Background
The design of urban form or the built environment has been associated with people’s physical activity [
1], social participation [
2], and well-being [
3]. The built environment also plays an important role in shaping social inequities based on differential access to resources and exposures to risk conditions [
4]. Evidence about the potential impact of urban form changes is needed. In Canada, the federal government recently pledged $125 B for infrastructure projects over the next 10 years. While such investments may translate into positive health benefits, primarily due to increases in physical activity [
5], natural experiment studies on urban form changes to date have been scarce.
Physical inactivity is the fourth leading cause of death globally responsible for some 9% of premature mortality and 6–10% of coronary heart disease, diabetes, and breast and colon cancers [
6]. If the population added just 10 min of physical activity per day substantial health benefits at the population level would be achieved [
7,
8]. Interventions at the environment and policy levels are considered key to achieve such population-level changes [
6]. Lack of social participation has, in turn, been linked to myocardial infarction, stroke, cancer, and diabetes [
9‐
11], especially among older adults and vulnerable populations. Well-being is an essential resource for individual’s health and is considered as a measure of societal progress [
12]. The characteristics of the urban environments represent an interesting strategy to optimize the well-being of the population through changes in urban form [
13‐
15].
Population and public health is committed to measuring and modifying urban form to support physical activity, social participation, and well-being, as well as reduce social inequities in health [
16]. Urban form infrastructure [
17], including cycling infrastructure [
18] and traffic calming [
19], is less likely to be implemented in low income areas, potentially exacerbating existing social inequities in health. Thus, stakeholders including urban planners, public health officials, and policy makers could benefit from more rigorous evidence to identify urban interventions that enhance population health and reduce social inequities in health [
20,
21].
Natural experiment studies have been proposed as an important method to study how the large investments in infrastructure could cause health benefits related to physical activity, social participation, and well-being. Natural experiment studies are of interest because they can improve causal claims and lead to relevant and timely policy recommendations [
22]. However, in a review of natural experiments evaluating policy and urban form changes on obesity-related outcomes, of the 17 studies that examined impacts on physical activity [
23] only four had a strong study design (i.e., longitudinal studies with a comparison group), and most measured outcomes through self-reports or direct observation (e.g., cyclist counts), which have known limitations. Nonetheless, technological innovations related to mobile sensing can overcome some of the methodological limitations of natural experiment studies. These include the ability to reliably measure individual physical activity and daily mobility patterns using mobile sensors [
24,
25].
Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the INTErventions, Research, and Action in Cities Team (INTERACT) is a pan-Canadian collaboration of interdisciplinary scientists, urban planners, and public health decision makers advancing research on the design of healthy and sustainable cities for all. In partnership with cities and citizens, INTERACT is collecting big data to deliver timely public health evidence about influence of urban form interventions on health, well-being, social participation, and social inequities in these outcomes. Our objectives are to use natural experiment studies to deliver timely evidence about how urban form interventions influence health, and to develop methods and tools to facilitate such studies. Specifically, we will conduct natural experiment studies of urban form changes in four Canadian cities, with the aims to:
1.
Understand Context: to characterize the context for changes in urban form, from an intersectoral perspective.
2.
Measure Change: to refine measurement of changes in urban form exposures and outcomes using innovative methodological tools that integrate mobile sensing and Geographic Information Science.
3.
Analyze Impact: to determine the impact of changes in urban form on physical activity, social participation, well-being, and related social inequities.
4.
Mobilize Knowledge: to guide decision making on healthy urban planning and enhance training and capacity for urban form research in Canada using our evidence, methods, and tools.
Discussion
INTERACT is a pan-Canadian collaboration of interdisciplinary scientists, urban planners, and public health decision makers advancing research on the design of healthy and sustainable cities for all. Seeing the city as a living laboratory, we are using innovative tools such as mobile technology to measure the impact of changes in urban infrastructure on people’s physical activity, social participation, and well-being, and inequities in these outcomes. With INTERACT’s aim to advance the evidence base and generate new tools, the project will face diverse challenges. We highlight considerations related to big data, knowledge mobilization and engagement, ethics, and causality below.
Big data
We estimate that INTERACT will collect approximately 100 terabyte (TB) of raw data during the study period. The volume and variety of data make data security, storage, and processing a crucial consideration for the INTERACT study. We plan on partnering with both the Centre for Health Information and Analytics at Memorial University and Compute Canada for data infrastructure requirements. There are considerable training requirements for public health researchers and students in both data handling and machine learning methods [
25]. We will develop training modules related to working with large data infrastructure, programming in Python and R, and methods for analyzing large spatio-temporal datasets.
