Safety Science 44 (2006) 675688 www.elsevier.

com/locate/ssci

Management of risks in societal planning an analysis of scope and variety of health, safety and security issues in municipality plan documents
Anna C.H. Johansson , Inge Svedung, Ragnar Andersson
Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Social Sciences, Karlstads Universitet, S-65219 Karlstad, Vermland, Sweden Received 23 March 2005; received in revised form 3 February 2006; accepted 8 March 2006

Abstract The article is explorative and deals with the management of risk in conjunction with municipality planning of the physical environments in Sweden. The central research question was to investigate; How are questions about risk issues treated in Swedish societal planning today? Subject of investigation is a sample of municipal comprehensive master plan documents. The aim was to present a descriptive review of what risks regarding health, safety and security that are considered in a set of municipal comprehensive master plan documents prepared and adopted by Swedish municipalities. Additional aims are to describe how risks are dealt with (in what terms, extent and depth) and also to examine how risks are advocated to be handled in the future. Findings show that the plans include several visions, strategies and suggested improvements concerning risk-related issues, all aiming to create a healthier, safer and more secure municipality. However everyday risks in everyday surroundings attract less attention than disastrous risks with low probabilities and large consequences. Integration and management of risks is advocated to be further considered in more elaborated planning processes, but few plans specify how, when and with which participants. Few plans present a more philosophical discussion within their plans about diVerent types of risks in society. Findings indicate further needs to examine and develop the planning process with regard to the management of risks from a broader variety of perspectives, and with special emphasis also on more common threats. 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 702662208; fax: +46 547002220. E-mail address: anna.johansson@kau.se (A.C.H. Johansson).

0925-7535/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2006.03.001

676

A.C.H. Johansson et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006) 675688

Keywords: Built environment; Public health; Risk management; Safety; Security; Urban planning

1. Introduction Planning in general is a process where visions and goals are developed and presented along with ideas on how to reach these goals. In an organized society, with many actors representing diVerent interests, the planning process has to take many aspects into account, including regulations and other restrictions as well as requests and interests of the citizens. One way to achieve this is by developing long-term plans setting frames for more detailed and short-term planning on social as well as spatial matters. Planning can thus be considered as a wide-range instrument for societal control of both social structures and physical environments. 1.1. Societal planning, health and safety Societal and community structures highly aVect peoples living conditions; their health, safety and general well-being, by forming their physical and social living environments. The links between planning, design and organization of society, on one hand, and its management of risks, on the other, have long and strong traditions rooted in issues like hygienic conditions, housing standard, Wre protection, etc. Historically, laws and regulations on such matters often evolved from theories and ideas, formed in reaction to the health and safety problems that followed the 19th centurys rapid industrialisation and urbanisation. These theories and ideas dealt with how environmental and social improvements could be obtained through public policies on housing, hygiene, working conditions, health care, etc. (Barra, 2000; Corburn, 2004; de Hollander and Staatsen, 2003; Frank and Engelke, 2001; Lawrence, 2002; Perdue et al., 2003a,b; Pollard, 2003; Vlahov et al., 2004). Today most western countries have well-developed planning departments dealing with land-use and the built environment. Most of our physical environments are supposed to be planned, built and maintained in accordance with laws, regulations, building codes, safety standards, etc. Recent studies, however, indicate that in practice our modern societal environments are no longer planned and designed with health, safety and security among its inhabitants as a principal aim (Corburn, 2004; Dannenberg et al., 2003; de Hollander and Staatsen, 2003; Frumkin, 2003; Jackson, 2003; Lawrence, 2002; Northridge et al., 2003; Perdue et al., 2003a,b; Srinivasan et al., 2003). At the same time, problems of this kind are still found to be results of poor planning, design and quality of societal structures. Therefore, researchers and experts again turn back their interest to the reintegration of public health and safety into societal planning and design, as a way to consciously change society structures towards better living conditions and environments by addressing health and safety concerns proactive and with prevention. It is no longer a question of just reducing adverse consequences or cure disease, but also to prevent ill-health and injury in broad terms, and to promote general well-being, health and safety (Corburn, 2004; Dannenberg et al., 2003; de Hollander and Staatsen, 2003; Frumkin, 2003; Jackson, 2003; Lawrence, 2002; Molnar et al., 2004; Northridge et al., 2003; Pain and Townshend, 2001; Perdue et al., 2003a,b; Pollard, 2003; Srinivasan et al., 2003; Vlahov et al., 2004; WHO, 1986).

A.C.H. Johansson et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006) 675688

677

1.2. A wide scope of risks There is now a substantial body of evidence pointing at links between health, safety, security and general well-being on one hand, and a broad variety of risk factors embedded in the physical and social structures on the other (Heimplaetzer and Goossens, 1991; Hynes et al., 2000; McCarthy, 1996; Raphael et al., 2001; Vlahov et al., 2004). These risks include not only accidents and disaster-related hazards, but also for instance: polluted and toxic water and food supply; uncontrolled waste management; mouldy, draughty, contaminated and noisy housing, etc. That in turn may lead to various health problems like sleeping disorder, asthma, etc. (Hynes et al., 2000). Risks are also related to absence of functional, well-designed, quiet and clean urban and traYc environments, leading to increased car-use, instead of promoting physical activities like walking and bicycling (Brownson et al., 2004; Lawrence et al., 2004; Strum and Cohen, 2004; Zlot and Schmid, 2005). Research shows that neglected physical and social environments fertilise social deprivation and related risk factors such as social exclusion, alienation, segregation, crime, violence, vandalism, drug abuse, and even riots (Doeksen, 1997). Devastating for health, safety and well-being is also the disgraceful and badly designed environments unsupportive to social and physical activities, leaving few possibilities for healthy and safe lifestyles due to lack of attractive and accessible open spaces, walkways, playgrounds or other meeting and recreation areas (Handy et al., 2002; Luymes and Tamminga, 1995). Globally, health and safety problems are largely associated with urbanisation, poverty, poor working conditions (hours, location, hazards, misuse, etc.), poor health care systems, etc. (Vlahov et al., 2004). Accordingly, the concept of risk in this paper is used in a broad sense, comprising safety as well as health and security concerns. 1.3. Societal planning in a Swedish context In Sweden, like in other modern societies, diVerent health, safety and security matters are normally handled separately and in parallel planning and managerial processes by diVerent sectors in the municipal administration. Voices are therefore raised in favour of more holistic and comprehensive approaches to municipal risk management (Lawrence, 2002; Northridge and Sclar, 2003). Such views in Sweden are supported by respected bodies such as: The Swedish Rescue Services Agency, The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, The National Institute of Public Health, The National Board of Health and Welfare, the European Union, the World Health Organisation, etc. Swedish municipalities (in total 290) are organized at both political and administrative levels. They have broad responsibilities, including societal planning and spatial design issues. Since 1990 Swedish municipalities are, according to regulations stated in the Plan and Building Act, obliged to provide their own comprehensive master plan and to update it every mandate term (every fourth year). This type of plan, also called structure plan (kommunal versiktsplan, in Swedish), can be described as the general municipal plan and policy document for all built and natural environments, i.e. for all physical environments. On this level of planning, decisions are taken of vital importance for the future development of the municipality. The overall aim of the comprehensive master plan is to serve as an instrument that stakes out an overall vision of the physical environments for the next 1020 years. The plan also presents political goals, and is aimed to serve as an every-day guideline for

678

A.C.H. Johansson et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006) 675688

