Abstract
Objective:
The objective of this scoping review was to map the body of knowledge on net gain and no-net-loss (net-outcome) objectives and approaches applicable to health in spatial planning and development policies and practice.
Introduction:
There is an established body of academic and gray literature addressing environmental net-outcome objectives, such as biodiversity net gain, in spatial planning policies and practice. While a health net-gain objective has been proposed as a driver for health protection and the realization of health, such an objective and approach are yet to be scoped and defined.
Eligibility criteria:
This review considered scientific and gray literature sources that described health net-outcome objectives and approaches that can be implemented in spatial planning and development policies and practice. Source contexts were not limited to specific countries, geographical areas, or settings. All types of evidence were considered.
Methods:
This review followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Searches of 19 information sources were conducted in August 2023 and updated in July 2024. Key databases included Scopus, MEDLINE, and Embase. Sources of gray literature were included, and citation searching was conducted. No language or date restrictions were applied. Following a high level of agreement during piloting, titles and abstracts were screened by 1 reviewer, and 50% of full texts were screened by 2 reviewers. One reviewer extracted data describing the characteristics of evidence sources and the net-outcome objectives and approaches described within them. Data analysis included categorization, frequency counts, and a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis.
Results:
Of 8290 unique records identified through database and gray literature searching, 474 evidence sources were assessed for eligibility, resulting in the inclusion of 112 sources, alongside 7 others identified from citation searching, for a total of 119 sources. Included evidence sources dated from 1974 to 2024, with an increasing frequency of publication from 2008. Social objectives were found from the 1990s, and conservation policies engendered well-being objectives from 2018. Frequently encountered perspectives related to regenerative and sustainable design and development, biodiversity, and conservation. Almost all sources originated from developed Western economies. Broad objectives relevant to health (90/119) outnumbered distinct health objectives (29/119). Most sources addressed development projects, among other scales. Sources frequently described the reconceived use of development to protect and improve health and well-being, overcome sustainability challenges, and strengthen socioecological systems. Implementation often featured participatory approaches, mitigation hierarchies, and assessment, although some sources advocated positive opportunities for health creation rather than the use of contested quantitative accounting frameworks. Challenges and opportunities were predominantly associated with objective specification and assessment. Potential value conflicts were identified relating, in part, to differing anthropocentric and biocentric approaches and objections to quantification and commodification.
Conclusions:
This review found many socio-environmental net-outcome objectives relevant to health and emergent health objectives that were immature and less frequently reported. These present differing scopes, focuses, and implementation options that are relevant to policymakers’ specification of future objectives. Specification entails value judgments, and equity considerations are important. Knowledge gaps to address include transferability between countries, policy domains, and disciplines; multilevel evaluation; and integration within spatial planning systems and current impact assessment theory and practice.
Review registration:
Keywords: health, net gain, no net loss, policy, spatial planning
Introduction
The longstanding and ubiquitous objective of minimizing costs and maximizing benefits is illustrated by a founding Hippocratic principle of medical ethics—produce net health benefits with minimal harm1—and established economic analyses of societal costs and benefits that influence regulation and decision-making.2-5 The specific costs and benefits in question in any given policy context depend on policymakers’ priorities and interests, and can include consideration of the implications of changes to our built and natural environments; aspects of individual health; and costs and benefits to nature, the health care system, or wider economy.
Spatial planning is a socio-spatial and integrative process that shapes present and future places through visions, actions, implementation strategies, and coproduction.6 Global goals and principles for socioeconomic development are articulated by international initiatives such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and New Urban Agenda.7,8 Spatial planning policies are incrementally localized through national to local government policies that influence the organizational policies and actions of the private and public sectors.9 The implications of development and changes in land use are typically subject to assessment, both at a strategic policy level and at the level of individual development projects.9,10
Health is one consideration for spatial planning policies and associated assessments because our built and natural environments are determinants of health.9,11,12 The traditional land-use planning model focuses on regulating and ordering the use of land, aiming, inter alia, to protect nature and human health from harms associated with inappropriate and unconstrained economic development and poor environmental conditions.9,13-15 Contemporary spatial planning policies may temper optimization of economic efficiency with environmental constraints or equity objectives.13 This is reflected by the broader objectives of sustainable development: balancing economic, social, and environmental objectives and seeking net gains across them,7,16,17 increasing the emphasis on social and environmental outcomes.
Environmental net-outcome policy objectives set specific targets for measurable aspects of the natural environment.18 Net zero is a prominent contemporary neutrality policy objective applied to carbon emissions. Neutrality objectives also feature in conservation: no net loss of wetlands has been a policy objective in the USA since the 1970s,19 while biodiversity no-net-loss (NNL) objectives have proliferated internationally in recent decades.19,20 Net gain (NG) objectives within environmental and spatial planning policies extend the ambition of preceding NNL policies, requiring demonstrable gains in target outcomes.18,21 A wide range of environmental pressures and outcomes can be targeted, as illustrated by the application of NG objectives to natural capital and ecosystem services essential to human health.22,23 The potential for environmental net-outcome policies to affect social outcomes (either negatively or positively) has spurred the development of secondary social net-outcome objectives and arguments for policy designs that benefit nature and people.24-30 Overarching ambitions for socioecological NG are similarly expressed in literature that argues for a transition beyond sustainable to regenerative development: development that, in essence, does more good for people and the planet.31-35
The premise of minimizing harms and maximizing health benefits is, in itself, not new: spatial planning policy and practice already incorporate some of the aforementioned socioecological objectives and offer an established framework for the protection and improvement of nature and human health9,24,31,36-38; however, development can lead to damage despite the existence of protections.11,39 Although spatial planning policies typically address health, it is usually within the context of the broader economic, social, and environmental objectives of sustainable development. Health is one of many competing considerations for spatial planners, and the proponents of development for whom health matters are not always a priority11,40; planning policies may prioritize economic growth and set housebuilding targets to be delivered by cost-sensitive private-sector developers. Enduring challenges to health creation are illustrated by the persistence of spatial inequalities that include worse built and natural environmental quality and poorer health in more deprived areas.41
Addressing these entrenched challenges calls for approaches to sustainable urban development that systematically prioritize health and well-being.8,42-44 Recent advocates suggest that a health NG objective in spatial planning policy may be transformative and attractive to health policymakers,45-49 both as a means of prioritizing health in future development and of narrowing existing spatial inequalities through specific consideration of the distribution of harms and benefits at policy and development project levels. Although such an objective and approach have not been defined in this context, it has been suggested that recent environmental net-outcome policies and approaches are potentially transferable.24,48-50 Net-outcome objectives and approaches used in other health policy contexts (such as regulatory appraisal or risk regulation) are also potentially relevant, as are other broader objectives that specify social or socioecological net-outcome objectives relevant to health, such as community NG.51-54 Although the argument is made that health NG offers new opportunities to reprioritize health within the planning system as has been done for biodiversity, the literature describing socio-environmental net-outcome objectives also documents challenges and impacts associated with different policy designs and implementation models, from which lessons for prospective health policymakers can be collated.
A preliminary search of PROSPERO, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, JBI Evidence Synthesis, EPPI Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER), Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Database of Evidence Reviews, OSF, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Figshare was conducted. No current or in-progress scoping or systematic reviews were identified that addressed health NG or NNL of health in the context of spatial planning policy objectives or approaches.55
The overarching objective of this scoping review was to scope the body of knowledge addressing net-outcome objectives and approaches applicable to health in spatial planning and development policies and practice.55 Related objectives were to clarify health net-outcome concepts and conceptual boundaries, describe how health net-outcome objectives are implemented in practice and the associated opportunities and challenges, and identify knowledge gaps in theory and practice.55
Review questions
What are the characteristics of health net-outcome policy objectives and the approaches that implement them in practice, including the rationales for their existence and use, and definitions of the objectives?
How do health net-outcome policy objectives and approaches define health, and what are the principles or requirements that govern their implementation?
What is the contextual positioning of health net-outcome policy objectives and approaches, and what are their effects or implications, including implementation opportunities and challenges?
Eligibility criteria
Concept
The overarching concept of interest of the review was health net-outcome objectives that can be implemented in spatial planning and development policies and practice. Sources were included if they defined, described, or appraised health net-outcome objectives or approaches.
Health was primarily conceptualized as population health and well-being, but inclusion was not dependent on sources’ definitions of health, and sources directly referencing any form of health or well-being net-outcome objective were included. Sources describing broader societal, social, community, and people-oriented net-outcome objectives were eligible for inclusion (eg, objectives of social NG, community NG, or NNL of well-being). Sources describing health net-outcome objectives related to specific environmental determinants of health were included (eg, a health NG objective related to health outcomes associated with changes in air quality48).
Sources describing other net-outcome objectives (eg, environmental NG) were included if they addressed environmental change in broad terms (ie, changes in the built and natural environment affecting people and nature) or explicated the application of net-outcome objectives or elements of a net-outcome approach to social or health objectives. Otherwise, sources describing nature and ecological-oriented net-outcome objectives (eg, natural capital, ecosystem services, biodiversity NG) were included only if their main aim and focus was the appraisal or conceptual elaboration of net-outcome-type policy objectives in general, or if they drew transferable principles from specific approaches. Sources describing regenerative development and related concepts of systemic socioecological NG were excluded unless they detailed a specific net-objective’s definition and appraisal.
Net-outcome objectives encompassed goals, aims, targets, or requirements for, or principles of, NNL or an NG (or equivalently termed objectives). Sources describing approaches that implement net-outcome objectives in policies and practice were also included. The review’s concept of a net-outcome approach encompassed sources that described conceptual frameworks, theories, models, and definitions; underpinning ideological stances, implementation principles, and their implications; and associated assessment and delivery requirements. Mitigation hierarchies (a well-established framework designed to prevent and limit environmental harm through prioritized steps of harm avoidance, reduction or minimization, reversal or remediation, and offsetting56) were considered a feature of net-outcome approaches, and sources describing them were eligible for inclusion.
Sources that referred to health net outcomes in general terms without relating them to the core concept of a policy objective or approach (eg, an evaluation reporting an NG in health after an intervention) were excluded. Sources that described methodologies for the economic assessment of costs and benefits (in particular, cost-benefit analysis) were excluded unless they specifically addressed net-outcome policy considerations or the context of spatial planning.
Context
Sources were included if they described objectives or approaches that were or can be implemented by, or were applicable to, spatial planning and development policies and practice.
The phrase implemented by encompassed sources describing spatial planning principles; spatial planning and development planning policies; spatial planning practice guidance; spatial plans; design codes; development plans; and assessments of the effects of development projects, spatial plans, or planning policies.
The phrase can be implemented encompassed sources that did not explicitly address spatial planning and development but addressed place-making or the planning and governance of changes in natural and built environments related to land use, development, building, and infrastructure provision.
The phrase applicable to encompassed sources that described or evaluated the abstract concept of net-outcome policy objectives or approaches (without applying them to a particular domain). Sources that addressed health net-outcome objectives or approaches in other domains of policy or practice were considered if they described or evaluated the overarching concept of net-outcome policy objectives or approaches, or referred to them in the context of development or spatial planning and development planning policies and practice.
Source contexts were not limited to specific countries, geographical areas, or settings.
Types of sources
Sources of evidence included any type of evidence. The review included sources from both scientific and gray literature.
Methods
This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews,57 and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).58 The a priori protocol for the review55 is registered in OSF (https://osf.io/4dbcm).
Search strategy
The search strategy was not limited by types of evidence source and aimed to locate published and unpublished studies, reviews, opinion papers, policy and briefing papers, reports, articles, transcripts, and any other relevant material. Searches targeted 3 domains: i) sources referencing the specific concept of health NG; ii) sources referencing health terms and net-outcome concepts; and iii) sources describing net-outcome concepts and features of policy objectives and approaches. To avoid inadvertent omission of sources describing net-outcome objectives in other transferable contexts, contextual relevance to spatial planning and development was determined during evidence selection.
An initial search of Scopus and MEDLINE (Ovid) was conducted to identify articles that referenced synonyms of the phrase health net gain or the terms health and net gain. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, and the index terms used to describe them, were reviewed to identify and incorporate additional phrases and terms related to the 3 domains described previously, and to iteratively develop a full search strategy for MEDLINE via Ovid (Appendix I). The search strategy was replicated across all included evidence sources using, or adapting, all identified keywords and index terms, and a second search was undertaken on all databases from August 17, 2023. To update the review, a third search of the databases was undertaken from July 12, 2024. Simplified approaches were used for gray literature databases with limited search functionalities. Search strategies and dates are provided in Appendix I.
Forward and backward (1 level) reference searches of sources included in the review were used to identify additional sources. These were only conducted for included sources that described a stand-alone, primary health net-outcome objective (see row T1, Table 1).
Table 1:
Types and groups of net-outcome objectives described
| Type of net-outcome objective | Group | |
|---|---|---|
| T1 | A stand-alone health or well-being net-outcome objective | Distinct health net-outcome objectives |
| T2 | A net-outcome objective with a subsidiary/secondary health or well-being net-outcome objective | |
| T3 | A composite/multi-outcome net-outcome objective incorporating a specific health or well-being net-outcome objective | |
| T4 | A stand-alone social or community net-outcome objective | Broader net-outcome objectives |
| T5 | A net-outcome objective with a subsidiary/secondary social or community net-outcome objective | |
| T6 | A composite/multi-outcome net-outcome objective relevant to or encompassing health | |
| T7 | A generic net-outcome objective | |
| T8 | Universal features of or considerations for net-outcome objectives (eg, mitigation hierarchies, offsetting, equity) | |
Articles published in any language from database inception to the search dates were included (ie, no date restrictions were applied). Translations from languages other than English were sourced using DeepL (DeepL, Cologne, Germany). Due to the number of evidence sources, resource constraints, and research timelines, automated translations were not subject to further verification. The databases searched were APA PsycINFO (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), HMIC Health Management Information Consortium (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (ProQuest), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ProQuest), PAIS Index (ProQuest), Political Science Database (ProQuest), Worldwide Political Science Abstracts (ProQuest), Social Science Database (ProQuest), Sociology Database (ProQuest), Social Services Abstracts (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Policy File (ProQuest), and Scopus.
Gray literature databases searched were TRIP Pro, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest), and BASE. Limited additional web searches of Google were conducted (using an adapted subset of journal database search strings and reviewing all hits per search).
Source of evidence selection
Search results were imported into EndNote v.20.6 (Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA), de-duplicated following 2 software-specific methodologies,59,60 then transferred to Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) for screening in line with the eligibility criteria. A combination of manual (EndNote) and automated (Covidence) duplicate detection was used after the updated search (in 2024) to remove results that duplicated sources found in the original search.
A pilot test of a sample of 30 titles and abstracts was performed to refine eligibility criteria and reviewers’ guidance prior to screening. The sample comprised 20 randomly selected sources and 10 purposively selected to represent different types and aspects of net-outcome objectives. Next, the titles and abstracts of the first 10% of evidence sources were screened independently by 2 reviewers (JSE and AH). As agreement was >90% (93%), the remaining titles and abstracts were screened by 1 reviewer (JSE). Due to the number of potentially eligible evidence sources, full-text screening was conducted independently by 2 reviewers (JSE and AH; 237/474, 50%, with 72% agreement); the remaining evidence sources were screened by 1 reviewer (JSE). Any disagreements that arose between the reviewers were resolved by consensus. Eligibility criteria permitted inclusion of evidence sources associated with the authors and the review itself. Full-text evidence sources that did not meet the eligibility criteria were excluded and are listed in Appendix II.
Data extraction
Data were extracted from included evidence sources by a single reviewer (JSE) using a data extraction tool developed in Microsoft Excel v.2408 (Microsoft, Washington, USA; Appendix III), with a second reviewer (AH) double-checking a random sample of 10% of sources. Initially, the extracted content from 10 evidence sources was reviewed and used to generate lists of keywords relevant to the following data items: “net” terms, definitions and metrics, principles, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Remaining source documents were subsequently imported into ATLAS.ti V23-24 (Lumivero, CO, US), and paragraphs containing these keywords were tagged (highlighted) to assist identification of potentially relevant content for extraction.
The data extracted included evidence source details and specific details about the characteristics of health net-outcome policy objectives and approaches, and their contextual positioning and implications. Modifications to the protocol’s draft data extraction instrument55 are denoted by annotations in Appendix III and comprised the following:
extraction of additional source details (author or database keywords, URLs)
extraction of data differentiating between net-outcome objectives’ descriptions, definitions, and measurement
supplementary categorization of extracted data describing types of net-outcome objectives
supplementary categorization of source content (source perspectives, scales of objectives’ application).
Appendix III outlines categorical data items and reviewer guidance related to specific data items. Corresponding authors were not contacted for additional information or clarification. Any disagreements that arose between the reviewers were resolved through discussion.
In parallel, the use of a large language model (LLM) Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic, CA, US), was trialed by reviewer JSE to expedite data extraction and review as part of a study within a review (SWAR).61 The LLM and the review protocol were used to extract a subset of data items from the publicly available sources previously selected for human review. LLM data extraction was subsequently compared to the baseline human data extraction. Human data extraction (addressing all data items) was also separately reviewed by the LLM against the original content of sampled sources. The SWAR concluded that while data extraction could be expedited using an LLM, performance was subpar for complex data items. A second LLM review of baseline extraction proved unreliable. Consequently, LLM double-extraction or second review was not pursued beyond the trial sample. Detailed findings from this SWAR are beyond the scope of this manuscript and are reported separately.61
Data analysis and presentation
To facilitate data analysis and presentation, text descriptions of net-outcome objectives were recoded into a standardized acronymic format (eg, HNG: health net gain) then categorized by type and grouped as i) distinct health net-outcome objectives or ii) broader net-outcome objectives (Table 1).
Categorical levels of operationalization of net-outcome objectives were assigned post-extraction after reviewing the data extracted for each source, as were (free-text) specific metrics or broader frameworks. Descriptive content analysis of findings was undertaken, including frequency counts of source characteristics and categorical variables that described net-outcome objectives’ implementation. Heterogeneous text excerpts describing net-objectives, and their contextual positioning and effects, were summarized using alternative techniques, as described hereafter.
A comparative SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis was conducted by aggregating extracted data for each SWOT element of each group of sources for analysis in ATLAS.ti. A concept search was carried out on each element to generate a list of concepts, associated noun phrases, and frequencies (see Supplemental File 1: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A150). Concept nouns were ordered by highest to lowest frequency, and each concept was reviewed (considering associated noun phrases and originating source text contexts) to confirm that it was a relevant SWOT concept (as detailed in the data extraction instrument; Appendix III). If relevant, the concept was summarized using a single bullet point sentence that contained the verbatim concept noun and thematically reflected relevant component noun phrases and originating source text contexts. Concepts that reiterated or elaborated existing bullet points were merged with them (and the combination denoted), unless their associated noun phrases and source contexts emphasized new points, in which case a new bullet point was added to the list. This process was repeated until either all the listed concepts had been reviewed or 5 concepts had been summarized.
This concept search and summary process was repeated for other data extracted as extensive free-text (objective rationale, objective description, net definition, and implementation principles) until 5 concepts had been summarized for each of these 4 data items for each of the 2 groups.
To identify potentially unique concept nouns, ATLAS.ti concept lists were tabulated and cross-referenced within Excel (Supplemental File 1: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A141). Firstly, previously presented frequent concept nouns were highlighted if they were unique within the dataset (ie, unique to a given data extraction target and group). Secondly, for each data extraction target, the 5 most frequently occurring nouns unique to each group (eg, strengths of health objectives that were not strengths of broader objectives) were listed (if count n>2), along with any recurring or notable contextualizing words from their component noun phrases.
As extracted data describing i) health terms and ii) specific metrics and frameworks were, respectively, limited and heterogeneous, their presentation was limited to narrative summary.
Results
Source of evidence inclusion
The search strategy identified 18,684 records and, post-deduplication, 8290 unique records for screening (Figure 162). Title and abstract screening excluded 7804; therefore, 486 evidence sources were sought for retrieval, of which 12 were unavailable. Subsequently, 474 evidence sources were assessed for eligibility, of which 362 were excluded. The main reasons evidence sources were excluded on full-text examination were because they did not describe an explicit net-outcome objective, they did not describe an explicit health net-outcome objective, or the objective or approach described by the source was judged not transferable to other contexts. One exclusion reason was recorded for each excluded evidence source, although multiple exclusion reasons typically applied. Individual reasons for exclusion are summarized in Appendix II.
Figure 1.
Search results and evidence source selection and inclusion/exclusion process62
A further 7 evidence sources were identified from citation searching. Thus, a total of 119 evidence sources were included in the review.4,5,16-20,22-37,45-56,63-146
Characteristics of included evidence sources
The 119 evidence sources dated from 1974 to 2024 (Figure 2, Appendix IV, and Supplemental File 2: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A147), with the earliest sources describing social, community, and composite net-outcome objectives dating from the mid-1990s and the earliest stand-alone health objective dating from 2005. Several sources describing relevant net-outcome objectives were found each year from 2008–2014, after which there was a general upward trend in count per annum. Contributors to this trend comprised, firstly, a few additional sources each year describing generic net-outcome objectives; secondly, an increasing number of sources describing relevant composite net-outcome objectives; and thirdly, from the late 2010s, sources describing secondary and stand-alone health and social objectives.
Figure 2.
Source publication year and type of net-outcome objective described
Figure 3 presents a visual summary of author keywords aggregated for all 119 evidence sources. Prominent keywords were associated with spatial planning and built and economic development (eg, design, assessment, urban, planning, development, sustainable, sustainability), net terms (eg, net, positive, gain, regenerative), the natural environment (eg, environmental, biodiversity, ecological), and health and social outcomes (eg, health, social). Extracted keywords were diverse and related to concepts, specific components of policies and practice, outcomes, spatial scales, stakeholders, and specific issues and considerations. Gains and losses were both addressed (keywords included benefit, gain, loss, cost). The most frequently encountered keywords related to regenerative and sustainable design and development. Health was referenced more often than social. Keywords addressing the environment (and biodiversity) were more frequent than health or social terms, which were more frequent than economic terms (Figure 3).
Figure 3.
Word cloud of author keyword frequencies (where n>1) from included evidence sources
Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown of the characteristics of the included sources. These are grouped by the type of net-outcome objective described to facilitate the presentation of results. Tables S1 and S2 in Supplemental File 3 (http://links.lww.com/SRX/A148) also present selected characteristics grouped by source perspectives and countries of origin. Drawing from these tables, source characteristics are described firstly overall (characteristics of all 119 sources), then by type of net-outcome objective (T1–T8; Table 2).
Table 2:
Characteristics of included sources, grouped by the type of net-outcome objective described
Key to codes abbreviating net-outcome objectives’ targets and outcomes in columns presenting primary and specific health net-outcome objective:
Targets: *, multi-objective; B, biodiversity; C, community; E, environmental; H, health; N, nature; S, social; W, well-being.
Outcomes: DNH+, do no harm or better off; NG, net gain; NNL, no net loss; NO, net outcome; NWO, no worse off; NWO+, no worse off or better off. Outcomes precede targets (in brackets) for generic net-outcome objectives (T7) and universal features (T8).
Harvey balls (round symbols; 5 quarters) and vertical bar icon sets (5 ratings) represent each cell value within quintile bands of row total numbers of evidence sources.
A complete version of this table is available in Supplemental File 4: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A149
Included sources predominantly dated from 2020 (65/119) or 2010–2019 (46/119). Eighty-six of 119 sources were academic (books, journals, or theses), with a comparatively higher proportion of gray literature sources among stand-alone social (type T4, 9/13), health (T1, 7/12), and secondary health (T2, 4/12) objectives (Appendix IV and Supplemental File 2: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A147 provide a breakdown of types of evidence source). Overall, the most frequent target outcome was NG (92/119), with fewer evidence sources describing a target of NNL (14/119), or both (13/119). The most frequent specific primary objectives described were multi-outcome NG (40/119), community NG (11/119), and health NG (11/119). Design and development (34/119) and conservation (31/119) together comprised >50% of source perspectives, followed by public health perspectives (12/119, which were exclusive to sources describing stand-alone health objectives, T1) and spatial planning perspectives (12/119, which primarily related to sources describing stand-alone social objectives [T4, 8/12]).
Word counts of extracted document aims indicated that net was the word most frequently mentioned across the 119 sources (47 counts, 2.4% of words). Other more frequently mentioned words varied, with none comprising a high percentage (>1.7%) of extracted words. Countries of origin were almost exclusively (112/119) advanced economies (as defined by the International Monetary Fund) from Europe, North America, or Australasia, as were countries of policy application (UK 18/119, Australia 9/119), although the review considered most objectives described to be universally applicable (87/119). The scales of application most often addressed by sources were the project level (85% across all sources, ranging from 75–100% within types of net-outcome objective), and local/regional (61%, 40–92%) and national (53%, 23–83%) policy levels; the city level was a less frequent focus of policy application (20%, 0–40%).
Characteristics of sources describing specific types of net-outcome objectives
Sources describing universal features and considerations (T8, 13/119) derived these primarily from environmental and biodiversity-oriented contexts. Mitigation was a notable author keyword focus. Dominant perspectives reflected conservation (5/13), assessment (3/13), and regulation (2/13) and international to local policies with a project-level application. Similar environmental and conservation focuses were displayed by sources describing generic net-outcome objectives (T7, 12/119), although these included design and development perspectives (5/12) and more frequently emphasized organizational and international, rather than national or sub-national, policy scales.
Composite, multi-outcome objectives (T6) were the type of net-outcome objective most frequently described by sources (50/119). Perspectives comprised primarily design and development (25/50), together with corporate (8/50) and conservation (7/50). Author and document-aim keywords reflected a common focus on sustainable or regenerative development, emphasizing building, project and system scales of application.
In an additional 5/119 cases, composite, multi-outcome objectives incorporated a specific health objective (T3). Perspectives included design and development (n=3), extractive industries (n=1), and spatial planning (n=1); restoration was a notable document-aim keyword. All 5 sources addressed the project scale, with (although noting only 5 sources in this group) more emphasis on the international and organizational policy scales than composite outcomes without a specific health objective (T6).
Social net-outcome objectives (T4, 13/119) were distinguished by a higher proportion of earlier publication dates (4/13 <2009) in comparison to other types of objective and perspectives from spatial planning (8/13) and extractive industries (3/13). These sources originated mainly from Australia (9/13) and Canada (3/13), describing objectives of social (2/13) and community NG (11/13) with a distinct focus on project-level application and local or regional policy.
Secondary health (T2, 12/119) and social (T5, 2/119) objectives were primarily associated with biodiversity net-outcome objectives (13/14) described by authors from the UK (11/14). While T2 sources described specific well-being objectives, the keyword social was also emphasized in their author and document-aim keywords. There was a distinct focus on application at the project (rather than building, city, or system) level and both spatially and organizationally oriented policies.
Most sources describing stand-alone health net-outcome objectives (T1) were published from 2021 by UK authors (10/12) representing public health perspectives (12/12). Due in part to publication and search phasing, these included the review protocol itself and related publications addressing the application of net-outcome objectives to health in spatial planning, emphasizing potential application in the UK context (see individual sources detailed in Appendix IV and Supplemental File 2: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A147). Notable author keywords included risks and environmental, health, and planning.
Review findings
Net-objective and approach: characteristics
Table 3 presents the characteristics of distinct health (n=29, types T1–T3) and broader (n=90, types T4–T8) net-objectives and their approaches. Sources describing broader objectives often referred to the need to overcome sustainability challenges, particularly climate change, by moving targets from neutrality or harm minimization to positive outcomes for socioecological systems. Sources describing health objectives emphasized human health and well-being as narrower target outcomes; some described the specific need to link biodiversity policies to their social outcomes. These concepts were reflected in both rationales and descriptions of objectives, which typically applied to economic and built development. Health objectives frequently referenced the project level, while broader objectives included unique concept words related to corporate objectives and activities.
