Aims: The aim of this research was to map available healthy planning frameworks to discover the range, composition, design, and implementation of healthy planning frameworks.
Methods: A systematic scoping review with date, location, and usability limitations was augmented by a grey literature search. Data were extracted on key details, design, outcomes considered, and implementation features of the final 61 frameworks.
Results: Data extracted indicated that most frameworks tend to focus on one element of the built environment, with active mobility, active environments, and transport being the most prevalent ones (34%). Most frameworks (40) stated their intended outcomes on health in general terms, rather than targeting specific health outcomes. Very few frameworks (12%) were aimed at the public, and only 11% of frameworks included an evaluation.
Conclusions: While there are a wide variety and number of frameworks available in the field of healthy urban planning, they are generally siloed, focusing on highly specific individual urban determinants, and rarely consider health outcomes in detail. There is significantly less provision available for citizen and community use. Frameworks tend to offer limited updating mechanisms and very rarely include ongoing evaluation processes, making their success difficult to assess.
Keywords: city planning; framework; guide; health; healthier places; healthy place; healthy planning; planning; quality of life; tool; urban design; urban planning; urbanism; wellness.