Abstract
Setting
In Ontario, Public Health is mandated to work with municipal partners to inform and collaborate on built environment initiatives. For the Healthy Community Design (HCD) Baseline project, Public Health partnered with three communities (approximately 132,000, 29,000 and 22,000 residents, respectively).
Intervention
The HCD Baseline Project created a baseline of HCD indicators containing spatial data and self-reported behaviour and perception data. Tailored indicators were determined collaboratively between Public Health and municipal planning staff. Physical HCD indicator data were collected and mapped spatially, while primary data collected from a Neighbourhood Design Survey provided residents’ perceptions of HCD and reported behaviour.
Outcomes
The HCD Baseline Project produced a data monitoring system to: track progress of HCD indicators as communities grow; measure current community design to identify municipal and public health priorities, including public policy and supportive environments; and assess the impact of future HCD interventions on the community. By compiling spatial and perception data, areas of strength and opportunity guided the collaborative development of tailored recommendations for each community.
Implications
Findings from the HCD Baseline Project have created a stronger position for Public Health to support local municipalities. Recommendations are guiding collaborative, evidence-informed initiatives and informing local land use planning and related supportive environment policy. Data collection will be repeated in 5, 10 and 15 years to monitor trends and impact on community design.
Résumé
Lieu
En Ontario, la Santé publique est tenue de travailler avec des partenaires municipaux afin d’éclairer et de collaborer à des initiatives sur le cadre bâti. Pour un projet de référence sur l’aménagement communautaire favorisant la santé (ACFS) (Healthy Community Design, HCD), la Santé publique a travaillé en partenariat avec trois municipalités (d’environ 132 000, 29 000 et 22 000 résidents, respectivement).
Intervention
L’équipe du projet a créé une base de référence d’indicateurs d’ACFS contenant des données spatiales et des données comportementales et perceptuelles autodéclarées. Des indicateurs adaptés ont été définis de façon concertée par la Santé publique et les employés municipaux chargés de la planification. Les données sur les indicateurs physiques d’ACFS ont été collectées et cartographiées spatialement, et les données primaires, collectées au moyen d’un sondage sur l’aménagement des quartiers, ont permis de connaître les perceptions des résidents à l’égard de l’ACFS et leurs comportements autodéclarés.
Résultats
Le projet de référence sur l’ACFS a produit un système de contrôle des données visant à : suivre l’évolution des indicateurs d’ACFS à mesure que les municipalités se développent; mesurer l’aménagement communautaire actuel pour cerner les priorités des municipalités et de la Santé publique, notamment sur les politiques publiques et les milieux favorables; et évaluer l’impact local de futures interventions d’ACFS. Les forces et les possibilités révélées en compilant les données spatiales et perceptuelles ont orienté l’élaboration concertée de recommandations adaptées à chaque municipalité.
Conséquences
Les constatations du projet de référence sur l’ACFS ont créé de meilleures conditions pour que la Santé publique puisse aider les municipalités locales. Les recommandations du projet orientent des initiatives concertées, éclairées par les données probantes, et viennent appuyer les politiques locales d’aménagement du territoire et de création de milieux favorables. La collecte de données sera répétée dans cinq, dix et quinze ans pour surveiller les tendances et l’impact sur l’aménagement communautaire.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Available upon request to primary author.
References
Association of Public Health Epidemiologists in Ontario. (2018). Core indicators development subgroup: the built environment. https://www.apheo.ca/core-indicators-built-environment-subgroup. Accessed Oct 2020.
BC Centre for Disease Control. (2018). Retrieved from healthy built environment linkages toolkit, Version 2.0. http://www.bccdc.ca/pop-public-health/Documents/HBE_linkages_toolkit_2018.pdf. Accessed Oct 2020.
Dhand, N., & Khatkar, M. (2014). Retrieved from Statulator: http://statulator.com/. Accessed Oct 2020.
