Designing healthier neighbourhoods: a systematic review of the impact of the neighbourhood design on health and wellbeing.

Several studies have investigated the impact of neighbourhood design on health and wellbeing, yet there are limited reviews investigating the quality of the evidence and the most effective interventions at a population level. This systematic review aims to clarify the impact of the neighbourhood design on health and wellbeing and evaluate the quality of the evidence underpinning such associations. Eight electronic databases were searched for studies conducted between 2000 and 2016. Additional searches were conducted on Google to identify potentially eligible grey literature. A total of 7694 studies were returned from the literature search, and a final selection of 39 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Findings from the studies showed important associations between neighbourhood design principles such as walkability, access to green space and amenities on health and wellbeing. Findings from this review also highlight areas with inconsistent findings and gaps in the evidence for future research.

Overcoming Systemic Barriers Preventing Healthy Urban Development in the UK: Main Findings from Interviewing Senior Decision-Makers During a 3-Year Planetary Health Pilot.

This paper sets out the main findings from two rounds of interviews with senior representatives from the UK's urban development industry: the third and final phase of a 3-year pilot, Moving Health Upstream in Urban Development' (UPSTREAM). The project had two primary aims: firstly, to attempt to value economically the health cost-benefits associated with the quality of urban environments and, secondly, to interview those in control of urban development in the UK in order to reveal the potential barriers to, and opportunities for, the creation of healthy urban environments, including their views on the use of economic valuation of (planetary) health outcomes. Much is known about the 'downstream' impact of urban environments on human and planetary health and about how to design and plan healthy towns and cities ('midstream'), but we understand relatively little about how health can be factored in at key governance tipping points further 'upstream', particularly within dominant private sector areas of control (e.g. land, finance, delivery) at sub-national level. Our findings suggest that both public and private sector appeared well aware of the major health challenges posed by poor-quality urban environments. Yet they also recognized that health is not factored adequately into the urban planning process, and there was considerable support for greater use of non-market economic valuation to help improve decision-making. There was no silver bullet however: 110 barriers and 76 opportunities were identified across a highly complex range of systems, actors and processes, including many possible points of targeted intervention for economic valuation. Eight main themes were identified as key areas for discussion and future focus. This findings paper is the second of two on this phase of the project: the first sets out the rationale, approach and methodological lessons learned.

The Application of 'Elite Interviewing' Methodology in Transdisciplinary Research: a Record of Process and Lessons Learned during a 3-Year Pilot in Urban Planetary Health Research.

This paper sets out the rationale and process for the interviewing methodology utilized during a 3-year research pilot, 'Moving Health Upstream in Urban Development' (UPSTREAM). The project had two primary aims: firstly, to attempt to value economically the health cost benefits associated with the quality of urban environments and secondly, to engage with those in control of urban development in the UK in order to determine what are the barriers to and opportunities for creating healthy urban environments, including those identified through the utilisation of economic valuation. Engagement at senior level with those who have most control over key facets of planning and development implementation-such as land disposal, investment, development delivery and planning permission-was central to the approach, which encompassed the adoption of 'elite interviewing', a method developed in the USA in the 1950s and used in the political sciences but relatively unutilized in the health and environmental sciences [1]. Two rounds of semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 15 senior decision-makers from the UK's main urban development delivery agencies, both public and private. The 'elite interviewing' approach successfully enabled the UPSTREAM project to capture and analyse the information received from the interviewees, all of whom held influential or leadership posts in organisations that are important actors in the process of planning, developing and constructing the built environment in the UK. Having academic and practitioner research leads on an equal footing created some minor tensions, but it also appeared to strengthen the rigor of the approach through a broad knowledge of context 'in-house'. This form of co-production at times challenged academic traditions in qualitative analysis, but it also appeared to build trust with interviewees and provided greater clarity of the real-world context under investigation. Findings from this study are written up in a separate paper.

Healthy buildings for a healthy city: Is the public health evidence base informing current building policies?

Research has demonstrated that housing quality is a key urban intervention in reducing health risks and improving climate resilience, addressing a key ambition of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Yet housing quality remains a problem even in high income countries such as England. In particular, hazards such as excess cold, excess heat and lack of ventilation leading to damp and mould have been identified as a major issue in homes. Research shows that these hazards can lead to a range of health conditions, such as respiratory and cardiovascular disease, infections and mental health problems. This article explores the use of public health research and evidence in policy to regulate new buildings in England to deliver improved public health, climate resilience and a reduced carbon footprint, in particular exploring the policy drivers and awareness of the public health evidence. Findings show that public health evidence is hardly referenced in policy and that the focus on other evidence bases such as on climate mitigation in building regulations results in both positive and negative impacts on health. This reflects a lack of a systems approach around urban interventions leading to weaknesses in standards regulating the private development sector. In conclusion, this paper recommends: 1. the consideration of health impact in future building regulations; 2. the integration and coordination of key policies covering various scales and phases of the development processes and 3. the better education of residents to understand advances in new energy performance technologies.

The relationship between buildings and health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The built environment exerts one of the strongest directly measurable effects on physical and mental health, yet the evidence base underpinning the design of healthy urban planning is not fully developed. METHOD: This study provides a systematic review of quantitative studies assessing the impact of buildings on health. In total, 7127 studies were identified from a structured search of eight databases combined with manual searching for grey literature. Only quantitative studies conducted between January 2000 and November 2016 were eligible for inclusion. Studies were assessed using the quality assessment tool for quantitative studies. RESULTS: In total, 39 studies were included in this review. Findings showed consistently that housing refurbishment and modifications, provision of adequate heating, improvements to ventilation and water supply were associated with improved respiratory outcomes, quality of life and mental health. Prioritization of housing for vulnerable groups led to improved wellbeing. However, the quality of the underpinning evidence and lack of methodological rigour in most of the studies makes it difficult to draw causal links. CONCLUSION: This review identified evidence to demonstrate the strong association between certain features of housing and wellbeing such as adequate heating and ventilation. Our findings highlight the need for strengthening of the evidence base in order for meaningful conclusions to be drawn.