect their use.

Quality matters: Some indicator tool features, such as availability of neighbourhood-scale data, were influential in the use of indicators by built environment policy- and decision-makers.

References

(1) Pineo, H., Zimmermann, N., Davies, M., 2020. Integrating health into the complex urban planning policy and decision-making context: a systems thinking analysis. Palgrave Communications 6, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0398-3

(2) Pineo, H., Glonti, K., Rutter, H., Zimmermann, N., Wilkinson, P. and Davies, M. (2018b) Urban Health Indicator Tools of the Physical Environment: a Systematic Review. Journal of Urban Health. 95  (5), pp. 613–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-018-0228-8

Further information

Bhatia, R., 2014. Case Study: San Francisco’s Use Of Neighborhood Indicators To Encourage Healthy Urban Development. Health Affairs 33, 1914–22. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0661

Davern, M.T., Gunn, L., Giles-Corti, B., David, S., 2017. Best Practice Principles for Community Indicator Systems and a Case Study Analysis: How Community Indicators Victoria is Creating Impact and Bridging Policy, Practice and Research. Soc Indic Res 131, 567–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1259-8

Farhang, L., Bhatia, R., Scully, C.C., Corburn, J., Gaydos, M., Malekafzali, S., 2008. Creating Tools for Healthy Development: Case Study of San Franciscoʼs Eastern Neighborhoods Community Health Impact Assessment. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 14, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PHH.0000316484.72759.7b

Posted on

Choosing indicators

team

Selecting indicators is about balancing priorities with available data.

There are many free and publicly available indicator sets. Here are some points to consider before you start choosing specific metrics:

Scale: Indicators about health and the built environment are available at many scales, from individual buildings, neighbourhoods, cities and beyond. This is important if you want to be able to compare your project or area to another. You can choose metrics to measure in a building or neighbourhood based on what is available at comparable scales or for the whole city.

Purpose: The metrics that you choose will have limitations, so be clear about what purpose the information will serve. If you want to show that one area is disadvantaged compared to others, you will need comparisons with other places (see above). Perhaps you want to see how something changes over time. In this case, the data will need to be gathered periodically. Setting a clear purpose helps to narrow down which indicators can be used.

Cost: Collecting data can be expensive, but there are many freely available datasets that report useful indicators. If these sources are likely to keep reporting over time (this is a big challenge), then you may be able to rely on such public data. Consider who will pay for data collection, which could include environmental monitoring or residents’ surveys.

Priorities: It may be true that we should ‘measure what matters’, but it is also true that ‘what gets measured matters’. There can be a tension between choosing the most important indicators for urban health and available data. This can result in many datasets reporting readily available data that may not be the most important issues for a particular community. It is worth considering which indicators are most important and reflective of local values and health priorities (see ‘Collaboration’ and ‘Don’t start from scratch’ below).

Collaboration: Selecting indicators is often a process that surfaces disagreements among built environment stakeholders. For example, gathering data may reveal problems that damage public or private sector organisations reputations. It can be useful to involve a wide range of stakeholders in choosing indicators to ensure that all parties have a chance raise concerns and solutions.

Don’t start from scratch

We conducted a review of global urban health indicator sets and found 145 internationally, so there is probably an indicator dataset available near you.(1) This means you don’t have to start from scratch. Check for the country-specific or international indicator sets using the link below.

View existing indicator sets

If you want to develop your own indicator set for a specific project or place, you still don’t have to start from scratch. We’ve produced an indicator database with roughly 300 examples of published urban health indicators. You can search the database on this website (e.g. for air quality or waste) or download a copy to explore in detail.

Search indicator database

References

(1) Pineo, H., Glonti, K., Rutter, H., Zimmermann, N., Wilkinson, P. and Davies, M. (2018b) Urban Health Indicator Tools of the Physical Environment: a Systematic Review. Journal of Urban Health. 95  (5), pp. 613–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-018-0228-8

Posted on

Indicators Overview

Man looking at metrics

Urban health indicators focus on the health impact of cities, including the physical urban environment.