Table 3:
Characteristics of net-objectives and approaches, grouped by types of net-outcome objective described
| Data extraction target | Grouped objectives | Frequent concepts (first 5, contextualized) | Potentially unique concept words* (first 5, n>2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rationale(s) for net-outcome objective(s) | Distinct health | • Prioritising the protection and targeted improvement of health (#34/12) and well-being (#15/9) | • crisis (#5): energy, economic, climate, multiple, preparedness |
| (T1–T3) | |||
| (28 of 29 sources) | • Linking changes in biodiversity (#22/9) to social impacts and people’s (#22/10) values, health, and well-being | • aim (#3): overarching, strategic | |
| • EU (#3): policymaking | |||
| • Realizing environmental and health benefits through sustainable economic, urban, and housing development (#18/10) | |||
| Broader | • Overcoming sustainability (#24/17) challenges through reconceived development (#35/25) paradigms that move beyond minimization of negative impacts (#20) to demonstrably “do more good” | • climate (#11): change, crisis, neutrality, restoration, advocates | |
| (T4–T8) | |||
| (77 of 90 sources) | • Addressing, maintaining, and strengthening integrated socio-ecological systems (#22/17) | • decade (#7): past, recent, next | |
| • Broadening or specifying the scope of concepts, goals, or approaches used in environmental or spatial planning policy (#21/14) | • ambition (#5): government, EU | ||
| • discourse (#5): motivating positive, regenerative | |||
| • emission (#5): carbon, greenhouse gas | |||
| Description(s) of net-outcome objective(s) | Distinct health | • Delivering health (#24/13) or well-being net-outcomes via new, or changes to existing, development (#28/11) or development projects (#28/10) | N/A |
| (T1–T3) | |||
| (29 of 29 sources) | • Maintaining or improving health or well-being via biodiversity (#25/9) policies, projects, activities, or offsets | ||
| • Delivering health net gains (#24/16) or ensuring affected people are no worse off post-development | |||
| Broader | • Delivering community, ecological, environmental, or social net gain (#34/24) through sustainable economic or built development (#37/30) | • net positive (#7): goal | |
| (T4–T8) | • hurdle (#6): footprint, goal | ||
| (84 of 90 sources) | • Avoiding, minimizing or mitigating negative impacts and preferably going beyond compensation or offsetting (ie, beyond a no net loss [#24/18] criterion) to deliver wider, synergistic net positive impacts (#33/24) or benefits (#26/21) | • win (#6): win-win approach | |
| • asset (#5): natural capital, natural, environmental | |||
| • chain (#4): supply, customer, value | |||
| Net-outcome definition/characterization and/or metric(s) | Distinct health | • Characterizing changes in specified people’s (#51/10) well-being (#64/10) using qualitative and quantitative indicators, addressing well-being’s different dimensions (material, subjective, and relational), individual (disaggregated) components, and spatiotemporal scales | • income (#7): household |
| (T1–T3) | • success (#5): measure | ||
| (21 of 29 sources) | • Characterizing changes in specified people’s health (#46/11), addressing health’s various aspects (eg, determinants of health; health needs and priorities; physical, mental, and population health outcomes) and spatiotemporal scales | • World Bank (#5): third phase, funded projects | |
| • Characterizing impacts on people specifically associated with changes in biodiversity (#48/10); biodiversity-related needs, values, and activities; and ecosystem service provision | • habitat (#3) | ||
| • Characterizing baselines and trends and comparing health and well-being pre- and post-development (#42/13) | • situation (#3): pre-project, their, a given | ||
| Broader | • Characterizing development’s (#87/31) positive and negative environmental, social, and/or economic impacts (#123/37), considering historic impacts and trends; cumulative impacts; the scales, acceptability, and significance of impacts; and the balance across a spectrum of impacts and spatiotemporal scales | • estate (#16): public | |
| (T4–T8) | • base (#15): ecological, case | ||
| • basis (#14): regional, biophysical, community-wide, area-wide, quantitative, consistent, rigorous, proper | |||
| (78 of 90 sources) | • Defining net gains (#75/28) or benefits (#87/32), inter alia, either as an unfixed decision criteria (ie, ultimately a context-dependent matter for communities or decision-makers) or through assessment of processes and/or outcomes (using qualitative or quantitative measures, including criteria-based tests, scoring, or cost-benefit accounting exercises) | • expectancy (#12): life, health | |
| • Characterizing baselines and effects with reference to inter-dependent human and natural systems (#77/25) and their current and future capacities to support life | • resilience (#12): ecological, ecosystem, flood | ||
| Implementation principle(s) and/or steps | Distinct health | • Addressing and involving defined groups of people (#138/19)— potentially focusing on significantly-affected, poor, or marginalized groups within a project’s area of influence—incorporating principles of distributional, procedural, and recognition equity, and recognizing that stakeholder groups and considerations change over time | • consultation (#17): close, comprehensive, equitable, participatory, planning |
| • pap (#13): different, individual, experiences, indirectly affected | |||
| (T1–T3) | |||
| • aggregation (#12): units, groups | |||
| • choice (#12): experiments, maintenance and operational | |||
| • Aligning or reconciling biodiversity (#129/13) and social agendas, objectives, considerations, approaches, and stakeholders | |||
| (28 of 29 sources) | |||
| • Embedding the strategic aim of improving health (#102/15) and well-being (#115/11) in national and local spatial planning policy and design codes and operationalizing it in policy, place and project-level design, assessment, and decision-making | |||
| • expert (#10): social, biodiversity, independent, suitably qualified, judgements | |||
| • Addressing negative impacts (#115/17) within a mitigation hierarchy: preventing, avoiding, and minimizing harms and compensating or offsetting unavoidable residual impacts only as a last resort | |||
| Broader | • Addressing negative impacts (#330/55) within a mitigation hierarchy: preventing, avoiding and minimizing harms and compensating or offsetting unavoidable residual impacts only as a last resort | • boundary (#33): system, spatial, planetary, temporal, growth, site, project, building, hard, reasonable, impact | |
| (T4–T8) | |||
| (88 of 90 sources) | |||
| • Multiplying, maximizing or directing positive impacts and benefits (#227/44), including through policy recognition of opportunities, synergies and wider or co-benefits; provision of public goods; or targeting of benefits to reduce inequalities | |||
| • Operationalizing net-outcome objectives through holistic development (#214/55) policies, regulations, standards, plans, and processes (including design, assessment, and decision-making) | |||
| • Adopting new worldviews and systems (#187/49) paradigms to effect change across systems | |||
| • Conceptualizing projects (#163/38) as collaborations for positive change, seeking enduring flows of benefits |
EU, European Union; pap, project-affected persons.
Unique across all targets = unique by comparison to all data extraction targets presented in Tables 3, 6, and 7 for both groups. Recurring or notable words in component noun phrases are presented in italics to aid contextualization.
Note: underlined frequent concepts denote a concept that was also unique between groups = unique to this data extraction target by comparison with the other group.
Note: 2nd column: n1 of n2 sources = number of sources for which data extraction is not blank, “N/A”, “Unstated” or “Aggregated (not extracted)”/total number of sources in that group.
Note: 3rd column: (#n3/n4) = count of concept word frequency/number of separate sources referencing the concept word.
Broad net-objectives’ definitions of NGs and benefits (Table 3) reflected a range of characterizations from unfixed criteria to assessed processes or outcomes. Baselines and effects were often described at the system level, with a particular emphasis on historic impacts and ecological resilience. In contrast, changes in the health and well-being of specified and grouped people pre- and post-development were a unique focus of health objectives, which referenced both socioeconomic (eg, income) and environmental (eg, biodiversity) determinants of health. Health terms were extracted from 18 of 29 sources describing health objectives (see Appendix IV and Supplemental File 2: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A147). References to “health” typically reflected the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of health as a “state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”147(para.1) Similarly, references to “well-being”, which was typically the focal term, were often defined with reference to health as a component of well-being. Health and well-being terms were less frequently extracted from sources (10 of 90) describing broader objectives: most definitions addressed health, welfare, and well-being (as previous) similarly; however, health was defined by life expectancy in 2 cases, and 2 sources referred to a socioecological “health of the whole” or planetary health.
Both groups of objectives described the use of qualitative and quantitative measures and the importance of considering multiple impacts and scales (Table 3). Data extracted from 39 of 90 sources describing broader objectives referenced specific metrics or frameworks (see Appendix IV and Supplemental File 2: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A147). These were typically assessment frameworks: forms of cost-benefit analysis (n=6), environmental impact assessment (n=5), and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (n=3) were most frequently referenced. Within text extracted from 10 of 29 sources describing health objectives, the conservation intervention well-being framework of Woodhouse et al.148 was most frequently noted (n=4).
Implementation principles described the operationalization of broader objectives from development policies to practice (Table 3): sources emphasized the role of collaborative projects and the importance of identifying opportunities and multiplying, maximizing, or directing benefits from the design phase onward. The adoption of new worldviews to effect change across systems was frequently described by broader objectives, with a particular focus on boundaries. Both groups of objectives referred to the application of a mitigation hierarchy or component steps (eg, avoid, minimize, mitigate, compensate, offset). Health objectives referenced the specific improvement of health and well-being as a strategic policy aim implemented throughout the planning system, highlighting the roles of consultations and decisions (choices) and the potential need to align or reconcile social and biodiversity objectives. People were frequently referenced with respect to considerations or principles of distributional, procedural, and recognition equity; the role of experts as stakeholders was also noted.
The review characterized the level at which net outcomes were emphasized by sources (Table 4, also see Tables S3 and S4 in Supplemental File 3: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A148). Twenty-eight sources focused on processes (level 2) such as implementation steps and procedural aspects of policies and practice (including the majority [9/13] of sources describing universal features and considerations). More sources described net outcomes as an overarching requirement (levels 1A and 1B, n=52) than an assessed outcome (levels 3A and 3B, n=39), with the highest proportion of the former describing stand-alone health objectives (overarching requirement: 9/12) and the highest proportion of the latter describing stand-alone social objectives (assessed outcome: 10/13). Of the sources describing overarching requirements, these were locally defined in a minority of cases (25%, 13/52), while of the sources describing assessed net outcomes, the majority (77%, 30/39) described determinations (eg, assessments or decisions) that were locally defined.
Table 4:
Net-outcome level emphasized, grouped by the type of net-outcome objective described
Net-outcome level emphasized: 1A, overarching requirement; 1B, overarching requirement (locally defined); 2, enhanced process; 3A, assessed outcome; 3B, assessed outcome (locally defined).
Harvey balls (round symbols; 5 quarters) represent each cell value within quintile bands of row total numbers of evidence sources.
Objective and approach: contextual positioning and effects
To contextualize and summarize relevant characteristics of net-outcome objectives and approaches described by evidence sources included in this review, Table 5 adapts and applies a framework used to develop and describe well-being net-objectives.90,149
Table 5:
Characteristics of net-outcome objectives and approaches found by the review with reference to relevant issues and questions in net-outcome policy and practice
| Issues in net-outcome policy and practice (adapted from Maron et al.149) | Perspectives from included evidence sources describing health and broader net-outcome objectives (summary commentary and example evidence sources) |
|---|---|
| What values are important? | Sources included in the review emphasized conservation and sustainability principles. Net-policies potentially reinforce market values107 and can create value conflicts related to contested valuations of nature or people’s well-being.119,120 Potential value conflicts were also noted between deep sustainability and humanism.64 The principles underpinning different assessment methodologies vary5,104 and embed value judgments relevant to decision-makers.136 Inclusive, transparent processes were recommended.71 Sources raised the importance of equity considerations,30,66,104 and suggested collaborative agreement of important values. Justice and social acceptability4 were other relevant considerations.17,85 |
| Ethical basis | Some sources suggested that consideration of social, environmental, or economic benefits and costs was a moral obligation28,124 or matter of global security.89 There are ethical objections to accounting approaches that feature commodification and monetization.19,119 Aggregation of social good raises considerations of moral permissibility and questions of restrictions and human and individual rights.95 Sources variously described principles of utilitarianism (maximizing net benefits) and egalitarianism (narrowing disparities) and the setting of social (and ecological) safeguards. |
| Net outcome compared with what? | Reference scenarios must consider overarching goals (affected by multiple factors) and narrower impact-specific policy goals.103 Comparisons entail reasoned choices between fixed and dynamic reference points and consideration of pre- and post-development trends and redress of accumulated historic harms. |
| Some sources characterized the realization of net-outcome objectives as not defined by the comparative quantification of outcomes and instead defined subjectively by decision-makers63 or with reference to following design processes and approaches that address capacities, flows, impacts, or positive opportunities.91,118,125 | |
| Net outcome of what? | Measurement can characterize diverse social, environmental, and economic determinants of health and aspects of health and well-being or narrow the focus to single monetary or other outcome measures, such as life expectancy.49,52,90 Environmental and natural capital net gain policies characterize environmental pressures, assets, and flows of benefits (ecosystem services) that influence human well-being.23,100 The use of both qualitative and quantitative methods was suggested by multiple sources with respect to multiple measures of people’s well-being. Well-being has material, subjective, and relational dimensions and encompasses objective and subjective elements related to human benefits and preferences. Well-being also has both causal and constitutive contributors.119 |
| In contrast to sources describing accounting approaches, some sources describing socioecological net gain emphasized mapping of the states of and interactions within complex systems and the qualitative social dimensions of transformational change.122,138 Local and global impacts are potentially relevant, as is the consideration of carrying capacities and thresholds.127,142 | |
| Net outcome for whom? | Building-design teams address future users, and project-level perspectives expand the focus to project-affected persons, communities, and project lifetimes.25 Assessment of net outcomes typically requires aggregation of individuals and definition of “appropriate” groups. Equity and scale are important when considering those potentially affected by development.24,66,90,92,104 The common context of sustainable development prompted consideration of intergenerational effects.142 Sources describing regenerative perspectives emphasized multi-scalar spatial and system-level framings.86,115,122 |
| Applying the mitigation hierarchy | Mitigation hierarchies are established in environmental and planning policies,133,141 but net framing could undesirably predispose development towards compensation or offsetting of residual harms when this should be a last resort.75,107 One source suggested that net policies might accordingly separate the delivery of net outcomes from offset mechanisms.107 |
| Capturing uncertainty and time lags | The latency of the effect of environmental changes on health is diverse, and attribution of causality is often uncertain (and may hinder explorative problem framing and solution finding118). Included sources noted that corresponding use of multipliers or “offsets for uncertainty” to strengthen harm offset requirements is debated in environmental policy.88,107,108 Transitional activities to address short-term impacts28 and evaluation over project lifecycles90 were suggested. |
| Accounting approach | Assessments of environmental changes and changes in health and well-being typically simplify complexity and may embed value loss.107,126 While multi-capital accounting may broaden understanding of impacts, quantification may exclude other forms of value.54 |
| Agency problems | Net policies and practices presume particular forms of actors and can create or reinforce subjectivities.107 Agency considerations included differing political, institutional, and stakeholder priorities (eg, noting profit-led development54,142) and power imbalances.71,92 |
| Development contributions | Some sources suggested a potential role for financial, non-financial, or in-kind developer contributions within health net-outcome objectives.45,77 Broader objectives targeted positive (developer) contributions across environmental or environmental, social, and economic dimensions and the possible redistributive role of financial measures, such as revenue funds, was suggested.31,93,106,142 |
| Monitoring, evaluation, and auditing | Sources noted that goals (and progress towards them) may be locally defined through participatory processes,53,130 and emergent (unpredictable) benefits and opportunities could only be evaluated retrospectively.91 Suggested audit principles included transparency and independence.100 |
The most frequently mentioned inherent strengths of broader objectives (Table 6) were setting and realizing the expectation of wider-scale positive sociological benefits in furthering sustainable development. Related sources describing the specific objective of positive development emphasized the value of design-led (rather than policy or decision-dependent) approaches as a means of resolving conflicts and securing public benefits. Inherent weaknesses frequently related to issues of valuation, rights, and justice associated with balance-sheet conceptualizations, and the compensation and offsetting of negative impacts. The practical determination of the scope and nature of baselines and impacts were frequently raised assessment challenges addressed in detail by many sources.
Table 6:
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) analysis of sources describing broader net-outcome objectives relevant to health (types T4-T8)
| SWOT analysis | Frequent concepts (first 5, contextualized) | Potentially unique concept words* (first 5, n>2) |
|---|---|---|
| Strengths (54 of 90 sources) | • Emphasising the creation of wider-scale positive impacts (#68/23), rather than (only) reducing negative impacts | • actor (#14): footprint, individual, multiple |
| • Resolving conflicts and increasing positive opportunities and local to systemwide socioecological (public) benefits through area-specific, design-led (#58/12) buildings, projects, and cities (exemplified by positive development, PD [#48/5]) rather than indirect policy approaches or existing decision-making processes | • capability (#8): sustainability, HDI and EF | |
| • reduction (#8): footprint, industrialized world, binding absolute | ||
| • Furthering sustainable development (#54/22) objectives and collaboratively defining societal expectations regarding the distribution of specific financial or socioecological benefits (#49/25) and solutions (related to existing needs, deficits, or objections) by projects | ||
| • SHINE (#8): handprint framework, scope | ||
| • innovation (#7): efficient, analysis, system | ||
| Weaknesses (58 of 90 sources) | • Agreeing the scope of relevant impacts (#56/24) and priority and permissibility, noting that co-benefits are not guaranteed, the effectiveness of mitigation varies and some negative impacts cannot be mitigated, trade-offs are foreseeable, and cumulative effects are challenging to assess or address | • EA (#10): systems, implementation, frameworks |
| • right (#8): private, private property, nature and animal | ||
| • Characterizing baselines and defining and demonstrating benefits (#41/18; ie, assuring that net-outcome objectives are met), particularly if future benefits are indirect, uncertain, subject to redistribution, or held to be strictly incommensurate | ||
| • Predisposing policy (#39/12) towards balance sheet logic, raising issues associated with commodification, valuation and value (#37/16) conflicts (such as omission of dimensions of value relevant to human well-being), over-simplification, and potential exacerbation of social injustice (through procedural or distributive effects) | ||
| • Specifying compensation (#39/9) and offsetting measures, raising further issues associated with assessment, design, implementation, and governance (eg, location constraints, irreplaceability, equivalence, additionality, and permanence) | ||
| Opportunities (67 of 90 sources) | • Using and developing impact (#43/23) assessment frameworks and methodologies, including regulatory, sustainability, strategic, environmental, social, and life-cycle impact assessment; impact wheels; cost-benefit analysis; and multi-criteria decision analysis | • construction (#7): sustainable, industry, processes, activities, materials |
| • planner (#7) | ||
| • Broadening targeted benefits (#36/20) to incorporate climate, biodiversity, health, equity, or different value (#33/10) considerations; rewarding location and context-sensitive development that delivers public goods and benefits wider socioecological systems | • sector (#7): standards, aggregate, private, third, partnerships | |
| • thinking (#7): ecosystemic, futures, joined-up, life cycle, natural capital, regenerative | ||
| • Incorporating net-objectives and mitigation hierarchies in spatial planning (#34/13) and urban and organizational policy (#35/20), strategies, processes, practices, and building standards; linking regional planning and strategic assessment of opportunities with site and project-level masterplans, assessments, permit applications and amendments | ||
| Threats (58 of 90 sources) | • Emphasising negative impacts (#49/26), mitigation, and resource and efficiency considerations, noting status quo limitations include consideration of distributional and compensation issues, and the cumulative, inter-related and systems-level socioecological effects of development | • program (#7): current, firms, corporate social responsibility, rehabilitation |
| • safety (#7): health, physical, public, policy, standards, levels | ||
| • Limiting the scope of development (#39/21) through inconsistent, narrow, or overly-prescriptive regulations, sustainability (#32/16) standards, and institutional and organizational practices that restrict consideration of positive opportunities and socioecological benefits (#32/16) related to alternative development models, project designs, and locations | ||
| • team (#7): design, cohesive | ||
| • factor (#6): psychological, dread | ||
| • response (#6): market, disaster, policy, singular | ||
| • Conflicting policy (#32/12) objectives and unresolved tensions between economic, environmental, and social objectives |
EA, environmental assessment; EF, environmental footprint; HDI, human development index; PD, positive development; SHINE, The Sustainability and Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise
Note: underlined frequent concepts denote a concept that was also unique between groups = unique to this data extraction target by comparison with the other group
Opportunities within the context of a SWOT analysis (Table 6) are external factors or aspects of the external environment that net-outcome policies could leverage to their advantage. Frequently described opportunities included the potential expansion of the scope of broader objectives and incorporation of new ways of thinking and different value considerations, with an emphasis on incentivizing or rewarding the future provision of public and socioecological system-wide benefits.
Spatial planning policies and processes were often referenced as potential delivery mechanisms; the related contributions of planners, sector partnerships, and sustainable construction practices were highlighted. The use and development of existing impact assessment frameworks and methods was commonly suggested as a response to associated status quo challenges. External threats described by sources describing broader objectives related to, firstly, entrenched preoccupation with negative impacts and a limited scope of thinking and assessments that was also reflected in development and (in particular) sustainability policies, standards, and practice; and, secondly, conflicts between the component (economic, environmental, and social) objectives of sustainable development itself. Notable concepts included potential issues created by market and policy responses, psychological factors, and teams involved with development projects.
Strengths frequently described in relation to distinct health objectives (Table 7) included the protection and improvement of health and, in particular, people’s well-being within the wider framework of sustainable development, and the role of such objectives as vehicles to more comprehensively address social, moral, and ethical considerations and equity. Notable associated concepts were the building of trust, social acceptability, and social licenses to operate. Conservation and biodiversity activities were frequently considered to be potential beneficiaries of linked social objectives. On the other hand, conflicts between health and other policy objectives were frequently mentioned weaknesses, as was the question of defining health and reconciling net-objectives with other (eg, equity) principles. Spatial exchanges were highlighted as a particular distributional issue. In common with broader objectives (Table 6), measurement and characterization were frequently mentioned weaknesses. Health objectives specifically focused on challenges associated with the characterization of well-being and the distribution of impacts on people (eg, individuals and groups), and issues associated with valuation, monetization, and compensation.
Table 7:
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) analysis of sources describing distinct health net-outcome objectives (types T1-T3)
| SWOT analysis | Frequent concepts (first 5, contextualized) | Potentially unique concept words* (first 5, n>2) |
|---|---|---|
| Strengths (17 of 29 sources) | • Demonstrably preventing and reducing health (#27/7) harms and promoting, improving, maintaining, or maximizing health, well-being, (#18/8) and equity benefits | • engagement (#4): local, meaningful |
| • license (#4): social | ||
| • acceptability (#3): social | ||
| • trust (#3) | ||
| • Comprehensively addressing social considerations; people’s (#27/9) relationships, values, priorities, preferences, and rights; and impacts on people | ||
| • Enhancing the transparency, acceptability, sustainability, equity, or efficacy of conservation and biodiversity (#19/8) activities | ||
| • Incentivizing sustainable development (#16/8) aligned with ethical or moral principles and the delivery of social, health, and well-being benefits | ||
| Weaknesses (19 of 29 sources) | • Characterizing well-being (#34/7), noting assessment challenges associated with data collection, inclusivity, subjectivity, aggregation (reconciliation of individual and population levels), quantification, and variation over time | • AOI (#3) |
| • consumer (#3) | ||
| • diversity (#3) | ||
| • Appropriately identifying and compensating affected people (#29/9), noting impacts (#23/10) vary spatiotemporally and contextually and issues are associated with aggregation, people’s changing values, irreplaceable impacts, and monetization | ||
| • exchange (#3): spatial | ||
| • Defining health (#23/7) net-objectives, noting potential conflicts between net- and inequalities-related goals and between health and other policy objectives, such as biodiversity (#23/8), and uncertainties associated with causality and the prediction of (differentiated negative and positive) health outcomes | ||
| Opportunities (25 of 29 sources) | • Linking health (#74/13) net-objectives with climate and health issues; environmental, energy, or spatial planning policy (#43/12); building design standards, codes and guidance; developer contributions; and health impact assessments and indicators | • technique (#7): qualitative, indirect questioning, quantitative, economic valuation, economic nonmarket valuation |
| • legislation (#6): country-specific, human rights | ||
| • code (#5): design | ||
| • operationalisation (#5): earlier or upstream, further | ||
| • Addressing existing international to local commitments to sustainable and equitable development (#43/11), specific development policies and processes, and specific development phases (encompassing design, construction, and operational lifetimes) | ||
| • threshold (#5): social, effects | ||
| • Applying, developing, and integrating impact (#39/14) assessment frameworks, methodologies, and capacities, and addressing uncertainties associated with the scope, measurement, timescales, and acceptability of impacts through research | ||
| • Learning from the operationalisation of biodiversity (#36/10) and other environmental net-outcome objectives, and broadening their scope to include social, health or well-being considerations | ||
| Threats (21 of 29 sources) | • Assessing impacts (#25/11) of development (#22/12), noting status quo limitations of late (post-design) phasing; scope; disaggregation of economic, environmental and social impacts and disciplines; emphasis on project-level direct and first-order effects; exclusion or deprioritization of subjective and relational elements; and insufficient resourcing or expertise | • agency (#3): different |
| • difference (#3): large | ||
| • link (#3): explicit | ||
| • user (#3) | ||
| • Incorporating health (#21/9) and well-being (#18/3) in policy (#23/9), noting status quo heterogeneity with respect to policy definition, inclusion or exclusion of health and well-being; variable emphasis on health costs versus benefits; institutional barriers including roles and resources; potential duplication; and issues of integration, primacy and conflicts between health and other policy objectives |
AOI, area of influence
Note: underlined frequent concepts denote a concept that was also unique between groups = unique to this data extraction target by comparison with the other group
The linking of health, specifically, to other current issues and policies was a frequently cited opportunity, as well as its incorporation within spatial planning policies and practice. Health objectives were often referenced as a means of supporting broader international to local commitments to sustainable development. The operationalization of environmental and biodiversity net-outcome policies was referenced as both an opportunity to integrate health and well-being and a model that could inform development of other net-objectives. In common with broader objectives, the use and development of existing impact assessment frameworks was commonly suggested, highlighting both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Design codes and earlier operationalization (within planning and other processes) were noted opportunities. Health objectives also emphasized threats associated with limitations in impact assessment practice. Challenges related to existing and future policy incorporation and integration of health and well-being were often described. The definition, scope, and priority of health and well-being was contextualized as a broader challenge as well as a potentially inherent weakness of health net-objectives themselves.
Discussion
This review found that although there is increasing interest in net-objectives as explicit targets to prioritize health in spatial planning and development and narrow entrenched inequalities, examples of distinct health net-objectives were immature. Authors describing such objectives from 2019 onwards, including authors directly and indirectly associated with this review, typically presented health NG as a hypothetical requirement rather than explicating approaches. It is, therefore, timely to consider potentially transferable implementation models and their implications. This review has also characterized broader net-objectives relevant to health and well-being to inform ongoing exploration and operationalization of dedicated health net-objectives. Evidence sources presented diverse perspectives, and notable review findings are discussed hereafter mainly in the context of the wider spatial planning and health literature.
The emergence and evolving scope of net-outcome objectives applicable to health in spatial planning
The different types of health net-objectives found by this review and their chronological development have parallels with the historical progression of public health objectives, which originate in the protection of people from acute environmental harms and sanitary issues created by urban development.11,150,151 During the developed world’s industrialization and urbanization, environmental protections (and frameworks such as the mitigation hierarchy featured in some net-outcome objectives) were determined and implemented, and the focus broadened and shifted towards chronic diseases and health’s social determinants. Holistic approaches to health are latterly exemplified by concepts such as planetary health in the spatial planning and public health literature.42,43,152,153
In recent decades, references to multidimensional, multidisciplinary research addressing socioecological concepts have become more frequent in the urban health literature than traditional references to the built environment.154 This review found many environmental and socioecological NG objectives relevant to health. These often made the case that environmental damage has accumulated despite protections, and existential environmental threats to health must once more be prioritized (and residual harms redressed) by the planning system, only now addressing both proximate and diffuse aspects.127,142,152,153
The different types of net-outcome objectives found during the conduct of the review include examples of this converging socioecological focus: social objectives incorporating environmental objectives and vice versa. It found examples of ecological objectives, such as biodiversity NG, that have recently moved to incorporate nature-linked aspects of people’s well-being. New health net-outcome objectives might continue or diverge from this path. Although the WHO constitution’s definition of health as a state of well-being147 was a reference common to distinct health and conservation-oriented well-being net-objectives found by the authors of this review, it is notable that anthropocentric net-objectives focused on people’s needs, and their concept of health and well-being differed in scope, focus, and emphasis from broader biocentric objectives that addressed system-level socioecological capacities for life support. These are fundamental considerations for future objective specification and are relevant to would-be net-outcome policymakers when setting the scope and boundaries of policy objectives.
This review found differing concepts of net-outcome objectives, and some evidence sources presented a distinct focus on the state and functioning of multi-scalar socioecological systems in contrast to measuring changes at the scale of individual development projects. In spatial planning, this has potential implications for the design and assessment of development projects and monitoring of health net-outcome policies. The discussion summarizes system and assessment-oriented net-objectives found by this review before commenting further on their potential incorporation within existing approaches.
Systems-oriented net-objectives
Systems-oriented net-objectives often focused on system states and dynamic interactions rather than outcomes, sometimes presenting net-outcome objectives as frameworks for the characterization of places and participative mapping and realization of opportunities to meet needs and support thriving socioecological systems.33,72,81,122,125 This review found sources pushing for building designers to look beyond occupants, and for policymakers and developers to look beyond sites and neighborhoods to systems.31,32,35,64,82,87,112, For net-outcome policymakers seeking to address health through spatial plans and development management, this implies expansion of the temporal, spatial, and systemic scales in question, and consideration of both direct and indirect effects. Furthermore, evidence sources that emphasized the health of socioecological systems often advocated conceptual frameworks and processes that emphasized an ongoing process of identifying and realizing opportunities for health creation. The translation into policy and development processes deserves further exploration, and a related step is to consider the role of healthy design principles and post-development interactions between built and natural environments and society.
There are potential opportunities to integrate aspects of systems-oriented socioecological net-objectives with existing initiatives. Urban resilience entails appraisal of the vulnerabilities and strengths of urban systems, considering multiple hazards and cascading effects.155 An analogous vision for the continuous improvement of health through supportive physical and social environments is integral to established health-promotion initiatives such as the WHO Healthy Cities program.156-158 Healthy city planning also emphasizes an integrated focus on neighborhoods, the city center, and the region, and the WHO’s characteristics of a healthy city encompass economic, social, physical, and ecosystem health.156 Evidence sources found by this review that presented regenerative or socioecological objectives responding to the impacts of economic development typically contested lines drawn between human and ecological health.31,74,102,105,138 If drawing from these net-objectives in future, differences perhaps lie in the relative importance placed on the capacity of natural systems to support themselves as a precondition for the built and natural environments to support human health. There are related debates over the primacy of the economic, social, and environmental components of sustainable development.159,160 These considerations are all relevant to would-be policymakers when deciding how to define health itself within a health net-outcome objective.
Accounting-oriented net-objectives
This review found that, overall, net-outcome objectives relevant to health were predisposed towards the measurement of outcomes (typically at the development project level), which might aid future operationalization, as this is also an established focus of urban health.5,19,34,52,54,98,102,117,135,136,153,161,162 A perceived strength of some objectives found by this review was an explicit requirement for neutrality or improvement—which arguably requires measurement—but accounting mechanisms entailed the prediction and balancing of gains and losses within frameworks predisposed towards the facilitation of exchanges and were contested.75,107,119,120,149 To illustrate, one source advocated cost-benefit analysis in assessments of community NG; however, in project appraisal, the applicability of economic values to social and environmental capital is contested and considered by some a barrier to stakeholder debate.5,163 Uncertainties and issues related to valuation, assessment, and exchange (ie, value incommensurability) were challenges commonly reported in relation to established ecological and environmental net-outcome objectives, but these challenges also applied to consideration of people’s well-being specifically.
If prospective policymakers opt for similar accounting frameworks for future health net-outcome objectives, these findings indicate that defining net outcomes through measurement will pose practical challenges and require value judgments in terms of what is, or is not, addressed through measurement (and related issues as summarized in Table 5). Some of these issues are already discussed within the spatial planning and health literature, which documents the consideration of health needs and broader concepts of health that incorporate qualitative measures of well-being alongside quantifiable health outcomes.38,164,165 The potential facilitation of exchange by net-outcome accounting mechanisms is a double-edged sword in that inequalities can be exacerbated or narrowed.24,30,66,104 Therefore, distributive considerations, which encompass the spatiotemporal distribution of gains and losses or their distribution between individuals or population groups, are particularly important to address within the design of accounting-oriented health net-outcome policies.
Evidence sources found by the review and the wider literature provide further guidance on this matter, and indicate that assessments should consider groups and environmental, social, and economic aspects.43,104,161,166 Addressing health inequity requires societal, regional, and local foci. Needs vary greatly between disadvantaged population groups,166 and it is important to consider socioeconomic status and different aspects of deprivation.153 To map opportunities and inequalities, spatially disaggregated indicators are required at neighborhood or lower scales.165,167 However, communities can also be defined by common interests in planning matters, and the socioecological net-outcome objectives previously discussed also raise the question of the distribution of environmental and ecological impacts.
Health impact assessment and monitoring of health net-outcome objectives in spatial planning
Sources describing net-objectives and the existing spatial planning health impact assessment (HIA) literature both stress the importance of healthy design and upstream consideration of policies and projects’ opportunities to create health.43,46,94,168 This positions HIA as a potential delivery mechanism for health net-outcome objectives whether they are oriented towards healthy design, assessment of net outcomes, or both. While HIAs can be particularly useful when exploring multiple future options,161 they have sometimes been criticized for comparing preexisting options rather than finding optimal solutions.169 Furthermore, if decision-makers are ultimately the arbiters of net outcomes (ie, the net outcome is not predefined), the wider spatial planning and HIA literature indicate that the impact of health appraisals and recommendations on decision-making are not always evidenced,161,168 which is a relevant consideration for the practical definition of net outcomes.
