Search

The establishment of the Determinants of Diet and Physical Activity (DEDIPAC) Knowledge Hub, 2013-2016, was the first action taken by the 'Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life' European Joint Programming Initiative. DEDIPAC aimed to provide better insight into the determinants of diet, physical activity and sedentary behaviour across the life course, i.e. insight into the causes of the causes of important, non-communicable diseases across Europe and beyond. DEDIPAC was launched in late 2013, and delivered its final report in late 2016. In this paper we give an overview of what was achieved in terms of furthering measurement and monitoring, providing overviews of the state-of-the-art in the field, and building toolboxes for further research and practice. Additionally, we propose some of the next steps that are now required to move forward in this field, arguing in favour of 1) sustaining the Knowledge Hub and developing it into a European virtual research institute and knowledge centre for determinants of behavioural nutrition and physical activity with close links to other parts of the world; 2) establishing a cohort study of families across all regions of Europe focusing specifically on the individual and contextual determinants of major, non-communicable disease; and 3) furthering DEDIPAC's work on nutrition, physical activity, and sedentary behaviour policy evaluation and benchmarking across Europe by aligning with other international initiatives and by supporting harmonisation of pan-European surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agri-environment schemes (AESs) have been implemented across EU member states in an attempt to reconcile agricultural production methods with protection of the environment and maintenance of the countryside. To determine the extent to which such policy objectives are being fulfilled, participating countries are obliged to monitor and evaluate the environmental, agricultural and socio-economic impacts of their AESs. However, few evaluations measure precise environmental outcomes and critically, there are no agreed methodologies to evaluate the benefits of particular agri-environmental measures, or to track the environmental consequences of changing agricultural practices. In response to these issues, the Agri-Environmental Footprint project developed a common methodology for assessing the environmental impact of European AES. The Agri-Environmental Footprint Index (AFI) is a farm-level, adaptable methodology that aggregates measurements of agri-environmental indicators based on Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) techniques. The method was developed specifically to allow assessment of differences in the environmental performance of farms according to participation in agri-environment schemes. The AFI methodology is constructed so that high values represent good environmental performance. This paper explores the use of the AFI methodology in combination with Farm Business Survey data collected in England for the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN), to test whether its use could be extended for the routine surveillance of environmental performance of farming systems using established data sources. Overall, the aim was to measure the environmental impact of three different types of agriculture (arable, lowland livestock and upland livestock) in England and to identify differences in AFI due to participation in agri-environment schemes. However, because farm size, farmer age, level of education and region are also likely to influence the environmental performance of a holding, these factors were also considered. Application of the methodology revealed that only arable holdings participating in agri-environment schemes had a greater environmental performance, although responses differed between regions. Of the other explanatory variables explored, the key factors determining the environmental performance for lowland livestock holdings were farm size, farmer age and level of education. In contrast, the AFI value of upland livestock holdings differed only between regions. The paper demonstrates that the AFI methodology can be used readily with English FADN data and therefore has the potential to be applied more widely to similar data sources routinely collected across the EU-27 in a standardised manner. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: A pan-European approach to evaluate policy impact on health behaviour requires the employment of a consensus set of established and relevant indicators. Methods: As part of the Joint Programming Initiative on a Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life, the Policy Evaluation Network PEN identified key indicators of health behaviours and their determinants. These key indicators are already, or have the potential to be, adopted by large European Union surveillance systems for the assessment of policy impact. The iterative selection process included consultations in two rounds via email prior to a 2-days expert workshop. The experts collated a list of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour indicators for European policy monitoring in young and adult populations based on existing frameworks and literature reviews. The expert panel was composed of researchers, policy makers and representatives of major European surveillance systems and related initiatives, as well as, representatives of organisations providing monitoring data, such as the European Commission and Eurostat. Results: The process provided two lists of key indicators including 37 diet 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for dietary behaviour and their 'determinants'; as well as 32 physical activity 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for physical activity, sedentary behaviour and their 'determinants'. Conclusion: A total of 139 key indicators related to the individual, the setting and the population level, and suitable for the assessment of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour were prioritised by policy makers and researchers with the ultimate aim to embed policy evaluation measures in existing surveillance systems across the European Union. In a next step, data sources and suitable instruments will be identified to assess these key indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EU has, belatedly perhaps, engaged with the issue of building an EU identity by setting up various initiatives aimed at building a sense of civic society across Europe and hence of greater citizen identification with the EU. This article analyses EU policy formulations from the 1970s through to the very different conditions of the past decade. It also discusses the process undertaken by the EU institutions in order to establish the levels to which and the ways in which its citizens understand and ‘feel’ themselves to be members of the EU on a personal and individual as well as social and cultural level, if at all. The aim of the article is to establish whether this is considered sufficient for the ongoing operation of the EU, or, if not, what is lacking [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]