There are many metrics about our quality of life, wellbeing and health. These measures can be used to understand the current status, set targets and judge progress.

We can use indicators for any of the following (1):

  • understand a place and its impact on health to inform the development, monitoring and adjustment of urban policies
  • compare places or success of policy programmes (e.g. within a city, across cities or internationally)
  • support funding bids and/or decisions
  • involve the community in agreeing priorities.

The value of indicators for communication

Here are a few examples where a headline figure helps to communicate a key challenge or opportunity.

Highlighting a problem

The first two examples show how indicators can highlight problems with the current state or proposed changes in the built environment.

<13% of new homes were located within walking distance of a railway, light rail or metro station

Royal Town Planning Institute (2016)

An analysis of planning permissions for new residential development in 12 city regions in England included data for 165,000 planned new homes.(2) Less than 13% were located within walking distance of a railway, light rail or metro station. Only 46% were located in an existing built-up area. This is likely to mean that many new homes are spatially disconnected from shops, schools, local services and convenient public transport. Residents of these new developments will probably rely on cars for the majority of their daily trips.

43% of British people are living in homes which do not meet the Living Home Standard.

Shelter

Shelter’s Living Home Standard highlighted the condition of housing in the UK. The standard looks at affordability, space, stability, decent conditions and neighbourhood – all of which are important for health. The charity has a dashboard that reports the percentage of homes that fail to meet the standard across different tenures and occupants’ characteristics (e.g. age, income, etc.).(3)

Measures of impact

The next few example shows how indicators can measure impact. The first is about the financial value of walkable neighbourhoods.

$4k – $34k Increased value of homes in highly walkable communities in USA

Cortright (2009)

A study of American cities found that houses with high walkability scores sold at values of $4,000 to $34,000 higher than homes with average walkability scores.(4) The walkability scores were measured by a tool called ‘Walk Score’ which is based on a combination of population density, access to services and street layout. 

Finally, this last example looks at the physical activity levels of residents in a new development, which is important for health.

40-50 min/week more physical activity since moving to the new development

Kramer et al. (2014)

A master-planned community called Mueller in Austin, Texas included 5,700 homes. The new community was studied by researchers who found that residents in early phases increased their physical activity levels by 40-50 minutes per week.(5)

References

(1) Pineo, H., Zimmermann, N., Cosgrave, E., Aldridge, R.W., Acuto, M. and Rutter, H. (2018a) Promoting a healthy cities agenda through indicators: development of a global urban environment and health index. Cities & Health. 2  (1), pp. 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2018.1429180

(2) Royal Town Planning Institute, 2016. The location of development: Mapping planning permissions for housing in twelve English city-regions.

(3) http://www.shelter.org.uk/livinghomestandard

(4) Cortright, J., 2009. Walking the walk: How walkability raises home values in US cities. CEOs for Cities

(5) Kramer, A., Lassar, T.J., Federman, M., Hammerschmidt, S., 2014. Building for Wellness: The Business Case. Urban Land Institute, Washington DC.

Posted on

Guidance for healthy urbanism

Strategies for planning and designing healthy places are available internationally.

Before you start a new healthy urbanism project it is worth consulting local or international guidance. The publications shown below include checklists, case studies, policy and design measures, indicators and other resources.

You can search, filter or download this table to find guidance relevant for your needs. Note the abbreviations for buildings (BLDG) and neighbourhoods (NBHD).

If you are aware of guidance that should be added, please post it in the comments at the bottom of this page.