Conservation net-objectives found by this review discuss issues related to the predication of net-outcome objectives on single assessments linked to planning applications. Once a local spatial planning policy or development has been implemented, benefits thereafter depend on curation, maintenance, and continued provision of services and an ongoing process of identifying and realizing opportunities.102,170 This is an important consideration for net-outcome policymakers. Potential responses to uncertainties offered by the wider literature include the principles of long-term, multi-sector, multicomponent investment166 and the use of development-level health management plans and monitoring.161,170 While repeated, rigorous evaluation of health outcomes is desirable,166,168 monitoring is not necessarily well addressed by existing healthy planning frameworks.164,171 Future evaluation of the realization of net health outcomes could likely encounter existing challenges faced by public health in spatial planning related to indicator data availability,155,167 issues of timeliness or quality,153,172 and inconsistent requirements for the monitoring of local policies and plan effects167,173 or post-construction monitoring of health metrics by developers.168,170
To address the multiple challenges facing sustainable healthier cities, multiple and boundary-spanning indicators are required.162 Given the predisposition towards measurement of many net-outcome objectives found by this review, it is helpful to consider the current role of indicators in addressing the complexity of urban health, which is not well defined,174 as well as their future use by health net-outcome policies. Urban health indicators (UHIs) or composite indices can simplify or mask complexity,165 and this was also recognized by evidence sources describing net-outcome metrics. Although a significant diversity of UHIs exist, their use in policy and decision-making remains limited,165 and existing indicator frameworks differ in terms of scope and the extent to which baselines and urban planning interventions are characterized.155 The prescriptive, accounting-oriented approach featured in many net-outcome objectives found by this review could, therefore, require a significant shift. The standardization of UHIs has been suggested while allowing for local prioritization and adaptation,174 reflecting the fact that values placed on different aspects of health vary between cultures and individuals,151 and approaches to health assessment and valuation can create value conflicts and inequity. Health net-outcome objectives for spatial planning will need to engage further with these overlapping issues, which challenge the prescriptive approach described by some evidence sources and indicate it may be important to adapt the way in which success is defined or how impacts are measured at the development and policy levels according to local context.
Operationalization of health net-outcome objectives in spatial planning
This review found differing values and focuses of objectives and concepts of net outcomes. Spatial planning systems express social and cultural values,175 so their compatibility is a prime question. Principles that are potentially shared with net-outcome objectives include equity, social justice, sustainability, community participation and empowerment, intersectoral cooperation, and accountability,158 among others. Public health and urban planning share the longstanding dilemma of determining the extent individual freedoms can legitimately be restricted in favor of the public good,151 and this review indicates that this is a specific consideration for net-outcome objectives when considering both the maximization of benefits or nature and distribution of benefits and losses. Further more, policymakers’ standards and values are dynamic, and governmental determination of the scope of protection and public welfare (and health’s reconciliation with other policy objectives) is likely to raise issues of power, justice, and equity.176
This review positions health net-objectives for spatial planning as emergent and yet to adopt consistent positions in response to issues identified in the environmental literature (as summarized in Table 5). Uncertainties and issues associated with assessment and measurement appear inherent to net-outcome objectives, but the wider literature indicates that such challenges were already established, especially if attempting to draw clear causal links between built and natural environmental exposures and health-related impacts and outcomes.169,174,177 The importance of participatory approaches to net-outcome objectives’ implementation is, similarly, already emphasized in the health and spatial planning literature.152,156,166,174 In the context of assessments, participatory quantitative HIA methods, in particular, could be important to the future development of health net-objectives but require further development and their use is not widespread.161,162
The review identified positive opportunities related to the targeting of inequalities and development and use of existing assessment approaches and indicators, and the effects of some environmental changes on health outcomes can be quantified so that harms (typically) or benefits are transparent.48,161 Values associated with healthy planning principles appeared broadly compatible with net-objectives found by this review in that examples can be found of their support for both rationalist and constructivist approaches,163,174 as can the inclusion of qualitative aspects of health and well-being within assessments, while upholding principles of the mitigation hierarchy (eg, damage avoidance and minimization).164,177 Sources included in this review noted that the earlier steps of the mitigation hierarchy could be undermined if net-outcome approaches were applied without safeguards (eg, to prevent the preferential realization and offsetting of harms),75,107 which policymakers will need to consider.
Sources found by this review interpreted net-objectives’ specification and definition differently, and some advocated transitions in mindsets and approaches that emphasize the creation of positive opportunities,33,72,81,122,125 with an emphasis on the public good and ecological base.31 Some authors have recently argued for a focus more on the functions of places rather than their features or state178: what they do for whom, rather than what they are. Future research might perhaps explore the integration of socioecological and healthy planning frameworks to characterize interactions, combined flows of benefits, and effects on health and well-being of the natural and built environments, and incorporate consideration of their respective capacities to meet needs and support health in perpetuity.
Limitations of the review
The review faced conceptual and practical challenges arising from its broad scope and number of search results. The aim of scoping as-yet-unknown conceptual boundaries can conflict with conceptual and contextual limits specified by inclusion criteria. In this case, we attempted to reconcile sensitivity with specificity by including borderline eligible sources during title and abstract screening and excluding uncertain interpretations at the full-text review stage. Examples include decisions to exclude many biodiversity and ecology-oriented sources as not unambiguously transferable to health contexts and only include sources addressing regenerative concepts if they referenced net terms and clearly explicated the evaluative element arguably implied by the term and often used in other contexts. The latter example is notable because the review found that a dominant quantitative paradigm was sometimes, if not often, criticized by authors describing regenerative concepts. In mitigation of this potential bias, sources that directly addressed evaluation and alternative definitions of net outcomes were included within this review,(eg,102) as were sources that presented, inter alia, overarching ethical, equity, or valuation considerations. In contrast, the review could equally be criticized for excluding sources describing economic evaluations and cost-benefit analysis unless they specifically addressed net-outcome policy considerations or the context of spatial planning.
Another consideration is that the review included evidence sources with common authors, which may contribute to the consistency of findings across evidence sources. Furthermore, some evidence sources describing (type T1) stand-alone health objectives were associated with the review authors themselves. While these met eligibility criteria, their inclusion introduced risk of bias because independent screening or extraction of these sources was not possible due to the context of the review team members’ PhD researcher or supervisory interests. As comparatively few directly authored evidence sources (4) were included, they are considered unlikely to have resulted in a substantial impact on overall findings given the total number of included evidence sources (119).
The imposed limits and review decisions discussed potentially increased the subjectivity of source selection and data extraction. Furthermore, the diverse content, number, and types of evidence sources (which included gray literature reports, theses, and books) restricted the number of full-text sources subject to second review at the screening and data extraction stages; however, as good levels of agreement between the reviewers were seen, the potential impact on the findings is likely to be minimal.
Modifications to the original data extraction instrument aimed to clarify and extend the information extracted and presented by the review. The authors ultimately aimed to provide a comprehensive yet accessible review report and rich dataset (Supplemental File 2: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A147) to other researchers; however, the creation of summary categorical variables, use of square brackets in text excerpts to define acronyms on first use and provide minor contextual clarifications to readers, and use of concept mapping in analysis also introduce some subjectivity and simplifications.
Finally, extracted data are extensive and invite further qualitative data analysis that is beyond the scope of a conventional scoping review. Similarly, assessment of the quality of sources was out of the scope of this review.
Conclusions
There is increasing interest in net-objectives as explicit health targets to prioritize health in spatial planning and development and narrow entrenched inequalities, but this review found few examples of their maturation and operationalization in policy or practice in this domain. This review has characterized emergent examples and a broader suite of established social and environmental net-objectives relevant to health, from which potential implementation models and lessons can be drawn by future policymakers seeking to emphasize health within potentially competing economic, environmental, and social objectives and housebuilding targets. Examples of net-outcome objectives relevant to health predominantly originated from Western economies and conservation, design, and development perspectives with a trend of increasing publications either emphasizing socioecological net outcomes or more directly addressing health and well-being.
Rationales for net-outcome objectives included prioritization of specified objectives and redress of accumulated environmental harms associated with unsustainable development. While the WHO constitution’s definition of health as a state of well-being was a common reference, sources also described biocentric objectives that applied to system-level socioecological capacities for life support. These included the use of conceptual frameworks and processes that emphasized ongoing identification and realization of opportunities for health creation rather than the application of quantitative accounting frameworks, which were a predominant feature of net-outcome objectives characterizing the effects of development projects. While there are opportunities to integrate both perspectives within existing spatial planning practice, future policymakers face value judgments associated with the focus, scope, and specification of health net-outcome objectives that deserve further exploration.
Uncertainties and issues related to valuation, assessment, and commensurability were challenges common to established environmental net-outcome objectives and consideration of well-being specifically; the development and use of existing methodologies (such as HIA) and indicators was seen as a related opportunity. Implementation principles included a general emphasis on participatory approaches and assessment, and this review found that it is important for policymakers to consider the distributional stances of net-outcome objectives, which can exacerbate or narrow health inequalities. Future evaluation of the impacts of established systems- and accounting-oriented net-outcome objectives could inform their future development.
Implications for research
Knowledge gaps identified as potential focuses of future research are as follows:
the compatibility of different net-outcome approaches and implementation principles with existing spatial planning systems, plan-making and development processes, and social and cultural values
the implications of health net-outcome objectives and approaches for impact assessment theory and practice, particularly environmental and health impact assessment
the evaluated effects on health of operationalized net-outcome objectives and approaches (at both policy and project level)
the potential role of health net-outcome objectives and approaches in addressing mental health
considerations posed for health net-outcome objectives and approaches in developing (as opposed to developed) economies
the integration of socioecological and healthy planning frameworks to characterize interactions between the natural and built environments and health and well-being.
Further state-of-the-art or meta-narrative reviews could extend this scoping review’s preliminary characterization of the development of health net-objectives or explore differences in the interpretation of net-outcome objectives across the various disciplines and perspectives represented herein. The comprehensive dataset created by this scoping review (Supplemental File 2: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A147) invites further thematic analysis, differentiation, and elaboration of the underlying values and implementation and assessment principles of net-outcome objectives. This review’s preliminary characterization of existing net-outcome objectives and approaches provides a range of options for future country-specific development, exploration, and evaluation of health net-outcome objectives for spatial planning policy and practice.
Acknowledgments
Patricia Lacey, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) Knowledge and Evidence Specialist, and Alison Ashmore, University of Nottingham Senior Research Librarian, for their assistance with the search strategy.
Funding
JSE is the recipient of a PhD studentship funded by the UKHSA. Any views expressed in this review are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UKHSA or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author contributions
JSE and JLB conceived the idea. JSE developed the research protocol and methods, conducted searches, and drafted and edited the manuscript. EW, TL, and AH helped to refine and develop the research protocol and methods. JSE and AH piloted inclusion and exclusion criteria in Covidence and screened sources. JSE carried out data extraction and large language model review exercises. AH checked extracted data and results. JLB provided methodological guidance, critical review, and editorial direction throughout the process. All authors approved the final manuscript submitted.
Availability of data
See Supplemental File 2 (http://links.lww.com/SRX/A147) for the full data extraction dataset.
As 542 reports were assessed for eligibility, reasons for exclusion are summarized in the manuscript. Further details (ie, individual information source exclusions) are available on request.
Appendix I: Search strategy
Summary
Nineteen databases were searched: databases, search dates, and total records retrieved are summarized below and then detailed per database.
| Database | Platform | Nominal content | Search dates | Records retrieved (total) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scopus | N/A | Academic | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 4855 |
| BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine) | N/A | Gray | 17–18/08/23; 17/07/24 | 4694 |
| Embase | Ovid | Academic | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 2430 |
| MEDLINE | Ovid | Academic | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 1728 |
| TRIP Pro | N/A | Gray | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 1586 |
| IBSS (International Bibliography of the Social Sciences) | ProQuest | Academic | 17/08/23; 18/07/24 | 720 |
| Dissertations and Theses A&I | ProQuest | Gray | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 571 |
| APA PsycINFO | Ovid | Academic | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 530 |
| PAIS Index | ProQuest | Academic | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 319 |
| Social Science Database | ProQuest | Academic | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 289 |
| Sociological Abstracts | ProQuest | Academic | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 218 |
| ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts) | ProQuest | Academic | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 155 |
| Political Science Database | ProQuest | Academic | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 133 |
| Worldwide Political Science Abstracts | ProQuest | Academic | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 120 |
| Policy File | ProQuest | Academic | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 95 |
| Sociology Database | ProQuest | Academic | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 80 |
| Social Services Abstracts | ProQuest | Academic | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 71 |
| N/A | Gray | 30–31/08/23; 17/07/24 | 51 | |
| HMIC (Health Management Information Consortium) | Ovid | Academic | 17/08/23; 12/07/24 | 39 |
| Scopus | ||
|---|---|---|
| Search conducted: August 17, 2023 | ||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved |
| #1 | TITLE-ABS-KEY (“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” OR “regenerative design*” OR “regenerative development*” OR “regenerative sustainability”) | 6003 |
| #2 | KEY (“net positive*” OR “net benefit*” OR “positive development*”) | 1028 |
| #3 | 1 or 2 | 7006 |
| #4 | KEY (theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*) | 16,192,577 |
| #5 | TITLE-ABS-KEY (“health risk assessment*” OR “impact assessment*” OR “environmental assessment*” OR “assessment tool*” OR “assessment method*”) | 285,311 |
| #6 | TITLE-ABS-KEY (hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal*”) | 22,980 |
| #7 | TITLE-ABS-KEY (mitigation* OR “hierarchical system*” OR “response hierarch*” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off-set*” OR tradeoff* OR “trade-off*” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 1,126,214 |
| #8 | 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 | 17,161,336 |
| #9 | TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“net outcome*” OR “net gain*” OR “net benefit*” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase*” OR “net positive*” OR “positive outcome*” OR “net positive outcome*” OR “positive impact*” OR “net positive impact*” OR “positive development*” OR “regenerative design*” OR “regenerative development*” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* or concept* or principle* or polic* or plan* or strateg* or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or assessment* or appraisal* or evaluation* or approach* or practice* or tool*)) | 426 |
| #10 | 3 and 8 | 2380 |
| #11 | 10 or 9 | 2651 |
| #12 | TITLE-ABS-KEY (health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare) | 7,511,144 |
| #13 | KEY (social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological*) | 2,332,935 |
| #14 | KEY (human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community OR communities) | 25,227,270 |
| #15 | 12 or 13 or 14 | 28,401,228 |
| #16 | 3 and 15 | 2040 |
| #17 | TITLE-ABS-KEY ((health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare OR soci* OR commun*) W/2 net W/2 (gain* OR benefit* OR improve* OR increase* OR positive*)) | 1645 |
| #18 | 8 and 17 | 773 |
| #19 | TITLE-ABS-KEY (“health net gain*” OR “net health gain*” OR “wellbeing net gain*” OR “net wellbeing gain*” OR “well-being net gain*” OR “net well-being gain*”) | 27 |
| #20 | 11 or 16 or 18 or 19 | 4549 |
Note: as a single query (which represents the consolidated August 17, 2023 query #20 with an additional date delimiter) was used in the updated July 12, 2024 search; no breakdown of component queries is provided.
| Scopus | ||
|---|---|---|
| Search conducted: July 12, 2024 | ||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved |
| #1 | ((((TITLE-ABS-KEY(“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” OR “regenerative design*” OR “regenerative development*” OR “regenerative sustainability”)) OR (KEY (“net positive*” OR “net benefit*” OR “positive development*”))) AND ((KEY (theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*)) OR (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“health risk assessment*” OR “impact assessment*” OR “environmental assessment*” OR “assessment tool*” OR “assessment method*”)) OR (TITLE-ABS-KEY (hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal*”)) OR (TITLE-ABS-KEY (mitigation* OR “hierarchical system*” OR “response hierarch*” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off-set*” OR tradeoff* OR “trade-off*” OR reparation* OR restitution*)))) OR (TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“net outcome*” OR “net gain*” OR “net benefit*” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase*” OR “net positive*” OR “positive outcome*” OR “net positive outcome*” OR “positive impact*” OR “net positive impact*” OR “positive development*” OR “regenerative design*” OR “regenerative development*” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* or concept* or principle* or polic* or plan* or strateg* or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or assessment* or appraisal* or evaluation* or approach* or practice* or tool*)))) OR (((TITLE-ABS-KEY (health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare)) OR (KEY (social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological*)) OR (KEY (human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community OR communities))) AND ((TITLE-ABS-KEY(“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” OR “regenerative design*” OR “regenerative development*” OR “regenerative sustainability”)) OR (KEY (“net positive*” OR “net benefit*” OR “positive development*”)))) OR ((TITLE-ABS-KEY ((health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare OR soci* OR commun*) W/2 net W/2 (gain* OR benefit* OR improve* OR increase* OR positive*))) AND ((KEY (theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*)) OR (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“health risk assessment*” OR “impact assessment*” OR “environmental assessment*” OR “assessment tool*” OR “assessment method*”)) OR (TITLE-ABS-KEY (hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal*”)) OR (TITLE-ABS-KEY (mitigation* OR “hierarchical system*” OR “response hierarch*” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off-set*” OR tradeoff* OR “trade-off*” OR reparation* OR restitution*)))) OR (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“health net gain*” OR “net health gain*” OR “wellbeing net gain*” OR “net wellbeing gain*” OR “well-being net gain*” OR “net well-being gain*”)) AND ORIG-LOAD-DATE AFT 20230817 | 306 |
| BASE | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17-18/08/23) | Records retrieved (17/07/24) |
| #1 | (“net outcome” “net gain” “net positive outcome” “net positive impact” “no net loss” “mitigation hierarchy” “regenerative design” “regenerative development” “regenerative sustainability”) | 7613 | 9942 |
| #2 | subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice*) | 14,841,710 | 11,276,357 |
| #3 | subj:(“health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method”) | 51,463 | 64,818 |
| #4 | subj:(hia eia “sustainability appraisal”) | 2329 | 2936 |
| #5 | subj:(mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 157,662 | 189,692 |
| #6 | subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 14,998,555 | 11,469,712 |
| #7 | (“net gain” “net positive outcome” “net positive impact” “regenerative design” “regenerative development” “regenerative sustainability”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 651 | 720 |
| #7 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 96 | |
| #8 | (“net outcome” “no net loss” “mitigation hierarchy”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 846 | 1062 |
| #8 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 178 | |
| #9 | (health* wellbeing “well-being” welfare) | 21,173,122 | 24,439,296 |
| #10 | subj:(health* wellbeing “well-being” welfare) | 8,097,773 | 5,742,513 |
| #11 | subj:(social* societal* society societies sociodemographic* socioeconomic* sociological*) | 9,428,700 | 9,780,586 |
| #12 | subj:(human* population* stakeholder* community communities) | 8,795,125 | 9,162,466 |
| #13 | subj:(health* wellbeing “well-being” welfare social* societal* society societies sociodemographic* socioeconomic* sociological* human* population* stakeholder* community communities) | 20,782,034 | 18,672,235 |
| #14 | (“net gain” “net positive outcome” “net positive impact” “regenerative design” “regenerative development” “regenerative sustainability”) subj:(health* wellbeing “well-being” welfare social* societal* society societies sociodemographic* socioeconomic* sociological* human* population* stakeholder* community communities) | 667 | 751 |
| #14 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 106 | |
| #15 | (“net outcome” “no net loss” “mitigation hierarchy”) subj:(health* wellbeing “well-being” welfare social* societal* society societies sociodemographic* socioeconomic* sociological* human* population* stakeholder* community communities) | 457 | 560 |
| #15 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 53 | |
| #16 | (health* wellbeing “well-being” welfare) subj:(“net outcome” “net gain” “net positive outcome” “net positive impact” “no net loss” “mitigation hierarchy” “regenerative design” “regenerative development” “regenerative sustainability” “net positive” “net benefit” “positive development”) | 313 | 452 |
| #16 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 113 | |
| #17 | (“health net gain” “net health gain” “wellbeing net gain” “net wellbeing gain” “well-being net gain” “net well-being gain”) | 24 | 39 |
| #17 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 10 | |
| #18 | (“net gain theory” “net gain concept” “net gain principle” “net gain policy” “net gain policies” “net gain strategy” “net gain objective” “net gain aim” “net gain goal” “net gain target” “net gain requirement” “net gain framework” “net gain model” “net gain assessment” “net gain appraisal” “net gain evaluation” “net gain approach” “net gain practice” “net gain tool” “net gain plan” “net gain planning”) | 26 | 40 |
| #18 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 12 | |
| #19 | (“net outcome theory” “net outcome concept” “net outcome principle” “net outcome policy” “net outcome policies” “net outcome strategy” “net outcome objective” “net outcome aim” “net outcome goal” “net outcome target” “net outcome requirement” “net outcome framework” “net outcome model” “net outcome assessment” “net outcome appraisal” “net outcome evaluation” “net outcome approach” “net outcome practice” “net outcome tool” “net outcome plan” “net outcome planning”) | 9 | 14 |
| #19 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 1 | |
| #20 | (“net benefit theory” “net benefit concept” “net benefit principle” “net benefit policy” “net benefit policies” “net benefit strategy” “net benefit objective” “net benefit aim” “net benefit goal” “net benefit target” “net benefit requirement” “net benefit framework” “net benefit model” “net benefit assessment” “net benefit appraisal” “net benefit evaluation” “net benefit approach” “net benefit practice” “net benefit tool” “net benefit plan” “net benefit planning”) | 188 | 240 |
| #20 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 20 | |
| #21 | (“net improvement theory” “net improvement concept” “net improvement principle” “net improvement policy” “net improvement policies” “net improvement strategy” “net improvement objective” “net improvement aim” “net improvement goal” “net improvement target” “net improvement requirement” “net improvement framework” “net improvement model” “net improvement assessment” “net improvement appraisal” “net improvement evaluation” “net improvement approach” “net improvement practice” “net improvement tool” “net improvement plan” “net improvement planning”) | 0 | 0 |
| #22 | (“net increase theory” “net increase concept” “net increase principle” “net increase policy” “net increase policies” “net increase strategy” “net increase objective” “net increase aim” “net increase goal” “net increase target” “net increase requirement” “net increase framework” “net increase model” “net increase assessment” “net increase appraisal” “net increase evaluation” “net increase approach” “net increase practice” “net increase tool” “net increase plan” “net increase planning”) | 2 | 3 |
| #22 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 0 | |
| #23 | (“net positive theory” “net positive concept” “net positive principle” “net positive policy” “net positive policies” “net positive strategy” “net positive objective” “net positive aim” “net positive goal” “net positive target” “net positive requirement” “net positive framework” “net positive model” “net positive assessment” “net positive appraisal” “net positive evaluation” “net positive approach” “net positive practice” “net positive tool” “net positive plan” “net positive planning”) | 4 | 5 |
| #23 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 2 | |
| #24 | (“positive outcome theory” “positive outcome concept” “positive outcome principle” “positive outcome policy” “positive outcome policies” “positive outcome strategy” “positive outcome objective” “positive outcome aim” “positive outcome goal” “positive outcome target” “positive outcome requirement” “positive outcome framework” “positive outcome model” “positive outcome assessment” “positive outcome appraisal” “positive outcome evaluation” “positive outcome approach” “positive outcome practice” “positive outcome tool” “positive outcome plan” “positive outcome planning”) | 24 | 30 |
| #24 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 3 | |
| #25 | (“net positive outcome theory” “net positive outcome concept” “net positive outcome principle” “net positive outcome policy” “net positive outcome policies” “net positive outcome strategy” “net positive outcome objective” “net positive outcome aim” “net positive outcome goal” “net positive outcome target” “net positive outcome requirement” “net positive outcome framework” “net positive outcome model” “net positive outcome assessment” “net positive outcome appraisal” “net positive outcome evaluation” “net positive outcome approach” “net positive outcome practice” “net positive outcome tool” “net positive outcome plan” “net positive outcome planning”) | 0 | 0 |
| #26 | (“positive impact theory” “positive impact concept” “positive impact principle” “positive impact policy” “positive impact policies” “positive impact strategy” “positive impact objective” “positive impact aim” “positive impact goal” “positive impact target” “positive impact requirement” “positive impact framework” “positive impact model” “positive impact assessment” “positive impact appraisal” “positive impact evaluation” “positive impact approach” “positive impact practice” “positive impact tool” “positive impact plan” “positive impact planning”) | 25 | 34 |
| #26 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 7 | |
| #27 | (“net positive impact theory” “net positive impact concept” “net positive impact principle” “net positive impact policy” “net positive impact policies” “net positive impact strategy” “net positive impact objective” “net positive impact aim” “net positive impact goal” “net positive impact target” “net positive impact requirement” “net positive impact framework” “net positive impact model” “net positive impact assessment” “net positive impact appraisal” “net positive impact evaluation” “net positive impact approach” “net positive impact practice” “net positive impact tool” “net positive impact plan” “net positive impact planning”) | 1 | 2 |
| #27 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 0 | |
| #28 | (“positive development theory” “positive development concept” “positive development principle” “positive development policy” “positive development policies” “positive development strategy” “positive development objective” “positive development aim” “positive development goal” “positive development target” “positive development requirement” “positive development framework” “positive development model” “positive development assessment” “positive development appraisal” “positive development evaluation” “positive development approach” “positive development practice” “positive development tool” “positive development plan” “positive development planning”) | 35 | 43 |
| #28 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 5 | |
| #29 | (“regenerative design theory” “regenerative design concept” “regenerative design principle” “regenerative design policy” “regenerative design policies” “regenerative design strategy” “regenerative design objective” “regenerative design aim” “regenerative design goal” “regenerative design target” “regenerative design requirement” “regenerative design framework” “regenerative design model” “regenerative design assessment” “regenerative design appraisal” “regenerative design evaluation” “regenerative design approach” “regenerative design practice” “regenerative design tool” “regenerative design plan” “regenerative design planning”) | 28 | 38 |
| #29 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 16 | |
| #30 | (“regenerative development theory” “regenerative development concept” “regenerative development principle” “regenerative development policy” “regenerative development policies” “regenerative development strategy” “regenerative development objective” “regenerative development aim” “regenerative development goal” “regenerative development target” “regenerative development requirement” “regenerative development framework” “regenerative development model” “regenerative development assessment” “regenerative development appraisal” “regenerative development evaluation” “regenerative development approach” “regenerative development practice” “regenerative development tool” “regenerative development plan” “regenerative development planning”) | 8 | 12 |
| #30 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 3 | |
| #31 | (“regenerative sustainability theory” “regenerative sustainability concept” “regenerative sustainability principle” “regenerative sustainability policy” “regenerative sustainability policies” “regenerative sustainability strategy” “regenerative sustainability objective” “regenerative sustainability aim” “regenerative sustainability goal” “regenerative sustainability target” “regenerative sustainability requirement” “regenerative sustainability framework” “regenerative sustainability model” “regenerative sustainability assessment” “regenerative sustainability appraisal” “regenerative sustainability evaluation” “regenerative sustainability approach” “regenerative sustainability practice” “regenerative sustainability tool” “regenerative sustainability plan” “regenerative sustainability planning”) | 12 | 15 |
| #31 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 2 | |
| #32 | (“no net loss theory” “no net loss concept” “no net loss principle” “no net loss policy” “no net loss policies” “no net loss strategy” “no net loss objective” “no net loss aim” “no net loss goal” “no net loss target” “no net loss requirement” “no net loss framework” “no net loss model” “no net loss assessment” “no net loss appraisal” “no net loss evaluation” “no net loss approach” “no net loss practice” “no net loss tool” “no net loss plan” “no net loss planning”) | 185 | 226 |
| #32 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 15 | |
| #33 | (“mitigation hierarchy theory” “mitigation hierarchy concept” “mitigation hierarchy principle” “mitigation hierarchy policy” “mitigation hierarchy policies” “mitigation hierarchy strategy” “mitigation hierarchy objective” “mitigation hierarchy aim” “mitigation hierarchy goal” “mitigation hierarchy target” “mitigation hierarchy requirement” “mitigation hierarchy framework” “mitigation hierarchy model” “mitigation hierarchy assessment” “mitigation hierarchy appraisal” “mitigation hierarchy evaluation” “mitigation hierarchy approach” “mitigation hierarchy practice” “mitigation hierarchy tool” “mitigation hierarchy plan” “mitigation hierarchy planning”) | 34 | 39 |
| #33 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 6 | |
| #34 | (“net gain theories” “net gain concepts” “net gain principles” “net gain strategies” “net gain objectives” “net gain aims” “net gain goals” “net gain targets” “net gain requirements” “net gain frameworks” “net gain models” “net gain assessments” “net gain appraisals” “net gain evaluations” “net gain approaches” “net gain practices” “net gain tools” “net gain plans”) | 10 | 12 |