administrative decisions, although without being binding in details. In these plans the municipalities are, according to national regulations, obliged to take various risk factors that could endanger citizens health, safety and security into consideration. 1.4. Aim of the study As described above, societal planning largely originated from a need to manage risks. However, recent research indicates that these concerns are no longer key issues in societal planning. Consequently, this article has an explorative approach and intends to generate insights about whether risk, safety, security and health issues still are considered in modern planning. The central research question in this study was therefore; How are questions about risk issues treated in Swedish societal planning today? Thus, the more speciWc aim was to present a descriptive review of what risks regarding health, safety and security that are considered in a set of municipal comprehensive master plan documents prepared and adopted by Swedish municipalities. Additional aims are to describe how risks are dealt with (in what terms, extent and depth) and also to examine how risks are advocated to be handled in the future. 2. Methods and materials The results presented in this article are based on a qualitative examination of the content of Wfty diVerent plan documents prepared and adopted by Swedish municipalities between the years 2000 and 2002. All 290 Swedish municipalities were contacted by e-mail and asked to send a copy of their comprehensive master plan document. After crosschecking with records at The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, a total number of 50 plan documents adopted in the three years period (20002002) were identiWed and examined. That includes all plans presented in printed form and adopted in this period. Plan documents only presented electronically, via Internet or CD-Rom, were excluded from this study (n D 5) due to the possibility of special treatment originated in search options for wordings, etc. The investigated plan documents are produced and adopted by municipalities of various types, from about 3000 to 500 000 inhabitants, from municipalities in urban, suburban and rural areas, and from all parts of the country. (Sweden has approximately 9 million inhabitants, divided into 290 municipalities, i.e. about 30 000 inhabitants in average.) Each plan document was examined through thematic content analysis. Relevant characteristics were documented, followed by a process of categorizing and coding selected themes. To address the research objectives, a structured examination scheme in the form of a checklist with thematic categories of structured questions was used. The thematic analysis scheme was developed in a preceding pilot study covering 20 plan documents adopted before 2000. Characteristics found required relevant for the development of a more safe and secure community, found in the pilot sample, were then used as a basis for the development of the themes and questions introduced in the Wnal examination schedule. The following themes are addressed: General contents and structure of the plans (whether risk issues are highlighted already in the list of contents).

A.C.H. Johansson et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006) 675688

679

Aims and goals stated for the plan (whether risk issues are explicitly targeted among these aims and goals). Risk perspectives and foci applied in the plan (which types of risks that are dealt with). Integration and management of risk considerations (whether further detailed and crosssectorial planning regarding these issues are advocated). Actors/sectors participating in the planning process. Internal impact evaluation and external comments on the plan (whether environmental, health, safety, economical, social, or other consequences of proposed initiatives are assessed and communicated). Data generated by examination of the plan documents were Wled into a database and analysed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS. Questions (matched to the thematic content analysis scheme) were analysed. The presence of how themes and sub-themes are being dealt with across plan documents was noted, together with illustrative quotations. Reading and coding required from 1 to 3 h per plan document, depending on the diversity in content and length (from 50400 pages including maps and illustrations). The structures of the plan documents are not standardized and, although they are of similar content, they do not form a homogeneous material. Much of what to incorporate in the plan is up to the municipality to decide, but health and safety issues should, by law be taken into consideration. 3. Results 3.1. General content This theme general content focused on the lists of contents as presented in the plans and the terms used that are relevant to health, safety, and security issues. The aim was to Wnd out whether risk issues were highlighted among headlines. Headlines including terms like: risk, health, safety and consequences are common in a majority of the plan documents, but wordings like crime or life quality are sparsely used. The tables of contents also included a number of other terms, not covered by the examination scheme, but which exempliWes how some of the plans capture a broader public healthoriented perspective. Headlines like: Public Health Work, Sustainable Lifestyle, Sound Environment and Aspects of Equality, etc. are all examples of translated terms from the plan documents, with contents assumed relevant from risk, health, safety and security perspectives. The numbers of plans that include terms mentioned above in their lists of content are presented in Fig. 1. The headline consequences refer to environmental, health, safety, economical, social, or other consequences of proposed initiatives. 3.2. Aims and goals This theme aims and goals was used to explore the overall visions and goals stated in the plan documents and to see whether risk considerations are reXected among these wordings directly in direct relation to diVerent risks, health, safety, and security issues. A broad unanimity was found about the core ambitions across the plan documents. Normally they are to serve several functions; to present a vision (88%), to work as an instrument for implementation (96%), and to serve as a political guideline about questions

680
50

A.C.H. Johansson et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006) 675688

45

40

35

30

Number of plans

25

20

15

10

0 Risk Health Safety Consequences Crime Life quality

Wordings in content list

Fig. 1. The numbers of plan documents in which the wordings given appear in the lists of content.

