Table 1 Sources of information used and methods applied in the evaluation process
Evaluation phase | Evaluation method | Study population | Study contents |
|---|---|---|---|
a) Project characteristics | Review of the technical documentation provided by the sponsor institutions | LH and NFM projects | Analysis of projects: design, location, target population and other affected groups, effects on social inequalities, implementation schedule. |
Interviews with architects of the Master Plan and managing engineers | LH and NFM projects | ||
b) Characterisation of the study area and population | Socio-demographic records | Population of the study area | Sex, age, origin, education level, deprivation index, relation to activity. |
Health records: mortality, cancer, hospital discharges, primary care records Basque Health Survey | Population of the study area | Health status of the population, chronic diseases. Health habits of the population | |
Environmental records: air, noise, and soil pollution | Study area | Contamination levels: PM10 particles in air, ambient noise, degraded terrain. | |
Urban quality data | Study area | Population density, green spaces | |
Direct observation by HIA team | Study area and plots for LH and NFM. Urban dynamics | Physical characteristics of the area Initial state of the plots and their surroundings Person-space relationship: places of significance | |
c) Search for scientific evidence | Review of scientific literature: - Health-specific sources: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Collaboration, Campbell Collaboration, Health Evidence Network - Multidisciplinary sources: Web of Knowledge, SCOPUS - HIA-specific portals: CREIS, HIA Gateway, WHO, e IMPACT-Health Impact Assessment International Consortium | Publications, studies, reviews, documents, reports from similar HIAs | Search for evidence on the following SDH: - urban quality: recreational areas, green spaces, footpaths, walkability - safety - transport and accessibility: access to services, nearby traffic, noise and pollution associated with traffic - employment and economic dynamism - social networks, social cohesion and collective self-esteem |
d) Mixed methods: Qualitative and quantitative research | Stakeholder and community group perspective: qualitative study - In-depth interviews | N = 18 qualified participants (representatives of associations, neighbourhood organisations, health professionals, town planners) | Identification of: - interrelationships between socio-historical, urban, and health-related dimensions in the context of the studied projects - public perception of the project effects on the urban environment and health/quality of life - health inequality-related issues Channelling the participation of affected populations in the assessment process. Collection of proposals for potential improvements |
- Focus groups Data analysis: sociological discourse analysis | N = 5 groups, stratified according to age, social class, and activity (youths, housewives, adults, senior citizens) | ||
Magnitude of problems and impacts: quantitative study - Quota sampling by deprivation index of the census tract of residence, sex, and age - Telephone survey - Analysis: descriptive, inter-group comparison, Chi square test | N = 303 residents | Identification and quantification of: - deficits and problems in the area - places of significance, attachment to environment and social identity - potential effects of improved urban quality on lifestyle and collective self-esteem - social inequalities according to sex, age and socioeconomic status |