| #34 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 7 | |
| #35 | (“net outcome theories” “net outcome concepts” “net outcome principles” “net outcome strategies” “net outcome objectives” “net outcome aims” “net outcome goals” “net outcome targets” “net outcome requirements” “net outcome frameworks” “net outcome models” “net outcome assessments” “net outcome appraisals” “net outcome evaluations” “net outcome approaches” “net outcome practices” “net outcome tools” “net outcome plans”) | 5 | 12 |
| #35 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 4 | |
| #36 | (“net benefit theories” “net benefit concepts” “net benefit principles” “net benefit strategies” “net benefit objectives” “net benefit aims” “net benefit goals” “net benefit targets” “net benefit requirements” “net benefit frameworks” “net benefit models” “net benefit assessments” “net benefit appraisals” “net benefit evaluations” “net benefit approaches” “net benefit practices” “net benefit tools” “net benefit plans”) | 21 | 24 |
| #36 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 2 | |
| #37 | (“net improvement theories” “net improvement concepts” “net improvement principles” “net improvement strategies” “net improvement objectives” “net improvement aims” “net improvement goals” “net improvement targets” “net improvement requirements” “net improvement frameworks” “net improvement models” “net improvement assessments” “net improvement appraisals” “net improvement evaluations” “net improvement approaches” “net improvement practices” “net improvement tools” “net improvement plans”) | 0 | 0 |
| #38 | (“net increase theories” “net increase concepts” “net increase principles” “net increase strategies” “net increase objectives” “net increase aims” “net increase goals” “net increase targets” “net increase requirements” “net increase frameworks” “net increase models” “net increase assessments” “net increase appraisals” “net increase evaluations” “net increase approaches” “net increase practices” “net increase tools” “net increase plans”) | 0 | 0 |
| #39 | (“net positive theories” “net positive concepts” “net positive principles” “net positive strategies” “net positive objectives” “net positive aims” “net positive goals” “net positive targets” “net positive requirements” “net positive frameworks” “net positive models” “net positive assessments” “net positive appraisals” “net positive evaluations” “net positive approaches” “net positive practices” “net positive tools” “net positive plans”) | 8 | 11 |
| #39 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 1 | |
| #40 | (“positive outcome theories” “positive outcome concepts” “positive outcome principles” “positive outcome strategies” “positive outcome objectives” “positive outcome aims” “positive outcome goals” “positive outcome targets” “positive outcome requirements” “positive outcome frameworks” “positive outcome models” “positive outcome assessments” “positive outcome appraisals” “positive outcome evaluations” “positive outcome approaches” “positive outcome practices” “positive outcome tools” “positive outcome plans”) | 7 | 7 |
| #40 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 0 | |
| #41 | (“net positive outcome theories” “net positive outcome concepts” “net positive outcome principles” “net positive outcome strategies” “net positive outcome objectives” “net positive outcome aims” “net positive outcome goals” “net positive outcome targets” “net positive outcome requirements” “net positive outcome frameworks” “net positive outcome models” “net positive outcome assessments” “net positive outcome appraisals” “net positive outcome evaluations” “net positive outcome approaches” “net positive outcome practices” “net positive outcome tools” “net positive outcome plans”) | 0 | 0 |
| #42 | (“positive impact theories” “positive impact concepts” “positive impact principles” “positive impact strategies” “positive impact objectives” “positive impact aims” “positive impact goals” “positive impact targets” “positive impact requirements” “positive impact frameworks” “positive impact models” “positive impact assessments” “positive impact appraisals” “positive impact evaluations” “positive impact approaches” “positive impact practices” “positive impact tools” “positive impact plans”) | 11 | 12 |
| #42 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 1 | |
| #43 | (“net positive impact theories” “net positive impact concepts” “net positive impact principles” “net positive impact strategies” “net positive impact objectives” “net positive impact aims” “net positive impact goals” “net positive impact targets” “net positive impact requirements” “net positive impact frameworks” “net positive impact models” “net positive impact assessments” “net positive impact appraisals” “net positive impact evaluations” “net positive impact approaches” “net positive impact practices” “net positive impact tools” “net positive impact plans”) | 0 | 0 |
| #44 | (“positive development theories” “positive development concepts” “positive development principles” “positive development strategies” “positive development objectives” “positive development aims” “positive development goals” “positive development targets” “positive development requirements” “positive development frameworks” “positive development models” “positive development assessments” “positive development appraisals” “positive development evaluations” “positive development approaches” “positive development practices” “positive development tools” “positive development plans”) | 15 | 23 |
| #44 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 6 | |
| #45 | (“regenerative design theories” “regenerative design concepts” “regenerative design principles” “regenerative design strategies” “regenerative design objectives” “regenerative design aims” “regenerative design goals” “regenerative design targets” “regenerative design requirements” “regenerative design frameworks” “regenerative design models” “regenerative design assessments” “regenerative design appraisals” “regenerative design evaluations” “regenerative design approaches” “regenerative design practices” “regenerative design tools”“regenerative design plans”) | 67 | 81 |
| #45 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 26 | |
| #46 | (“regenerative development theories” “regenerative development concepts” “regenerative development principles” “regenerative development strategies” “regenerative development objectives” “regenerative development aims” “regenerative development goals” “regenerative development targets” “regenerative development requirements” “regenerative development frameworks” “regenerative development models” “regenerative development assessments” “regenerative development appraisals” “regenerative development evaluations” “regenerative development approaches” “regenerative development practices” “regenerative development tools” “regenerative development plans”) | 25 | 30 |
| #46 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 6 | |
| #47 | (“regenerative sustainability theories” “regenerative sustainability concepts” “regenerative sustainability principles” “regenerative sustainability strategies” “regenerative sustainability objectives” “regenerative sustainability aims” “regenerative sustainability goals” “regenerative sustainability targets” “regenerative sustainability requirements” “regenerative sustainability frameworks” “regenerative sustainability models” “regenerative sustainability assessments” “regenerative sustainability appraisals” “regenerative sustainability evaluations” “regenerative sustainability approaches” “regenerative sustainability practices” “regenerative sustainability tools” “regenerative sustainability plans”) | 10 | 14 |
| #47 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 5 | |
| #48 | (“no net loss theories” “no net loss concepts” “no net loss principles” “no net loss strategies” “no net loss objectives” “no net loss aims” “no net loss goals” “no net loss targets” “no net loss requirements” “no net loss frameworks” “no net loss models” “no net loss assessments” “no net loss appraisals” “no net loss evaluations” “no net loss approaches” “no net loss practices” “no net loss tools” “no net loss plans”) | 32 | 40 |
| #48 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 5 | |
| #49 | (“mitigation hierarchy theories” “mitigation hierarchy concepts” “mitigation hierarchy principles” “mitigation hierarchy strategies” “mitigation hierarchy objectives” “mitigation hierarchy aims” “mitigation hierarchy goals” “mitigation hierarchy targets” “mitigation hierarchy requirements” “mitigation hierarchy frameworks” “mitigation hierarchy models” “mitigation hierarchy assessments” “mitigation hierarchy appraisals” “mitigation hierarchy evaluations” “mitigation hierarchy approaches” “mitigation hierarchy practices” “mitigation hierarchy tools” “mitigation hierarchy plans”) | 20 | 23 |
| #49 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 3 | |
| #50 | (“health net gain” “health net benefit” “health net improvement” “health net increase” “health net positive”) | 6 | 16 |
| #51 | (“health net gain” “health net benefit” “health net improvement” “health net increase” “health net positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 5 |
| #51 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 5 | |
| #52 | (“wellbeing net gain” “wellbeing net benefit” “wellbeing net improvement” “wellbeing net increase” “wellbeing net positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #53 | (“wellbeing net gain” “wellbeing net benefit” “wellbeing net improvement” “wellbeing net increase” “wellbeing net positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #54 | (“well-being net gain” “well-being net benefit” “well-being net improvement” “well-being net increase” “well-being net positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #55 | (“well-being net gain” “well-being net benefit” “well-being net improvement” “well-being net increase” “well-being net positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #56 | (“welfare net gain” “welfare net benefit” “welfare net improvement” “welfare net increase” “welfare net positive”) | 2 | 2 |
| #57 | (“welfare net gain” “welfare net benefit” “welfare net improvement” “welfare net increase” “welfare net positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #58 | (“social net gain” “social net benefit” “social net improvement” “social net increase” “social net positive”) | 52 | 60 |
| #59 | (“social net gain” “social net benefit” “social net improvement” “social net increase” “social net positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 9 | 8 |
| #59 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 0 | |
| #60 | (“societal net gain” “societal net benefit” “societal net improvement” “societal net increase” “societal net positive”) | 10 | 12 |
| #61 | (“societal net gain” “societal net benefit” “societal net improvement” “societal net increase” “societal net positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 1 | 2 |
| #61 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 0 | |
| #62 | (“society net gain” “society net benefit” “society net improvement” “society net increase” “society net positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #63 | (“society net gain” “society net benefit” “society net improvement” “society net increase” “society net positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #64 | (“societies net gain” “societies net benefit” “societies net improvement” “societies net increase” “societies net positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #65 | (“societies net gain” “societies net benefit” “societies net improvement” “societies net increase” “societies net positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #66 | (“sociodemographic net gain” “sociodemographic net benefit” “sociodemographic net improvement” “sociodemographic net increase” “sociodemographic net positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #67 | (“sociodemographic net gain” “sociodemographic net benefit” “sociodemographic net improvement” “sociodemographic net increase” “sociodemographic net positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #68 | (“socioeconomic net gain” “socioeconomic net benefit” “socioeconomic net improvement” “socioeconomic net increase” “socioeconomic net positive”) | 2 | 2 |
| #69 | (“socioeconomic net gain” “socioeconomic net benefit” “socioeconomic net improvement” “socioeconomic net increase” “socioeconomic net positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #70 | (“sociological net gain” “sociological net benefit” “sociological net improvement” “sociological net increase” “sociological net positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #71 | (“sociological net gain” “sociological net benefit” “sociological net improvement” “sociological net increase” “sociological net positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #72 | (“community net gain” “community net benefit” “community net improvement” “community net increase” “community net positive”) | 1 | 1 |
| #73 | (“community net gain” “community net benefit” “community net improvement” “community net increase” “community net positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #74 | (“net health gain” “net health benefit” “net health improvement” “net health increase” “net health positive”) | 315 | 456 |
| #75 | (“net health gain” “net health benefit” “net health improvement” “net health increase” “net health positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 59 | 55 |
| #75 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 13 | |
| #76 | (“net wellbeing gain” “net wellbeing benefit” “net wellbeing improvement” “net wellbeing increase” “net wellbeing positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #77 | (“net wellbeing gain” “net wellbeing benefit” “net wellbeing improvement” “net wellbeing increase” “net wellbeing positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #78 | (“net well-being gain” “net well-being benefit” “net well-being improvement” “net well-being increase” “net well-being positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #79 | (“net well-being gain” “net well-being benefit” “net well-being improvement” “net well-being increase” “net well-being positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #80 | (“net welfare gain” “net welfare benefit” “net welfare improvement” “net welfare increase” “net welfare positive”) | 164 | 195 |
| #81 | (“net welfare gain” “net welfare benefit” “net welfare improvement” “net welfare increase” “net welfare positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 29 | 32 |
| #81 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 8 | |
| #82 | (“net social gain” “net social benefit” “net social improvement” “net social increase” “net social positive”) | 366 | 425 |
| #83 | (“net social gain” “net social benefit” “net social improvement” “net social increase” “net social positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 71 | 75 |
| #83 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 6 | |
| #84 | (“net societal gain” “net societal benefit” “net societal improvement” “net societal increase” “net societal positive”) | 39 | 60 |
| #85 | (“net societal gain” “net societal benefit” “net societal improvement” “net societal increase” “net societal positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 6 | 6 |
| #85 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 0 | |
| #86 | (“net society gain” “net society benefit” “net society improvement” “net society increase” “net society positive”) | 3 | 4 |
| #87 | (“net society gain” “net society benefit” “net society improvement” “net society increase” “net society positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #88 | (“net societies gain” “net societies benefit” “net societies improvement” “net societies increase” “net societies positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #89 | (“net societies gain” “net societies benefit” “net societies improvement” “net societies increase” “net societies positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #90 | (“net sociodemographic gain” “net sociodemographic benefit” “net sociodemographic improvement” “net sociodemographic increase” “net sociodemographic positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #91 | (“net sociodemographic gain” “net sociodemographic benefit” “net sociodemographic improvement” “net sociodemographic increase” “net sociodemographic positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #92 | (“net socioeconomic gain” “net socioeconomic benefit” “net socioeconomic improvement” “net socioeconomic increase” “net socioeconomic positive”) | 3 | 7 |
| #93 | (“net socioeconomic gain” “net socioeconomic benefit” “net socioeconomic improvement” “net socioeconomic increase” “net socioeconomic positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 1 | 1 |
| #93 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 0 | |
| #94 | (“net sociological gain” “net sociological benefit” “net sociological improvement” “net sociological increase” “net sociological positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #95 | (“net sociological gain” “net sociological benefit” “net sociological improvement” “net sociological increase” “net sociological positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #96 | (“net community gain” “net community benefit” “net community improvement” “net community increase” “net community positive”) | 8 | 9 |
| #97 | (“net community gain” “net community benefit” “net community improvement” “net community increase” “net community positive”) subj:(theor* concept* principle* policy policies plan plans planning strategy strategies objective* aim* goal* target* requirement* framework* model* approach* practice* “health risk assessment” “impact assessment” “environmental assessment” “assessment tool” “assessment method” hia eia “sustainability appraisal” mitigation* “hierarchical system” “response hierarchy” compensation* offset* “off-set” tradeoff* “trade-off” reparation* restitution*) | 2 | 1 |
| #97 year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 0 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum) | 3,948 | 4,799 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum) year:[2023 TO 2024] | N/A | 746 | |
| Embase (Ovid) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 12, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved 12/07/24) |
| #1 | (“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability”).mp. | 1830 | 1933 |
| #2 | (“net positive*” or “net benefit*” or “positive development*”).hw,kf. | 276 | 295 |
| #3 | 1 or 2 | 2102 | 2224 |
| #4 | exp theory/ or conceptual framework/ or theoretical model/ or concept formation/ or management/ or exp planning/ or professional practice/ or practice guideline/ | 1,475,080 | 1,537,197 |
| #5 | (theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*).hw,kf. | 6,956,739 | 7,330,475 |
| #6 | health impact assessment/ or health risk assessment/ or environmental impact assessment/ | 27,775 | 30,093 |
| #7 | (“health risk assessment*” or “impact assessment*” or “environmental assessment*” or “assessment tool*” or “assessment method*”).mp. | 145,721 | 158,001 |
| #8 | (HIA or HIAs or EIA or EIAs or “sustainability appraisal*”).mp. | 17,012 | 17,437 |
| #9 | exp mitigation/ or compensation/ | 24,128 | 27,824 |
| #10 | (mitigation* or “hierarchical system*” or “response hierarch*” or compensation* or offset* or “off-set*” or tradeoff* or “trade-off*” or reparation* or restitution*).mp. | 221,144 | 239,292 |
| #11 | 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 | 7,403,432 | 7,803,079 |
| #12 | ((“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net benefit*” or “net improve*” or “net increase*” or “net positive*” or “positive outcome*” or “net positive outcome*” or “positive impact*” or “net positive impact*” or “positive development*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*”) adj (theor* or concept* or principle* or polic* or plan* or strateg* or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or assessment* or appraisal* or evaluation* or approach* or practice* or tool*)).mp. | 208 | 219 |
| #13 | (3 and 11) or 12 | 861 | 924 |
| #14 | (health* or wellbeing or “well-being” or welfare).mp. | 6,669,052 | 7,109,638 |
| #15 | exp health/ or public health/ or exp health planning/ or health equity/ or exp wellbeing/ or quality of life/ or exp welfare/ | 1,841,266 | 1,975,779 |
| #16 | exp “social aspects and related phenomena”/ or exp social justice/ or restorative justice/ or sociodemographics/ or society/ | 4,419,779 | 4,654,458 |
| #17 | (social* or societal* or society or societies or sociodemographic* or socioeconomic* or sociological*).hw,kf. | 2,124,671 | 2,212,470 |
| #18 | exp human/ or exp population/ or population health management/ or advocacy group/ | 25,543,606 | 26,885,557 |
| #19 | (human* or population* or stakeholder* or community or communities).hw,kf. | 26,043,913 | 27,407,629 |
| #20 | 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 | 27,512,434 | 28,927,447 |
| #21 | 3 and 20 | 1455 | 1549 |
| #22 | ((health* or wellbeing or “well-being” or welfare or soci* or commun*) adj3 net adj3 (gain* or benefit* or improve* or increase* or positive*)).mp. | 933 | 998 |
| #23 | 11 and 22 | 436 | 459 |
| #24 | (“health net gain*” or “net health gain*” or “wellbeing net gain*” or “net wellbeing gain*” or “well-being net gain*” or “net well-being gain*”).mp. | 31 | 33 |
| #25 | 13 or 21 or 23 or 24 | 2274 | 2412 |
| #26 | limit 25 to dc=20230817-20240712 | N/A | 156 |
| MEDLINE (Ovid) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 12, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved (12/07/24) |
| #1 | (“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability”).mp. | 1674 | 1755 |
| #2 | (“net positive*” or “net benefit*” or “positive development*”).hw,kf. | 166 | 183 |
| #3 | 1 or 2 | 1839 | 1937 |
| #4 | models, theoretical/ or concept formation/ or exp principle-based ethics/ or exp policy/ or policy making/ or exp social planning/ or professional practice/ or practice guideline/ | 460,455 | 468,874 |
| #5 | (theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*).hw,kf. | 3,441,537 | 3,552,190 |
| #6 | health impact assessment/ | 945 | 974 |
| #7 | (“health risk assessment*” or “impact assessment*” or “environmental assessment*” or “assessment tool*” or “assessment method*”).mp. | 67,702 | 75,392 |
| #8 | (HIA or HIAs or EIA or EIAs or “sustainability appraisal*”).mp. | 11,932 | 12,127 |
| #9 | “risk evaluation and mitigation”/ or “compensation and redress”/ | 3212 | 3232 |
| #10 | (mitigation* or “hierarchical system*” or “response hierarch*” or compensation* or offset* or “off-set*” or tradeoff* or “trade-off*” or reparation* or restitution*).mp. | 193,777 | 208,783 |
| #11 | 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 | 3,727,624 | 3,859,309 |
| #12 | ((“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net benefit*” or “net improve*” or “net increase*” or “net positive*” or “positive outcome*” or “net positive outcome*” or “positive impact*” or “net positive impact*” or “positive development*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*”) adj (theor* or concept* or principle* or polic* or plan* or strateg* or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or assessment* or appraisal* or evaluation* or approach* or practice* or tool*)).mp. | 123 | 130 |
| #13 | (3 and 11) or 12 | 581 | 615 |
| #14 | (health* or wellbeing or “well-being” or welfare).mp. | 4,761,121 | 5,051,868 |
| #15 | exp health/ or exp public health/ or exp health status/ or exp health planning/ or health equity/ or exp social welfare/ | 9,618,315 | 9,953,263 |
| #16 | social problems/ or exp social justice/ or exp sociological factors/ or exp socioeconomic factors/ | 946,501 | 974,399 |
| #17 | (social* or societal* or society or societies or sociodemographic* or socioeconomic* or sociological*).hw,kf. | 816,365 | 841,855 |
| #18 | humans/ or persons/ or exp population/ or population health management/ | 21,444,362 | 22,115,946 |
| #19 | (human* or population* or stakeholder* or community or communities).hw,kf. | 21,645,926 | 22,331,263 |
| #20 | 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 | 23,942,098 | 24,757,941 |
| #21 | 3 and 20 | 1105 | 1163 |
| #22 | ((health* or wellbeing or “well-being” or welfare or soci* or commun*) adj3 net adj3 (gain* or benefit* or improve* or increase* or positive*)).mp. | 675 | 734 |
| #23 | 11 and 22 | 270 | 283 |
| #24 | (“health net gain*” or “net health gain*” or “wellbeing net gain*” or “net wellbeing gain*” or “well-being net gain*” or “net well-being gain*”).mp. | 25 | 28 |
| #25 | 13 or 21 or 23 or 24 | 1647 | 1735 |
| #26 | limit 25 to dt=20230817-20240712 | N/A | 81 |
| TRIP Pro | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 12, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved (12/07/24) |
| #1 | (“net outcome” OR “net gain” OR “net positive outcome” OR “net positive impact” OR “no net loss” OR “mitigation hierarchy” OR “regenerative design” OR “regenerative development” OR “regenerative sustainability”) | 869 | 911 |
| #2 | (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice*) | 2,645,459 | 3,036,636 |
| #3 | (“health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method”) | 34,230 | 42,396 |
| #4 | (hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal”) | 2,795 | 2,844 |
| #5 | (mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 22,133 | 23,338 |
| #6 | (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 2,645,459 | 3,052,648 |
| #7 | (“net outcome” OR “net gain” OR “net positive outcome” OR “net positive impact” OR “no net loss” OR “mitigation hierarchy” OR “regenerative design” OR “regenerative development” OR “regenerative sustainability”) AND (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 529 | 588 |
| #7 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 43 | |
| #8 | (health* OR wellbeing OR “well being” OR welfare) | 1,364,296 | 1,461,297 |
| #9 | (social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological*) | 364,192 | 391,476 |
| #10 | (human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community OR communities) | 1,195,021 | 1,281,821 |
| #11 | (health* OR wellbeing OR “well being” OR welfare OR social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological* OR human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community OR communities) | 2,074,864 | 2,228,198 |
| #12 | (“net outcome” OR “net gain” OR “net positive outcome” OR “net positive impact” OR “no net loss” OR “mitigation hierarchy” OR “regenerative design” OR “regenerative development” OR “regenerative sustainability”) AND (health* OR wellbeing OR “well being” OR welfare OR social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological* OR human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community OR communities) | 473 | 503 |
| #12 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 37 | |
| #13 | (“health net gain” or “net health gain” or “wellbeing net gain” or “net wellbeing gain” or “well being net gain” or “net well being gain”) | 17 | 20 |
| #13 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 4 | |
| #14 | (“net gain theory” or “net gain concept” or “net gain principle” or “net gain policy” or “net gain policies” or “net gain strategy” or “net gain objective” or “net gain aim” or “net gain goal” or “net gain target” or “net gain requirement” or “net gain framework” or “net gain model” or “net gain assessment” or “net gain appraisal” or “net gain evaluation” or “net gain approach” or “net gain practice” or “net gain tool” or “net gain theories” or “net gain concepts” or “net gain principles” or “net gain strategies” or “net gain objectives” or “net gain aims” or “net gain goals” or “net gain targets” or “net gain requirements” or “net gain frameworks” or “net gain models” or “net gain assessments” or “net gain appraisals” or “net gain evaluations” or “net gain approaches” or “net gain practices” or “net gain tools” or “net gain plan” or “net gain plans” or “net gain planning”) | 2 | 3 |
| #14 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 1 | |
| #15 | (“net outcome theory” or “net outcome concept” or “net outcome principle” or “net outcome policy” or “net outcome policies” or “net outcome strategy” or “net outcome objective” or “net outcome aim” or “net outcome goal” or “net outcome target” or “net outcome requirement” or “net outcome framework” or “net outcome model” or “net outcome assessment” or “net outcome appraisal” or “net outcome evaluation” or “net outcome approach” or “net outcome practice” or “net outcome tool” or “net outcome theories” or “net outcome concepts” or “net outcome principles” or “net outcome strategies” or “net outcome objectives” or “net outcome aims” or “net outcome goals” or “net outcome targets” or “net outcome requirements” or “net outcome frameworks” or “net outcome models” or “net outcome assessments” or “net outcome appraisals” or “net outcome evaluations” or “net outcome approaches” or “net outcome practices” or “net outcome tools” or “net outcome plan” or “net outcome plans” or “net outcome planning”) | 1 | 1 |
| #15 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 0 | |
| #16 | (“net benefit theory” or “net benefit concept” or “net benefit principle” or “net benefit policy” or “net benefit policies” or “net benefit strategy” or “net benefit objective” or “net benefit aim” or “net benefit goal” or “net benefit target” or “net benefit requirement” or “net benefit framework” or “net benefit model” or “net benefit assessment” or “net benefit appraisal” or “net benefit evaluation” or “net benefit approach” or “net benefit practice” or “net benefit tool” or “net benefit theories” or “net benefit concepts” or “net benefit principles” or “net benefit strategies” or “net benefit objectives” or “net benefit aims” or “net benefit goals” or “net benefit targets” or “net benefit requirements” or “net benefit frameworks” or “net benefit models” or “net benefit assessments” or “net benefit appraisals” or “net benefit evaluations” or “net benefit approaches” or “net benefit practices” or “net benefit tools” or “net benefit plan” or “net benefit plans” or “net benefit planning”) | 70 | 74 |
| #16 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 4 | |
| #17 | (“net improvement theory” or “net improvement concept” or “net improvement principle” or “net improvement policy” or “net improvement policies” or “net improvement strategy” or “net improvement objective” or “net improvement aim” or “net improvement goal” or “net improvement target” or “net improvement requirement” or “net improvement framework” or “net improvement model” or “net improvement assessment” or “net improvement appraisal” or “net improvement evaluation” or “net improvement approach” or “net improvement practice” or “net improvement tool” or “net improvement theories” or “net improvement concepts” or “net improvement principles” or “net improvement strategies” or “net improvement objectives” or “net improvement aims” or “net improvement goals” or “net improvement targets” or “net improvement requirements” or “net improvement frameworks” or “net improvement models” or “net improvement assessments” or “net improvement appraisals” or “net improvement evaluations” or “net improvement approaches” or “net improvement practices” or “net improvement tools” or “net improvement plan” or “net improvement plans” or “net improvement planning”) | 1 | 1 |
| #17 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 0 | |
| #18 | (“net increase theory” or “net increase concept” or “net increase principle” or “net increase policy” or “net increase policies” or “net increase strategy” or “net increase objective” or “net increase aim” or “net increase goal” or “net increase target” or “net increase requirement” or “net increase framework” or “net increase model” or “net increase assessment” or “net increase appraisal” or “net increase evaluation” or “net increase approach” or “net increase practice” or “net increase tool” or “net increase theories” or “net increase concepts” or “net increase principles” or “net increase strategies” or “net increase objectives” or “net increase aims” or “net increase goals” or “net increase targets” or “net increase requirements” or “net increase frameworks” or “net increase models” or “net increase assessments” or “net increase appraisals” or “net increase evaluations” or “net increase approaches” or “net increase practices” or “net increase tools” or “net increase plan” or “net increase plans” or “net increase planning”) | 0 | 0 |
| #19 | (“net positive theory” or “net positive concept” or “net positive principle” or “net positive policy” or “net positive policies” or “net positive strategy” or “net positive objective” or “net positive aim” or “net positive goal” or “net positive target” or “net positive requirement” or “net positive framework” or “net positive model” or “net positive assessment” or “net positive appraisal” or “net positive evaluation” or “net positive approach” or “net positive practice” or “net positive tool” or “net positive theories” or “net positive concepts” or “net positive principles” or “net positive strategies” or “net positive objectives” or “net positive aims” or “net positive goals” or “net positive targets” or “net positive requirements” or “net positive frameworks” or “net positive models” or “net positive assessments” or “net positive appraisals” or “net positive evaluations” or “net positive approaches” or “net positive practices” or “net positive tools” or “net positive plan” or “net positive plans” or “net positive planning”) | 1 | 1 |
| #19 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 0 | |
| #20 | (“positive outcome theory” or “positive outcome concept” or “positive outcome principle” or “positive outcome policy” or “positive outcome policies” or “positive outcome strategy” or “positive outcome objective” or “positive outcome aim” or “positive outcome goal” or “positive outcome target” or “positive outcome requirement” or “positive outcome framework” or “positive outcome model” or “positive outcome assessment” or “positive outcome appraisal” or “positive outcome evaluation” or “positive outcome approach” or “positive outcome practice” or “positive outcome tool” or “positive outcome theories” or “positive outcome concepts” or “positive outcome principles” or “positive outcome strategies” or “positive outcome objectives” or “positive outcome aims” or “positive outcome goals” or “positive outcome targets” or “positive outcome requirements” or “positive outcome frameworks” or “positive outcome models” or “positive outcome assessments” or “positive outcome appraisals” or “positive outcome evaluations” or “positive outcome approaches” or “positive outcome practices” or “positive outcome tools” or “positive outcome plan” or “positive outcome plans” or “positive outcome planning”) | 24 | 24 |
| #20 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 1 | |
| #21 | (“net positive outcome theory” or “net positive outcome concept” or “net positive outcome principle” or “net positive outcome policy” or “net positive outcome policies” or “net positive outcome strategy” or “net positive outcome objective” or “net positive outcome aim” or “net positive outcome goal” or “net positive outcome target” or “net positive outcome requirement” or “net positive outcome framework” or “net positive outcome model” or “net positive outcome assessment” or “net positive outcome appraisal” or “net positive outcome evaluation” or “net positive outcome approach” or “net positive outcome practice” or “net positive outcome tool” or “net positive outcome theories” or “net positive outcome concepts” or “net positive outcome principles” or “net positive outcome strategies” or “net positive outcome objectives” or “net positive outcome aims” or “net positive outcome goals” or “net positive outcome targets” or “net positive outcome requirements” or “net positive outcome frameworks” or “net positive outcome models” or “net positive outcome assessments” or “net positive outcome appraisals” or “net positive outcome evaluations” or “net positive outcome approaches” or “net positive outcome practices” or “net positive outcome tools” or “net positive outcome plan” or “net positive outcome plans” or “net positive outcome planning”) | 0 | 0 |
| #22 | (“positive impact theory” or “positive impact concept” or “positive impact principle” or “positive impact policy” or “positive impact policies” or “positive impact strategy” or “positive impact objective” or “positive impact aim” or “positive impact goal” or “positive impact target” or “positive impact requirement” or “positive impact framework” or “positive impact model” or “positive impact assessment” or “positive impact appraisal” or “positive impact evaluation” or “positive impact approach” or “positive impact practice” or “positive impact tool” or “positive impact theories” or “positive impact concepts” or “positive impact principles” or “positive impact strategies” or “positive impact objectives” or “positive impact aims” or “positive impact goals” or “positive impact targets” or “positive impact requirements” or “positive impact frameworks” or “positive impact models” or “positive impact assessments” or “positive impact appraisals” or “positive impact evaluations” or “positive impact approaches” or “positive impact practices” or “positive impact tools” or “positive impact plan” or “positive impact plans” or “positive impact planning”) | 7 | 7 |
| #22 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 0 | |