concerning built environment and land-use (92%). Common for the plan documents is also the ambition to be a tool for both dialogs (60%) and information (68%) about the future development of the municipality, its environments and recourses. Aims and goals presented in the documents are to a fairly high degree referring to risk, health, safety and security issues in general. Most plan documents have the ambition to support the development of good living environments and a high quality of life (43 of 50). More then half of the investigated plans also note the special needs of special groups in society (32 of 50) and need for promotion of health and safety (32 of 50), security (32 of 50) and equality (27 of 50) per se. More scarce are plans that state something about the need to i.e. decrease injury rates or prevent accidents (18 of 50), reduce crime (15 of 50) or collaborate to promote health and safety (13 of 50), etc. 3.3. Risk perspectives and foci The intentions of the theme risk perspectives and focus were to Wnd out whether the plan documents reXected thoughts and ideas about diVerent risks and threats in the society and if they presented diVerent dimensions in the municipalities risk perceptions. TraYc planning was selected as a subject for deeper analysis of these questions. DiVerences in the underlying philosophy were found regarding what kinds of risk and what types of surroundings (environmental and social) that was reXected upon. Some plan documents considered a broad range of risks that exist in the modern society injuries, accidents, natural disasters, terrorism, etc. and the role of the municipality can play for the protection of the inhabitants health, safety and security. However, only nine of the investigated plan documents contained some kind of more profound philosophical or theoretical discussion about diVerent risks in the society and what kind of risks that might threat the municipality today and in the future. A number of the plan documents discuss risk perceptions in terms of how humans react to risk and how our judgements often are

A.C.H. Johansson et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006) 675688

681

based on habits and misconceptions, rather than on conscious, or more explicit, risk calculations and empirical facts (statistics). The need to inform the public about diVerent risks and safety precautions are mentioned in some of the plan documents. Although several risk perspectives and perceptions are mentioned in some plan documents, common for most of them are that they mainly focus on calamitous events related to natural or man-made disasters, the later related to industry and transport of hazardous goods. Risks related to every-day injuries in domestic and public environments or to human behaviour and lifestyles attract less attention (mentioned only in 7 of 50 plans). However, the need to consider certain groups (children, adolescents, elderly, disabled, etc.) to be able to create a safe and secure society for all, are often pointed out to be an important objective of the societal planning. To have a gender perspective in mind is another intention articulated in several plan documents. The following is a translated example of how these issues can be formulated in a plan document: The needs of the disabled should be given special attention in the planning process. Safety and security for women, children and the elderly should be given special attention. The planned actions should contribute to gender equality and see to the best interest of the children. (From the municipality of Pite plan document, translated from Swedish by the authors.) An area often well covered from a variety of perspectives is regular traYc safety. Most of the plan documents cover a wide range of general traYc safety topics (in 48 of 50), from potential conXicts between diVerent means of transportation (84%), to the necessity of making physical changes in order to develop safer traYc environments (86%). Several plan documents also include issues about risk for high pollution and noise levels (76%) and the need for traYc restrictions in certain environments (86%) and special considerations for speciWc groups (48%). 3.4. Implementation and management of diVerent risks This theme implementation and management of risk considerations is meant to analyze ways in which the plan documents are advocating implementation and management of risks, to what extent references are done to other plan document and if a more profound risk consideration is stated to be done in other planning processes. Most plan documents clearly articulate the need to prevent and limit diVerent types of risks (72%). They state speciWc safety recommendations and norms in general (80%) and about half of the investigated documents also refer to other plans or planning processes such as: a separate risk management plan (64%) or forthcoming planning (94%). However, few plan documents point out the need to consider risks early (22%) and explicitly (12%) in the planning process. Some plan documents point out the practical diYculty and the lack of routines to conduct and integrate aspects of health, safety and security in the planning process. One of the municipalities states the following about the need to consider risk aspects early in the planning processes: Currently there are no suggestions on how to design these routines. (From the municipality of Eksj plan document, translated from Swedish by the authors.)

682

A.C.H. Johansson et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006) 675688

3.5. Actors participating in the planning process This theme actors participating was used to illustrate what actors/sectors that were mentioned as vital in the planning process (consulted in the development of the investigated plans or advocated to participate in future planning process). The results are presented in Fig. 2. The integration and management of risk issues is, as pointed out earlier, advocated to be considered further in the more elaborated planning processes, but few plans specify how, when and by what functions or participants. The actor most commonly pointed out as advantageous in the integration and management of risks in the planning process are the rescue services (mentioned in 29 of 50 plans). Few plans indicate the importance of for example the social services (13 of 50) or the public health oYcials (6 of 50) to participate. Some plan documents articulates, however the need and importance of consulting the public/citizens as an actor in the planning process, for example children and adolescents, when creating the municipality vision of the future. The following is a translated example of how multi-sectorial collaboration is advocated in a plan document: We shall increase the cooperation between the municipal departments, the National Road Administration, the police, interest organizations and the citizens in order to create safe solutions. (From the municipality of Mnsters plan document, translated from Swedish by the authors.) 3.6. Internal impact evaluation and external comments on the plan This theme internal impact evaluation and external comments on the plan aimed to examine in what terms the municipalities evaluate their plans internally regarding potential impacts from planned actions. The analysis included the following categories: ecology/ environment, social aspects, economy, safety, risk, health and security. The Wndings are presented in Fig. 3. Whether any external comments from other agencies or organizations

50 45 40 35 30

Number of plans

25 20 15 10 5 0 Rescue services Social services Other municipal Special groups Public health sectors officials Interest organizations Agenda 21 officals Other actors

Actors mentioned

Fig. 2. Terms used for the internal impact evaluation of the plan documents.

A.C.H. Johansson et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006) 675688

50

683

45

40

35

Number of plans

30

25

20

15

10

0 Ecology/ environment Economy Social aspects Health Safety Risk Security

Terms used

Fig. 3. Terms used for the internal impact evaluation of the plan documents.

were presented in the plan was also looked for, since it indicates the municipalitys willingness to consider the plan as a forum for information and dialog around planned actions. In most plan documents internal impact evaluation encompassed ecology/environment. In about half of the plans the issues economy and social aspects are also frequent. Terms like health, safety, risk or security are seldom used in relation to impact/consequence analyses. However, several plan documents accounted for a summarized and general evaluation of the potential plan impact, and could thereby not be deduced to any of the terms used in the reading manual. More than half of the investigated plan documents include objections from the county administrative board against the planned actions (56%). (The county administrative board serves as the states regional representative on these matters. Comments from the board are normally included as copy of the original statement in appendix.) Common types of statement given by the boards deals with the way the municipalities have handled issues of health and safety in their plan documents. The board often concludes that these issues should be further considered in forthcoming planning processes. Several plan documents also include opinions expressed by other reviewers for example: diVerent associations and organizations (in 13 of 50), civilians (in 8 of 50) or adjacent municipalities (in 8 of 50) and other contributors (in 15 of 50 plans). 4. Discussion The plan documents have been found to vary widely in structure and content. This may in part reXect the wide structural diversity among Swedens 290 municipalities. Another reason could be the lack of detailed regulatory guidelines for the comprehensive planning process. Yet another explanation to the variations found could be diVerences in foci and perspectives applied. In spite of these circumstances, similarities among plan documents regarding the overall aims and regulatory foundations of the planning process, and the consistency in the analysis obtained by the methodical approach applied, makes it possible

684

A.C.H. Johansson et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006) 675688