Knowledge mobilization
The INTERACT program is guided by a framework for sustained impact [
76], which highlights the importance of early and sustained engagement with non-government organizations and policy makers nationally and locally. The meaningful engagement of intersectoral stakeholders throughout the research process will be guided by a governance model that prioritizes consultation and collective decision-making, and the equitable participation of knowledge users. For example, city decision-makers are integrated within intervention teams, positioning them to provide input on local research questions and methods, and to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making. We have a diversity of knowledge translation end products planned, including both applied and scholarly outputs relevant to municipalities, regional governments, health authorities, non-governmental organizations, academics, and citizens. One example is that we have adopted a process of rapid reviews that can inform research or policy at the local level. We also aim to enhance training and capacity for urban form research through open and wide dissemination of INTERACT’s evidence, tools, and methods to both practitioner and research communities.
Ethics
There are ethical considerations for INTERACT, specifically related to the high precision location data collected from participants [
77]. In natural experiment studies using mobile sensing it is important to recognize risks that are part of the intervention, and risks that arise through unintended circumstances during the study. Risks related to the intervention are unlikely in a natural experiment study because researchers do not control the intervention [
77]. There are risks related to using mobile sensing data for health research including consent, privacy and confidentiality, mitigating risk, and vulnerable populations. We will mitigate potential risks by using plain language consent forms, having clear Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) support for participants, updating participants about the data they are contributing, using secure protocols for data storage and access, and training research trainees and staff on data security and access [
78,
79].
Causality
Making causal claims about intervention effects is the primary objective of epidemiologic studies [
80]. Regression discontinuity, difference in differences, and interrupted-times series are methods that can permit causal claims to be made about intervention effects in observational research, provided that the assumptions of the methods are met. A challenge of evaluating the impact of urban form interventions is that interventions and individual level exposures are changing in both time and space [
81]. In contrast to strict interventions, which can be implemented from one day to the next, urban form interventions are implemented over longer time periods and often in phases. The nature of urban form interventions will require us to test multiple methods for defining exposure both temporally and spatially, and cautiously interpret our results. The on-going nature of the intervention implementation and confounding by other urban form changes will be a challenge for causal attribution [
82].
Limitations
INTERACT faces limitations related to sampling bias, control groups, intervention specificity, and context. Sampling bias may take two forms. First, vulnerable populations are less likely to participate in research in general and may be even less likely to participate in research involving mobile sensing, either because they may not have these devices or because the detailed location data collection may be considered additionally intrusive to these populations [
78]. Second, we have not a priori identified control groups, either in the form of comparable cities or comparable unexposed groups, for our interventions. However, for some research questions, spatial exposure can serve to identify levels of exposure within the sample. Third, INTERACT will evaluate four different urban form interventions in four different cities. Both the conceptual and statistical identification of the hypothesized and actual intervention effects and which aspects of the intervention we are evaluating is challenging. There are several potentially relevant contextual features to consider including: inequities, public consultations, media campaigns, and political decision making. With only four cities included, we are using an ad hoc approach to consider how these and other contextual factors should be considered in our analysis.
INTERACT will harness big data to deliver timely public health evidence on the influence of real-world urban form interventions on physical activity, well-being, and social participation, as well as social inequities in these outcomes. We aim to understand context, measure change, analyze impact, and mobilize knowledge about how the urban form can influence health.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge our local and national research partners:
Coralie Deny, Conseil régional de l’environnement de Montréal. Louis Drouin, Direction régionale de santé publique - CIUSS du Centre-Sud-de-l’Île-de-Montréal. Danielle Lussier, Ville de Montréal. Raphaël Massé, Table de concertation des aînés de l’Île de Montréal. Richard Massé, Direction régionale de santé publique - CIUSS du Centre-Sud-de-l’Île-de-Montréal. Sophie Paquin, Direction régionale de santé publique - CIUSS du Centre-Sud-de-l’Île-de-Montréal. Maëlle Plouganou, Table de concertation des aînés de l’Île de Montréal. Lesley Anderson, City of Saskatoon. James McDonald, City of Saskatoon. Rob Dudiak, City of Saskatoon. Chris Schulz, City of Saskatoon. Cory Shrigley, City of Saskatoon. Allison Gray, City of Saskatoon. Dale Bracewell, City of Vancouver. Keltie Craig, City of Vancouver. Claire Gram, Vancouver Coastal Health. Sarah Webb, City of Victoria. John Hicks, Capital Regional District. Kate Berniaz, Capital Regional District. Daniel Bolduc, Institut national de santé publique du Québec. Glenn Miller, Canadian Urban Institute. Éric Robitaille, Institut national de santé publique du Québec. Olivier Bellefleur, National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy.