Skip to main content


Table 1 Sources of information used and methods applied in the evaluation process

From: Urban regeneration as population health intervention: a health impact assessment in the Bay of Pasaia (Spain)

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