Search

Since the early 1980s we have witnessed a proliferation of 'Theme Cities' with the WHO 'Healthy Cities' networks a very early adopter, together with local government initiatives that focused on environmental health and sustainability. These days such networks range very broadly, from Citta Slow and Child-Friendly Cities to sustainable, resilient, festival, happy, garden, winter, safe, inclusive and many more theme-centered international networks of local governments and communities. We undertook a political analysis of the extent to which these networks formally recognise and address the drivers of inequity in societies around the world, and to which extent they are ready to act truly glocally. We found that 'Sustainable Cities' rank highly, with WHO/EURO and PAHO style 'Healthy Cities' a close second. 'Transition Towns and Communities' are in a category of their own and can be considered a potentially important political voice for glocal health equity. Key messages Healthy Cities are Theme Cities - but not all do well to promote health equity. Sustainability and health (as per the SDGs) have enormous glocal health potential.

Health impact assessment as a public health tool to contribute to development of healthy public policy and later health in all policies approach entered public health practice, research, education and policy at the end of 1990'. During last 20 years the methodology spread around the globe, tools and guidelines have been developed, potential collaboration with other impact assessments discussed or even legally mandated. A quick search in PubMed using a MESH keyword “Health impact assessment” conducted in January 21, 2020 yielded 628 publications in time period of 2010-2019. Reading the abstract of last 100 from 2019 and partially 2018 based on first authors, manuscripts came from 31 countries of all five continents, USA being the most frequent contributor. This quick search revealed also substantial heterogeneity of the use of term; epidemiological studies, often environmental epidemiological ones, health care intervention evaluation studies, methodological development studies, general evaluation studies are often using health impact assessment label. Out of 100 abstracts, 14 seemed to be in-line with description of HIA by Gothenburg consensus paper, the basic document of HIA. On one hand, this is very positive showing the wide possibilities of use of HIA. On other hand however, it is hazardous as it could lead to misunderstandings and consequently to decreased interest for the methodology. With this regard it shall be noted that after a plateau in number of publications between 2014-2017, there seems to be a consistent decline of new research papers addressing using HIA. Looking at one database only can be a limitation of course. The aim of this round table workshop is to discuss where to go with HIA during coming years, identify potential facilitators for broader implementation and use of the methodology. After introductory presentation by workshop coordinators, five presentations will discuss potential facilitators such as common language and expectations, implementation and place of HIA within public health toolkit, capacity building and recent opportunities such as health in EIA and the SDG's. The final part of the round table will be as general discussion with involvement of the audience facilitated by workshop organizer. Key messages HIA is used for different purposes, not only the one described by Gothenburg consensus paper. There is a substantial heterogeneity in use of HIA influenced by language, implementation method, available capacities and motivation.

International audience; After publication of the article [1], it has been brought to our attention that in the original publication the third author's name was spelt incorrectly. The correct spelling is "Emmanuelle Faure". This was previously spelt as "Emmannuelle Faure". The original article has been revised to reflect this.