to discuss the Wndings and to draw some conclusions. Methodological limitations, however, should Wrst be taken into account. 4.1. Methodological limitations Potential limitations are mainly related to the nature of data used, the methodological approach, and the fact that the material represents a sample of 50 municipalities out of 290 in total. The issue of nature of data refers to the plan documents structural diversity, readability and user-friendliness. There is an obvious possibility that some observations are misclassiWed, misinterpreted or overlooked. If so, this is however believed to have limited eVects on the overall picture of how the municipalities handle health and safety issues in their plan documents, even though detailed results could be biased. Another potential limitation relates to the thematic content analysis tool developed for this study. The method intended to treat a heterogeneous material in a structured and systematic manner and to fulWl our explorative ambition to identify general patterns rather than details. The investigated plan documents represent a fair cross-section of Swedish municipalities with respect to area, population, type and location. In spite of possible shortcomings as mentioned above, we are generally satisWed with our tool and believe that the Wndings could be used to inform the debate and highlight the need for further research. 4.2. ReXections upon Wndings Central for the investigation presented in this paper was to generate empirical insights in how risk, safety, security and health issues are taken into account in local planning, as seen from a set of comprehensive municipal master plans. This because it is often claimed, as discussed in Section 1, that a wider and more public health-oriented focus in the planning process could invite new solutions and create healthier, safer and more secure environments (Dannenberg et al., 2003; Handy et al., 2002; Hoehner et al., 2003; Jackson, 2003; Northridge et al., 2003; Perdue et al., 2003b). The underlying idea is that the way we design and maintain our built environments inXuence vital public health concerns from asthma to injuries, but also problems of more social nature like violence and crime (Peek-Asa and Zwerling, 2003; Perdue et al., 2003a). Other expected beneWts of a more public health-oriented perspective include special attention to vulnerable groups, such as children, the elderly and disabled people, and increased gender awareness (Collins and Kearns, 2001; Cummins and Jackson, 2001; Dannenberg et al., 2003; Davis and Jones, 1996; Frank and Engelke, 2001). Contrary to what could be expected from the studies referred to above, we found that Swedish comprehensive master plans altogether addresses a wide spectrum of risks, although with a variety between municipalities. There is a broad unanimity of the municipalities general ambition for their plans, reXected in numerous statements on aims and goals related to risk issues. However, we also found that there are diVerences in the underlying philosophies and in depth and broadness how risks are considered. Quite often the information and explanations presented under goals and headlines appear to be quite shallow, rather than profound arguments and facts for a proactive handling in these matters. It seems as if municipalities need to develop a more comprehensive view of risks and the built environments impact on health and safety. This is because the plan documents

A.C.H. Johansson et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006) 675688

685

mainly focus on disastrous hazards, while risks of every-day injuries from more frequent types of accidents in public environments and risks related to human behaviour and lifestyle attract less attention. A compelling Wnding in this study is that most plan documents articulate a need for diVerent risks to be prevented or reduced. At the same time they indicate practical diYculties, and sometimes even the lack of routines, to conduct a planning process taking aspects of health and safety into account. Even though the integration and management of risks is advocated in the plans to be further considered in the more elaborated planning processes, few plans specify how this should be done, when, and by which sectors or agencies. This is underscored by the fact that most plan documents express a clear ambition to create good living environments in general, and even if some also give examples of the usefulness of a more multifaceted and public health-oriented perspective, very few account for how this should be implemented in practice. One possible explanation to this is that risk issues are in practice often divided between diVerent governmental, municipal and private actors, which in combination with a general lack of comprehensive view of risk management responsibilities (at all levels and in all sectors of this hierarchical system) maintains the confusion regarding who should care for what. This view is also underscored by others, stating the need to pursue an active collaboration across professions and sectors when implementing these kinds of issues in the planning process. This is to share views and experience and to evaluate what designs and choices that are most feasible for health, safety and security. Hopefully, Wndings presented and discussed here will promote a broader understanding of the potentials and beneWts of a more public health-oriented perspective in the planning process. The Wndings may also contribute to the future development of a theoretical framework, tools and methods needed to promote considerations of the impact of the physical environments on the publics health, safety and security (Lawrence, 2002; Northridge and Sclar, 2003). 4.3. Further research Clearly, studies of the type presented in this paper cannot lead to judgements about the eYciency of diVerent measures presented in the plan documents, or conclusions on the actual planning process behind the document. The variations in content and depth found in this study give reasons to discuss these matters further and to shed more light on the role of societal planning as a tool for risk management. Today a general shift from descriptive to process-based regulatory regimes can be seen within EU-countries. The common process requested in the diVerent regulations implies documented goal setting, problem identiWcation and the development and implementation of counter measures. This has resulted in a wide spectrum of planning eVorts at local levels, focusing on many diVerent dimensions of risks (Kirwan et al., 2002). There are a lot of relevant areas in need for further research such as: In what ways and to what extent do existing planning practices support cross-sectorial learning and proactivity regarding health and safety on the local level? How can active collaboration be stimulated across decision making processes and between actors and stakeholders with diverse risk perceptions and rationalities? Are there any good examples of cross-sectorial planning practices that integrate broad aspects of health and safety that can be described in a set of case-studies?

