Economic impact on local businesses of road safety improvements in Seattle: implications for Vision Zero projects.

BACKGROUND: Local transportation agencies implementing Vision Zero road safety improvement projects often face opposition from business owners concerned about the potential negative impact on their sales. Few studies have documented the economic impact of these projects. METHODS: We examined baseline and up to 3 years of postimprovement taxable sales data for retail, food and service-based businesses adjacent to seven road safety projects begun between 2006 and 2014 in Seattle. We used hierarchical linear models to test whether the change in annual taxable sales differed between the 7 intervention sites and 18 nearby matched comparison sites that had no road safety improvements within the study time frame. RESULTS: Average annual taxable sales at baseline were comparable at the 7 intervention sites (US$44.7 million) and the 18 comparison sites (US$56.8 million). Regression analysis suggests that each additional year following baseline was associated with US$1.20 million more in taxable sales among intervention sites and US$1.14 million more among comparison sites. This difference is not statistically significant (p=0.64). Sensitivity analyses including a random slope, using a generalised linear model and an analysis of variance did not change conclusions. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that road safety improvement projects such as those in Vision Zero plans are not associated with adverse economic impacts on adjacent businesses. The absence of negative economic impacts associated with pedestrian and bicycle road safety projects should reassure local business owners and may encourage them to work with transportation agencies to implement Vision Zero road safety projects designed to eliminate traffic-related injuries.

The 2019 Conference on Health and Active Transportation: Research Needs and Opportunities.

Active transportation (AT) is widely viewed as an important target for increasing participation in aerobic physical activity and improving health, while simultaneously addressing pollution and climate change through reductions in motor vehicular emissions. In recent years, progress in increasing AT has stalled in some countries and, furthermore, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has created new AT opportunities while also exposing the barriers and health inequities related to AT for some populations. This paper describes the results of the December 2019 Conference on Health and Active Transportation (CHAT) which brought together leaders from the transportation and health disciplines. Attendees charted a course for the future around three themes: Reflecting on Innovative Practices, Building Strategic Institutional Relationships, and Identifying Research Needs and Opportunities. This paper focuses on conclusions of the Research Needs and Opportunities theme. We present a conceptual model derived from the conference sessions that considers how economic and systems analysis, evaluation of emerging technologies and policies, efforts to address inclusivity, disparities and equity along with renewed attention to messaging and communication could contribute to overcoming barriers to development and use of AT infrastructure. Specific research gaps concerning these themes are presented. We further discuss the relevance of these themes considering the pandemic. Renewed efforts at research, dissemination and implementation are needed to achieve the potential health and environmental benefits of AT and to preserve positive changes associated with the pandemic while mitigating negative ones.

Optimizing the health benefits of climate change policies using health impact assessment.

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a tool that can be used to examine the potential health impacts of proposed climate change policies and offer recommendations to promote health and mitigate adverse health consequences of such policies. We used an HIA database, a literature search, and expert consultation to identify 12 HIAs of the proposed climate change policies from six states in the U.S. These policies included cap-and-trade legislation, heat-wave and sea-level-rise mitigation and adaptation, transportation policy impacts of climate change, carbon-reduction strategy scenarios, soil- and water-conservation strategies, urban forest canopy for climate adaptation, overheating buildings, and regional transportation plan and sustainable communities strategies. In four descriptive summaries, we found that HIAs foster stakeholder engagement and provide useful health-promoting recommendations. HIAs can facilitate cross-sector collaboration, help optimize the health co-benefits of climate change policies, and raise awareness among decision makers of health impacts of those proposed policies.

Understanding and Improving Arterial Roads to Support Public Health and Transportation Goals.

Arterials are types of roads designed to carry high volumes of motorized traffic. They are an integral part of transportation systems worldwide and exposure to them is ubiquitous, especially in urban areas. Arterials provide access to diverse commercial and cultural resources, which can positively influence community health by supporting social cohesion as well as economic and cultural opportunities. They can negatively influence health via safety issues, noise, air pollution, and lack of economic development. The aims of public health and transportation partially overlap; efforts to improve arterials can meet goals of both professions. Two trends in arterial design show promise. First, transportation professionals increasingly define the performance of arterials via metrics accounting for pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and nearby residents in addition to motor vehicle users. Second, applying traffic engineering and design can generate safety, air quality, and livability benefits, but we need evidence to support these interventions. We describe the importance of arterials (including exposures, health behaviors, effects on equity, and resulting health outcomes) and make the case for public health collaborations with the transportation sector.

