No abstract

No abstract

How human health is framed provides boundaries for choices in practice and bias for certain actions in health assessments in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This study examines health frames in legislation and policies of importance for EIA in Swedish road planning and their implications for practice. The emphasis is on different approaches, such as promotion of health and prevention of ill-health. Indicators of the choices in practice for which the health frames exert bias are further analysed through a review of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for road planning and comparison with a similar study conducted about 10 years ago. The indicators studied are: health determinants included, health impacts assessed, and aspects of the affected population concerned in the EISs. There are fundamentally different health frames in Swedish legislation and policies, but this range is not yet reflected in EISs, which mainly focus on environmental health rather than on broader health determinants and health equity. The results indicate that this situation becomes a dilemma for EIA practitioners and a challenge for the field.

This paper examines how key actors think and act in everyday planning practice when new policies are introduced. Drawing on frame theory, an analytical lens is developed for explaining mechanisms that restrain and promote policy-driven transformation in practice. The analysis focuses on current practice and Swedish planning practitioners' experience of the integration of recently introduced policies on landscape and health. A key finding is that well-established perceptions of responsibility can hamper policy integrationeven in cases where practitioners see benefits to planning outcomes of acting differently. Another key finding is that policies reframing landscape and health as holistic and relational can make individual practitioners question current practice, thereby opening the way for transformation. ARTICLE HISTORY