686

A.C.H. Johansson et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006) 675688

More explicitly the following questions should be addressed in relation to local planning: Which are the participating bodies? Which policies, aims and goals are given? How are diVerent tasks deWned and distributed? Which methods and tools are used? Which data and experiences are focused on and made explicit? Which perspectives are applied to this kind of matters? How can the process be described? How are diVerent stake holders involved in the process?

To address these issues, a number of complementary methods could be applied e.g. surveys, document studies, deep-interviews, participating observations, etc. This type of investigation, indicated above, is of general and obvious importance if we are to understand the potential of process-based regulations, which is being applied in one sector after another. One further step, already underway, is a survey regarding the diVerent municipal sectors daily contact with risk management issues of various kinds. The aim is to investigate which risks, in relation to health and safety, that are covered, by which municipal sectors, and how these risks are dealt with. The implicit hypothesis is that there within the municipalities, due to their division of responsibilities among sectors, and to professional traditions among decision makers, exist clusters of bodies concentrating on speciWc clusters of safety and health issues, while other risks may be left more or less unattended. 5. Conclusions The patterns of risk topics dealt with in the investigated plan documents indicate reasons to further examine the planning process with regard to the management of risks. Even though found results indicate that the plan documents in high degree refer to various risk issues, the statements are often shallow and sweeping. This might be interpreted as an urgent need to rediscover public health, safety and security related topics with even more prominent importance in the practice of societal planning, and that it seems to be a necessity to connect the two Welds of planning and risk management more intimately. There is reason to believe that a profound and eVective collaboration across relevant sectors in society would be supportive to both the promotion of health and well-being in general, and to the prevention of every-day injures in particular. To understand the conditions of such collaboration, a vital step would be to conduct further investigations of the planning processes as they occur in practice in order to understand the role of planning instruments in relation to the design, construction and maintenance of a healthier, safer and more secure society. Acknowledgements The material in this investigation was based on what was sent to us from the municipalities and the authors would like to thank them for providing us with the plan documents. We are also grateful to the Swedish Rescue Services Agency for funding.

A.C.H. Johansson et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006) 675688