| #23 | (“net positive impact theory” or “net positive impact concept” or “net positive impact principle” or “net positive impact policy” or “net positive impact policies” or “net positive impact strategy” or “net positive impact objective” or “net positive impact aim” or “net positive impact goal” or “net positive impact target” or “net positive impact requirement” or “net positive impact framework” or “net positive impact model” or “net positive impact assessment” or “net positive impact appraisal” or “net positive impact evaluation” or “net positive impact approach” or “net positive impact practice” or “net positive impact tool” or “net positive impact theories” or “net positive impact concepts” or “net positive impact principles” or “net positive impact strategies” or “net positive impact objectives” or “net positive impact aims” or “net positive impact goals” or “net positive impact targets” or “net positive impact requirements” or “net positive impact frameworks” or “net positive impact models” or “net positive impact assessments” or “net positive impact appraisals” or “net positive impact evaluations” or “net positive impact approaches” or “net positive impact practices” or “net positive impact tools” or “net positive impact plan” or “net positive impact plans” or “net positive impact planning”) | 0 | 0 |
| #24 | (“positive development theory” or “positive development concept” or “positive development principle” or “positive development policy” or “positive development policies” or “positive development strategy” or “positive development objective” or “positive development aim” or “positive development goal” or “positive development target” or “positive development requirement” or “positive development framework” or “positive development model” or “positive development assessment” or “positive development appraisal” or “positive development evaluation” or “positive development approach” or “positive development practice” or “positive development tool” or “positive development theories” or “positive development concepts” or “positive development principles” or “positive development strategies” or “positive development objectives” or “positive development aims” or “positive development goals” or “positive development targets” or “positive development requirements” or “positive development frameworks” or “positive development models” or “positive development assessments” or “positive development appraisals” or “positive development evaluations” or “positive development approaches” or “positive development practices” or “positive development tools” or “positive development plan” or “positive development plans” or “positive development planning”) | 3 | 4 |
| #24 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 1 | |
| #25 | (“regenerative design theory” or “regenerative design concept” or “regenerative design principle” or “regenerative design policy” or “regenerative design policies” or “regenerative design strategy” or “regenerative design objective” or “regenerative design aim” or “regenerative design goal” or “regenerative design target” or “regenerative design requirement” or “regenerative design framework” or “regenerative design model” or “regenerative design assessment” or “regenerative design appraisal” or “regenerative design evaluation” or “regenerative design approach” or “regenerative design practice” or “regenerative design tool” or “regenerative design theories” or “regenerative design concepts” or “regenerative design principles” or “regenerative design strategies” or “regenerative design objectives” or “regenerative design aims” or “regenerative design goals” or “regenerative design targets” or “regenerative design requirements” or “regenerative design frameworks” or “regenerative design models” or “regenerative design assessments” or “regenerative design appraisals” or “regenerative design evaluations” or “regenerative design approaches” or “regenerative design practices” or “regenerative design tools” or “regenerative design plan” or “regenerative design plans” or “regenerative design planning”) | 0 | 0 |
| #26 | (“regenerative development theory” or “regenerative development concept” or “regenerative development principle” or “regenerative development policy” or “regenerative development policies” or “regenerative development strategy” or “regenerative development objective” or “regenerative development aim” or “regenerative development goal” or “regenerative development target” or “regenerative development requirement” or “regenerative development framework” or “regenerative development model” or “regenerative development assessment” or “regenerative development appraisal” or “regenerative development evaluation” or “regenerative development approach” or “regenerative development practice” or “regenerative development tool” or “regenerative development theories” or “regenerative development concepts” or “regenerative development principles” or “regenerative development strategies” or “regenerative development objectives” or “regenerative development aims” or “regenerative development goals” or “regenerative development targets” or “regenerative development requirements” or “regenerative development frameworks” or “regenerative development models” or “regenerative development assessments” or “regenerative development appraisals” or “regenerative development evaluations” or “regenerative development approaches” or “regenerative development practices” or “regenerative development tools”or “regenerative development plan” or “regenerative development plans” or “regenerative development planning”) | 0 | 0 |
| #27 | (“regenerative sustainability theory” OR “regenerative sustainability concept” OR “regenerative sustainability principle” OR “regenerative sustainability policy” OR “regenerative sustainability policies” OR “regenerative sustainability strategy” OR “regenerative sustainability objective” OR “regenerative sustainability aim” OR “regenerative sustainability goal” OR “regenerative sustainability target” OR “regenerative sustainability requirement” OR “regenerative sustainability framework” OR “regenerative sustainability model” OR “regenerative sustainability assessment” OR “regenerative sustainability appraisal” OR “regenerative sustainability evaluation” OR “regenerative sustainability approach” OR “regenerative sustainability practice” OR “regenerative sustainability tool” OR “regenerative sustainability theories” OR “regenerative sustainability concepts” OR “regenerative sustainability principles” OR “regenerative sustainability strategies” OR “regenerative sustainability objectives” OR “regenerative sustainability aims” OR “regenerative sustainability goals” OR “regenerative sustainability targets” OR “regenerative sustainability requirements” OR “regenerative sustainability frameworks” OR “regenerative sustainability models” OR “regenerative sustainability assessments” OR “regenerative sustainability appraisals” OR “regenerative sustainability evaluations” OR “regenerative sustainability approaches” OR “regenerative sustainability practices” OR “regenerative sustainability tools” OR “regenerative sustainability plan” OR “regenerative sustainability plans” or “regenerative sustainability planning”) | 0 | 0 |
| #28 | (“no net loss theory” or “no net loss concept” or “no net loss principle” or “no net loss policy” or “no net loss policies” or “no net loss strategy” or “no net loss objective” or “no net loss aim” or “no net loss goal” or “no net loss target” or “no net loss requirement” or “no net loss framework” or “no net loss model” or “no net loss assessment” or “no net loss appraisal” or “no net loss evaluation” or “no net loss approach” or “no net loss practice” or “no net loss tool” or “no net loss theories” or “no net loss concepts” or “no net loss principles” or “no net loss strategies” or “no net loss objectives” or “no net loss aims” or “no net loss goals” or “no net loss targets” or “no net loss requirements” or “no net loss frameworks” or “no net loss models” or “no net loss assessments” or “no net loss appraisals” or “no net loss evaluations” or “no net loss approaches” or “no net loss practices” or “no net loss tools” or “no net loss plan” or “no net loss plans” or “no net loss planning”) | 2 | 2 |
| #28 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 0 | |
| #29 | (“mitigation hierarchy theory” or “mitigation hierarchy concept” or “mitigation hierarchy principle” or “mitigation hierarchy policy” or “mitigation hierarchy policies” or “mitigation hierarchy strategy” or “mitigation hierarchy objective” or “mitigation hierarchy aim” or “mitigation hierarchy goal” or “mitigation hierarchy target” or “mitigation hierarchy requirement” or “mitigation hierarchy framework” or “mitigation hierarchy model” or “mitigation hierarchy assessment” or “mitigation hierarchy appraisal” or “mitigation hierarchy evaluation” or “mitigation hierarchy approach” or “mitigation hierarchy practice” or “mitigation hierarchy tool” or “mitigation hierarchy theories” or “mitigation hierarchy concepts” or “mitigation hierarchy principles” or “mitigation hierarchy strategies” or “mitigation hierarchy objectives” or “mitigation hierarchy aims” or “mitigation hierarchy goals” or “mitigation hierarchy targets” or “mitigation hierarchy requirements” or “mitigation hierarchy frameworks” or “mitigation hierarchy models” or “mitigation hierarchy assessments” or “mitigation hierarchy appraisals” or “mitigation hierarchy evaluations” or “mitigation hierarchy approaches” or “mitigation hierarchy practices” or “mitigation hierarchy tools” or “mitigation hierarchy plan” or “mitigation hierarchy plans” or “mitigation hierarchy planning”) | 0 | 0 |
| #30 | (“health net gain” or “health net benefit” or “health net improvement” or “health net increase” or “health net positive”) | 2 | 3 |
| #31 | (“health net gain” or “health net benefit” or “health net improvement” or “health net increase” or “health net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 2 | 3 |
| #31 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 1 | |
| #32 | (“wellbeing net gain” or “wellbeing net benefit” or “wellbeing net improvement” or “wellbeing net increase” or “wellbeing net positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #33 | (“wellbeing net gain” or “wellbeing net benefit” or “wellbeing net improvement” or “wellbeing net increase” or “wellbeing net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #34 | (“well being net gain” or “well being net benefit” or “well being net improvement” or “well being net increase” or “well being net positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #35 | (“well being net gain” or “well being net benefit” or “well being net improvement” or “well being net increase” or “well being net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #36 | (“welfare net gain” or “welfare net benefit” or “welfare net improvement” or “welfare net increase” or “welfare net positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #37 | (“welfare net gain” or “welfare net benefit” or “welfare net improvement” or “welfare net increase” or “welfare net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #38 | (“social net gain” or “social net benefit” or “social net improvement” or “social net increase” or “social net positive”) | 3 | 3 |
| #39 | (“social net gain” or “social net benefit” or “social net improvement” or “social net increase” or “social net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 2 | 2 |
| #39 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 0 | |
| #40 | (“societal net gain” or “societal net benefit” or “societal net improvement” or “societal net increase” or “societal net positive”) | 6 | 6 |
| #41 | (“societal net gain” or “societal net benefit” or “societal net improvement” or “societal net increase” or “societal net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 4 | 4 |
| #41 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 0 | |
| #42 | (“society net gain” or “society net benefit” or “society net improvement” or “society net increase” or “society net positive”) | 6 | 6 |
| #43 | (“society net gain” or “society net benefit” or “society net improvement” or “society net increase” or “society net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 4 | 4 |
| #43 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 0 | |
| #44 | (“societies net gain” or “societies net benefit” or “societies net improvement” or “societies net increase” or “societies net positive”) | 6 | 6 |
| #45 | (“societies net gain” or “societies net benefit” or “societies net improvement” or “societies net increase” or “societies net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 4 | 4 |
| #45 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 0 | |
| #46 | (“sociodemographic net gain” or “sociodemographic net benefit” or “sociodemographic net improvement” or “sociodemographic net increase” or “sociodemographic net positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #47 | (“sociodemographic net gain” or “sociodemographic net benefit” or “sociodemographic net improvement” or “sociodemographic net increase” or “sociodemographic net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #48 | (“socioeconomic net gain” or “socioeconomic net benefit” or “socioeconomic net improvement” or “socioeconomic net increase” or “socioeconomic net positive”) | 1 | 1 |
| #49 | (“socioeconomic net gain” or “socioeconomic net benefit” or “socioeconomic net improvement” or “socioeconomic net increase” or “socioeconomic net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 1 | 1 |
| #49 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 0 | |
| #50 | (“sociological net gain” or “sociological net benefit” or “sociological net improvement” or “sociological net increase” or “sociological net positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #51 | (“sociological net gain” or “sociological net benefit” or “sociological net improvement” or “sociological net increase” or “sociological net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #52 | (“community net gain” or “community net benefit” or “community net improvement” or “community net increase” or “community net positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #53 | (“community net gain” or “community net benefit” or “community net improvement” or “community net increase” or “community net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #54 | Amended to bring in reparation/restitution | 311 | |
| #55 | (“net health gain” or “net health benefit” or “net health improvement” or “net health increase” or “net health positive”) | 281 | 283 |
| #55 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 45 | |
| #56 | (“net health gain” or “net health benefit” or “net health improvement” or “net health increase” or “net health positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 254 | 0 |
| #57 | (“net wellbeing gain” or “net wellbeing benefit” or “net wellbeing improvement” or “net wellbeing increase” or “net wellbeing positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #58 | (“net wellbeing gain” or “net wellbeing benefit” or “net wellbeing improvement” or “net wellbeing increase” or “net wellbeing positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #59 | (“net well being gain” or “net well being benefit” or “net well being improvement” or “net well being increase” or “net well being positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #60 | (“net well being gain” or “net well being benefit” or “net well being improvement” or “net well being increase” or “net well being positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 0 | 2 |
| #61 | (“net welfare gain” or “net welfare benefit” or “net welfare improvement” or “net welfare increase” or “net welfare positive”) | 2 | 2 |
| #61 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 0 | |
| #62 | (“net welfare gain” or “net welfare benefit” or “net welfare improvement” or “net welfare increase” or “net welfare positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 2 | 21 |
| #63 | (“net social gain” or “net social benefit” or “net social improvement” or “net social increase” or “net social positive”) | 21 | 19 |
| #63 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 1 | |
| #64 | (“net social gain” or “net social benefit” or “net social improvement” or “net social increase” or “net social positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 19 | 24 |
| #65 | (“net societal gain” or “net societal benefit” or “net societal improvement” or “net societal increase” or “net societal positive”) | 24 | 17 |
| #65 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 0 | |
| #66 | (“net societal gain” or “net societal benefit” or “net societal improvement” or “net societal increase” or “net societal positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 17 | 24 |
| #67 | (“net society gain” or “net society benefit” or “net society improvement” or “net society increase” or “net society positive”) | 24 | 4 |
| #67 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 0 | |
| #68 | (“society net gain” or “society net benefit” or “society net improvement” or “society net increase” or “society net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 4 | 24 |
| #69 | (“net societies gain” or “net societies benefit” or “net societies improvement” or “net societies increase” or “net societies positive”) | 24 | 4 |
| #69 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 0 | |
| #70 | (“societies net gain” or “societies net benefit” or “societies net improvement” or “societies net increase” or “societies net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 4 | 0 |
| #71 | (“net sociodemographic gain” or “net sociodemographic benefit” or “net sociodemographic improvement” or “net sociodemographic increase” or “net sociodemographic positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #72 | (“sociodemographic net gain” or “sociodemographic net benefit” or “sociodemographic net improvement” or “sociodemographic net increase” or “sociodemographic net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 0 | 1 |
| #73 | (“net socioeconomic gain” or “net socioeconomic benefit” or “net socioeconomic improvement” or “net socioeconomic increase” or “net socioeconomic positive”) | 1 | 1 |
| #73 from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 0 | |
| #74 | (“socioeconomic net gain” or “socioeconomic net benefit” or “socioeconomic net improvement” or “socioeconomic net increase” or “socioeconomic net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 1 | 0 |
| #75 | (“net sociological gain” or “net sociological benefit” or “net sociological improvement” or “net sociological increase” or “net sociological positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| #76 | (“sociological net gain” or “sociological net benefit” or “sociological net improvement” or “sociological net increase” or “sociological net positive”) and (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 0 | 0 |
| #77 | (“net community gain” or “net community benefit” or “net community improvement” or “net community increase” or “net community positive”) | 0 | 0 |
| Total records retrieved (sum) | 1448 | 1576 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum) from_date:2023 to_date:2024 | N/A | 138 | |
| IBSS (ProQuest) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 18, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved (18/07/24) |
| #1 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability”) | 515 | 509 |
| #2 | SUBJECT(“net positive*” or “net benefit*” or “positive development*”) | 15 | 8 |
| #3 | [S1] or [S2] | 529 | 517 |
| #4 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Theory” OR “Public policy” OR “Strategies” OR “Planning”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Conceptual models” OR “Concepts” OR “Concept formation” OR “Principles” OR “Standards” OR “Policy making” OR “Policy implementation” OR “Plans” OR “Professional practices” OR “Practice” OR “Approaches”)) | 385,056 | 413,817 |
| #5 | SUBJECT(theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*) | 1,407,370 | 1,464,605 |
| #6 | MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Strategic impact assessment” OR “Health impact assessment” OR “Environmental impact assessment” OR “Strategic environmental assessment”) | 436 | 477 |
| #7 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“health risk assessment*” OR “impact assessment*” OR “environmental assessment*” OR “assessment tool*” OR “assessment method*”) | 10,682 | 11,151 |
| #8 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(HIA OR HIAs OR EIA OR EIAs OR “sustainability appraisal*”) | 1404 | 1425 |
| #9 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Compensation”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Mitigation” OR “Reparations”)) | 17,734 | 19,310 |
| #10 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(mitigation* OR “hierarchical system*” OR “response hierarch*” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off-set*” OR tradeoff* OR “trade-off*” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 69,129 | 71,184 |
| #11 | [S4] or [S5] or [S6] or [S7] or [S8] or [S9] or [S10] | 1,457,583 | 1,516,365 |
| #12 | [S3] and [S11] | 311 | 304 |
| #13 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare) | 420,497 | 437,382 |
| #14 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Well being”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Health” OR “Public health” OR “Health status” OR “Health disparities” OR “Quality of life” OR “Welfare” OR “Social welfare”)) | 152,665 | 159,649 |
| #15 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Social justice” OR “Social processes”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Social factors” OR “Social conditions” OR “Social issues” OR “Social problems” OR “Distributive justice” OR “Restorative justice” OR “Social environment” OR “Social impact” OR “Social inequality” OR “Sociological aspects” OR “Socioeconomic factors” OR “Sociodemographics” OR “Society”)) | 256,081 | 268,947 |
| #16 | SUBJECT(social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological*) | 1,055,481 | 1,101,429 |
| #17 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Population”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Humans” OR “Residents” OR “Local population” OR “Stakeholders” OR “Interest groups” OR “Community” OR “Local communities” OR “Master planned communities”)) | 131,599 | 137,304 |
| #18 | SUBJECT(human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community or communities) | 456,362 | 490,157 |
| #19 | [S13] or [S14] or [S15] or [S16] or [S17] or [S18] | 1,649,620 | 1,721,291 |
| #20 | [S3] and [S19] | 198 | 192 |
| #21 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare OR soci* OR commun*) NEAR/2 net NEAR/2 (gain? OR benefit? OR improve* OR increase? OR positive?)) | 437 | 442 |
| #22 | [S21] and [S11] | 279 | 288 |
| ([S21] and [S11]) AND pd(20230101-20240718) | N/A | 9 | |
| #23 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“health net gain*” OR “net health gain*” OR “wellbeing net gain*” OR “net wellbeing gain*” OR “well-being net gain*” OR “net well-being gain*”) | 2 | 2 |
| #24 | [S12] or [S20] or [S23] | 384 | 376 |
| ([S12] or [S20] or [S23]) AND pd(20230101-20240718) | N/A | 9 | |
| #25 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 13 | 13 |
| (TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?))) AND pd(20230101-20240718) | N/A | 0 | |
| #26 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 12 | 12 |
| (TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?))) AND pd(20230101-20240718) | N/A | 2 | |
| #27 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 11 | 11 |
| (TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?))) AND pd(20230101-20240718) | N/A | 1 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22, #24-27) | 699 | 700 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22, #24-27 for date range 20230101-20240718) | N/A | 21 | |
| Dissertations and Theses A&I (ProQuest) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 12, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved (12/07/24) |
| #1 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability”) | 614 | 655 |
| #2 | SUBJECT(“net positive*” or “net benefit*” or “positive development*”) | 43 | 48 |
| #3 | [S1] or [S2] | 657 | 703 |
| #4 | MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Standards” OR “Guidelines”) | 922 | 1241 |
| #5 | SUBJECT(theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*) | 344,322 | 412,917 |
| #6 | MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Environmental impact statements”) | 12 | 15 |
| #7 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“health risk assessment*” OR “impact assessment*” OR “environmental assessment*” OR “assessment tool*” OR “assessment method*”) | 17,038 | 18,753 |
| #8 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(HIA OR HIAs OR EIA OR EIAs OR “sustainability appraisal*”) | 1245 | 1352 |
| #9 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(mitigation* OR “hierarchical system*” OR “response hierarch*” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off-set*” OR tradeoff* OR “trade-off*” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 93,367 | 99,841 |
| #10 | [S4] or [S5] or [S6] or [S7] or [S8] or [S9] | 440,717 | 515,668 |
| #11 | [S3] and [S10] | 170 | 184 |
| #12 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare) | 796,355 | 857,968 |
| #13 | MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Quality of life”) | 3679 | 5112 |
| #14 | MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Distributive justice” OR “Restorative justice”) | 259 | 359 |
| #15 | SUBJECT(social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological*) | 1,566,558 | 1,592,180 |
| #16 | MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Residents” OR “Interest groups”) | 543 | 617 |
| #17 | SUBJECT(human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community or communities) | 124,338 | 141,231 |
| #18 | [S12] or [S13] or [S14] or [S15] or [S16] or [S17] | 2,222,130 | 2,311,061 |
| #19 | [S3] and [S18] | 315 | 335 |
| #20 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare OR soci* OR commun*) NEAR/2 net NEAR/2 (gain? OR benefit? OR improve* OR increase? OR positive?)) | 291 | 304 |
| #21 | [S20] and [S10] | 115 | 122 |
| ([S20] and [S10]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 6 | |
| #22 | [S11] or [S19] | 373 | 398 |
| ([S11] or [S19]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 18 | |
| #23 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 17 | 18 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 0 | |
| #24 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 9 | 11 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| #25 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 29 | 33 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 3 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #21, #22-25) | 543 | 582 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #21, #22-25 for date range 20230101-20240712) | N/A | 28 | |
| APA PsycINFO (Ovid) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 12, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved (12/07/24) |
| #1 | (“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability”).mp. | 234 | 244 |
| #2 | (“net positive*” or “net benefit*” or “positive development*”).hw,id,mf,mh. | 284 | 298 |
| #3 | 1 or 2 | 518 | 542 |
| #4 | exp theories/ or exp concepts/ or exp policy making/ or strategies/ or exp environmental planning/ or practice/ | 526,623 | 544,130 |
| #5 | (theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*).hw,id,mf,mh. | 1,166,457 | 1,203,975 |
| #6 | (“health risk assessment*” or “impact assessment*” or “environmental assessment*” or “assessment tool*” or “assessment method*”).mp. | 23,992 | 25,651 |
| #7 | (HIA or HIAs or EIA or EIAs or “sustainability appraisal*”).mp. | 327 | 338 |
| #8 | (mitigation* or “hierarchical system*” or “response hierarch*” or compensation* or offset* or “off-set*” or tradeoff* or “trade-off*” or reparation* or restitution*).mp. | 44,908 | 47,383 |
| #9 | 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 | 1,288,905 | 1,331,924 |
| #10 | ((“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net benefit*” or “net improve*” or “net increase*” or “net positive*” or “positive outcome*” or “net positive outcome*” or “positive impact*” or “net positive impact*” or “positive development*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*”) adj (theor* or concept* or principle* or polic* or plan* or strateg* or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or assessment* or appraisal* or evaluation* or approach* or practice* or tool*)).mp. | 72 | 77 |
| #11 | (3 and 9) or 10 | 224 | 234 |
| #12 | (health* or wellbeing or “well-being” or welfare).mp. | 1,173,400 | 1,243,613 |
| #13 | exp health/ | 427,408 | 491,253 |
| #14 | exp social issues/ or exp social environments/ or exp socioeconomic factors/ or exp social processes/ or society/ | 850,062 | 893,256 |
| #15 | (social* or societal* or society or societies or sociodemographic* or socioeconomic* or sociological*).hw,id,mf,mh. | 777,343 | 806,303 |
| #16 | exp population/ or stakeholder/ | 221,152 | 231,110 |
| #17 | (human* or population* or stakeholder* or community or communities).hw,id,mf,mh. | 1,795,709 | 1,838,284 |
| #18 | 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 | 3,050,881 | 3,174,550 |
| #19 | 3 and 18 | 329 | 347 |
| #20 | ((health* or wellbeing or “well-being” or welfare or soci* or commun*) adj3 net adj3 (gain* or benefit* or improve* or increase* or positive*)).mp. | 123 | 130 |
| #21 | 9 and 20 | 58 | 59 |
| #22 | (“health net gain*” or “net health gain*” or “wellbeing net gain*” or “net wellbeing gain*” or “well-being net gain*” or “net well-being gain*”).mp. | 3 | 3 |
| #23 | 11 or 19 or 21 or 22 | 505 | 530 |
| #24 | limit 23 to up=20230801-20240712 | N/A | 25 |
| PAIS Index (ProQuest) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 12, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved (12/07/24) |
| #1 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability”) | 178 | 193 |
| #2 | SUBJECT(“net positive*” or “net benefit*” or “positive development*”) | 2 | 1 |
| #3 | [S1] or [S2] | 180 | 194 |
| #4 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Theories” OR “Theory formation” OR “Public policy” OR “Policy making” OR “Policy implementation” OR “Strategies” OR “Planning”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Concepts” OR “Concept formation” OR “Principles” OR “Standards” OR “Methodological approaches”)) | 109,709 | 147,438 |
| #5 | SUBJECT(theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*) | 536,161 | 605,177 |
| #6 | MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Environmental impact assessment” OR “Social impact assessment”) | 122 | 283 |
| #7 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“health risk assessment*” OR “impact assessment*” OR “environmental assessment*” OR “assessment tool*” OR “assessment method*”) | 4479 | 5428 |
| #8 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(HIA OR HIAs OR EIA OR EIAs OR “sustainability appraisal*”) | 413 | 553 |
| #9 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Compensation”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Restitution”)) | 15,635 | 17,488 |
| #10 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(mitigation* OR “hierarchical system*” OR “response hierarch*” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off-set*” OR tradeoff* OR “trade-off*” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 32,921 | 36,410 |
| #11 | [S4] or [S5] or [S6] or [S7] or [S8] or [S9] or [S10] | 563,296 | 633,609 |
| #12 | [S3] and [S11] | 125 | 136 |
| #13 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare) | 206,712 | 232,978 |
| #14 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Health” OR “Quality of life” OR “Social welfare”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Health planning” OR “Health disparities” OR “Welfare”)) | 62,611 | 83,581 |
| #15 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Social justice” OR “Social processes”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Social factors” OR “Social conditions” OR “Social problems” OR “Restorative justice” OR “Social environment” OR “Social impact” OR “Social inequality” OR “Socioeconomic factors” OR “Sociodemographics” OR “Society”)) | 39,555 | 51,572 |
| #16 | SUBJECT(social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological*) | 262,679 | 287,469 |
| #17 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Population”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Residents” OR “Interest groups” OR “Community”)) | 33,619 | 40,809 |
| #18 | SUBJECT(human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community or communities) | 186,739 | 207,708 |
| #19 | [S13] or [S14] or [S15] or [S16] or [S17] or [S18] | 505,686 | 557,135 |
| #20 | [S3] and [S19] | 83 | 92 |
| #21 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare OR soci* OR commun*) NEAR/2 net NEAR/2 (gain? OR benefit? OR improve* OR increase? OR positive?)) | 185 | 209 |
| #22 | [S21] and [S11] | 149 | 171 |
| ([S21] and [S11]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 5 | |
| #23 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“health net gain*” OR “net health gain*” OR “wellbeing net gain*” OR “net wellbeing gain*” OR “well-being net gain*” OR “net well-being gain*”) | 2 | 3 |
| #24 | [S12] or [S20] or [S23] | 149 | 161 |
| ([S12] or [S20] or [S23]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| #25 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 3 | 3 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 0 | |
| #26 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 3 | 5 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| #27 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 8 | 8 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 0 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22, #24-27) | 312 | 348 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22, #24-27 for date range 20230101-20240712) | N/A | 7 | |
| Social Science Database (ProQuest) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 12, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved (12/07/24) |
| #1 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability”) | 225 | 228 |
| #2 | SUBJECT(“net positive*” or “net benefit*” or “positive development*”) | 11 | 17 |
| #3 | [S1] or [S2] | 236 | 245 |
| #4 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Theory” OR “Principles” OR “Standards” OR “Public policy” OR “Policy making” OR “Planning” OR “Professional practice” OR “Guidelines”)) | 85,759 | 92,371 |
| #5 | SUBJECT(theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*) | 498,648 | 553,512 |
| #6 | MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Health risk assessment” OR “Environmental impact statements”) | 5917 | 6042 |
| #7 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“health risk assessment*” OR “impact assessment*” OR “environmental assessment*” OR “assessment tool*” OR “assessment method*”) | 10,178 | 10,665 |
| #8 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(HIA OR HIAs OR EIA OR EIAs OR “sustainability appraisal*”) | 333 | 345 |
| #9 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Compensation” OR “Reparations” OR “Restitution”)) | 5872 | 6373 |
| #10 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(mitigation* OR “hierarchical system*” OR “response hierarch*” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off-set*” OR tradeoff* OR “trade-off*” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 32,140 | 33,522 |
| #11 | [S4] or [S5] or [S6] or [S7] or [S8] or [S9] or [S10] | 531,858 | 588,195 |
| #12 | [S3] and [S11] | 110 | 115 |
| #13 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare) | 390,098 | 415,658 |
| #14 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Health” OR “Public health” OR “Health disparities” OR “Quality of life” OR “Welfare”)) | 90,832 | 103,863 |
| #15 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Social conditions & trends” OR “Social justice” OR “Distributive justice” OR “Restorative justice” OR “Social impact” OR “Socioeconomic factors” OR “Sociodemographics” OR “Society”)) | 104,735 | 110,582 |
| #16 | SUBJECT(social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological*) | 475,041 | 525,047 |
| #17 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Population” OR “Residents” OR “Stakeholders” OR “Interest groups” OR “Community” OR “Master planned communities”)) | 61,413 | 66,045 |
| #18 | SUBJECT(human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community or communities) | 301,137 | 336,196 |
| #19 | [S13] or [S14] or [S15] or [S16] or [S17] or [S18] | 906,004 | 980,484 |
| #20 | [S3] and [S19] | 101 | 108 |
| #21 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare OR soci* OR commun*) NEAR/2 net NEAR/2 (gain? OR benefit? OR improve* OR increase? OR positive?)) | 170 | 169 |
| #22 | [S21] and [S11] | 102 | 102 |
| ([S21] and [S11]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 3 | |
| #23 | [S12] or [S20] | 152 | 163 |
| ([S12] or [S20]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 8 | |
| #24 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 6 | 6 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 0 | |
| #25 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 10 | 10 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 2 | |
| #26 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 5 | 5 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22-26) | 275 | 286 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22-26 for date range 20230101-20240712) | N/A | 14 | |
| Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 12, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved (12/07/24) |
| #1 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability”) | 157 | 159 |
| #2 | SUBJECT(“net positive*” or “net benefit*” or “positive development*”) | 19 | 20 |
| #3 | [S1] or [S2] | 176 | 179 |