TitleCountry of Origin or UseScaleDesign/planning checklistCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicatorsDateAuthor
A Healthy City is an Active City: A physical activity planning guideInternationalCITYChecklistCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2008World Health Organization
Active City: Designing for HealthCanadaNBHD & CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2014City of Toronto
Active design guidelines: Promoting physical activity and health in designUSABLDG, NBHD, CITYChecklistCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2010City of New York
Active Design: Planning for health and wellbeing through sport and physical activityUKBLDG, NBHD, CITYChecklistCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2015Sport England
Belfast Planning for Healthy Communities Resource PackNorthern IrelandNBHD & CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2014Belfast Healthy Cities
Building Environmentally Sustainable Communities: A Framework for InclusivityUSANBHD & CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2010Been et al 2010
Building healthy corridors: transforming urban and suburban arterials into thriving placesUSANBHD & CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2016Urban Land Institute
Building healthy places toolkit: strategies for enhancing health in the built environmentUSABLDG & NBHDNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2015Urban Land Institute
Building the Foundations: tackling obesity through planning and developmentUKCITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2016TCPA, LGA, PHE
Cities Safer By Design: Guidance and Examples to Promote Traffic Safety through Urban and Street DesignInternationalNBHD & CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2015World Resources Institute
Cities, health and well-beingUKBLDG, NBHD, CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2018Pineo and Rydin and Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
Creating Healthy Places through Active MobilityUSANBHD & CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2014Centre for Liveable Cities and Urban Land Institute
Delivering Sustainable Healthy Homes and Communities in Northern IrelandNorthern IrelandBLDG, NBHD, CITYChecklistCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2016Town and Country Planning Association
Health + Mobility: A Design Protocol for Mobilising Healthy LivingInternationalNBHD & CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2016Arup, BRE, UCL, AREA Research
Healthy Active By DesignAustraliaBLDG, NBHD, CITYChecklistCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2018Heart Foundation
Healthy Active By Design (Western Australia)AustraliaNBHD & CITYChecklistNonePolicy/design measuresNone2012Heart Foundation, Government of Western Australia
Healthy and safe communities (section of Planning Practice Guidance)UKBLDG, NBHD, CITYNoneNonePolicy/design measuresNone2014Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)
Healthy Built Environment (HBE) Linkages ToolkitCanadaBLDG, NBHD, CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2018Population & Public Health team at the BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC)
Healthy by Design, local government implementation toolAustraliaBLDG, NBHD, CITYChecklistCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2012National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victorian Division)
Healthy Communities Practice GuideCanadaBLDG, NBHD, CITYChecklistCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicatorsn.d.Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP)
Healthy Community Design ChecklistUSABLDG, NBHD, CITYChecklistNoneNoneNonen.d.US CDC National Center for Environmental Health
Healthy Community Design ToolkitUSABLDG, NBHD, CITYChecklistCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2014Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Healthy High Streets: Good place-making in an urban settingUKNBHD & CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2018Public Health England
Healthy Places: Code for CouncilUKCITYNoneNonePolicy/design measuresNone2011Urban Design Group
Healthy Planning and Regeneration: innovations in community engagement, policy and monitoringUKBLDG, NBHD, CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2017Helen Pineo and Building Research Establishment (BRE)
HUDU Planning for Health: Using the planning system to control for hot food takeawaysUKCITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2013NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit
Inclusive Healthy Places: A Guide to Inclusion & Health in Public Space: Learning Globally to Transform LocallyUSANBHD & CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2018Gehl Institute
Mariposa Healthy Living InitiativeUSABLDG & NBHDNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2012Mithun Inc., Denver Housing Authority
Metropolitan Area Transportation Planning for Healthy CommunitiesUSANBHD & CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2012U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Planning, Environment and Federal Highway Administration
NHS Healthy New Towns Principles and GuidanceUKBLDG, NBHD, CITYChecklistCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2018NHS England
NSW Healthy Urban Environment ChecklistAustraliaBLDG, NBHD, CITYChecklistNonePolicy/design measuresNone2009NSW Department of Health
Planning for health and well-being in Wales: A briefing on integrating planning and public health for practitioners working in local planning authorities and health organisations in WalesWalesBLDG, NBHD, CITYChecklistCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2016Town and Country Planning Association
Planning Healthier Places – Report from the Reuniting Health with Planning ProjectUKBLDG, NBHD, CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2013Town and Country Planning Association
Planning Healthy-weight environmentsUKBLDG, NBHD, CITYChecklistCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2014Town and Country Planning Association
Planning Information Sheet: Integrating Health into Comprehensive PlanningUSABLDG, NBHD, CITYNoneNonePolicy/design measuresNone2007Design for Health
Practical Guide for Creating Successful New Communities, Guide 8: Creating Health-Promoting EnvironmentsUKBLDG, NBHD, CITYChecklistCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2017Town and Country Planning Association
Practical how-to guide: How to Deliver Healthy BuildingsUKBLDGNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNonen.d.UK Green Building Council
Public Health in Planning: Good Practice GuideUKBLDG, NBHD, CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2015Town and Country Planning Association
Resource Guide for Healthy Community Planning: Framing Questions and Links to DataUSABLDG, NBHD, CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2016Washington American Planning Association
Reuniting Health with Planning – Healthier Homes, Healthier CommunitiesUKBLDG, NBHD, CITYChecklistCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2012Town and Country Planning Association
Securing constructive collaboration and consensus for planning healthy developments: A report from the Developers and Wellbeing projectUKBLDG & NBHDNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2018Town and Country Planning Association
Spatial Planning for Health: An evidence resource for planning and designing healthier placesUKBLDG, NBHD, CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2017Public Health England
Steps to Healthy Planning: Proposals for ActionUKBLDG, NBHD, CITYChecklistNonePolicy/design measuresNone2011Spatial Planning and Health Group
The State of the Union: Reuniting Health with PlanningUKBLDG, NBHD, CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2019Town and Country Planning Association
Healthy Homes and Neighbourhoods Flow ChartUKBLDGNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresIndicators2016UK Green Building Council
WHO Housing and health guidelinesInternationalBLDGNoneNonePolicy/design measuresNone2018World Health Organization
Policies, regulations and legislation promoting healthy housing: a reviewInternationalBLDGNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2021World Health Organization
Integrating health in urban and territorial planning: A sourcebookInternationalBLDG, NBHD, CITYNoneCase studiesPolicy/design measuresNone2020UN Habitat & World Health Organization

Posted on

Zero carbon

Greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, are the cause of climate change which has numerous health impacts globally. Carbon emissions can be reduced through urban built environments through land use, transport, and buildings, among other factors.

Below is a short evidence review about a selection of evidence-based design and planning measures that can reduce carbon emissions and support health. These are accompanied by a set of example indicators that may inform strategies or be used for monitoring.

Evidence-based design measures

This section summarises work by Margalit Younger and colleagues who reviewed key built environment design measures to reduce emissions, promote health and prepare for climate adaptation. (1)

Reducing motor vehicle travel supports climate change mitigation and may reduce injuries and support active travel. Reducing traffic pollution leads to reduced respiratory illnesses and noncommunicable diseases. It also supports increased social capital which improves mental health and wellbeing. Evidence-based measures to reduce the need to travel via motor vehicles include:

  • provision of public transport
  • mixed-use development
  • active mobility infrastructure
  • encouraging food vendors to use local suppliers
Solar panels on homes in Almere, Netherlands. Image by Daria Nepriakhina from Pixabay.

Decreasing carbon emissions in buildings can be achieved by:

  • Installing decentralised low or zero carbon energy systems
  • Using low carbon and/or recycled construction materials
  • Increasing energy efficiency in buildings can improve thermal comfort (where cooling is also considered)
  • Reducing reliance on mechanical heating and cooling through building orientation and location
  • Situating stairs in prominent locations
  • Using low energy or passive lighting and sensors
  • Use a sustainable building/neighbourhood standard

Indicators

Here are a selection of indicators used to drive carbon reductions, and in doing so to support health, through strategy development and monitoring:

  • Consumption of electricity per household in megawatts/hour (2)
  • Electricity generated from renewable sources (% of total electricity generated) (3)
  • Number (or %) of new (or refurbished) building stock certified with a sustainable building standard (e.g. BREEAM and LEED) (4)
  • See physical activity and mobility infrastructure indicators.

References

(1) Younger M, Morrow-Almeida HR, Vindigni SM, Dannenberg AL. The Built Environment, Climate Change, and Health. Am J Prev Med 2008; 35: 517–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.017

(2) McCaughey Centre, VicHealth Centre for the Promotion of Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, University of Melbourne. Community Indicators Victoria: Data Framework. http://www.communityindicators.net.au/metadata_items (accessed Feb 17, 2016).

(3) Giap TK, Thye WW, Aw G. A new approach to measuring the liveability of cities: the Global Liveable Cities Index. World Rev Sci Technol Sustain Dev 2014; 11: 176–196. DOI: 10.1504/WRSTSD.2014.065677

(4) Pineo, H., Zimmermann, N., Cosgrave, E., Aldridge, R.W., Acuto, M., Rutter, H., 2018. Promoting a healthy cities agenda through indicators: development of a global urban environment and health index. Cities & Health 2, 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2018.1429180

Posted on

Digital engagement

Websites and apps are a relatively new way to engage with the public for policy development and specific development proposals. Public engagement apps, like Commonplace and City Swipe, can be used on smartphones, tablets and computers and provide a way to reach a different demographic (usually younger) than is typical found at engagement events.

The London Borough of Waltham Forest used the Commonplace app to engage the local community on a £30m investment program in local cycling facilities and public space. Over 15,000 comments were received from the public about their needs and feedback on design.

The findings in Waltham Forest were unexpected for some members of the community. For example, local shop owners thought that most people drove to their shops and were surprised to find that most people walk.(1) Questions can be loaded on to the app in a survey format. Data is analysed immediately and accessible in reports and infographics via a client dashboard.

Glasgow City Council worked with the Glasgow Centre for Population Health and the Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS to create a placemaking tool called HSN Placemaker. The two key areas of focus for the project were to use placemaking to reduce obesity (through walking and cycling) and mental illness (through greater involvement in neighbourhood design and decision-making).

The interactive Placemaker tool sought to stimulate thinking and debate. Users accessed images of existing streetscapes across Scotland and chose from a selection of options to change the look or use of a place. During the process of using the tool, users were prompted to think about the impact of their choices on community health and wellbeing and the natural environment.

This tool was used to inform the Place Standard tool which has a strong emphasis on health and wellbeing.(2)

Further information

(1) Commonplace Case Study: Waltham Forest Mini Holland. Available from: http://commonplace.is/resources/miniholland-casestudy.pdf (accessed Sept 8, 2016).

The information above is summarised from a report on Healthy Planning and Regeneration: innovations in community engagement, policy and monitoring.

Posted on

Group street audit

Organising a walkabout or community street audit can expose local issues and opportunities. These activities can be done with specific groups, such as children or older people, that may otherwise be hard to reach.

The Community Street Audit method was designed by Living Streets and is comparable to other survey methods where planners or researchers walk through a neighbourhood with residents to discuss and record perceptions.

Living Streets define their audit tool as ‘a way to evaluate the quality of streets and spaces from the viewpoint of the people who use them, rather than those who manage them.’(1)

In Glasgow, Scotland a Community Street Audit was undertaken in Calton by Living Streets. This audit was part of a larger healthy urban planning project and focused specifically on walking.

Residents were concerned about safety issues, a poor built environment and the poor quality of the neighbourhood generally. Although walking was the main form of transport for residents, the area had the lowest levels of physical activity in Glasgow’s Smarter Choices Smarter Places Programme.

The Calton area was not far from Glasgow city centre, yet residents did not want to go into the centre to access most activities and services. More detailed findings uncovered issues with pedestrian facilities such as crossings, pedestrian priority (length of crossing time), legibility, local traffic speeds, accessibility, maintenance, crime and safety.

The report also explored assets that could be further developed or improved (such as a disused church that could be a café or community centre) for use as local social destinations.

The findings from the audit were intended to inform the council’s local development framework. A senior planner from the council was quoted as saying:

‘The response to the Street Audit has been positive and we have obtained funding to deliver ‘quick wins’ in the area. The final report is proving a very useful document for attracting funding and justifying spend in the area.’(2)

Further information

(1) Living Streets. Calton: Unlocking the potential – A report of a Community Street Audit for Glasgow City Council. 2011.

(2) Glasgow Equally Well Test Site: Integrating Health and Urban Spatial Planning. 2012.

The information above is summarised from a report on Healthy Planning and Regeneration: innovations in community engagement, policy and monitoring.

Posted on

Participatory mapping

Although communicating through maps is sometimes seen as a ‘top down’ approach by local government, there are various participatory mapping approaches that seek to rebalance the data used in policy and decision-making.

Some benefits of mapping are that it can help participants to express complex relationships and perceptions of neighbourhoods. This can also contribute to social capital and stimulate interest in and engagement with land-use planning.(1,2)

Mapping can be done in a variety of ways using one-to-one or small group sessions. Participants can work directly with maps or data can be gathered (e.g. through walks, focus groups or photos) and later applied to maps for analysis.

A project in Western Canada involved ‘experiential group walks’ with older people in an affordable senior housing development.(3) Researchers worked with a diverse group of older people (60+) and local decision-makers and service providers. The project used the group walks and a separate mapping workshop to gather residents’ views about place, including active participation in the community and social networks.

Additional workshops developed the results into solutions and an implementation plan. The results showed that older people wanted more accessibility and availability of age-appropriate community activities to support socialising with peers.

Another example related to mapping healthy food access. This project was in a part of Sandwell, England with high levels of obesity, diabetes and other chronic disease. The project used food mapping and interviews. The findings demonstrated that there were ‘large networks of streets and estates within Sandwell with no shops selling fruit and/or vegetables, or if such food did exist it was unaffordable.’(4)

Small retail shops were struggling to survive in the area, particularly if they attempted to sell perishable foods. This mapping led to winning a Neighbourhood Renewal Fund grant for an ‘Eatwell in Sandwell’ project, which linked regeneration and health through food in three neighbourhoods. The team created Food Interest Groups (FIGs) to address the issue of demand, or lack of demand, for healthy foods, using knowledge from the community.

Further information

(1) Talen E. Bottom-Up GIS: A New Tool for Individual and Group Expression in Participatory Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 2000; 66: 279–94.

(2) Corbett J. Good practices in participatory mapping: A review prepared for the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2009. https://www.ifad.org/documents/10180/d1383979-4976-4c8e-ba5d-53419e37cbcc (accessed Sept 8, 2016).

(3) Fang ML, Woolrych R, Sixsmith J, Canham S, Battersby L, Sixsmith A. Place-making with older persons: Establishing sense-of-place through participatory community mapping workshops. Social Science & Medicine DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.007.

(4) Rosemary Kyle, Angela Blair. Planning for health: generation, regeneration and food in Sandwell. Intl J of Retail & Distrib Mgt 2007; 35: 457–73.

The information above is summarised from a report on Healthy Planning and Regeneration: innovations in community engagement, policy and monitoring.

Posted on

Using images

Photographs are a great way to understand perceptions of place. Image-based methods can be particularly useful for engaging with young people or those with varying verbal/writing abilities. Specific approaches include ‘photo-survey’ and Participatory Photo Mapping.

Photo survey combines participants’ photos (taken independently) with discussion of the photos in one-to-one interviews.(1) This method gives power and control to the participant and may uncover parts of the city and residents’ lives that are not often seen by ‘outsiders’.

Participatory Photo Mapping (PPM) is similar to a photo-survey with two additional steps of mapping the images and developing actions to present to policy and decision-makers.(2) Many combinations of these approaches are possible and need not follow any prescribed formula.