City planning and population health: a global challenge.

Significant global health challenges are being confronted in the 21st century, prompting calls to rethink approaches to disease prevention. A key part of the solution is city planning that reduces non-communicable diseases and road trauma while also managing rapid urbanisation. This Series of papers considers the health impacts of city planning through transport mode choices. In this, the first paper, we identify eight integrated regional and local interventions that, when combined, encourage walking, cycling, and public transport use, while reducing private motor vehicle use. These interventions are destination accessibility, equitable distribution of employment across cities, managing demand by reducing the availability and increasing the cost of parking, designing pedestrian-friendly and cycling-friendly movement networks, achieving optimum levels of residential density, reducing distance to public transport, and enhancing the desirability of active travel modes (eg, creating safe attractive neighbourhoods and safe, affordable, and convenient public transport). Together, these interventions will create healthier and more sustainable compact cities that reduce the environmental, social, and behavioural risk factors that affect lifestyle choices, levels of traffic, environmental pollution, noise, and crime. The health sector, including health ministers, must lead in advocating for integrated multisector city planning that prioritises health, sustainability, and liveability outcomes, particularly in rapidly changing low-income and middle-income countries. We recommend establishing a set of indicators to benchmark and monitor progress towards achievement of more compact cities that promote health and reduce health inequities.

Effectiveness of Health Impact Assessments: A Synthesis of Data From Five Impact Evaluation Reports.

INTRODUCTION: Since the 1990s, the use of health impact assessments (HIAs) has grown for considering the potential health impacts of proposed policies, plans, programs, and projects in various sectors. Evaluation of HIA impacts is needed for understanding the value of HIAs, improving the methods involved in HIAs, and potentially expanding their application. Impact evaluations examine whether HIAs affect decisions and lead to other effects. METHODS: I reviewed HIA impact evaluations identified by literature review and professional networking. I abstracted and synthesized data on key findings, success factors, and challenges from 5 large evaluations conducted in the United States, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand and published from 2006 through 2015. These studies analyzed impacts of approximately 200 individual HIAs. RESULTS: Major impacts of HIAs were directly influencing some decisions, improving collaboration among stakeholders, increasing awareness of health issues among decision makers, and giving community members a stronger voice in local decisions. Factors that contributed to successful HIAs included engaging stakeholders, timeliness, policy and systems support for conducting HIAs, having people with appropriate skills on the HIA team, obtaining the support of decision makers, and providing clearly articulated, feasible recommendations. Challenges that may have reduced HIA success were poor timeliness, underestimation of time and resources needed, difficulty in accessing relevant data, use of jargon in HIA reports, difficulty in involving decision makers in the HIA process, and absence of a requirement to conduct HIAs. CONCLUSION: HIAs can be useful to promote health and mitigate adverse impacts of decisions made outside of the health sector. Stakeholder interactions and community engagement may be as important as direct impacts of HIAs. Multiple factors are required for HIA success. Further work could strengthen the role of HIAs in promoting equity, examine HIA impacts in specific sectors, and document the role of HIAs in a "health in all policies" approach.

The effectiveness of health impact assessment in influencing decision-making in Australia and New Zealand 2005-2009.

BACKGROUND: Health Impact Assessment (HIA) involves assessing how proposals may alter the determinants of health prior to implementation and recommends changes to enhance positive and mitigate negative impacts. HIAs growing use needs to be supported by a strong evidence base, both to validate the value of its application and to make its application more robust. We have carried out the first systematic empirical study of the influence of HIA on decision-making and implementation of proposals in Australia and New Zealand. This paper focuses on identifying whether and how HIAs changed decision-making and implementation and impacts that participants report following involvement in HIAs. METHODS: We used a two-step process first surveying 55 HIAs followed by 11 in-depth case studies. Data gathering methods included questionnaires with follow-up interview, semi-structured interviews and document collation. We carried out deductive and inductive qualitative content analyses of interview transcripts and documents as well as simple descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We found that most HIAs are effective in some way. HIAs are often directly effective in changing, influencing, broadening areas considered and in some cases having immediate impact on decisions. Even when HIAs are reported to have no direct effect on a decision they are often still effective in influencing decision-making processes and the stakeholders involved in them. HIA participants identify changes in relationships, improved understanding of the determinants of health and positive working relationships as major and sustainable impacts of their involvement. CONCLUSIONS: This study clearly demonstrates direct and indirect effectiveness of HIA influencing decision making in Australia and New Zealand. We recommend that public health leaders and policy makers should be confident in promoting the use of HIA and investing in building capacity to undertake high quality HIAs. New findings about the value HIA stakeholders put on indirect impacts such as learning and relationship building suggest HIA has a role both as a technical tool that makes predictions of potential impacts of a policy, program or project and as a mechanism for developing relationships with and influencing other sectors. Accordingly when evaluating the effectiveness of HIAs we need to look beyond the direct impacts on decisions.