| #4 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Theories” OR “Theory formation” OR “Public policy” OR “Policy implementation” OR “Strategies” OR “Planning”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Concepts” OR “Concept formation” OR “Principles” OR “Standards” OR “Policy making” OR “Methodological approaches”)) | 128,189 | 134,020 |
| #5 | SUBJECT(theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*) | 487,149 | 508,793 |
| #6 | MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Social impact assessment”) | 576 | 566 |
| #7 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“health risk assessment*” OR “impact assessment*” OR “environmental assessment*” OR “assessment tool*” OR “assessment method*”) | 4149 | 4320 |
| #8 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(HIA OR HIAs OR EIA OR EIAs OR “sustainability appraisal*”) | 114 | 117 |
| #9 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Compensation”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Reparations” OR “Restitution”)) | 6274 | 6736 |
| #10 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(mitigation* OR “hierarchical system*” OR “response hierarch*” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off-set*” OR tradeoff* OR “trade-off*” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 17,016 | 17,522 |
| #11 | [S4] or [S5] or [S6] or [S7] or [S8] or [S9] or [S10] | 509,442 | 531,592 |
| #12 | [S3] and [S11] | 60 | 62 |
| #13 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare) | 346,517 | 357,516 |
| #14 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Health” OR “Quality of life”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Health status” OR “Health planning” OR “Health disparities” OR “Well being” OR “Social welfare”)) | 108,390 | 115,704 |
| #15 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Social justice” OR “Social environment” OR “Social processes”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Social factors” OR “Social conditions” OR “Social problems” OR “Restorative justice” OR “Social impact” OR “Social inequality” OR “Socioeconomic factors” OR “Sociodemographics” OR “Society”)) | 167,975 | 179,572 |
| #16 | SUBJECT(social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological*) | 895,673 | 927,572 |
| #17 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Population”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Residents” OR “Interest groups” OR “Community”)) | 37,006 | 39,920 |
| #18 | SUBJECT(human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community or communities) | 215,498 | 233,506 |
| #19 | [S13] or [S14] or [S15] or [S16] or [S17] or [S18] | 1,166,222 | 1,209,413 |
| #20 | [S3] and [S19] | 125 | 128 |
| #21 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare OR soci* OR commun*) NEAR/2 net NEAR/2 (gain? OR benefit? OR improve* OR increase? OR positive?)) | 100 | 94 |
| #22 | [S21] and [S11] | 52 | 48 |
| ([S21] and [S11]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 0 | |
| #23 | [S12] or [S20] | 140 | 144 |
| ([S12] or [S20]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 4 | |
| #24 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 2 | 2 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 0 | |
| #25 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 14 | 16 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| #26 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 4 | 4 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22-26) | 212 | 214 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22-26 for date range 20230101-20240712) | N/A | 6 | |
| ASSIA (ProQuest) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 12, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved (12/07/24) |
| #1 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability”) | 71 | 72 |
| #2 | SUBJECT(“net positive*” or “net benefit*” or “positive development*”) | 26 | 25 |
| #3 | [S1] or [S2] | 97 | 97 |
| #4 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Theory” OR “Public policy” OR “Strategies” OR “Planning”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Conceptual models” OR “Concepts” OR “Concept formation” OR “Principles” OR “Standards” OR “Policy making” OR “Policy implementation” OR “Plans” OR “Professional practices” OR “Practice” OR “Approaches”)) | 57,821 | 62,376 |
| #5 | SUBJECT(theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*) | 240,401 | 267,343 |
| #6 | MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Strategic impact assessment” OR “Health impact assessment” OR “Environmental impact assessment” OR “Strategic environmental assessment”) | 156 | 159 |
| #7 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“health risk assessment*” OR “impact assessment*” OR “environmental assessment*” OR “assessment tool*” OR “assessment method*”) | 11,529 | 12,044 |
| #8 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(HIA OR HIAs OR EIA OR EIAs OR “sustainability appraisal*”) | 175 | 178 |
| #9 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Compensation”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Mitigation” OR “Reparations”)) | 4013 | 4297 |
| #10 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(mitigation* OR “hierarchical system*” OR “response hierarch*” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off-set*” OR tradeoff* OR “trade-off*” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 10,293 | 10,624 |
| #11 | [S4] or [S5] or [S6] or [S7] or [S8] or [S9] or [S10] | 260,571 | 288,200 |
| #12 | [S3] and [S11] | 34 | 32 |
| #13 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare) | 467,333 | 491,550 |
| #14 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Well being”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Health” OR “Public health” OR “Health status” OR “Health disparities” OR “Quality of life” OR “Welfare” OR “Social welfare”)) | 103,240 | 113,834 |
| #15 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Social justice” OR “Social processes”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Social factors” OR “Social conditions” OR “Social issues” OR “Social problems” OR “Distributive justice” OR “Restorative justice” OR “Social environment” OR “Social impact” OR “Social inequality” OR “Sociological aspects” OR “Socioeconomic factors” OR “Sociodemographics” OR “Society”)) | 49,102 | 56,584 |
| #16 | SUBJECT(social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological*) | 230,317 | 254,262 |
| #17 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Population”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Humans” OR “Residents” OR “Local population” OR “Stakeholders” OR “Interest groups” OR “Community” OR “Local communities” OR “Master planned communities”)) | 66,045 | 68,498 |
| #18 | SUBJECT(human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community or communities) | 174,765 | 187,926 |
| #19 | [S13] or [S14] or [S15] or [S16] or [S17] or [S18] | 687,611 | 726,699 |
| #20 | [S3] and [S19] | 65 | 62 |
| #21 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare OR soci* OR commun*) NEAR/2 net NEAR/2 (gain? OR benefit? OR improve* OR increase? OR positive?)) | 110 | 113 |
| #22 | [S21] and [S11] | 36 | 38 |
| ([S21] and [S11]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 0 | |
| #23 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“health net gain*” OR “net health gain*” OR “wellbeing net gain*” OR “net wellbeing gain*” OR “well-being net gain*” OR “net well-being gain*”) | 5 | 5 |
| #24 | [S12] or [S20] or [S23] | 78 | 74 |
| ([S12] or [S20] or [S23]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| #25 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 20 | 21 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| #26 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 17 | 18 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 2 | |
| #27 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 0 | 0 |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22, #24-27) | 151 | 151 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22, #24-27 for date range 20230101-20240712) | N/A | 4 | |
| Political Science Database (ProQuest) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 12, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved (12/07/24) |
| #1 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability”) | 103 | 105 |
| #2 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Theory” OR “Principles” OR “Standards” OR “Public policy” OR “Policy making” OR “Planning” OR “Professional practice” OR “Guidelines”)) | 99,832 | 105,557 |
| #3 | SUBJECT(theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*) | 527,036 | 557,288 |
| #4 | MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Health risk assessment” OR “Environmental impact statements”) | 4220 | 4380 |
| #5 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“health risk assessment*” OR “impact assessment*” OR “environmental assessment*” OR “assessment tool*” OR “assessment method*”) | 4407 | 4627 |
| #6 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(HIA OR HIAs OR EIA OR EIAs OR “sustainability appraisal*”) | 382 | 385 |
| #7 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Compensation” OR “Reparations” OR “Restitution”)) | 9379 | 9888 |
| #8 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(mitigation* OR “hierarchical system*” OR “response hierarch*” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off-set*” OR tradeoff* OR “trade-off*” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 28,108 | 29,328 |
| #9 | [S2] or [S3] or [S4] or [S5] or [S6] or [S7] or [S8] | 557,837 | 589,303 |
| #10 | [S1] and [S9] | 47 | 49 |
| #11 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare) | 387,764 | 409,356 |
| #12 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Health” OR “Public health” OR “Health disparities” OR “Quality of life” OR “Welfare”)) | 78,613 | 89,401 |
| #13 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Social conditions & trends” OR “Social justice” OR “Distributive justice” OR “Restorative justice” OR “Social impact” OR “Socioeconomic factors” OR “Sociodemographics” OR “Society”)) | 65,901 | 68,819 |
| #14 | SUBJECT(social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological*) | 304,742 | 326,162 |
| #15 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Population” OR “Residents” OR “Stakeholders” OR “Interest groups” OR “Community” OR “Master planned communities”)) | 63,351 | 67,611 |
| #16 | SUBJECT(human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community or communities) | 265,594 | 287,240 |
| #17 | [S11] or [S12] or [S13] or [S14] or [S15] or [S16] | 792,922 | 842,361 |
| #18 | [S1] and [S17] | 37 | 39 |
| #19 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare OR soci* OR commun*) NEAR/2 net NEAR/2 (gain? OR benefit? OR improve* OR increase? OR positive?)) | 84 | 87 |
| #20 | [S19] and [S9] | 59 | 60 |
| ([S19] and [S9]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 2 | |
| #21 | [S10] or [S18] | 58 | 61 |
| ([S10] or [S18]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 4 | |
| #22 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 3 | 3 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 0 | |
| #23 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 3 | 3 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| #24 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 2 | 2 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #20-24) | 125 | 129 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #20-24 for date range 20230101-20240712) | N/A | 8 | |
| Worldwide Political Science Abstracts (ProQuest) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 12, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved (12/07/24) |
| #1 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability”) | 110 | 114 |
| #2 | SUBJECT(“net positive*” or “net benefit*” or “positive development*”) | 2 | 1 |
| #3 | [S1] or [S2] | 112 | 115 |
| #4 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Theory” OR “Principles” OR “Standards” OR “Public policy” OR “Policy making” OR “Planning” OR “Professional practice” OR “Guidelines”)) | 97,441 | 104,369 |
| #5 | SUBJECT(theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*) | 476,609 | 504,065 |
| #6 | MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Health risk assessment” OR “Environmental impact statements”) | 164 | 177 |
| #7 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“health risk assessment*” OR “impact assessment*” OR “environmental assessment*” OR “assessment tool*” OR “assessment method*”) | 1178 | 1270 |
| #8 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(HIA OR HIAs OR EIA OR EIAs OR “sustainability appraisal*”) | 153 | 168 |
| #9 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Compensation” OR “Reparations” OR “Restitution”)) | 3903 | 4386 |
| #10 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(mitigation* OR “hierarchical system*” OR “response hierarch*” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off-set*” OR tradeoff* OR “trade-off*” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 14,609 | 15,704 |
| #11 | [S4] or [S5] or [S6] or [S7] or [S8] or [S9] or [S10] | 489,507 | 517,835 |
| #12 | [S3] and [S11] | 46 | 51 |
| #13 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare) | 80,690 | 87,558 |
| #14 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Health” OR “Public health” OR “Health disparities” OR “Quality of life” OR “Welfare”)) | 16,819 | 18,966 |
| #15 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Social conditions & trends” OR “Social justice” OR “Distributive justice” OR “Restorative justice” OR “Social impact” OR “Socioeconomic factors” OR “Sociodemographics” OR “Society”)) | 40,613 | 45,641 |
| #16 | SUBJECT(social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological*) | 307,115 | 338,432 |
| #17 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Population” OR “Residents” OR “Stakeholders” OR “Interest groups” OR “Community” OR “Master planned communities”)) | 23,335 | 26,570 |
| #18 | SUBJECT(human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community or communities) | 98,276 | 113,626 |
| #19 | [S13] or [S14] or [S15] or [S16] or [S17] or [S18] | 427,770 | 470,706 |
| #20 | [S3] and [S19] | 34 | 36 |
| #21 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare OR soci* OR commun*) NEAR/2 net NEAR/2 (gain? OR benefit? OR improve* OR increase? OR positive?)) | 78 | 79 |
| #22 | [S21] and [S11] | 51 | 51 |
| ([S21] and [S11]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| #23 | [S12] or [S20] | 59 | 63 |
| ([S12] or [S20]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 2 | |
| #24 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 2 | 2 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 0 | |
| #25 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 2 | 2 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 0 | |
| #26 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 2 | 2 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22-26) | 116 | 120 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22-26 for date range 20230101-20240712) | N/A | 4 | |
| Policy File (ProQuest) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 12, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved (12/07/24) |
| #1 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUMMARY(“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability”) | 73 | 74 |
| #2 | SUBJECT(theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*) | 125,785 | 126,796 |
| #3 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUMMARY(“health risk assessment*” OR “impact assessment*” OR “environmental assessment*” OR “assessment tool*” OR “assessment method*”) | 491 | 508 |
| #4 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUMMARY(HIA OR HIAs OR EIA OR EIAs OR “sustainability appraisal*”) | 94 | 95 |
| #5 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUMMARY(mitigation* OR “hierarchical system*” OR “response hierarch*” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off-set*” OR tradeoff* OR “trade-off*” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 7483 | 7650 |
| #6 | [S2] or [S3] or [S4] or [S5] | 129,939 | 131,082 |
| #7 | [S1] and [S6] | 50 | 51 |
| #8 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUMMARY(health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare) | 37,740 | 38,254 |
| #9 | SUBJECT(social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological*) | 56,144 | 14,328 |
| #10 | SUBJECT(human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community or communities) | 9,061 | 9,280 |
| #11 | [S8] or [S9] or [S10] | 86,899 | 58,197 |
| #12 | [S1] and [S11] | 22 | 16 |
| #13 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUMMARY((health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare OR soci* OR commun*) NEAR/2 net NEAR/2 (gain? OR benefit? OR improve* OR increase? OR positive?)) | 62 | 57 |
| #14 | [S13] and [S6] | 35 | 31 |
| ([S13] and [S6]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| #15 | [S7] or [S12] | 58 | 55 |
| ([S7] or [S12]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| #16 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUMMARY((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 0 | 0 |
| #17 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUMMARY((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 0 | 0 |
| #18 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUMMARY((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 0 | 0 |
| Total records retrieved (sum #14-18) | 93 | 86 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #14-18 for date range 20230101-20240712) | N/A | 2 | |
| Sociology Database (ProQuest) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 12, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved (12/07/24) |
| #1 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability”) | 46 | 45 |
| #2 | SUBJECT(“net positive*” or “net benefit*” or “positive development*”) | 12 | 6 |
| #3 | [S1] or [S2] | 58 | 51 |
| #4 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Theory” OR “Principles” OR “Standards” OR “Public policy” OR “Policy making” OR “Planning” OR “Professional practice” OR “Guidelines”)) | 32,078 | 36,076 |
| #5 | SUBJECT(theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*) | 159,639 | 185,964 |
| #6 | MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Health risk assessment” OR “Environmental impact statements”) | 2752 | 2908 |
| #7 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“health risk assessment*” OR “impact assessment*” OR “environmental assessment*” OR “assessment tool*” OR “assessment method*”) | 5016 | 5378 |
| #8 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(HIA OR HIAs OR EIA OR EIAs OR “sustainability appraisal*”) | 88 | 91 |
| #9 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Compensation” OR “Reparations” OR “Restitution”)) | 1548 | 1740 |
| #10 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(mitigation* OR “hierarchical system*” OR “response hierarch*” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off-set*” OR tradeoff* OR “trade-off*” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 7019 | 7396 |
| #11 | [S4] or [S5] or [S6] or [S7] or [S8] or [S9] or [S10] | 169,455 | 196,803 |
| #12 | [S3] and [S11] | 22 | 21 |
| #13 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare) | 197,621 | 216,573 |
| #14 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Health” OR “Public health” OR “Health disparities” OR “Quality of life” OR “Welfare”)) | 39,891 | 46,407 |
| #15 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Social conditions & trends” OR “Social justice” OR “Distributive justice” OR “Restorative justice” OR “Social impact” OR “Socioeconomic factors” OR “Sociodemographics” OR “Society”)) | 52,234 | 57,025 |
| #16 | SUBJECT(social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological*) | 225,380 | 256,513 |
| #17 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Population” OR “Residents” OR “Stakeholders” OR “Interest groups” OR “Community” OR “Master planned communities”)) | 26,857 | 30,055 |
| #18 | SUBJECT(human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community or communities) | 150,610 | 170,557 |
| #19 | [S13] or [S14] or [S15] or [S16] or [S17] or [S18] | 414,741 | 457,483 |
| #20 | [S3] and [S19] | 34 | 30 |
| #21 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare OR soci* OR commun*) NEAR/2 net NEAR/2 (gain? OR benefit? OR improve* OR increase? OR positive?)) | 30 | 27 |
| #22 | [S21] and [S11] | 14 | 12 |
| ([S21] and [S11]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| #23 | [S12] or [S20] | 42 | 36 |
| ([S12] or [S20]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 3 | |
| #24 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 8 | 8 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 0 | |
| #25 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 8 | 9 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| #26 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 2 | 2 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 1 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22-26) | 74 | 67 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22-26 for date range 20230101-20240712) | N/A | 6 | |
| Social Services Abstracts (ProQuest) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 12, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved (12/07/24) |
| #1 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability”) | 24 | 24 |
| #2 | SUBJECT(“net positive*” or “net benefit*” or “positive development*”) | 13 | 15 |
| #3 | [S1] or [S2] | 37 | 39 |
| #4 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Theories” OR “Theory formation” OR “Public policy” OR “Policy implementation” OR “Strategies” OR “Planning”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Concepts” OR “Concept formation” OR “Principles” OR “Standards” OR “Policy making” OR “Methodological approaches”)) | 35,091 | 37,247 |
| #5 | SUBJECT(theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*) | 140,785 | 148,870 |
| #6 | MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Social impact assessment”) | 248 | 248 |
| #7 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(“health risk assessment*” OR “impact assessment*” OR “environmental assessment*” OR “assessment tool*” OR “assessment method*”) | 3671 | 3822 |
| #8 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(HIA OR HIAs OR EIA OR EIAs OR “sustainability appraisal*”) | 65 | 65 |
| #9 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Compensation”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Reparations” OR “Restitution”)) | 2207 | 2351 |
| #10 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(mitigation* OR “hierarchical system*” OR “response hierarch*” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off-set*” OR tradeoff* OR “trade-off*” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 3431 | 3541 |
| #11 | [S4] or [S5] or [S6] or [S7] or [S8] or [S9] or [S10] | 149,183 | 157,551 |
| #12 | [S3] and [S11] | 18 | 21 |
| #13 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT(health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare) | 249,257 | 258,708 |
| #14 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Health” OR “Quality of life”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Health status” OR “Health planning” OR “Health disparities” OR “Well being” OR “Social welfare”)) | 72,704 | 79,263 |
| #15 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Social justice” OR “Social environment” OR “Social processes”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Social factors” OR “Social conditions” OR “Social problems” OR “Restorative justice” OR “Social impact” OR “Social inequality” OR “Socioeconomic factors” OR “Sociodemographics” OR “Society”)) | 32,098 | 35,180 |
| #16 | SUBJECT(social* OR societal* OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic* OR socioeconomic* OR sociological*) | 257,857 | 268,902 |
| #17 | (MAINSUBJECT.EXACT.EXPLODE(“Population”) OR MAINSUBJECT.EXACT(“Residents” OR “Interest groups” OR “Community”)) | 11,345 | 12,613 |
| #18 | SUBJECT(human* OR population* OR stakeholder* OR community or communities) | 73,420 | 78,604 |
| #19 | [S13] or [S14] or [S15] or [S16] or [S17] or [S18] | 385,838 | 400,569 |
| #20 | [S3] and [S19] | 33 | 32 |
| #21 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((health* OR wellbeing OR “well-being” OR welfare OR soci* OR commun*) NEAR/2 net NEAR/2 (gain? OR benefit? OR improve* OR increase? OR positive?)) | 41 | 42 |
| #22 | [S21] and [S11] | 23 | 25 |
| ([S21] and [S11]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 0 | |
| #23 | [S12] or [S20] | 34 | 36 |
| ([S12] or [S20]) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 2 | |
| #24 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 3 | 3 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“net outcome?” OR “net gain?” OR “net benefit?” OR “net improve*” OR “net increase?” OR “net positive?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 0 | |
| #25 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 9 | 9 |
| TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“positive outcome?” OR “net positive outcome?” OR “positive impact?” OR “net positive impact?” OR “positive development?”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) AND pd(20230101-20240712) | N/A | 0 | |
| #26 | TITLE,ABSTRACT,SUBJECT((“regenerative design?” OR “regenerative development?” OR “regenerative sustainability” OR “no net loss*” OR “mitigation hierarch*”) PRE/0 (theor* OR concept* OR principle? OR polic* OR plan* OR strateg* OR objective? OR aim? OR goal? OR target? OR requirement? OR framework? OR model? OR assessment? OR appraisal? OR evaluation? OR approach? OR practice? OR tool?)) | 0 | 0 |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22-26) | 69 | 73 | |
| Total records retrieved (sum #22-26 for date range 20230101-20240712) | N/A | 2 | |
| Searches conducted: August 30-31, 2023; July 17, 2024 | |||||
| Search | Query | Records reviewed (30-31/08/23) | Records retrieved (30-31/08/23) | Records reviewed (17/07/24) | Records retrieved (17/07/24) |
| #1 | (“net outcome” OR “net gain” OR “net positive outcome” OR “net positive impact” OR “no net loss” OR “mitigation hierarchy” OR “regenerative design” OR “regenerative development” OR “regenerative sustainability”) AND (theor* OR concept* OR principle* OR policy OR policies OR plan OR plans OR planning OR strategy OR strategies OR objective* OR aim* OR goal* OR target* OR requirement* OR framework* OR model * OR approach* OR practice* OR “health risk assessment” OR “impact assessment” OR “environmental assessment” OR “assessment tool” OR “assessment method” OR hia OR eia OR “sustainability appraisal” OR mitigation* OR “hierarchical system” OR “response hierarchy” OR compensation* OR offset* OR “off set” OR tradeoff* OR “trade off” OR reparation* OR restitution*) | 8 | 1 | 10 | 0 |
| #2 | (“net outcome” OR “net gain” OR “net positive outcome” OR “net positive impact” OR “no net loss” OR “mitigation hierarchy” OR “regenerative design” OR “regenerative development” OR “regenerative sustainability”) AND (health OR wellbeing OR “well being” OR welfare) | 247 | 11 | 327 | 2 |
| #3 | (health OR wellbeing OR “well being” OR welfare OR social OR societal OR society OR societies OR sociodemographic OR socioeconomic OR sociological OR community) AROUND(2) net AROUND(2) (gain OR benefit OR improvement OR increase OR positive) | 56 | 3 | 63 | 0 |
| #4 | (“health net gain” OR “health net benefit” OR “health net improvement” OR “health net increase” OR “health net positive”) | 100 | 5 | 23 | 0 |
| #5 | (“wellbeing net gain” OR “wellbeing net benefit” OR “wellbeing net improvement” OR “wellbeing net increase” OR “wellbeing net positive”) | 7 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| #6 | (“well being net gain” OR “well being net benefit” OR “well being net improvement” OR “well being net increase” OR “well being net positive”) | 18 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| #7 | (“welfare net gain” OR “welfare net benefit” OR “welfare net improvement” OR “welfare net increase” OR “welfare net positive”) | 72 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| #8 | (“social net gain” OR “social net benefit” OR “social net improvement” OR “social net increase” OR “social net positive”) | 130 | 2 | 58 | 1 |
| #9 | (“societal net gain” OR “societal net benefit” OR “societal net improvement” OR “societal net increase” OR “societal net positive”) | 120 | 0 | 25 | 0 |
| #10 | (“society net gain” OR “society net benefit” OR “society net improvement” OR “society net increase” OR “society net positive”) | 116 | 0 | 15 | 0 |
| #11 | (“societies net gain” OR “societies net benefit” OR “societies net improvement” OR “societies net increase” OR “societies net positive”) | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| #12 | (“sociodemographic net gain” OR “sociodemographic net benefit” OR “sociodemographic net improvement” OR “sociodemographic net increase” OR “sociodemographic net positive”) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| #13 | (“socioeconomic net gain” OR “socioeconomic net benefit” OR “socioeconomic net improvement” OR “socioeconomic net increase” OR “socioeconomic net positive”) | 32 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| #14 | (“sociological net gain” OR “sociological net benefit” OR “sociological net improvement” OR “sociological net increase” OR “sociological net positive”) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| #15 | (“community net gain” OR “community net benefit” OR “community net improvement” OR “community net increase” OR “community net positive”) | 109 | 1 | 6 | 0 |
| #16 | (“net health gain” OR “net health benefit” OR “net health improvement” OR “net health increase” OR “net health positive”) | 112 | 0 | 144 | 0 |
| #17 | (“net wellbeing gain” OR “net wellbeing benefit” OR “net wellbeing improvement” OR “net wellbeing increase” OR “net wellbeing positive”) | 14 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| #18 | (“net well being gain” OR “net well being benefit” OR “net well being improvement” OR “net well being increase” OR “net well being positive”) | 18 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| #19 | (“net welfare gain” OR “net welfare benefit” OR “net welfare improvement” OR “net welfare increase” OR “net welfare positive”) | 123 | 0 | 104 | 0 |
| #20 | (“net social gain” OR “net social benefit” OR “net social improvement” OR “net social increase” OR “net social positive”) | 138 | 0 | 161 | 0 |
| #21 | (“net societal gain” OR “net societal benefit” OR “net societal improvement” OR “net societal increase” OR “net societal positive”) | 162 | 0 | 105 | 0 |
| #22 | (“net society gain” OR “net society benefit” OR “net society improvement” OR “net society increase” OR “net society positive”) | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| #23 | (“net societies gain” OR “net societies benefit” OR “net societies improvement” OR “net societies increase” OR “net societies positive”) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| #24 | (“net sociodemographic gain” OR “net sociodemographic benefit” OR “net sociodemographic improvement” OR “net sociodemographic increase” OR “net sociodemographic positive”) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| #25 | (“net socioeconomic gain” OR “net socioeconomic benefit” OR “net socioeconomic improvement” OR “net socioeconomic increase” OR “net socioeconomic positive”) | 84 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| #26 | (“net sociological gain” OR “net sociological benefit” OR “net sociological improvement” OR “net sociological increase” OR “net sociological positive”) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| #27 | (“net community gain” OR “net community benefit” OR “net community improvement” OR “net community increase” OR “net community positive”) | 128 | 6 | 170 | 4 |
| Total records retrieved (sum) | 1,829 | 43 | 1,220 | 8 | |
Note: Google search results presented over multiple pages often contained fewer records than Google’s headline search result numbers; therefore, records reviewed correspond to the actual total number of records returned within search result pages and reviewed. Records retrieved correspond to information sources selected for screening. A date filter (Tools: Past year) was applied to all search query results for the searches conducted on July 17, 2024.
| HMIC (Ovid) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Searches conducted: August 17, 2023; July 12, 2024 | |||
| Search | Query | Records retrieved (17/08/23) | Records retrieved (12/07/24) |
| #1 | (“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net positive outcome*” or “net positive impact*” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability”).mp. | 24 | 24 |
| #2 | exp theory/ or exp frames of reference/ or conceptualisation/ or exp policy/ or exp policy formulation/ or policy development/ or implementation/ or strategy/ or strategy formulation/ or exp plans/ or exp planning/ or professional practice/ | 63,515 | 64,504 |
| #3 | (theor* or concept* or principle* or policy or policies or plan or plans or planning or strategy or strategies or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or approach* or practice*).hw. | 63,610 | 64,401 |
| #4 | environmental assessment/ or assessment methods/ or health impact assessment/ or health risk assessment/ | 897 | 943 |
| #5 | (“health risk assessment*” or “impact assessment*” or “environmental assessment*” or “assessment tool*” or “assessment method*”).mp. | 2246 | 2315 |
| #6 | (HIA or HIAs or EIA or EIAs or “sustainability appraisal*”).mp. | 122 | 125 |
| #7 | compensation/ or restitution/ | 428 | 438 |
| #8 | (mitigation* or “hierarchical system*” or “response hierarch*” or compensation* or offset* or “off-set*” or tradeoff* or “trade-off*” or reparation* or restitution*).mp. | 2098 | 2146 |
| #9 | 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 | 85,885 | 87,146 |
| #10 | ((“net outcome*” or “net gain*” or “net benefit*” or “net improve*” or “net increase*” or “net positive*” or “positive outcome*” or “net positive outcome*” or “positive impact*” or “net positive impact*” or “positive development*” or “regenerative design*” or “regenerative development*” or “regenerative sustainability” or “no net loss*” or “mitigation hierarch*”) adj (theor* or concept* or principle* or polic* or plan* or strateg* or objective* or aim* or goal* or target* or requirement* or framework* or model* or assessment* or appraisal* or evaluation* or approach* or practice* or tool*)).mp. | 5 | 5 |
| #11 | (1 and 9) or 10 | 9 | 9 |
| #12 | (health* or wellbeing or “well-being” or welfare).mp. | 209,186 | 212,093 |
| #13 | exp health/ or health effects/ or exp health outcomes/ or exp health planning/ or quality of life/ or exp social welfare/ | 35,766 | 36,567 |
| #14 | exp social factors/ or exp social problems/ or social justice/ or exp socioeconomic factors/ or exp sociodemographic factors/ or exp social processes/ or society/ | 67,928 | 69,205 |
| #15 | (social* or societal* or society or societies or sociodemographic* or socioeconomic* or sociological*).hw. | 45,871 | 46,444 |
| #16 | people/ or exp population/ or stakeholders/ or pressure groups/ or exp communities/ | 12,215 | 12,246 |
| #17 | (human* or population* or stakeholder* or community or communities).hw. | 27,347 | 27,632 |
| #18 | 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 | 267,290 | 270,625 |
| #19 | 1 and 18 | 20 | 20 |
| #20 | ((health* or wellbeing or “well-being” or welfare or soci* or commun*) adj3 net adj3 (gain* or benefit* or improve* or increase* or positive*)).mp. | 41 | 41 |
| #21 | 9 and 20 | 13 | 13 |
| #22 | (“health net gain*” or “net health gain*” or “wellbeing net gain*” or “net wellbeing gain*” or “well-being net gain*” or “net well-being gain*”).mp. | 3 | 3 |
| #23 | 11 or 19 or 21 or 22 | 39 | 39 |
| #24 | limit 23 to yr=2023-2024 | N/A | 0 |
Appendix II: Evidence sources ineligible following full-text review
As 542 evidence sources were assessed for eligibility, individual evidence sources were not listed. Reasons for exclusion and the number of evidence sources excluded are summarized below. Further details are available on request.
| PRISMA label | Exclusion reason hierarchy (Covidence) | From database searches | From citation searches | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sources sought for retrieval | N/A | 486 | 70 | 556 |
| Sources not retrieved | 1 Source unavailable | 12 | 2 | 14 |
| Sources assessed for eligibility | N/A | 474 | 68 | 542 |
| Sources excluded: | 2 Source removed at pre-screen (full-text irrelevant) | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| Ineligible context | ||||
| Sources excluded: | 3 Does not describe an objective or features of an approach | 11 | 0 | 11 |
| Ineligible context | ||||
| Sources excluded: | 4 No explicit net-outcome objective | 143 | 41 | 184 |
| No NOO | ||||
| Sources excluded: | 5 No explicit health net-outcome objective | 95 | 13 | 108 |
| No health NOO | ||||
| Sources excluded: | 6 Not unambiguously transferable | 100 | 5 | 105 |
| Untransferable | ||||
| Sources excluded: | 7 Inapplicable to spatial planning and development | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Ineligible context | ||||
| Sources excluded: | 8 Excludes data extraction target information | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Insufficient content | ||||
| Sources excluded: | 9 Short form of an included source (effective duplicate) | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| Effective duplicate | ||||
| Sources excluded: | N/A (manually assigned duplicate) | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Duplicate | ||||
| Sources ineligible | N/A | 362 | 61 | 423 |
| Sources included in review | N/A | 112 | 7 | 119 |
N/A, not applicable; NOO, net-outcome objective.
