A dose of realism for healthy urban policy: lessons from area-based initiatives in the UK.
Many urban policies aim to improve areas and address socioeconomic deprivation. The resulting investment is often delivered through area-based programmes which incorporate initiatives to improve the physical, social and economic environment. Hypotheses that these investments can contribute to wider public health strategies are based on epidemiological data and used to support the concept of healthy urban policy. However, there is little evidence on their ability to generate positive impacts on socioeconomic or health outcomes. The lack of validating evidence on actual impacts raises two important questions: (1) Is area-based investment an effective strategy to tackle socioeconomic deprivation? (2) What is the prospect for new and improved evaluations to provide stronger evidence? Both the programmes of area investment and their accompanying evaluations have been criticised for being overly ambitious in what can be achieved by the investment and what can be measured by an evaluation. Area-based approaches to tackling deprivation have their advantages but a mix of area and individual-level targeting is likely to be needed. While there is scope to improve the utility of evaluation data there are also inevitable constraints on assessing and attributing impacts from urban investment. The inherent limitations to an area-based approach and the ongoing constraints on impact evaluation will inevitably temper expectations of what healthy urban policy can achieve. However, lack of evidence is not grounds to abandon the concept of healthy urban policy; adoption of more realistic expectations together with improved evaluation data may help to increase its credibility.
Thomson
H
H
MRC Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, 4 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G128RZ, UK. hilary@sphsu.mrc.ac.uk
D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006078:Government Programs / Q000191:economics / Q000458:organization & administration; D006291:Health Policy; D006801:Humans; D007449:Investments; D011204:Poverty Areas; D015397:Program Evaluation / Q000379:methods; D012959:Socioeconomic Factors; D006113:United Kingdom; D014504:Urban Health / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D014506:Urban Renewal / Q000191:economics / Q000458:organization & administration*
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000 Nov;54(11):802-3
11027191
Public Health. 2005 Sep;119(9):751-7
15913681
BMJ. 2004 Jan 31;328(7434):282-5
14751903
BMJ. 2001 Jul 28;323(7306):187-90
11473906
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001 Sep;55(9):622-3
11511639
BMJ. 2001 Jan 27;322(7280):222-5
11159625
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 May;59(5):345-6
15831679
Lancet. 2003 Oct 25;362(9393):1409-14
14585645
BMJ. 2001 Aug 18;323(7309):374-5
11509428
Eur J Public Health. 2006 Aug;16(4):343-4
16698882
Public Health. 2004 Oct;118(7):497-505
15351222
BMJ. 2002 Nov 2;325(7371):1029-32
12411368
Am J Prev Med. 2003 Apr;24(3 Suppl):12-20
12668194
BMJ. 1998 Oct 31;317(7167):1239-42
9794871
Eur J Public Health. 2006 Aug;16(4):341-3
16698883
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Dec;59(12):1035-40
16286490
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006 Feb;60(2):108-15
16415258