There is growing consensus that planning professionals need clearer guidance on features of the built environment that promote health benefits. Concomitantly, the smart city movement has created renewed opportunity and interest in data-driven urban modelling to support land use planning. Planning Support Systems (PSS) are spatially enabled computer-based analytical tools incorporating health-related metrics that apply empirical evidence on built environment relationships with health-related outcomes to inform real-world urban design, urban planning and transportation planning decisions. This paper presents the development of the Urban Health Check PSS to use local empirical data to explore and predict relative health impacts associated with proposed urban design planning changes from alternative new station precinct masterplan concepts. We present a case study where we compare a baseline scenario with alternative design concepts for a new train station precinct in Perth, Western Australia, that incorporated possible built environment interventions. Subsequently, we discuss potential future applications of health impact PSS for the translation and application of health evidence into practice.
AllenderSCavillNParkerM, et al (2009) `Tell us something we don't already know or do!' The response of planning and transport professionals to public health guidance on the built environment and physical activity. Journal of Public Health Policy30: 102–116.
2.
ArciniegasGJanssenR (2012) Spatial decision support for collaborative land use planning workshops. Landscape and Urban Planning107: 332–342.
BaobeidAKoçMAl-GhamdiSG (2021) Walkability and its relationships with health, sustainability, and livability: elements of physical environment and evaluation frameworks. Frontiers in Built Environment7: 2297–3362.
5.
BattyM (2012) Building a science of cities. Cities29: S9–S16.
6.
BoulangeCPettitCGiles-CortiB (2017) The walkability planning support system: an evidence-based tool to design healthy communities. In: Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, 15th International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management (CUPUM 2017) Adelaide – AustraliaJuly 11-14,2017, pp. 153–165.
7.
BoulangeCPettitCGunnLD, et al (2018) Improving planning analysis and decision making: the development and application of a Walkability Planning Support System. Journal of Transport Geography69: 129–137.
8.
BrömmelstroetMt (2013) Performance of planning support systems: what is it, and how do we report on it?Computers, Environment and Urban Systems41: 299–308.
9.
BrownsonRCJonesE (2009) Bridging the gap: translating research into policy and practice. Preventive Medicine49: 313–315.
10.
ButzWPTorreyBB (2006) Some frontiers in social science. Science312: 1898–1900.
CampagnaM (2016) Metaplanning: about designing the Geodesign process. Landscape and Urban Planning156: 118–128.
13.
CerveroRKockelmanK (1997) Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment2(3): 199–219.
14.
City Explained Inc (2020) CommunityViz: Urban Analytics for Planners 5.1. Charlotte, NC: City Explained Inc.
15.
CorburnJ (2004) Confronting the challenges in reconnecting urban planning and public health. American Journal of Public Health94: 541–546.
16.
CouttsAMWhiteECTapperNJ, et al. (2016) Temperature and human thermal comfort effects of street trees across three contrasting street canyon environments. Theoretical and Applied Climatology124: 55–68.
17.
Department of Planning LaH (2018) Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million. Perth, Western Australia: Department of Planning LaH.
18.
DuanyAPlater-ZyberkESpeckJ (2000) Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press.
19.
DuncanJMABoruffBSaundersA, et al. (2019) Turning down the heat: an enhanced understanding of the relationship between urban vegetation and surface temperature at the city scale. Science of The Total Environment656: 118–128.
20.
EwingRSchmidTKillingsworthR, et al. (2003) Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity and morbidity. American Journal of Health Promotion18: 47–57.
21.
EwingRH (2008) Characteristics, causes, and effects of sprawl: a literature review. In: MarzluffJMShulenbergerEEndlicherW, et al. (eds) Urban Ecology: An International Perspective on the Interaction between Humans and Nature. Boston, MA: Springer US, 519–535.
22.
FrancisJWoodLJKnuimanM, et al (2012) Quality or quantity? Exploring the relationship between public open space attributes and mental health in Perth, Western Australia. Social Science & Medicine74(10): 1570–1577.
23.
FrumkinHFrankLJacksonR (2004) Urban Sprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planning and Building for Healthy Communities. Washington: Island Press.
24.
GeertmanSStillwellJ (2004) Planning support systems: an inventory of current practice. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems28: 291–310.