Appendix III: Data extraction instrument
Italicized text in the right-hand column summarizes reviewers’ data extraction guidance and categories of categorical data. Items that are amendments or additions to the original protocol are denoted in the left-hand column.
| Evidence source details and characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Source # | |
| Citation details | Author(s) (Vancouver reference style) |
| Publication date | |
| Title | |
| Journal (or other publication source) | |
| Volume | |
| Issue | |
| Pages | |
| Author (or other*) keywords (Addition to original protocol) | |
| *If no author keywords were specified, any listed keywords were added from i) publisher’s websites or ii) Scopus (for journal articles and books) | |
| *If no author keywords were specified, any listed key or subject words were added from i) institutional repositories or ii) ProQuest (for theses and gray literature) | |
| Source perspective | A single category was assigned based on source title, journal, keywords, contributing authors’ institutional disciplines, and source content |
| (Amendment to original protocol) | |
| Final categories: | |
| Assessment, conservation, corporate, design and development, extractive industries, philosophy, public health, regulation, security, spatial planning | |
| Country of origin | A single country was assigned based on the location of the first author’s primary institution or, if not listed, the source’s place of publication |
| Type of evidence source (document type) | Final categories: |
| Audiovisual material, book, book chapter, gray literature, journal article, thesis | |
| Document aims/purpose | |
| Type of net-outcome objective | Final categories: |
| (Addition to original protocol) | i) A stand-alone health or well-being net-outcome objective (eg, health NG) |
| ii) A net-outcome objective with a subsidiary/secondary health or well-being net-outcome objective (eg, biodiversity NG and well-being NWO) | |
| iii) A composite/multi-outcome net-outcome objective incorporating a specific health or well-being net-outcome objective | |
| iv) A stand-alone social or community net-outcome objective (eg, social NG, community NG) | |
| v) A net-outcome objective with a subsidiary/secondary social or community net-outcome objective (eg, BNG and social NWO) | |
| vi) A composite/multi-outcome net-outcome objective relevant to or encompassing health (eg, environmental NG, socioecological NG) | |
| vii) A generic net-outcome objective (derived from a non-health objective; eg, NG/NNL) | |
| viii) Universal features of or considerations for net-outcome objectives (eg, equity, offsetting, mitigation hierarchy) | |
| Health net-outcome objective, target, aim or goal | Specified “net” objective, extracted short form, wherever stated as such (extracted for all sources that include a specific health net-outcome objective and any other [eg, biodiversity or nature-oriented] primary net-outcome objectives that present a secondary community, health, social, or well-being objective) |
| Derived health net-outcome objective | Coded shorthand for target and outcome based on preceding field above and source content |
| (Addition to original protocol) | Final targets: B=Biodiversity, H=Health, N=Nature, S=Social, W=Well-being |
| Final outcomes: DNH+=do no harm or better off, NG=net gain, NWO=no worse off, NWO+=no worse off or better off | |
| Primary net-outcome objective, target, aim or goal | Specified “net” objective, extracted short form, wherever stated as such (extracted for all sources) |
| Derived primary net-outcome objective | Coded shorthand for target and outcome based on preceding field above and source content |
| (Addition to original protocol) | Final targets: *=multi-objective, B=biodiversity, C=community, E=environmental, H=health, N=nature, S=social, W=well-being |
| Final outcomes: NG=net gain, NNL=no-net-loss, NO=net-outcome | |
| Note: outcome precedes target (in brackets) for generic net-outcome objectives and universal features (refer to field: Type of net-outcome objective) | |
| Country/countries of application | The nation(s) the objective (or related findings) applied to/were contextualized by, if not universal (noting that sources were considered to have universal applicability by default) |
| Scale(s) of application | Considering both: |
| (Addition to original protocol) | i) the scale(s) the source applied the objective to |
| ii) the scale(s) the source discussed when exploring the objective | |
| Final categories: building, project, city, policy (local/regional), policy (national), policy (international), organization, system | |
| Details/results extracted from source of evidence | |
| Net-objective and approach: characteristics | |
| (Amendment to original protocol) | |
| Rationale(s) for net-outcome objective(s) | Rationale for the net-outcome objective (specifically), if stated |
| Rationale for the broader objective, if relevant and if no rationale was given for the net-outcome objective specifically | |
| (Amendment to original protocol) | |
| For net-outcome objectives that presented secondary community, health, social, or well-being objectives (refer to field: type of net-outcome objective), multiple objectives could be listed on separate lines | |
| Description(s) of net-outcome objective(s) | Description/elaboration of the net-outcome objective that data extraction (subsequent fields) focused on |
| (Amendment to original protocol) | For net-outcome objectives that presented secondary community, health, social, or well-being objectives (refer to field: type of net-outcome objective), multiple objectives could be listed on separate lines |
| The default approach was to focus extraction on community, health, social, or well-being objectives when specified (refer to field: type of net-outcome objective) | |
| Definition of objective’s health term(s) | Definition of “health” and/or health term(s), if given |
| Net-outcome definition/characterization and/or metric(s) | Included extraction of summary commentary on composite/generic “net-outcome” measurement (but excluded extraction of full indicator breakdowns for composite objectives, for which only a summary precis and/or selected health/planning indicators were extracted; see following) |
| (Addition to original protocol) | |
| Included key health or well-being indicators if a net-outcome objective was specifically applied to health or well-being (but excluded extraction of such indicators when they were mentioned more generally without reference to health net outcomes) | |
| If net-outcome definitions were extracted, supplementary elaborations of measurement requirements and procedural steps were recorded in the “Implementation principles and/or steps” field | |
| Net-outcome level emphasized | The level of operationalization that extracted source data presented, emphasized or focused on |
| (Addition to original protocol) | |
| Categorical levels of operationalization of net-outcome objectives were assigned post-extraction after reviewing the data extracted for each source | |
| Final categories: | |
| 1. 1A Overarching requirement, 1B Overarching requirement (locally defined) | |
| 2. Enhanced process | |
| 3. 3A Assessed outcome, 3B Assessed outcome (locally defined) | |
| Specific metric(s) or broader framework(s) | Specific metric(s) or broader framework(s), where specified (ie, beyond generic indicator themes (eg, environmental, economic, health) or methodological approaches (eg, qualitative, quantitative)) |
| (Addition to original protocol) | |
| Specific metric(s) or broader framework(s) described by each source were identified post-extraction after reviewing the data extracted for each source | |
| Implementation principle(s) and/or steps | The concept of “implementation principles” of an objective and its associated approach was that implementation principles encompassed: |
| • Principles, rules or requirements that governed implementation | |
| • Items framed as prerequisites, absolutes, essentials, necessary steps, imperatives, or propositions | |
| • Implementation frameworks, “how to” guides, “steps to take,” and action lists | |
| • Descriptions of how an objective was implemented in practice or would be implemented in practice | |
| • Descriptions of how an objective worked or operated in practice or how it would work or operate in practice | |
| • Descriptions of how an objective was or would be operationalized | |
| If a given implementation principle was framed as a possibility or one of a range of options, it was within the concept of “opportunities” (and not extracted as an “implementation principle”) | |
| The concept of “implementation principles” of an objective and its associated approach was that implementation principles generally excluded: | |
| i) Items that were not clearly linked to net-outcome objectives or approaches (eg, excluding principles related to broader/multi-outcome objectives, such as regenerative design and development, unless specific “net” principles were disaggregated*) | |
| ii) Items unambiguously unrelated or untransferable to health, community, social, broad environmental, or generic net-outcome contexts (eg, text addressing stand-alone ecological or resource-oriented implementation principles) | |
| *If, however, a broader objective was defined solely by explicit net outcomes (such as the “positive development” objective), its principles were included | |
| *If, however, the source was categorized as elaborating universal principles/implementation steps (ie, category in field: Type of net-outcome objective = 8), its principles were included | |
| Objective and approach: contextual positioning and effects (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats [SWOT]) | |
| (Amendment to original protocol) | |
| Positive effects or implications (strengths) | The concept of “strengths” of an objective and its associated approach was that strengths: |
| • were internal factors (ie, inherent to the objective and its associated approach) | |
| • were positive effects or implications | |
| • included observed, demonstrated, or proven positive effects or implications | |
| • included advantages versus the status quo or an existing comparator | |
| The concept of “strengths” of an objective and its associated approach was that strengths generally excluded: | |
| i) items that were not clearly linked to net-outcome objectives or approaches | |
| ii) items unambiguously unrelated or untransferable to health, community, social, broad environmental, or generic net-outcome contexts (eg, text addressing strengths related to stand-alone ecological or resource-oriented objectives) | |
| Extraction for composite and generic net-outcome objectives (refer to field: Type of net-outcome objective) focused on items contextualized by references to “net” phrases or concepts) | |
| Entries of “unstated” or “aggregated” were used if the concept was not addressed within the source or the source presented content not specific to net-outcome aspects of an objective or approach, respectively | |
| Negative effects or implications (weaknesses) | The concept of “weaknesses” of an objective and its associated approach was that weaknesses: |
| • were internal factors (ie, inherent to the objective and its associated approach) | |
| • were negative effects or implications | |
| • included observed, demonstrated, or proven negative effects or implications | |
| • included disadvantages versus the status quo or an existing comparator | |
| The concept of “weaknesses” of an objective and its associated approach was that weaknesses generally excluded: | |
| i) items that were not clearly linked to net-outcome objectives or approaches | |
| ii) items unambiguously unrelated or untransferable to health, community, social, broad environmental, or generic net-outcome contexts (eg, text addressing weaknesses related to stand-alone ecological or resource-oriented objectives) | |
| Extraction for composite and generic net-outcome objectives (refer to field: Type of net-outcome objective) focused on items contextualized by references to “net” phrases or concepts) | |
| Entries of “unstated” or “aggregated” were used if the concept was not addressed within the source or the source presented content not specific to net-outcome aspects of an objective or approach, respectively | |
| Implementation opportunities (opportunities) | The concept of “opportunities” that applied to an objective and its associated approach was that opportunities: |
| • were external factors (ie, not inherent to the objective and its associated approach) | |
| • were context-specific and related to its contextual positioning | |
| • included speculative implementation options and hypothetical future actions that might result in positive effects or implications | |
| The concept of “opportunities” that applied to an objective and its associated approach was that opportunities generally excluded: | |
| i) items that were not clearly linked to net-outcome objectives or approaches | |
| ii) items unambiguously unrelated or untransferable to health, community, social, broad environmental, or generic net-outcome contexts (eg, text addressing opportunities related to stand-alone ecological or resource-oriented objectives) | |
| Extraction for composite and generic net-outcome objectives (refer to field: Type of net-outcome objective) focused on items contextualized by references to “net” phrases or concepts | |
| Entries of “unstated” or “aggregated” were used if the concept was not addressed within the source or the source presented content not specific to net-outcome aspects of an objective or approach, respectively | |
| Implementation challenges (threats) | The concept of “threats” that applied to an objective and its associated approach was that threats: |
| • were external factors (ie, not inherent to the objective and its associated approach) | |
| • were context-specific and related to its contextual positioning | |
| • included speculative implementation options and hypothetical future actions that might result in negative effects or implications | |
| The concept of “threats” that applied to an objective and its associated approach was that threats generally excluded: | |
| i) Items that were not clearly linked to net-outcome objectives or approaches | |
| ii) Items unambiguously unrelated or untransferable to health, community, social, broad environmental, or generic net-outcome contexts (eg, text addressing threats related to stand-alone ecological or resource-oriented objectives) | |
| Extraction for composite and generic net-outcome objectives (refer to field: Type of net-outcome objective) focused on items contextualized by references to “net” phrases or concepts) | |
| Entries of “unstated” or “aggregated” were used if the concept was not addressed within the source or the source presented content not specific to net-outcome aspects of an objective or approach, respectively | |
| URL | Direct weblink to source document (where available) |
| (Addition to original protocol) | |
BNG, biodiversity net gain; MH, mitigation hierarchy; NG, net gain; NNL, no net loss; NWO, no worse off.
Note: within free-text extracted data, square brackets were used to denote any clarifications added by reviewers to assist future readers. These include expanded acronyms, contextual clarifications, and prefixes identifying any verbatim text excerpts identified through large language model data extraction exercises (denoter: [AI]).
Appendix IV: Characteristics of included evidence sources
| Author, year, country | Document aims/purpose | Type of net-outcome objective (Table 1) | Derived health net-outcome objective | Derived primary net-outcome objectve | Country/countries of application | Scale(s) of application | Net-outcome level emphasized |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADDO, 2020, Australia63 | To discuss the context for net community benefit and why we should not strive to develop a defined methodology for net community benefit assessment | 4 | C NG | Australia | Project, Policy (local/regional) | 3B | |
| Akturk, 2016, US64 | To investigate the emerging field of regenerative design and development, its current theory and practice, and design support tools | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, System | 3A | |
| Andreucci et al., 2021, EU35 | To describe a new scenario and provide a practical guide for a restorative and regenerative approach to the built environment | 3 | HW NG | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization, System | 1A |
| Australian Planners Declare, 2022, Australia65 | To address an inquiry into the protections of the Victorian Planning Framework | 4 | C NG | Australia | Project, Policy (local/regional) | 3B | |
| Baker and McLellan, 1992, Canada51 | To examine creative means to reduce conflict among disputing parties by viewing aggregate mining as a landscape opportunity | 4 | C NG | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional) | 2 | |
| Bateman and Zonneveld, 2019, UK24 | To present options for using the Net Environmental Gain proposals to deliver on the 25 Year Environment Plan ambitions and to enhance social well-being through improved decision-making on the siting of environmental improvements | 3 | W * NG | UK | Project, Policy (national) | 2 | |
| Berry and Steiker, 1974, US66 | To explore the concept of fairness as a strategy for formulating decisions according to their distributional aspects | 8 | NG (S) | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional) | 1B | |
| Birkeland, 2014, Australia67 | To introduce an alternative positive framework for a more active and direct approach to sustainable design and assessment that de-couples environmental impacts and economic growth | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, System | 3B | |
| Birkeland, 2018, Australia68 | To examine 2 documents, 1 representing sustainable urban policy and principles, the other representing urban biodiversity standards, against the Positive Development Test (whether the development increases the public estate, ecological base and future public options) | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), System | 3B | |
| Birkeland, 2020, Australia31 | To explain how to reform the anti-ecological biases in our current frameworks of environmental governance, planning, decision-making, and design | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization, System | 3B | |
| Birkeland, 2022, Australia69 | To provide criteria for evaluating the potential of conventional and alternative methods for achieving nature-positive outcomes | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization, System | 3B | |
| Birkeland, 2023, Australia70 | To distinguish STARfish [a new computer app for net-positive design] from rating tools and life-cycle analyses or “LCA” | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, System | 3B | |
| Bull et al., 2018, UK25 | To outline good practice principles for addressing the social impacts that arise from all losses and gains in biodiversity from a development project and its NNL/NG activities | 2 | BW NWO | B NO | Universal | Project, Organization | 3B |
| Burns et al., 2019, US71 | To consider the nature of the governance problem in regenerative development | 8 | NG (H*) | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international) | 2 | |
| Camrass, 2020, Australia72 | To investigate how futures concepts may further existing regenerative sustainability thinking | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, System | 1A | |
| Camrass, 2022, Australia73 | To provide a systematic review of publications on urban regenerative thinking and practice, including across urban development stages and sectors | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), System | 1B | |
| Camrass, 2023, Australia74 | To provide 8 principles for thinking and practice drawn from extensive regenerative futures research | 6 | * NG | Universal | Project, City, System | 1B | |
| Carver, 2021, UK75 | To account for the stabilization of net principles in policy frameworks by combining economic sociology, visual media analysis of the net diagram and political ecology | 7 | NO | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization | 1A | |
| Castellas et al., 2019, Australia76 | Unstated | 4 | C NG | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization | 3A | |
| Chang, 2021, UK77 | Unstated | 1 | H NG | H NG | UK | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), System | 2 |
| Chang et al., 2022, UK45 | To support those working in the built environment and public health sectors to maximize health improvement through planning and land use decisions | 1 | H NG | H NG | Universal | Building, Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national) | 1B |
| Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM), 2021, UK29 | To summarize the core messages from all of the evidence gathered by this scoping study | 2 | BW DNH+ | B NG | UK | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national) | 1A |
| Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM), 2021, UK78 | To scope the drivers for incorporating well-being into biodiversity net gain good practice, the challenges of doing so and the possible solutions to overcoming these challenges. This report describes the responses to these consultations, with the aim to document what people told us, as faithfully as possible | 2 | BW DNH+ | B NG | UK | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national) | 1A |
| Commission on Creating Healthy Cities, 2022, UK46 | To investigate the links between urban matters and health and well-being | 1 | H NG | H NG | UK | Building, Project, City, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), System | 1B |
| de Sadeleer, 2023, Belgium18 | To highlight far-reaching provisions of the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights; address the green transition and integration principle; and discuss climate and environmental conditionality, given the requirement that national investments should cause no “significant harm to environmental objectives” | 7 | NG (E) | EU | Policy (international) | 1A | |
| Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), 2018, UK23 | To seek views on whether we should introduce mandatory requirements to the planning system in England so that development must deliver biodiversity net gain and to set out the proposed next steps for our longer term ambition to embed environmental net gain | 6 | E NG | UK | Building, Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national) | 1A | |
| Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), 2019, UK79 | To provide a summary of net gain consultation responses and government response | 6 | E NG | UK | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national) | 1A | |
| Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities (DLUHC), 2023, UK16 | To set out the government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied and provide a framework within which locally prepared plans can provide for sufficient housing and other development in a sustainable manner | 6 | * NG | UK | Building, Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national) | 3B | |
| Drupsteen and Wakkee, 2024, Netherland80 | To explore regenerative business models’ definition and characteristics | 6 | * NG | Universal | Organization, System | 1A | |
| Du Plessis and Brandon, 2015, South Africa81 | To explore the ecological worldview and the guidelines it provides for how we interpret sustainability; as well as the strategies for the production of the built environment we need to follow if we are to adapt to coming changes in the planetary system and regenerate the world | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, System | 1A | |
| Einola, 2020, Finland36 | To present the framework of regenerative design as the basis for future urban development in which sustainability could be re-imagined to a net-positive symbiosis between humans and nature | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), System | 1A | |
| Eisenberg, 2016, US82 | To compare the current regulatory goal of preventing or limiting known harm with the positive outcome goals of the Living Building Challenge | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, System | 1A | |
| Esteves, 2008, Australia53 | To demonstrate the value of SIA [Social Impact Assessment] as a tool for setting priorities, assist the mine operations and local communities to understand what a ‘net positive’ impact means; provide company decision-makers with a rigorous basis on which to understand the nature and extent of their ‘social responsibility’, and the effects of their decisions | 4 | C NG | Universal | Project, Organization | 3B | |
| European Health Forum Gastein, 2022, EU83 | To reflect on what needs to be done to reaffirm the relevance of health at the EU level | 1 | W NG | W NG | EU | Policy (international) | 1A |
| Faccioli et al., 2024, Italy30 | To investigate social preferences for the distribution of the benefits of environmental policies | 8 | NG (E) | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national) | 2 | |
| Fauna and Flora International (FFI), 2021, UK56 | To examine current approaches to prevent, mitigate and manage the adverse environmental impacts of development projects in complex multi-use landscapes | 7 | NG | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization, System | 2 | |
| Fristik, 2012, US84 | To examine mitigation in terms of intention, interpretation, implementation, litigation and application | 8 | NO | US | Project, Policy (national) | 2 | |
| Gastineau et al., 2021, France85 | To develop an environmental compensation policy that meets NNL and NWO objectives so that the well-being of individuals is integrated to the NNL policy | 5 | BS NWO | B NNL | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national) | 3A |
| Gebler et al., 2022, Germany86 | To i) analyze perceptions of impacts of socio-technical systems on absolute sustainability, ii) summarize knowledge on positive impact concepts, iii) identify design principles for positive impacts, iv) derive management functions and organizational prerequisites to enable positive impacts, v) propose a guiding framework and a definition for positive impact, and vi) discuss potential applications and further research demand | 6 | * NG | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization, System | 2 | |
| Gibberd, 2015, South Africa87 | To develop an alternative approach to conceptualizing and measuring the built environment which forms the basis of a new assessment tool | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, Policy (local/regional) | 3B | |
| Globus-Harris, 2020, US88 | To develop a model of environmental trade ratios with asymmetric information to explain why current policies fail to achieve goals of no-net-impact on the environment, as well as demonstrating that it may be impossible to achieve these goals | 7 | NNL (E) | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international) | 2 | |
| Greyson, 2010, UK89 | To offer a selection of 7 simple “policy switches” (or “leverage points” in complex systems) that offer an expanded vision of people’s role on Earth and a whole-system change to implement it | 6 | * NG | Universal | Policy (national), Policy (international), System | 1A | |
| Griffiths, 2019, UK90 | To explore how people’s use and non-use values of nature can be incorporated into the concept of biodiversity NNL | 2 | BW NWO | B NNL | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization | 3B |
| Griffiths et al., 2019, UK27 | To conceptualize the no-worse-off principle in the context of NNL of biodiversity | 2 | BW NWO | B NNL | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization | 3B |
| Griffiths et al., 2020, UK26 | To explore local people’s perceptions of the importance of cultural heritage to their wellbeing, how the developments affected their cultural heritage, and how these perceived impacts could be incorporated into NNL strategies | 2 | BW NWO | B NNL | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization | 3B |
| Hes et al., 2018, Australia91 | To assess the process of applying regenerative thinking and reflect on the outcomes for the participants and the design of the masterplan of a 680-hectare project, “Seacombe West” | 6 | E NG | Australia | Project | 2 | |
| Hiedanpää et al., 2023, Finland92 | To examine the preconditions for eco-social compensation and the mitigation of the harmful effects of incremental encroachment in the context of land-use planning | 6 | * NNL | Finland | Project, Policy (local/regional) | 2 | |
| HM Government, 2018, UK93 | To deliver cleaner air and water in our cities and rural landscapes, protect threatened species and provide richer wildlife habitats | 6 | E NG | UK | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national) | 1A | |
| Homes England, 2023, UK94 | To achieve health net gain through good design policy and practices | 1 | H NG | H NG | UK | Building, Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), System | 2 |
| Hooker, 2009, UK95 | To explore “bad” objections to aggregation, some good objections to it, and some bad ways of reacting to the good objections | 8 | NG (S) | Universal | Building, Project, City, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization, System | 1B | |
| Hooper et al., 2021, UK96 | To explore a series of questions to implement effective net gain policies for the marine environment | 6 | E NG | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), System | 1A | |
| Jones, et al., 2019, UK28 | To highlight risks to local well-being where projects restrict access to biodiversity and ecosystem services in biodiversity offsets | 2 | BW NWO | B NO | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization | 3B |
| Jones et al., 2022, US97 | To discuss and demonstrate analyses to answer key questions for formulating effective mitigation policies and applying the mitigation hierarchy | 2 | BW NWO+ | B NO | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization | 3B |
| Jones et al., 2022, Australia98 | To report on the needs to facilitate learning and uptake of benefit analysis in students from primary, secondary, post-graduate to professional schooling, as well as practitioner accreditation across industry, community and educational institutions | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization, System | 3B | |
| Kambo, 2019, Australia99 | To discover how design methodologies and 3 components they encompass – design intent, practice and process – can embrace the tenets of the Ecological Worldview | 6 | * NG | Australia | Building, Project, City, System | 2 | |
| Knight-Lenihan, 2017, New Zealand100 | To propose a theoretical model to assess whether activities associated with urban development create net positive environmental benefits | 6 | E NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, Policy (national), Organization, System | 3B | |
| Koksal, 2021, UK47 | Not stated | 1 | H NG | H NG | UK | Project, Policy (local/regional) | 1A |
| Konietzko et al., 2023, Netherlands54 | To provide an initial framework for regenerative business models and differentiate them from sustainable or circular models | 6 | * NG | Universal | Organization, System | 2 | |
| Lichtenthaler, 2023, Germany101 | To develop the concept of positive sustainability or positainability as the next level of sustainability management | 6 | * NG | Universal | Organization | 1A | |
| Lovell, 2018, Australia19 | To present different types of offsetting, and the main theoretical and practical disadvantages and advantages of offsetting | 8 | NNL (E) | Universal | Project, Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization | 2 | |
| Mang and Reed, 2015, US102 | To posit that realizing the potential of the “net-positive” concept depends on how practitioners define positive | 7 | NG | Universal | Building, Project, System | 1B | |
| Maron, 2018, Australia103 | To examine policies with NNL and related goals, explore how to resolve conflicts between overarching and impact-specific NNL policies, and improve transparency about what NNL-type policies are actually designed to achieve | 7 | NNL | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization | 1A | |
| Martens, 2011, Netherlands104 | To provide an overview of directions an equity analysis, carried out within the context of a social cost-benefit analysis, could take | 8 | NG | Universal | Project | 3B | |
| Mauerhofer, 2021, Sweden105 | To outline the EU’s and UN’s latest environmental principle towards net gains | 7 | NG (E) | Universal | Policy (international) | 1A | |
| McCord, 2023, NR106 | To differentiate between achieving neutral impact and seeking net positive impact | 6 | * NG | Universal | Organization | 3A | |
| McLaren and Carver, 2023, UK107 | To examine the history of “NNL” in biodiversity and biodiversity offsetting to suggest critical lessons that must be learned in climate policy if net-zero is to deliver on the expectations of the Paris Agreement | 7 | NO | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international) | 1A | |
| Middle and Middle, 2010, Australia108 | To review the use of offsets in the Western Australian environmental impact assessment process | 8 | NNL | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional) | 2 | |
| Mifsud and Caruso, 2024, Malta109 | To consider the regenerative sustainability principles as a way to challenge the current speculation-driven development in Malta’s dense urban areas | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national) | 1A | |
| Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), 2020, UK110 | To seek views on proposals for reform of the planning system in England to streamline and modernize the planning process, improve outcomes on design and sustainability, reform developer contributions and ensure more land is available for development where it is needed | 6 | * NG | UK | Building, Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national) | 1A | |
| Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013, Australia17 | To present a framework for understanding and managing both process and substantive trade-offs within each step of a typical sustainability assessment process | 8 | NG | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), System | 2 | |
| Morseletto, 2022, Netherlands111 | To examine 7 widely applicable principles aimed at explicit environmental sustainability | 7 | NO (E) | Universal | Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization | 1A | |
| Naboni and Havinga L, 2019, EU112 | To challenge thinking on built environment design and enable designers to begin to change not only their design processes and outcomes but also their consideration of appropriate and ambitious goals for the design of our cities, buildings and spaces | 3 | H NG | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization, System | 2 |
| Nathwani and Narveson, 1995, Canada52 | To propose principles and a general framework of reasoning for managing risk in the public interest | 4 | S NG | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international) | 3A | |
| National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, 2024, Australia113 | To present an overview of the state and functioning of Australia’s housing system | 4 | C NG | Australia | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), System | 1A | |
| Natural Capital Committee, 2019, UK22 | To provide advice to government on net environmental gain | 6 | E NG | UK | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), System | 1B | |
| Net Positive Project, 2019, NR114 | To provide guidance on the principles and aspirations shaping net positive strategies | 6 | * NG | Universal | Organization, System | 1B | |
| Nisbet and João, 2022, UK115 | To present a framework for evaluating the quality of enhancement of positive impacts in Environmental Impact Assessment reports | 8 | NG | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international) | 2 | |
| Norris, 2017, NR116 | Unstated | 6 | * NG | Universal | Organization, System | 3B | |
| Norris et al., 2021, US117 | To improve the scientific basis for transformative environmental, social, and economic positive changes | 6 | * NG | Universal | Organization, System | 3A | |
| Novak et al., 2017, US118 | To explore an alternative way of thinking that reframes the issues from problems of “what is” to the potential of “what could be” in the context of socioecological resilience | 6 | * NG | Universal | Project, City, System | 2 | |
| O’Neill, 2020, UK119 | To argue that significant goods that matter to people’s well-being will be lost through a policy of NNL | 7 | NNL (E) | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization | 3B | |
| O’Neill, 2023, UK120 | To address the commodification of biodiversity, and in particular with the development of offset markets as a means to achieving “NNL” or “net gains” in biodiversity, and place the commodification of biodiversity in the context of wider debates about the commodification of environmental goods | 8 | NO (E) | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international) | 3A | |
| Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), 2019, UK121 | POSTbriefs are responsive policy briefings from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology | 2 | BW NWO+ | B NO | UK | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), System | 3B |
| Pearl and Oliver, 2015, Canada122 | To elaborate the mining processes that can produce net-positive development and transformational change | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, System | 2 | |
| Pienkowski, 2022, UK123 | To provide evidence of overlooked connections between nature, its conservation, and mental health | 2 | BW NWO | B NO | Universal | Project | 1B |
| Place Alliance, 2020, UK124 | To evaluate the design of 142 large-scale housing-led development projects across England against seventeen design considerations and establish a new baseline from which to measure progress on housing design quality in the future | 6 | * NG | UK | Building, Project, Organization | 1A | |
| Plaut et al., 2012, US125 | To outline the context, development and future direction for the LENSES Framework | 3 | H* NG | Universal | Building, Project, System | 1A | |
| Public Health England (PHE), 2019, UK48 | To provide evidence-based advice on the most effective practical actions to reduce air pollution and its impact on our health | 1 | H NG | H NG | UK | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national) | 1A |
| Puig et al., 2022, Spain126 | To address some cultural implicit stances of environmental assessment and bring attention to their disregard for environmental values, which should guide environmental assessment towards increased levels of sustainability | 6 | E NNL | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international) | 1A | |
| Rees, 1995, Canada127 | To assess the role of cumulative assessment in the context of global change | 6 | E NNL | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), System | 1A | |
| Robinson and Cole, 2015, Canada33 | To delineate the concept of “regenerative sustainability” – a net-positive approach to sustainability that is rooted in the notion of ‘procedural sustainability’ | 7 | NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, System | 2 | |
| Sala Benites, 2023, Australia32 | To develop a framework to support the positive impact-based transition of existing urban precincts and neighborhoods | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization, System | 3B | |
| Sarkki et al., 2023, Finland128 | To propose a scenario skeleton titled “Rights for Life” to achieve ambitious biodiversity targets in a socially-equitable ways | 8 | NO | Universal | Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international) | 2 | |
| SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd, 2023, Australia129 | To address “what a Plan for Victoria should include and how the planning vision could be delivered, with local government acting as a valued and indispensable partner” | 4 | C NG | Australia | Project, Policy (local/regional) | 1B | |
| Shoemaker, 1994, Canada130 | To suggest a set of principles for the design of cumulative environmental assessment | 4 | C NG | Canada | Project, Policy (local/regional) | 3B | |
| Spiller, 2023, Australia5 | To explore the reasons for the continuing controversy surrounding how the idea of net community benefit might be applied in the planning system and propose some ways forward | 4 | C NG | Australia | Project, Policy (local/regional) | 3A | |
| Stewart-Evans et al., 2022, UK131 | To outline conceptual, methodological and practical considerations on health net gain | 1 | H NG | H NG | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), System | 1A |
| Stewart-Evans et al., 2023, UK50 | Unstated | 1 | H NG | H NG | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national) | 1A |
| Stewart-Evans et al., 2024, UK49 | To explore how a health net-gain objective could be applied in spatial planning policy and practice to improve people’s health and well-being | 1 | H NG | H NG | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), System | 1A |
| Stewart-Evans et al., 2024, UK55 | To review the body of knowledge on net gain and no net loss (net-outcome) objectives and approaches applicable to health in spatial planning and development policies and practice | 1 | H NG | H NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization, System | 1A |
| Stratford et al., 2022, Australia132 | Unstated | 6 | * NG | Universal | System | 1A | |
| Swangjang and Cumkhett, 2021, Thailand133 | Not stated | 8 | NO | Universal | Project | 2 | |
| Tàbara, 2023, Germany134 | To present a conceptual model to help explore the theoretical possibilities for creating regenerative sustainability pathways | 6 | * NG | Universal | System | 1B | |
| Ten Kate et al., 2018, UK20 | Not stated | 5 | BS NWO+ | B NNL | Universal | Project, Organization | 2 |
| Truman, 2019, UK135 | To look at environmentnal net gain in practice using 2 technical topics as examples and also discuss potential challenges in implementing environmental more broadly | 6 | E NG | UK | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national) | 1A | |
| Tuomisto and Pekkanen, 2005, Finland136 | Unstated | 1 | H NG | H NG | Universal | Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international) | 3A |
| Tupala et al., 2022, Finland137 | To present the current understanding of the social impacts on biodiversity offsetting based on scientific literature | 2 | BW NWO | B NNL | Universal | Project, Policy (local/regional), Policy (national), Policy (international), Organization | 1A |
| Velasco Fuentes, 2016, Canada138 | To develop greater understanding to the role of ownership in the built environment, and particularly in the design of regenerative building systems and the advance towards regenerative sustainability in social-ecological systems | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, System | 2 | |
| Victorian Auditor-General, 2017, Australia139 | To assess whether Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and councils are managing and implementing the planning system to support the Act [Planning and Environment Act 1987] and the desired outcomes of state planning policies | 4 | C NG | Australia | Project, Policy (local/regional) | 3B | |
| Victoria State Government, 2022, Australia140 | To guide a strategic assessment under Minister’s Direction No. 11 | 4 | C NG | Australia | Policy (local/regional) | 3B | |
| Villarroya et al., 2014, Spain141 | To review the main scientific bibliography addressing the rationale behind ecological compensation in order to examine general guidelines | 7 | NO | Universal | Project | 2 | |
| Wessel, 2016, US142 | To present a proposal for accomplishing development that is truly sustainable | 6 | * NG | Universal | Project, Organization | 3B | |
| Williams, 2012, UK143 | To explore the opportunities and challenges for the advocated changes in the way society conceptualizes the built environment | 6 | E NG | Universal | Building, Project | 1A | |
| Wirral Council, 2022, UK144 | To set out the strategy, policies and proposals for meeting the Borough’s development needs in a sustainable and transformational manner | 4 | S NG | UK | Building, Project, Policy (local/regional) | 3B | |
| Young, 2022, Australia145 | To present an international framework for the delivery of socially and environmentally responsible ecological restoration after mining | 3 | W* NG | Universal | Project, Organization | 3B | |
| Zarsky and Stanley, 2013, US4 | To develops a framework to evaluate net benefits from mining and use it to assess the Marlin mine in Guatemala | 6 | * NG | Universal | Project | 3B | |
| Zhang et al., 2015, China34 | To discuss a special volume that focuses upon various dimensions of regenerative sustainability (eg, regenerative design, regenerative development, and positive development) applied to the urban built environment | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, System | 1A | |
| Zingoni de Baro, 2022, NR37 | To set out the major features of 2 social-ecological design approaches to the built environment, Biophilic urbanism and Regenerative development | 6 | * NG | Universal | Building, Project, City, System | 2 | |
| zu Ermgassen et al., 2022, UK146 | To examine the emerging trend of ‘nature-positive’ in business and large organizations | 2 | NW NWO+ | N NG | Universal | Organization | 1B |
NR, not reported.