Walking associated with public transit: moving toward increased physical activity in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed changes in transit-associated walking in the United States from 2001 to 2009 and documented their importance to public health. METHODS: We examined transit walk times using the National Household Travel Survey, a telephone survey administered by the US Department of Transportation to examine travel behavior in the United States. RESULTS: People are more likely to transit walk if they are from lower income households, are non-White, and live in large urban areas with access to rail systems. Transit walkers in large urban areas with a rail system were 72% more likely to transit walk 30 minutes or more per day than were those without a rail system. From 2001 to 2009, the estimated number of transit walkers rose from 7.5 million to 9.6 million (a 28% increase); those whose transit-associated walking time was 30 minutes or more increased from approximately 2.6 million to 3.4 million (a 31% increase). CONCLUSIONS: Transit walking contributes to meeting physical activity recommendations. Study results may contribute to transportation-related health impact assessment studies evaluating the impact of proposed transit systems on physical activity, potentially influencing transportation planning decisions.

Characteristics of health impact assessments reported in Australia and New Zealand 2005-2009.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the use and reporting of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in Australia and New Zealand between 2005 and 2009. METHODS: We identified 115 HIAs undertaken in Australia and New Zealand between 2005 and 2009. We reviewed 55 HIAs meeting the study's inclusion criteria to identify characteristics and appraise the quality of the reports. RESULTS: Of the 55 HIAs, 31 were undertaken in Australia and 24 in New Zealand. The HIAs were undertaken on plans (31), projects (12), programs (6) and policies (6). Compared to Australia, a higher proportion of New Zealand HIAs were on policies and plans and were rapid assessments done voluntarily to support decision-making. In both countries, most HIAs were on land use planning proposals. Overall, 65% of HIA reports were judged to be adequate. CONCLUSION: This study is the first attempt to empirically investigate the nature of the broad range of HIAs done in Australia and New Zealand and has highlighted the emergence of HIA as a growing area of public health practice. It identifies areas where current practice could be improved and provides a baseline against which future HIA developments can be assessed. IMPLICATIONS: There is evidence that HIA is becoming a part of public health practice in Australia and New Zealand across a wide range of policies, plans and projects. The assessment of quality of reports allows the development of practical suggestions on ways current practice may be improved. The growth of HIA will depend on ongoing organisation and workforce development in both countries.

Health impact assessment of the Atlanta BeltLine.

BACKGROUND: Although a health impact assessment (HIA) is a tool that can provide decision makers with recommendations to promote positive health impacts and mitigate adverse health impacts of proposed projects and policies, it is not routinely conducted on most major projects or policies. PURPOSE: To make health a decision criterion for the Atlanta BeltLine, a multibillion-dollar transit, trails, parks, and redevelopment project. METHODS: An HIA was conducted in 2005-2007 to anticipate and influence the BeltLine's effect on health determinants. RESULTS: Changes in access and equity, environmental quality, safety, social capital, and physical activity were forecast, and steps to maximize health benefits and reduce negative effects were recommended. Key recommendations included giving priority to the construction of trails and greenspace rather than residential and retail construction, making health an explicit goal in project priority setting, adding a public health professional to decision-making boards, increasing the connectivity between the BeltLine and civic spaces, and ensuring that affordable housing is built. BeltLine project decision makers have incorporated most of the HIA recommendations into the planning process. The HIA was cited in the awarding of additional funds of $7,000,000 for brownfield clean-up and greenspace development. The project is expected to promote the health of local residents more than in the absence of the HIA. CONCLUSIONS: This report is one of the first HIAs to tie specific assessment findings to specific recommendations and to identifiable impacts from those recommendations. The lessons learned from this project may help others engaged in similar efforts.

