Public Health Aspects’ Assessment Tool for Urban Projects …
331
Table 1 Performance judgments for environmental quality and wellbeing on a neighborhood-level
for a healthy urban planning tool (elaboration by the authors)
Issues
Criteria
Performance values
Air
Presence of pollution sources, coexistence of the
following strategies
– Location of sensitive users in protected areas
and far from the pollution sources
– Strategies for limiting emissions at source
and/or reducing the diffusion of pullutants
Good
Presence of only one of the strategies listed above
Absence of the strategies listed above
Critical not sufficient
Noise
Presence of noise sources, introduction of the
following strategies
– Location of sensitive users in protected areas
and far from the noise sources
– Strategies for limiting noise at source and/or
reducing the noise transmission from fixed or
mobile sources
Good
Presence of only one of the strategies listed above
Absence of the strategies listed above
Critical not sufficient
Water
Coexistence of the following strategies
– Efficient water supply system
– Reducing waste and saving drinking water
Good
Presence of an efficient water supply system
Absence of the strategies listed above
Not sufficient critical
Ionizing
radiations/non
ionizing
radiations
Presence and/or absence of possible sources of
ionizing/not ionizing radiations, coexistence of the
following strategies
– Location of sensitive users and users with
residence time higher than 4 h away from
ionizing/non ionizing radiations; absence of
sensitive users close to power lines
– Strategies aimed to remove or to mitigate
ionizing/not ionizing radiations
Good
Presence of only one of the strategies listed above
Absence of the strategies listed above
Critical not sufficient
3.2 Validation and Development
The evaluation tool was applied in the Lombardy region by the LHA of Bergamo,
Milan, and Lecco with the aim of evaluating the procedure to be able to extend its use
in other contexts. In particular, the application took place in Milan since 2011 and
it is still in use, and for one year the tool was tested in Lecco. From these analyses,
although the reliability of the instrument was confirmed, the applicability of a number
of evaluation criteria was considered critical or limited by a lack of information.
331
Table 1 Performance judgments for environmental quality and wellbeing on a neighborhood-level
for a healthy urban planning tool (elaboration by the authors)
Issues
Criteria
Performance values
Air
Presence of pollution sources, coexistence of the
following strategies
– Location of sensitive users in protected areas
and far from the pollution sources
– Strategies for limiting emissions at source
and/or reducing the diffusion of pullutants
Good
Presence of only one of the strategies listed above
Absence of the strategies listed above
Critical not sufficient
Noise
Presence of noise sources, introduction of the
following strategies
– Location of sensitive users in protected areas
and far from the noise sources
– Strategies for limiting noise at source and/or
reducing the noise transmission from fixed or
mobile sources
Good
Presence of only one of the strategies listed above
Absence of the strategies listed above
Critical not sufficient
Water
Coexistence of the following strategies
– Efficient water supply system
– Reducing waste and saving drinking water
Good
Presence of an efficient water supply system
Absence of the strategies listed above
Not sufficient critical
Ionizing
radiations/non
ionizing
radiations
Presence and/or absence of possible sources of
ionizing/not ionizing radiations, coexistence of the
following strategies
– Location of sensitive users and users with
residence time higher than 4 h away from
ionizing/non ionizing radiations; absence of
sensitive users close to power lines
– Strategies aimed to remove or to mitigate
ionizing/not ionizing radiations
Good
Presence of only one of the strategies listed above
Absence of the strategies listed above
Critical not sufficient
3.2 Validation and Development
The evaluation tool was applied in the Lombardy region by the LHA of Bergamo,
Milan, and Lecco with the aim of evaluating the procedure to be able to extend its use
in other contexts. In particular, the application took place in Milan since 2011 and
it is still in use, and for one year the tool was tested in Lecco. From these analyses,
although the reliability of the instrument was confirmed, the applicability of a number
of evaluation criteria was considered critical or limited by a lack of information.