25.
GeertmanSStillwellJ (2020) Planning support science: developments and challenges. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science47(8): 1326–1342.
26.
Giles-CortiBSallisJFSugiyamaT, et al (2015) Translating active living research into policy and practice: one important pathway to chronic disease prevention. Journal of Public Health Policy36: 231–243.
27.
Government of Western Australia (2020) Metronet: Morley-Ellenbrook Line Project Definition Plan (June 2020). Perth, Western Australia: Government of Western Australia.
28.
Government of Western Australia (2021a) Draft Morley Station Precicnt Concept Master Plan. Perth, WA: Government of Western Australia.
HajnaSRossNABrazeauA-S, et al. (2015) Associations between neighbourhood walkability and daily steps in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health15: 768.
31.
HooperPBoulangeCArciniegasG, et al. (2021) Exploring the potential for planning support systems to bridge the research-translation gap between public health and urban planning?International Journal of Health Geographics20(1): 36.
32.
HooperPFosterSBullF, et al (2020) Living liveable? RESIDE’s evaluation of the “liveable neighborhoods” planning policy on the health supportive behaviors and well-being of residents in Perth, Western Australia. SSM - Population Health10: 100538.
33.
IbraevaACorreiaGHdASilvaC, et al. (2020) Transit-oriented development: a review of research achievements and challenges. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice132: 110–130.
34.
Infrastructure Australia (2021) Infrastructure Priority List: Project and Initiative Summaries.
35.
KovatsRSHajatS (2008) Heat stress and public health: a critical review. Annual Review of Public Health29: 41–55.
36.
McDonaldR (2015) Conservation for Cities: How to Plan and Build Natural Infrastructure. Washington: Island Press.
37.
MillerW (2012) Introducing Geodesign: The Concept. Redlands, CA: ESRI.
38.
OliverKInnvarSLorencT, et al. (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Services Research14: 1–12.
39.
PearceJWittenKBartieP (2006) Neighbourhoods and health: a GIS approach to measuring community resource accessibility. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health60: 389–395.
40.
PelzerPArciniegasGGeertmanS, et al. (2015) Planning support systems and task-technology fit: a comparative case study. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy8: 155–175.
41.
PettitCBakelmunALieskeSN, et al. (2018) Planning support systems for smart cities. City, Culture and Society12: 13–24.
42.
PettitCBiermannSPelizaroC, et al. (2020) A data-driven approach to exploring future land use and transport scenarios: the online what if? Tool. Journal of Urban Technology27: 21–44.
43.
RitchieALSvejcarLNAyreBM, et al. (2021) A threatened ecological community: research advances and priorities for Banksia woodlands. Australian Journal of Botany69(2): 53–84.
44.
RussoPLanzilottiRCostabileMF, et al. (2018) Towards satisfying practitioners in using planning support systems. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems67: 9–20.
45.
SchonerJChapmanJBrookesA, et al. (2018) Bringing health into transportation and land use scenario planning: creating a national public health assessment model (N-PHAM). Journal of Transport and Health10: 401–418.
46.
StevensonMThompsonJde SáTH, et al. (2016) Land use, transport, and population health: estimating the health benefits of compact cities. Lancet388(10062): 2925–2935.
47.
UlmerJMChapmanJEKershawSE, et al. (2015) Application of an evidence-based tool to evaluate health impacts of changes to the built environment. Canadian Journal of Public Health106(1 Suppl 1): eS26–34. DOI: 10.17269/cjph.106.4338.
48.
United Nations (2017) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development A/RES/70/1.
49.
VonkGGeertmanSSchotP (2005) Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space37: 909–924.
50.
VonkGGeertmanSSchotP (2007) A SWOT analysis of planning support systems. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space39: 1699–1714.
51.
WongFStevensDO’Connor-DuffanyK, et al. (2011) Community health environment scan survey (CHESS): a novel tool that captures the impact of the built environment on lifestyle factors. Global Health Action4: 5276. DOI: 10.3402/gha.v4i0.5276.
52.
WoodLHooperPFosterS, et al. (2017) Public green spaces and positive mental health – investigating the relationship between access, quantity and types of parks and mental well-being. Health & Place48: 63–71.