Background This paper presents the research protocol of the GoveRnance for Equity, EnviroNment and Health in the City (GREENH-City) project funded by the National Institute for Cancer (Subvention N°2017–003-INCA). In France, health inequities have tended to increase since the late 1980s. Numerous studies show the influence of social, economic, geographic and political determinants on health inequities across the life course. Exposure to environmental factors is uneven across the population and may impact on health and health inequities. In cities, green spaces contribute to creating healthy settings which may help tackle health inequities. Health in All Policies (HiAP) represents one of the key strategies for addressing social and environmental determinants of health inequities. The objective of this research is to identify the most promising interventions to operationalize the HiAP approaches at the city level to tackle health inequities through urban green spaces. It is a participatory interventional research to analyze public policy in real life setting (WHO Healthy Cities). Method/design It is a mixed method systemic study with a quantitative approach for the 80 cities and a comparative qualitative multiple case-studies of 6 cities. The research combines 3 different lens: 1/a political analysis of how municipalities apply HiAP to reduce social inequities of health through green space policies and interventions 2/a geographical and topological characterization of green spaces and 3/ on-site observations of the use of green spaces by the inhabitants. Results City profiles will be identified regarding their HiAP approaches and the extent to which these cities address social inequities in health as part of their green space policy action. The analysis of the transferability of the results will inform policy recommendations in the rest of the Health City Network and widely for the French municipalities. Discussion/conclusion The study will help identify factors enabling the implementation of the HiAP approach at a municipal level, promoting the development of green spaces policies in urban areas in order to tackle the social inequities in health. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-017-4812-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The purpose of this article is to review the status of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in Switzerland and assess whether HIA can be used to implement Health in All Policies (HiAP) in this highly decentralized country. The methods include expert opinion and an extensive literature review, as well as targeted interviews with key informers in the cantons of Geneva, Jura and Ticino. HIA has been implemented successfully since the early 2000s in Switzerland. However, integration has been heterogeneous with only a few cantons taking the lead. Integration of HIA at the federal level was attempted in 2012 but failed due to resistance from a pro-business lobby. HIA in Switzerland has the potential to contribute to HiAP, but success depends on a wider dissemination of HIA and on some form of integration at the national level. In this respect, a ‘bottom-up’ approach based on inter-cantonal collaborations appears more promising than the ‘top-down’ federal level approach.

HIA has emerged as a privileged tool for the implementation of health in all policies (HiAP). It is a vehicle to help health practitioners inform societal decision-making and can be very effective in the decision-making process as a decision-aid tool.

In this chapter we review the first five chapters of the book through the lens of social movement theory and within a gaze of glocal health (the idea that the global and the local have become inextricably connected) development and evidence. We seek a foundation for the case material in Part II of the book in the documented evidence of Healthy Cities, communities, and villages around the world, and in particular in the series of evaluations carried out for the European Region of WHO Healthy Cities networks. As such, the chapter provides a comprehensive update on the empirical evidence for Healthy Cities around the world. It ends with a reading guide for the ‘regional’ case material in Part II of the book and a justification for the material compiled in that section.

In this chapter we attempt to systematically analyse the case studies provided for the different regions in Part II of the book. We argue that a degree of systematizing of Healthy Cities around the world is warranted. However, the evidence generated in Part II shows that each Healthy City is unique, with a unique context and unique set of governance and operational parameters. This is no surprise, and we continue to explain why any effort at collective analysis must first and foremost take into account the matter of glocal values and political choice. The argument is grounded in political philosophy and efforts to frame political cultures across nations and (social and political) environments. We present the statements to come out of pivotal 2016 meetings (the Habitat 3 Quito statement and the WHO Shanghai health promotion declaration) as sharing the value system that is also espoused by the Sustainable Development Goals and the new Global Public Health Charter. (Healthy) Cities have been working towards these value systems for three decades now, and seem well placed to continue to take a lead in the grand challenges of urban health—as presented in Part III of this book.

Africa is one of the least urbanized continents. Less than 40 % of the population (413 million of over one billion) lived in urban areas in 2011. This situation is changing rapidly, and in 2050 around 70 % of the continent’s population is expected to be urban. This extremely fast pace means that the gap between Africa and other continents is closing rapidly—the world average was 52.1 % in 2011 (see Fig. 6.1).

Europe has played an important role in the global development of Healthy Cities. The Regional WHO Bureau in Copenhagen was the first to implement the Healthy Cities concept, with partners from North America and through an initial network of cities in Europe. The network was then consolidated and expanded through several successive 5-year phases. Facilitating the creation of national WHO Healthy Cities networks ensured further diffusion of the idea. This relatively formal structure has ensured that Healthy Cities is the only programme where WHO liaises not with Member States ministers but with the mayors of cities or conurbations. Working in coordinated by WHO networks has favoured the exchange of information between partners as well as the pursuit of common goals. It has also allowed the production of structured and innovative evaluations, impossible to produce by each participating city in isolation. The European model is therefore a useful way of implementing the Healthy Cities concept. It ensures a certain degree of homogeneity, which does not prevent novel concepts from emerging, such as the Green Fork label, used in catering.