687

References
Barra, X.D.L., 2000. Fear of epidemics: the engine of urban planning. Planning Practice & Research 15, 716. Brownson, C.R., Chang, J.J., Eyler, A.A., Ainsworth, B.R., Kirtland, K.A., Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., 2004. Measuring the environment for friendliness toward physical activity: a comparison of the reliability of 3 questionnaires. American Journal of Public Health 93, 473483. Collins, D.C.A., Kearns, R.A., 2001. The safe journeys of an enterprising school: negotiating landscapes of opportunity and risk. Health and Place 7, 293306. Corburn, J., 2004. Confronting the challenges in reconnecting urban planning and public health. American Journal of Public Health 94, 541546. Cummins, K.S., Jackson, R.J., 2001. The built environments and childrens health. Childrens Environmental Health 48, 12411252. Dannenberg, A.L., Jackson, R.J., Frumkin, H., Schieber, R.A., Pratt, M., Kochtitzky, C., Tilson, H.H., 2003. The impact of community design and land-use choices on public health: a scientiWc research agenda. American Journal of Public Health 93, 15001508. Davis, A., Jones, L.J., 1996. Children in the urban environment: an issue for the new public health agenda. Health and Place 2, 107113. de Hollander, A., Staatsen, B., 2003. Health, environment and quality of life: an epidemiological perspective on urban development. Landscape and Urban Planning 65, 5362. Doeksen, H., 1997. Reducing crime and the fear of crime by reclaiming New Zealands suburban street. Landscape and Urban Planning 39, 243252. Frank, L.D., Engelke, P.O., 2001. The built environment and human activity patterns: exploring the impacts of urban form on public health. Journal of Planning Literature 16, 202218. Frumkin, H., 2003. Healthy places: exploring the evidence. American Journal of Public Health 93, 14511456. Handy, S.L., Boarnet, M.G., Ewing, R., Killingsworth, R.E., 2002. How the built environment aVects physical activity views from urban planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 23, 6473. Heimplaetzer, P.V., Goossens, L.H.J., 1991. Risks and accidents in the built environment. Safety Science 14, 87 103. Hoehner, C.M., Brennan, L.K., Brownson, R.C., Handy, S.L., Killingsworth, R.E., 2003. Opportunities for integrating public health and urban planning approaches to promote active community environments. American Journal of Health Promotion 18, 1420. Hynes, P.H., Brugge, D., Watts, J., Lally, J., 2000. Public health and the physical environment in Boston Public Housing: a community-based survey and action agenda. Planning Practice and Research 15, 3149. Jackson, L., 2003. The relationship of urban design to human health and condition. Landscape and Urban Planning 64, 191200. Kirwan, B., Hale, A., Hopkins, A., 2002. Changing Regulation: Controlling Risks in Society. Pergamon, Amsterdam, 0-08-044126-2. Lawrence, F.D., Andersen, M.A., Schmid, T.L., 2004. Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27, 8796. Lawrence, R.J., 2002. Inequalities in urban areas: innovative approaches to complex issues. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 30, 3440. Luymes, D.T., Tamminga, K., 1995. Integrating public safety and use into planning urban greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning 33, 391400. McCarthy, A., 1996. Protecting the public health the role of environmental health. Public Health 110, 7780. Molnar, B.E., Gortmaker, S.L., Bull, F.C., Buka, S.L., 2004. Unsafe to play? Neighbourhood disorder and lack of safety predict reduced physical activity among urban children and adolescents. American Journal of Health Promotion 18, 378386. Northridge, M.E., Sclar, E.D., 2003. A joint urban planning and public health framework: contributions to health impact assessment. American Journal of Public Health 93, 118121. Northridge, M.E., Sclar, E.D., Biswas, P., 2003. Sorting out the connections between the built environment and health: a conceptual framework for navigating pathways and planning healthy cities. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 80, 556568. Pain, R., Townshend, T., 2001. A safer city centre for all? Senses of community safety in Newcastle upon Tyne. Geoforum 33, 105119. Peek-Asa, C., Zwerling, C., 2003. Role of environmental interventions in injury control and prevention. Epidemiologic Reviews 25, 7789.

688

A.C.H. Johansson et al. / Safety Science 44 (2006) 675688

Perdue, W.C., Gostin, L.O., Stone, L.A., 2003a. Public health and the built environment: historical, empirical, and theoretical foundations for an expanded role. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 31, 557566. Perdue, W.C., Stone, L.A., Gostin, L.O., 2003b. The built environment and its relationship to the publics health: the legal framework. American Journal of Public Health 93, 13901394. Pollard, T., 2003. Policy prescriptions for healthier communities. American Journal of Health Promotion 18, 109 113. Raphael, D., Renwick, R., Brown, I., Steinmetz, B., Sehedv, H., Phillips, S., 2001. Making the links between community structure and individual well-being: community quality of life in Riverdale, Toronto, Canada. Health and Place 7, 179196. Srinivasan, S., OFallon, L., Dearry, A., 2003. Creating healthy communities, healthy homes, healthy people: initiating a research agenda on the built environment and public health. American Journal of Public Health 93, 14461450. Strum, R., Cohen, A.D., 2004. Suburban sprawl and physical and mental health. Public Health 118, 488496. Vlahov, D., Gibble, E., Freudenberg, N., Galea, S., 2004. Cities and health: history, approaches and key questions. Academic Medicine 79, 11331138. WHO 1986. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. First International Conference on Health Promotion Ottawa, 21 November 1986. Available from: <www.who.int/hpr/NPH/docs/ottawa_charter_hp.pdf>. Zlot, A.I., Schmid, T.L., 2005. Relationship among community characteristics and walking and bicycling for transportation or recreation. American Journal of Health Promotion 19, 314317.