Institute for Environmental Design and Engineering, Bartlett School of Environment, Energy and Resources, University College London, Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London, WC1H 0NN, UK.
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split, Split, Croatia.
J Urban Health. 2020 Jun;97(3):418-435. doi: 10.1007/s11524-019-00378-w.
Global initiatives have raised awareness of the need for cross-departmental and cross-sectoral activities to support urban health, sustainability, and equity, with respective indicators routinely used as a way to catalyze and monitor action toward pre-defined goals. Despite the existence of at least 145 urban health indicator (UHI) tools globally, there has been very little research on the use of indicators by policy- and decision-makers; more attention has been devoted to their development and validation. This paper describes the second part of a two-part systematic review of the characteristics (part A) and use (part B, this part) of UHI tools by municipal built environment policy- and decision-makers. Part B is a narrative synthesis of studies on the use of UHI tools. This PRISMA-P compliant review follows a mixed methods sequential explanatory design. The search was conducted using seven bibliographic databases, grey literature searches, and key journal hand searches. Ten studies describing the use of ten UHI tools in seven countries were included in the narrative synthesis, resulting in development of a theory of change (ToC). We found that both expert-led and participatory indicator projects can be underpinned by research evidence and residents' knowledge. Our findings contradict the dominant view of indicator use in policy-making as a linear process, highlighting a number of technical, organizational, political, knowledge, and contextual factors that affect their use. Participatory UHI tools with community involvement were generally more effective at supporting "health in all policies" and "whole-of-society" approaches to governing healthy cities than expert-led processes. UHI tool producers proposed a range of techniques to address urban health complexity characteristics. Finally, in combining data from both parts of the review, we found that potentially important UHI tool features, such as neighbourhood-scale data, were influential in the use of indicators by built environment policy- and decision-makers.
全球倡议已经提高了人们对跨部门和跨行业活动的认识,这些活动旨在支持城市健康、可持续性和公平,相应的指标通常被用作促进和监测朝着预定义目标采取行动的一种方式。尽管全球至少存在 145 种城市健康指标(UHI)工具,但对政策制定者和决策者使用指标的研究却很少;更多的注意力集中在它们的开发和验证上。本文描述了对城市健康指标工具的特征(第 A 部分)和用途(第 B 部分,本部分)进行的两部分系统评价的第二部分,这是对市政建筑环境政策制定者和决策者使用 UHI 工具的特征(第 A 部分)和用途(第 B 部分,本部分)进行的两部分系统评价的第二部分。第 B 部分是对 UHI 工具使用情况进行的研究的叙述性综合。这项符合 PRISMA-P 的综述遵循混合方法顺序解释性设计。搜索使用了七个书目数据库、灰色文献搜索和主要期刊手工搜索。该叙述性综合纳入了十项研究,这些研究描述了十个国家/地区的十种 UHI 工具的使用情况,从而形成了一个变革理论(ToC)。我们发现,专家主导和参与式指标项目都可以以研究证据和居民的知识为基础。我们的发现与政策制定中指标使用的主导观点相矛盾,即指标使用是一个线性过程,突出了影响其使用的一些技术、组织、政治、知识和背景因素。具有社区参与的参与式 UHI 工具通常比专家主导的流程更有效地支持“所有政策都关乎健康”和“全社会”治理健康城市的方法。UHI 工具的生产者提出了一系列技术来解决城市健康复杂性特征。最后,在结合了综述两部分的数据后,我们发现,邻里尺度数据等潜在重要的 UHI 工具特征对建筑环境政策制定者和决策者使用指标具有影响力。