L’évaluation d’impact sur la santé (EIS) est un courant de pratique qui connaît une popularité croissante partout dans le monde depuis la fin des années 1990. D’abord utilisée dans le cadre des évaluations d’impact environnemental (EIE), elle s’est enrichie des connaissances et des principes portés par le courant des déterminants sociaux de la santé et par celui de l’action sur les inégalités sociales de santé pour être transposée dans le contexte de l’élaboration de politiques publiques et ce, à tous les échelons de prise de décision gouvernementale. Dans les faits, l’EIS poursuit trois objectifs concomitants : estimer les effets potentiels d’un projet de politique sur la santé, favoriser la participation citoyenne et de parties prenantes au processus d’analyse d’impact et informer le processus de décision. L’article définit brièvement ce qu’est l’EIS, sa démarche standardisée en étapes successives, ce qui permet de structurer l’action et d’établir clairement les pas à franchir : dépistage, cadrage, analyse, recommandations, évaluation et contrôle ; et propose trois exemples d’EIS dans trois situations différentes : dans le Canton de Genève en Suisse, à Rennes en France, et en Montérégie au Québec, au Canada. La synthèse de ces illustrations montre que l’EIS est une stratégie intéressante pour influencer les décisions locales et intégrer de la santé dans les projets et politiques du palier local ou régional.

La nouvelle approche « Une seule santé » (One Health) propose d'aborder les relations homme-animal-écosystèmes dans leur continuum. Cette approche systémique peut s'avérer fort utile pour aborder les liens entre espaces verts boisés en région urbaine et santé des citadins (plus de la moitié de la population mondiale). Ces liens commencent à être maintenant bien documentés par la littérature scientifique dans leur diversité et complexité. Des bienfaits et des risques pour la santé humaine peuvent être mieux analysés et des pistes d'action pour l'avenir utilement dégagées.

Using the synergies between strategic environmental evaluation and HIA to advance the integration of environmental and health issues in public decision-making processes

Cet article présente un premier retour d’expérience de terrain, de construction et de mise en œuvre d’une démarche d’Évaluation d’Impacts sur la Santé (EIS) d’un projet d’aménagement urbain. Cette démarche a pour but de minimiser les impacts négatifs et maximiser les impacts positifs du projet sur la santé et la qualité de vie des populations. Grâce à une méthodologie basée sur l’élaboration d’une grille multi-critères intégrant plusieurs déterminants de la santé, une liste de recommandations à destination des décideurs a été proposée. Après une discussion des atouts de cette démarche participative d’intégration des champs santé-environnement et développement durable, des recommandations méthodologiques sont formulées afin de faciliter son utilisation à d’autres contextes similaires. This article offers initial feedback from a field experience on the design and implementation of a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) approach in the context of an urban planning project. This approach aims at minimizing negative impacts and optimizing positive impacts of the project on the health and quality of life of populations. A methodology based on the design of a multi-criteria grid with several health determinants was developed and a list of recommendations was subsequently suggested to decision-makers. The strengths of such a participatory and approach integrating both environmental health and sustainable development are discussed and methodological recommendations are produced in order to facilitate future use of such an approach in similar contexts.

The purpose of this article is to review the status of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in Switzerland and assess whether HIA can be used to implement Health in All Policies (HiAP) in this highly decentralized country. The methods include expert opinion and an extensive literature review, as well as targeted interviews with key informers in the cantons of Geneva, Jura and Ticino. HIA has been implemented successfully since the early 2000s in Switzerland. However, integration has been heterogeneous with only a few cantons taking the lead. Integration of HIA at the federal level was attempted in 2012 but failed due to resistance from a pro-business lobby. HIA in Switzerland has the potential to contribute to HiAP, but success depends on a wider dissemination of HIA and on some form of integration at the national level. In this respect, a 'bottom-up' approach based on inter-cantonal collaborations appears more promising than the 'top-down' federal level approach. Language: en