Frank, L. D., Kershaw, S. E., Chapman, J. E., Campbell, M., & Swinkels, H. M. (2015). The unmet demand of walkability: Disparities between preferences and actual choices of residential environments in Toronto and Vancouver. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 106, eS12–eS21. https://link.springer.com/article/10.17269%2Fcjph.106.4397. Accessed Oct 2020.
Friedman, M. (2005). Trying hard is not good enough: how to produce measurable improvements in customers and communities. FPSI Publishing.
Government of Canada. (2014). Supportive environments for physical activity: how the built environment affects our health. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/health-promotion/healthy-living/supportive-environments-physical-activity-built-environment-affects-health.html. Accessed Oct 2020.
Government of Ontario. (2006). Performance indicators for the growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. https://www.ontario.ca/document/performance-indicators-growth-plan-greater-golden-horseshoe-2006. Accessed Oct 2020.
Government of Ontario. (2018). Ontario public health standards: requirements for programs, services and accountability. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/publichealth/oph_standards/docs/protocols_guidelines/Ontario_Public_Health_Standards_2018_en.pdf. Accessed Oct 2020.
Government of Ontario. (2020). A place to grow: growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-place-to-grow-office-consolidation-en-2020-08-28.pdf. Accessed Oct 2020.
Levine, J., & Frank, L. D. (2007). Transportation and land-use preference and residents’ neighbourhood choices: the sufficiency of compact development in the Atlanta region. Transportation, 34, 255–274. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11116-006-9104-6#citeas. Accessed Oct 2020.
Middlesex-London Health Unit. (2013). Active community toolkit for reviewing development plans. https://www.healthunit.com/uploads/active-community-toolkit-for-reviewing-development-plans.pdf. Accessed Oct 2020.
Perdue, W. C., Stone, L. A., & Gostin, L. O. (2003). The built environment and its relationship to the public’s health: the legal framework. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1390–1394. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.93.9.1390.
Region of Peel. (2016). Healthy development assessment user guide. https://www.peelregion.ca/healthy-communities/pdf/HDA-user-Guide-Jun3-2016.pdf. Accessed Oct 2020.
Saelens, B. E., & Sallis, J. F. (2002). Neighbourhood environmental walkability survey (NEWS) & neighbourhood environment walkability survey - abbreviated (NEWS-A). https://activelivingresearch.org/neighborhood-environment-walkability-survey-news-neighborhood-environment-walkability-survey. Accessed Oct 2020.
Statistics Canada. (2016a). Canada census profile data. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed Oct 2020.
Statistics Canada. (2016b). Dictionary, census of population, 2016. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/dict/index-eng.cfm. Accessed Oct 2020.
Statistics Canada. (2016c). Population centre and rural area classification. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/subjects/standard/pcrac/2016/introduction#s3. Accessed Oct 2020.
Toronto Public Health. (2012). The walkable city: neighbourhood design and preferences, travel choices and health. https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-45934.pdf. Accessed Oct 2020.
Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health. (2019). Healthy community design baseline project: neighbourhood design survey and physical form indicators. https://www.wdgpublichealth.ca/reports/healthy-community-design-baseline-project-neighbourhood-design-survey-and-physical-form. Accessed Oct 2020.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank staff members involved in this collaboration from the City of Guelph, the Town of Orangeville, the Township of Centre Wellington and Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Funding
This work was funded by Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Brianne Petrina, Bo Cheyne and Amanda Scales. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Brianne Petrina with support from Amy Estill and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Provided by Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health’s Research Ethics Committee on September 11, 2017. Consent to participate was provided by all study participants via the informed consent process.
Consent for publication
Consent to publication was provided by all study participants via the informed consent process.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Petrina, B., Cheyne, B., Scales, A. et al. Using healthy community design data to monitor and inform planning and public policy. Can J Public Health 112, 1051–1058 (2021). https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-021-00523-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-021-00523-6