In Belfast, the local authority organised a series of workshops with school children to understand their views about the health impact of their local environment.(3,4) The children were given single use cameras and allowed to photograph their school environment and its surroundings.

The aim was to give children a voice and a role in the policy and decision-making process. The children expressed strong preferences for green spaces (even small lots), clean public spaces and calmer traffic.

Further information

(1) Moore G, Croxford B, Adams M, Refaee M, Cox T, Sharples S. The photo‐survey research method: capturing life in the city. Visual Studies 2008; 23: 50–62.

(2) Dennis Jr. SF, Gaulocher S, Carpiano RM, Brown D. Participatory photo mapping (PPM): Exploring an integrated method for health and place research with young people. Health & Place 2009; 15: 466–73.

(3) Shaping Healthier Neighbourhoods for Children. 2011. http://www.belfasthealthycities.com/sites/default/files/HealthierNeighbourhoodsReport.pdf (accessed May 10, 2017).

(4) Boydell L. Shaping healthier neighbourhoods for children. 2012. http://www.healthycities.org.uk/uploads/files/045_belfast.pdf.

The information above is summarised from the report ‘Healthy Planning and Regeneration: innovations in community engagement, policy and monitoring‘.

Posted on

Community workshop or event

Community workshops and events can accommodate many people and provide an opportunity for local government or a developer to both communicate messages and hear from the community. Community groups may also be able to help with organisation and facilitation of large events.

One example of community participation related to mobility infrastructure is from Newcastle City Council in England. The Council began developing a city-wide Movement and Access Plan in 2010. They recognised the importance of mobility for health equity and wellbeing alongside sustainability and economic development issues.

A team of transport planners, representatives of vulnerable people and healthy policy staff spent five months preparing for an engagement event with local residents to gather views about mobility issues in the city. The group gathered existing data and asked a range of community groups to prepare posters about travel in the local area.

There were 90 people at the event which began with a drama performance to highlight the difficulties older people face when leaving the house. The ice-breaker was followed by small group discussions in nine ‘Travel Zones’ using the prepared posters.

In the small groups, participants used stickers to connect their ideas to improvements across the wellbeing topic areas: social wellbeing/inclusion, physical wellbeing, emotional wellbeing, financial wellbeing or environmental wellbeing.

Voting pads were used to gather data during the event. Respondents reported having the greatest difficulty getting to leisure and learning opportunities, followed by family and friends, work and shopping. People described a number of barriers to getting around on foot and they developed solutions to address these issues.

Barriers included:

• parked cars on pavement
• pot holes
• loose pavements
• road safety
• facilities
• slippery pavement surfaces
• width of roads and pavements
• wheelie bins obstructing pavements
• poorly lit subways
• off putting shrubbery
• litter

Solutions to these issues included:

  • railings on pavements to prevent car parking
  • better maintenance of paving
  • improved lighting
  • restricting height of plants
  • inspection of city pedestrian crossings with the Disability Forum
  • better winter maintenance
  • resolving issues with drainage channels and accessible buses
  • addressing hazardous metal studs in the city centre

Organisers said that the event helped to build a sense of common understanding of the mobility issues facing people in the city. It also helped the transport and planning officers connect with different stakeholders and residents. The event supported a bid to a Local Sustainable Transport Fund.

Further information

Getting out and about easily. 2011. Newcastle Partnership. Available from: https://www.wellbeingforlife.org.uk/sites/default/files/Getting%20out%20and%20about%20easily%2018th%20Feb%202011.pdf (accessed Sept 24, 2016).

Getting out and about easily by Foot: Tablecloth Comments. 2011. Available from: https://www.wellbeingforlife.org.uk/sites/default/files/GOAB%20Easily%20by%20Foot.pdf (accessed Sept 24, 2016).

The information in this post is summarised from the report ‘Healthy Planning and Regeneration: innovations in community engagement, policy and monitoring‘.

Image credit: Peds.org, design workshop