A model curriculum for a course on the built environment and public health: training for an interdisciplinary workforce.

Despite growing evidence of the direct and indirect effects of the built environment on public health, planners, who shape the built environment, and public health professionals, who protect the public's health, rarely interact. Most public health professionals have little experience with urban planners, zoning boards, city councils, and others who make decisions about the built environment. Likewise, few planners understand the health implications of design, land use, or transportation decisions. One strategy for bridging this divide is the development of interdisciplinary courses in planning and public health that address the health implications of the built environment. Professional networking and Internet-based searches in 2007 led to the identification of six primarily graduate-level courses in the U.S. that address the links between the built environment and public health. Common content areas in most of the identified courses included planning and public health histories, health disparities, interdisciplinary approaches, air and water quality, physical activity, social capital, and mental health. Instructors of these courses collaborated on course content, assignments, and evaluations to develop a model curriculum that follows an active learning-centered approach to course design. The proposed model curriculum is adaptable by both planning and public health departments to promote interdisciplinary learning. Results show that students gain planning and public health perspectives through this instruction, benefiting from active-learning opportunities. Faculty implementation of the proposed interdisciplinary model curriculum will help bridge the divide between the built environment and public health and enable both planners and public health professionals to value, create, and promote healthy environments.

Use of health impact assessment in the U.S.: 27 case studies, 1999-2007.

OBJECTIVES: To document the growing use in the United States of health impact assessment (HIA) methods to help planners and others consider the health consequences of their decisions. METHODS: Using multiple search strategies, 27 HIAs were identified that were completed in the U.S. during 1999-2007. Key characteristics of each HIA were abstracted from published and unpublished sources. RESULTS: Topics examined in these HIAs ranged from policies about living wages and after-school programs to projects about power plants and public transit. Most HIAs were funded by local health departments, foundations, or federal agencies. Concerns about health disparities were especially important in HIAs on housing, urban redevelopment, home energy subsidies, and wage policy. The use of quantitative and nonquantitative methods varied among HIAs. Most HIAs presented recommendations for policy or project changes to improve health. Impacts of the HIAs were infrequently documented. CONCLUSIONS: These completed HIAs are useful for helping conduct future HIAs and for training public health officials and others about HIAs. More work is needed to document the impact of HIAs and thereby increase their value in decision-making processes.

Growing the field of health impact assessment in the United States: an agenda for research and practice.

Health impact assessment (HIA) methods are used to evaluate the impact on health of policies and projects in community design, transportation planning, and other areas outside traditional public health concerns. At an October 2004 workshop, domestic and international experts explored issues associated with advancing the use of HIA methods by local health departments, planning commissions, and other decisionmakers in the United States. Workshop participants recommended conducting pilot tests of existing HIA tools, developing a database of health impacts of common projects and policies, developing resources for HIA use, building workforce capacity to conduct HIAs, and evaluating HIAs. HIA methods can influence decisionmakers to adjust policies and projects to maximize benefits and minimize harm to the public's health.

Walking to public transit: steps to help meet physical activity recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Nearly half of Americans do not meet the Surgeon General's recommendation of > or =30 minutes of physical activity daily. Some transit users may achieve 30 minutes of physical activity daily solely by walking to and from transit. This study estimates the total daily time spent walking to and from transit and the predictors of achieving 30 minutes of physical activity daily by doing so. METHODS: Transit-associated walking times for 3312 transit users were examined among the 105,942 adult respondents to the 2001 National Household Travel Survey, a telephone-based survey sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation to assess American travel behavior. RESULTS: Americans who use transit spend a median of 19 minutes daily walking to and from transit; 29% achieve > or =30 minutes of physical activity a day solely by walking to and from transit. In multivariate analysis, rail users, minorities, people in households earning <$15,000 a year, and people in high-density urban areas were more likely to spend > or =30 minutes walking to and from transit daily. CONCLUSIONS: Walking to and from public transportation can help physically inactive populations, especially low-income and minority groups, attain the recommended level of daily physical activity. Increased access to public transit may help promote and maintain active lifestyles. Results from this study may contribute to health impact assessment studies (HIA) that evaluate the impact of proposed public transit systems on physical activity levels, and thereby may influence choices made by transportation planners.