Evaluation globale des Plans nationaux santé – environnement (2004 – 2019) (HCSP, Avis et Rapports)Francelyne Marano, Daniel Bley, Muriel Andrieu-Semmel, Jean-Marc Brignon, Sara Brimo, Patrick Brochard, Rémy Collomp, Sébastien Denys, Alice Desbiolles, Hélène Desqueyroux, François Eisinger, Luc Ferrari, Éric Gaffet, Philippe Hartemann, Sabine Host, Philippe Hubert, Jean-Marie Januel, Joseph Kleinpeter, Agnès Lefranc, Laurent Madec, Charlotte Marchandise-Franquet, Laurence Payrastre, Kiran Ramgolam, Jean-Louis Roubaty, Michel Setbon, Jean Simos, Fabien Squinazi, Anne Vidy, Denis Zmirou-Navier, Dominique Maison, Soizic Urban-Boudjelab, Lottie FriedericiEditeur : Haut Conseil de Santé PubliqueVersion du 18 Mars 2022Mise en ligne 20 Juin 2022 (450 Pages)https://www.hcsp.fr/Explore.cgi/AvisRapportsDomaine?clefr=1223https://www.hcsp.fr/Explore.cgi/Telecharger?NomFichier=hcspr20220318_valglodesplanatsanenv.pdfLe HCSP a réalisé l’évaluation des trois premières générations de plans nationaux santé environnement (PNSE) (2004 - 2019) et de leurs déclinaisons régionales sous la forme de plans régionaux santé environnement (PRSE).Quatre thématiques ont été retenues pour l’analyse :-Les polluants dans l’air extérieur : ceux du domaine réglementaire et les pollens.-L’environnement intérieur : qualité de l’air dans les écoles et les crèches, habitat dégradé, radon, légionellose.-Les risques dits émergents : nanomatériaux, ondes électromagnétiques, perturbateurs endocriniens.-Les produits chimiques et leurs usages : les produits chimiques dans les biens de consommation, dans l’alimentation, dans l’environnement aquatique. En complément, est intégré dans l’analyse le programme de biosurveillance.De plus, les thématiques transversales suivantes ont notamment été analysées : l’évolution de la perception du public des risques liés à l’environnement et les actions d’information et de formation menées à l’échelle nationale et régionale.L’évaluation réalisée par le HCSP, sans avoir pris en compte l’ensemble des actions des 3 plans, à travers les thématiques considérées, permet d’avoir une vision globale de l’évolution des politiques publiques en santé-environnement en France au cours des quinze dernières années et de tirer des conclusions générales sur les rôles que les PNSE et les PRSE ont joué dans ce domaine. Elle montre que la connaissance et la réduction des expositions ont été parmi les sujets majeurs développés depuis 2004 alors que les effets sanitaires restent encore souvent à évaluer. La déclinaison des actions au niveau des territoires a joué un rôle essentiel.À l’issue de cette analyse, le HCSP propose trois grandes catégories de recommandations :-des recommandations générales à l’échelle nationale qui portent sur la gouvernance, la recherche, le recueil de données et la formation en santé environnement ;-des recommandations spécifiques aux PRSE, outils qui s’avèrent indispensables dans la gestion territoriale ;-des recommandations relatives aux quatre thématiques abordées dans l’évaluation.Cette évaluation fait suite à une saisine de la Direction générale de la santé et de la Direction générale de la prévention des risques de 2020.Lire aussi dans les avis et rapports :-Protection des personnes contre le risque lié au radon dans les bâtiments du 17 mars 2010-Pollution par les particules dans l’air ambiant : recommandations pour protéger la santé du 13 avril 2012-Évaluation du 2e plan national santé environnement du 19 septembre 2013-Information et recommandations à diffuser en vue de prévenir les risques sanitaires liés aux pollens allergisants du 28 avril 2016-Rapport relatif aux indicateurs composites en santé-environnement du 28 janvier 2021