Targets: *, multi-objective; B, biodiversity; C, community; E, environmental; H, health; N, nature; S, social; W, well-being.
Outcomes: DNH+, do no harm or better off; NG, net gain; NNL, no net loss; NO, net outcome; NWO, no worse off; NWO+, no worse off or better off.
Net-outcome level emphasized: 1A, overarching requirement; 1B, overarching requirement (locally defined); 2, enhanced process; 3A, assessed outcome; 3B, assessed outcome (locally defined).
Footnotes
JL-B is a senior associate editor of JBI Evidence Synthesis but was not involved in the editorial processing of the manuscript. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s website, www.jbievidencesynthesis.com.
References
- 1.Gillon R. After 20 years, some reflections and farewell! J Med Ethics 2001;27(2):75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Souleles NS. Risk analysis under Executive Order No. 12291. SAE Technical Papers; 1987. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Hahn RW, McRae GJ, Milford JB. Coping with complexity in the design of environmental policy. J Environ Manage 1988;27(1):109-25. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Zarsky L, Stanley L. Can extractive industries promote sustainable development? A net benefits framework and a case study of the Marlin Mine in Guatemala. J Environ Devel 2013;22(2):131-54. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Spiller M. Assessing net community benefit in the Victorian planning system [internet]. SGS Economica and Planning; 2023. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://sgsep.com.au/assets/main/SGS-economics-and-planning_net-community-benefit-paper.pdf.
- 6.Oosterlynck S, Van Den Broeck J, Albrechts L, Moulaert F, Verhetsel A. Strategic spatial projects: catalysts for change. Routledge; 2011. 1-238 p. [Google Scholar]
- 7.United Nations. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [internet]. UN; 2015. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf.
- 8.World Health Organization. Health as the pulse of the new urban agenda: United Nations conference on housing and sustainable urban development. Quito; October 2016 [internet]. WHO; 2016. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/250367/9789241511445-eng.pdf?sequence=1.
- 9.Chang MCJ, Green L, Petrokofsky C. Public health spatial planning in practice: improving health and wellbeing. Policy Press; 2022. 1-288 p. [Google Scholar]
- 10.World Health Organization. The integration of health into environmental assessments – with a special focus on strategic environmental assessment [internet]. WHO; 2021. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2018-3054-42812-59745.
- 11.McKinnon G, Pineo H, Chang M, Taylor-Green L, Johns A, Toms R. Strengthening the links between planning and health in England. BMJ 2020;369:m795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Barton H, Grant M. A health map for the local human habitat. JR Soc Promot Health 2006;126(6):252-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wellman K, Spiller M. Urban infrastructure finance and management. Wiley Blackwell; 2012. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Barton H. Land use planning and health and well-being. Land Use Policy 2009;26(Suppl 1):S115-S23. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Perdue WC, Gostin LO, Stone LA. Public health and the built environment: Historical, empirical, and theoretical foundations for an expanded role. J Law Med Ethics 2003;31:557-66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities (DLUHC). 2023. National planning policy framework [internet]. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; 2023. [cited 2025 Oct 30]. Available from: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20231228093504/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2.
- 17.Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J. Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2013;38:54-63. [Google Scholar]
- 18.de Sadeleer N. Environmental law in the EU: a pathway toward the green transition. In: da Glória Garcia M, Cortês A, editors. Sustainable development goals series. Springer; 2023; p. 21-33. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Lovell H. Offsetting. In: Castree N, Hulme M, Proctor JD, editors. Companion to environmental studies. Routledge; 2018; p. 223-7. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ten Kate K, von Hase A, Maguire P. Principles of the business and biodiversity offsets programme. In: Wende W, Tucker G, Quétier F, Rayment M, Darbi M, editors. Biodiversity offsets: European perspectives on no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018; p. 17-26. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Bull JW, Brownlie S. The transition from no net loss to a net gain of biodiversity is far from trivial. Oryx 2017;51(1):53-9. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Natural Capital Committee. 2019. Advice to government on net environmental gain [internet]. NCC; 2018. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909269/ncc-advice-net-enviornmental-gain.pdf.
- 23.Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Net gain consultation proposals [internet]. DEFRA; 2018. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/land-use/net-gain/supporting_documents/netgainconsultationdocument.pdf.
- 24.Bateman I, Zonneveld S. Building a Better Society: Net environmental gain from housing and infrastructure developments as a driver for improved social wellbeing [internet]. UK 2070 Commission; 2019. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://uk2070.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BATEMAN_ZONNEVELD_Net_Env_Gain.pdf.
- 25.Bull JW, Baker J, Griffiths VF, Jones JPG, Milner-Gulland EJ. Ensuring no net loss for people and biodiversity: good practice principles [internet]. OSF; 2018. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/4ygh7_v1.
- 26.Griffiths VF, Bull JW, Baker J, Infield M, Roe D, Nalwanga D, et al. Incorporating local nature-based cultural values into biodiversity no net loss strategies. World Devel 2020;128:104858. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Griffiths VF, Bull JW, Baker J, Milner-Gulland EJ. No net loss for people and biodiversity. Conserv Biol 2019;33(1):76-87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Jones JPG, Bull JW, Roe D, Baker J, Griffiths VF, Starkey M, et al. Net gain: seeking better outcomes for local people when mitigating biodiversity loss from development. One Earth 2019;1(2):195-201. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. Biodiversity net gain and people’s wellbeing: how can good practice for biodiversity net gain incorporate people’s wellbeing? Core messages and recommendations [internet]. CIEEM; 2021. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://cieem.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Core-Messages-FINAL-compressed-Oct2021.pdf.
- 30.Faccioli M, Tingley DM, Mancini MC, Bateman IJ. Who should benefit from environmental policies? Social preferences and nonmarket values for the distribution of environmental improvements. Am J Agric Econ 2024. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Birkeland J. Net-positive design and sustainable urban development. Routledge; 2020. 1-386 p. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Sala Benites H. Regenerative circularity for the built environment – a positive impact framework for urban transitions [thesis]. UNSW; 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Robinson J, Cole RJ. Theoretical underpinnings of regenerative sustainability. Build Res Inf 2015;43(2):133-43. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Zhang X, Skitmore M, De Jong M, Huisingh D, Gray M. Regenerative sustainability for the built environment - from vision to reality: an introductory chapter. J Clean Prod 2015;109:1-10. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Andreucci MB, Marvuglia A, Baltov M, Hansen P. Rethinking sustainability towards a regenerative economy. Springer; 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Einola K. [Partnering with nature - in search of regenerative approaches in urban environments; thesis]. Aalto University; 2020. [Finnish] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Zingoni de Baro ME. Two social-ecological design approaches to regenerative sustainability. In: Zingoni de Baro ME, editor. Regenerating cities. Springer Nature; 2022; p. 61-96. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Tomlinson P, Hewitt S, Blackshaw N. Joining up health and planning: how joint strategic needs assessment (JSNA) can inform health and wellbeing strategies and spatial planning. Perspect Public Health 2013;133(5):254-62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Helm D. Natural capital: assets, systems, and policies. Oxford Rev Econ Pol 2019;35(1):1-13. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Le Gouais A, Bates G, Callway R, Kwon HR, Montel L, Peake-Jones S, et al. Understanding how to create healthier places: a qualitative study exploring the complex system of urban development decision-making. Health Place 2023;81:103023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Marmot M, Allan J, Boyce T, Goldblatt P, Morrison J. Health equity in England: the Marmot review 10 years on [internet]. The Health Foundation; 2020. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/reports/health-equity-in-england-the-marmot-review-10-years-on-0.
- 42.Marcus G, Siri J, Gatzweiler F, Dora C, Aerts J, Nandudu S, et al. Supporting a healthy planet, healthy people and health equity through urban and territorial planning. Plann Pract Res 2022;37(1):111-30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Pineo H. Towards healthy urbanism: inclusive, equitable and sustainable (THRIVES)–an urban design and planning framework from theory to praxis. Cities Health 2022;6(5):974-92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Ige-Elegbede J, Pilkington P, Bird EL, Gray S, Mindell JS, Chang M, et al. Exploring the views of planners and public health practitioners on integrating health evidence into spatial planning in England: a mixed-methods study. J Public Health 2021;43(3):664-72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Chang MC-J, Green L, and Petrokofsky C. Securing value. In: Chang MC-J, Green L, Petrokofsky C, editors. Public Health Spatial Planning in Practice. Bristol: Policy Press; 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 46.Commission on Creating Healthy Cities. What creates healthy cities? [internet]. Healthy Cities Commission; 2022. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.healthycitiescommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/What-Creates-Healthy-Cities.pdf.
- 47.Koksal C. Incorporating health and wellbeing into housing developments. Building utopia: how can new housing developments work for everyone? The University of Manchester; 2021. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=57305. [Google Scholar]
- 48.Public Health England. Improving outdoor air quality and health: review of interventions [internet]. PHE; 2019. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/938623/Review_of_interventions_to_improve_air_quality_March-2019-2018572.pdf.
- 49.Stewart-Evans J, Koksal C, Chang M. Can the implementation of net gain requirements in England’s planning system be applied to health? Lancet Planet Health 2024;8(3):e188-e96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Stewart-Evans J, Leonardi-Bee J, Langley T, Wilson E. Editorial viewpoint: promoting health through spatial planning for ‘health net gain’. Int J Health Promot Educ 2023;61(2):57-8. [Google Scholar]
- 51.Baker DC, McLellan AG. Substantive techniques for conflict resolution: aggregate extraction in Southern Ontario. In: Fenn P, Gameson R, editors. Construction conflict management and resolution: proceedings of the first International Construction Management Conference. London: E and FN SPON; 1992; p. 163-73. [Google Scholar]
- 52.Nathwani J, Narveson J. Three principles for managing risk in the public interest. Risk Anal 1995;15(6):615-26. [Google Scholar]
- 53.Esteves AM. Evaluating community investments in the mining sector using multi-criteria decision analysis to integrate SIA with business planning. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2008;28(4-5):338-48. [Google Scholar]
- 54.Konietzko J, Das A, Bocken N. Towards regenerative business models: a necessary shift? Sustain Prod Consum 2023;38:372-88. [Google Scholar]
- 55.Stewart-Evans J, Wilson E, Langley T, Hands A, Leonardi-Bee J. Health net-outcome objectives and approaches for spatial planning and development: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth 2024;22(11):2394-403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Fauna and Flora International. 2021. Applying the mitigation hierarchy in a complex world. Background paper: current approaches for mitigation and managing the impacts of development [internet]. FFI; 2021. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.fauna-flora.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/FFI_CALM_Background_Paper_2_Managing_Impacts_FINAL_ENG.pdf.
- 57.Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [internet] JBI; 2020. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. [Google Scholar]
- 58.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169(7):467-73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc 2016;104(3):240-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Falconer J. Removing duplicates from an EndNote library [internet]. Library, Archive and Open Research Services Blog; 2018. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://blogs.lshtm.ac.uk/library/2018/12/07/removing-duplicates-from-an-endnote-library/.
- 61.Stewart-Evans J, Wilson E, Langley T, Prayle A, Hands A, Exley K, et al. Expediting data extraction using a large language model (LLM) and scoping review protocol: a methodological study within a complex scoping review. arXiv preprint; 2025. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06623.
- 62.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2021;10(1):89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Glossop C. Net community benefit [internet]. ADDO; 2020. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://addo.net.au/net-community-benefit/.
- 64.Akturk A. Regenerative design and development for a sustainable future: definitions and tool evaluation [thesis]. University of Minnesota; 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 65.Australian Planners Declare. Inquiry into the protections within the Victorian Planning Framework: submission no 172 [internet].Parliament of Victoria; 2022. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/get-involved/inquiries/inquiry-into-the-protections-within-the-victorian-planning-framework/.
- 66.Berry D, Steiker G. The concept of justice in regional planning - justice as fairness. J Am Inst Plan 1974;40(6):414. [Google Scholar]
- 67.Birkeland JL. Positive development and assessment. Smart Sustain Built Environ 2014;3(1):4-22. [Google Scholar]
- 68.Birkeland J. Challenging policy barriers in sustainable urban design. Bull Geogr 2018;40(40):41-56. [Google Scholar]
- 69.Birkeland J. Nature positive: interrogating sustainable design frameworks for their potential to deliver eco-positive outcomes. Urban Sci 2022;6(2):35. [Google Scholar]
- 70.Birkeland J. A software tool for net-positive urban design and architecture. In: Droege P, editor. Intelligent environments: advanced systems for a healthy planet, second edition. North Holland; 2023. p. 499-530. [Google Scholar]
- 71.Burns TJ, Boyd TW, Leslie CM. Regenerative development and environmental ethics: healing the mismatch between culture and the environment in the third millennium. In: Caniglia BS, Frank B, Knott JL, Sagendorf KS, Wilkerson EA, editors. Regenerative urban development, climate change and the common good. Routledge; 2019; p. 115-35. [Google Scholar]
- 72.Camrass K. Regenerative futures. Foresight 2020;22(4):401-15. [Google Scholar]
- 73.Camrass K. Urban regenerative thinking and practice: a systematic literature review. Build Res Inf 2022;50(3):339-50. [Google Scholar]
- 74.Camrass K. Regenerative futures: eight principles for thinking and practice. J Futures Stud 2023;28(1):89-99. [Google Scholar]
- 75.Carver L. Seeing no net loss: making nature offset-able. Environ Plan E Nature Space 2021;6(4):2182-202. [Google Scholar]
- 76.Castellas EI, Brusnaham D, Cardin C, Anderson Oliver M. Clarifying community benefits to improve place-based programs [internet]. Stanford Social Innovation Review; 2019. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/clarifying_community_benefits_to_improve_place_based_programs.
- 77.Chang M. Improving the practice of achieving wellbeing and reducing disparities [internet]. Office for Health Improvement and Disparities; 2021. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/conferences/2021-festival/Presentations/Chang_061221.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 78.Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. Should good practice for Biodiversity Net Gain incorporate people’s wellbeing? Consultation responses. [internet] CIEEM; 2021. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://cieem.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Wellbeing-Consultations-FINAL-compressed-Oct2021.pdf.
- 79.Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Net gain: Summary of responses and government response [internet]. Defra; 2019. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/819823/net-gain-consult-sum-resp.pdf.
- 80.Drupsteen L, Wakkee I. Exploring characteristics of regenerative business models through a delphi-inspired approach. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2024;16(7). [Google Scholar]
- 81.Du Plessis C, Brandon P. An ecological worldview as basis for a regenerative sustainability paradigm for the built environment. J Clean Prod 2015;109:53-61. [Google Scholar]
- 82.Eisenberg DA. Transforming building regulatory systems to address climate change. Build Res Inf 2016;44(5-6):468-73. [Google Scholar]
- 83.European Health Forum Gastein. Well-being as a priority for the next EU Commission: building a resilient European Health Union [internet]. YouTube; 2022. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rD6IkAUm3o.
- 84.Fristik R. Mitigation under NEPA: failed promises? [thesis]. Duke University; 2012. [Google Scholar]
- 85.Gastineau P, Mossay P, Taugourdeau E. Ecological compensation: how much and where? Ecol Econ 2021;190:107191. [Google Scholar]
- 86.Gebler M, Juraschek M, Thiede S, Cerdas F, Herrmann C. Defining the “positive impact” of socio-technical systems for absolute sustainability: a literature review based on the identification of system design principles and management functions. Sustain Sci 2022;17(6):2597-613. [Google Scholar]
- 87.Gibberd J. Measuring capability for sustainability: The Built Environment Sustainability Tool (BEST). Build Res Inf 2015;43(1):49-61. [Google Scholar]
- 88.Globus-Harris I. An impossible goal: when trade ratios cannot achieve no-net-loss. Southern Econ J 2020;86(4):1372-92. [Google Scholar]
- 89.Greyson J. Seven policy switches for global security. In: Barbir F, Ulgiati S, editors. Energy options impact on regional security NATO science for peace and security series C: environmental security. Springer; 2010; p. 69-92. [Google Scholar]
- 90.Griffiths VF. Win-win? Balancing people’s uses of nature with biodiversity no net loss [thesis]. University of Oxford; 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 91.Hes D, Stephan A, Moosavi S. Evaluating the practice and outcomes of applying regenerative development to a large-scale project in Victoria, Australia. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2018;10(2):460. [Google Scholar]
- 92.Hiedanpää J, Tuomala M, Pappila M, Klap A, Meretoja M, Laine I, et al. Ecosocial compensation of nature-based social values in Turku, South-West Finland. Socio Ecol Pract Res 2023;5(4):391-407. [Google Scholar]
- 93.HM Government. A green future: our 25 year plan to improve the environment. HM Government; 2018. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ab3a67840f0b65bb584297e/25-year-environment-plan.pdf.
- 94.Homes England. Deliver public health net gain through design - summer learning programme 2023 [internet]. YouTube; 2023. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ-YMJ08d9o.
- 95.Hooker B. Up and down with aggregation. Soc Phil Pol 2009;26(1):126-47. [Google Scholar]
- 96.Hooper T, Austen M, Lannin A. Developing policy and practice for marine net gain. J Environ Manage 2021. 277:111387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Jones KR, von Hase A, Costa HM, Rainey H, Sidat N, Jobson B, et al. Spatial analysis to inform the mitigation hierarchy. Conserv Sci Pract 2022;4(6):e12686. [Google Scholar]
- 98.Jones D, Vlieg M, Ashar S, Friend L, Gomez CC. Learning to quantify positive futures. Int J Environ Impacts 2022;5(2):128-45. [Google Scholar]
- 99.Kambo A. Regenerative sustainability in the design of built environment for Eastern subtropical Australia [thesis]. Queensland University of Technology; 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 100.Knight-Lenihan S. Net environmental benefit in urban centres. Landscape Rev 2017;17(2):44-55. [Google Scholar]
- 101.Lichtenthaler U. Why being sustainable is not enough: embracing a net positive impact. J Bus Strategy 2023;44(1):13-20. [Google Scholar]
- 102.Mang P, Reed B. The nature of positive. Build Res Inf 2015;43(1):7-10. [Google Scholar]
- 103.Maron M, Brownlie S, Bull JW, Evans MC, Von Hase A, Quétier F, et al. The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy. Nat Sustain 2018;1(1):19-27. [Google Scholar]
- 104.Martens K. Substance precedes methodology: on cost-benefit analysis and equity. Transportation 2011;38(6):959-74. [Google Scholar]
- 105.Mauerhofer V, Englund O, Grönlund E, Haller H, Jonsson B-G, Van den brink P. Environmental net-gain governance: global implementation challenges. J Clean Prod 2021;321:128884. [Google Scholar]
- 106.McCord J. Innovation and entrepreneurship. In: McCord J, editor. Green business basics - a comprehensive guide to sustainable business. 2023. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.greenbusinessbasics.com/chapters/11-innovation-entrepreneurship. [No longer available online] [Google Scholar]
- 107.McLaren DP, Carver L. Disentangling the “net” from the “offset”: learning for net-zero climate policy from an analysis of “no-net-loss” in biodiversity. Front Clim 2023;5. [Google Scholar]
- 108.Middle G, Middle I. A review of the use of environmental offset as a policy mechanism in the environmental impact assessment process (EIA) in Western Australia. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2010;28(4):313-22. [Google Scholar]
- 109.Mifsud WJ, Caruso L. The impact of Malta’s cultural specificities as a small island state on regenerative sustainability principles in the built environment. Smart Innov Syst Tech 2024;378:191-200. [Google Scholar]
- 110.Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government. Planning for the future, white paper August 2020 [internet]. MHCLG; 2020. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/958420/MHCLG-Planning-Consultation.pdf.
- 111.Morseletto P. Environmental principles for modern sustainable economic frameworks including the circular economy. Sustain Sci 2022;17:2165-71. [Google Scholar]
- 112.Naboni E, Havinga L. Regenerative design in digital practice. a handbook for the built environment. Eurac Research; 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 113.National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. State of the housing system [internet]. Australian Government; 2024. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://nhsac.gov.au/sites/nhsac.gov.au/files/2024-05/state-of-the-housing-system-2024.pdf.
- 114.Net Positive Project. Net positive principles [internet]. Net Positive Project; 2019. [No longer available online]
- 115.Nisbet J, João E. A framework for evaluating enhancement quality as part of the EIA process. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2022;96:106806. [Google Scholar]
- 116.Norris G. A framework for comparing and understanding net positive goals. SHINE MIT; 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 117.Norris GA, Burek J, Moore EA, Kirchain RE, Gregory J. Sustainability health initiative for net-positive enterprise handprint methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2021;26:528-42. [Google Scholar]
- 118.Novak VM, Fernandez-Anez N, Shiraishi K. Rethinking resilience planning: from problems to potential. Int J Disas Resil Built Environ 2017;8(4):412-24. [Google Scholar]
- 119.O’Neill J. What is lost through no net loss. Econ Phil 2020;36(2):287-306. [Google Scholar]
- 120.O’Neill J. Natural capital and biodiversity: money, markets and offsets. In: Bertrand E, Panitch V, editors. The Routledge Handbook of Commodification. Taylor and Francis; 2023; p. 337-50. [Google Scholar]
- 121.Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Net gain [internet]. POST; 2019. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PB-0034/POST-PB-0034.pdf.
- 122.Pearl DS, Oliver A. The role of early-phase mining in reframing net-positive development. Build Res Inf 2015;43(1):34-48. [Google Scholar]
- 123.Pienkowski T. Understanding neglected connections between nature, conservation, and mental health [thesis]. University of Oxford; 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 124.Place Alliance. A housing design audit for England [internet]. Place Alliance; 2020. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from:https://indd.adobe.com/view/publication/23366ae1-8f97-455d-896a-1a9934689cd8/sp1x/publication-web-resources/pdf/Place_Alliance_-_A_Housing_Design_Audit_for_England_2020_Final_Draft.pdf.
- 125.Plaut JM, Dunbar B, Wackerman A, Hodgin S. Regenerative design: the LENSES Framework for buildings and communities. Build Res Inf 2012;40(1):112-22. [Google Scholar]
- 126.Puig J, Villarroya A, Casas M. No net loss: a cultural reading of environmental assessment. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2022;14(1):337. [Google Scholar]
- 127.Rees WE. Cumulative environmental assessment and global change. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1995;15(4):295-309. [Google Scholar]
- 128.Sarkki S, Pihlajamäki M, Rasmus S, Eronen JT. “Rights for Life” scenario to reach biodiversity targets and social equity for indigenous peoples and local communities. Biol Conserv 2023;280:109958. [Google Scholar]
- 129.SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd. Shaping metropolitan Melbourne: a discussion paper for the Municipal Association of Victoria [internet]. SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd; 2023. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.mav.asn.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/34881/Shaping-metropolitan-Melbourne-A-discussion-paper-231212.pdf.
- 130.Shoemaker DJ. Cumulative environmental effects: managing aggregate resource extraction in southern Ontario [thesis]. University of Waterloo; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 131.Stewart-Evans J, Koksal C, Chang M. Developing ‘health net gain’ in spatial planning: concept, method, and practice. UK-Ireland Planning Research Conference. Manchester, UK; 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 132.Stratford E, Raven M, Ruming K, Byrne JA, Duthie P. In conversation with Geographers, Regenerative futures [internet]. Wiley, 2022. [cited 2025 Oct 30]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/17455871/homepage/webinars. [Google Scholar]
- 133.Swangjang K, Cumkhett S. 16 - Mitigation hierarchy; an effectiveness of project control mechanism. In: Rahman ROA, Hussain CM, editors. Handbook of advanced approaches towards pollution prevention and control, volume 1: conventional and innovative technology, and assessment techniques for pollution prevention and control. Elsevier; 2021. p. 325-42. [Google Scholar]
- 134.Tàbara JD. Regenerative sustainability. a relational model of possibilities for the emergence of positive tipping points. Environ Soc 2023;9(4):366-85. [Google Scholar]
- 135.Truman M. Quantifying environmental net gain. IEMA 2019;4:10-11. [Google Scholar]
- 136.Tuomisto JT, Pekkanen J. Assessing environmental health risks or net health benefits? Scand J Public Health 2005;33(3):162-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137.Tupala AK, Huttunen S, Halme P. Social impacts of biodiversity offsetting: a review. Biol Conserv 2022;267:109431. [Google Scholar]
- 138.Velasco Fuentes CF. Shifting the ownership paradigm in the built environment: a regenerative approach to ownership and appropriation [thesis]. University of British Columbia; 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 139.Victorian Auditor-General. Victorian Auditor-General’s Report: Managing Victoria’s planning system for land use and development [internet]. Victorian Auditor-General; 2017. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/20170322-Land-Use.pdf.
- 140.Victoria State Government. PPN46: Strategic assessment guidelines [internet]. Victoria State Government; 2022. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/guides/planning-practice-notes/strategic-assessment-guidelines. [Google Scholar]
- 141.Villarroya A, Persson J, Puig J. Ecological compensation: from general guidance and expertise to specific proposals for road developments. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2014;45:54-62. [Google Scholar]
- 142.Wessel GR. Beyond sustainability: a restorative approach for the mineral industry. In: Wessel GR, Greenberg JK, editors. Geoscience for the public good and global development: toward a sustainable future: Geological Society of America special paper 520. Geological Society of America; 2016; p. 45-55. [Google Scholar]
- 143.Williams K. Regenerative design as a force for change: thoughtful, optimistic and evolving ideas. Build Res Inf 2012;40(3):361-4. [Google Scholar]
- 144.Wirral Council. SD1 – Wirral local plan 2021–2037 submission draft [internet]. Wirral Council; 2022. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.wirral.gov.uk/files/sd1-wirral-local-plan-2021-2037-submission-draft-may-2022-reg-19-publication-final-260422/download?inline?inline.
- 145.Young RE, Gann GD, Walder B, Liu J, Cui W, Newton V, et al. International principles and standards for the ecological restoration and recovery of mine sites. Restor Ecol 2022;30(S2):1-47. [Google Scholar]
- 146.zu Ermgassen SOSE, Howard M, Bennun L, Addison PFE, Bull JW, Loveridge R, et al. Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent with delivering ‘nature-positive’ outcomes? A review of ‘nature-positive’ definitions, company progress and challenges. J Clean Prod 2022;379:134798. [Google Scholar]
- 147.World Health Organization. Constitution of the World Health Organization [internet]. WHO; 1948. [cited 2025 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.who.int/about/governance/constitution. [Google Scholar]
- 148.Woodhouse E, Homewood KM, Beauchamp E, Clements T, McCabe JT, Wilkie D, et al. Guiding principles for evaluating the impacts of conservation interventions on human well-being. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2015;370(1681). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149.Maron M, Ives CD, Kujala H, Bull JW, Maseyk FJF, Bekessy S, et al. Taming a wicked problem: resolving controversies in biodiversity offsetting. Bioscience 2016;66(6):489-98. [Google Scholar]
- 150.De Hollander AEM, Staatsen BAM. Health, environment and quality of life: an epidemiological perspective on urban development. Landsc Urban Plann 2003;65:53-62. [Google Scholar]
- 151.Sainsbury PG. Ethical considerations involved in constructing the built environment to promote health. J Bioethical Inq 2013;10(1):39-48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152.Pineo H, Moore G, Braithwaite I. Incorporating practitioner knowledge to test and improve a new conceptual framework for healthy urban design and planning. Cities Health 2022;6(5):906-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153.Ramirez-Rubio O, Daher C, Fanjul G, Gascon M, Mueller N, Pajín L, et al. Urban health: an example of a “health in all policies” approach in the context of SDGs implementation. Global Health 2019;15(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154.Song B, Ren Y, Li W, Feng M. Knowledge mapping analysis of interdisciplinary research on urban planning and public health in English literature. Xi’an Jianzhu Keji Daxue Xuebao 2021;53(4):568-79. [Google Scholar]
- 155.Karaan A, Antonenko Y, Celaya Alvarez A, Al Youssef S, Leon E, Braubach M, et al. Review of indicator frameworks supporting urban planning for resilience and health. Cities Health 2024;8(5):885-98. [Google Scholar]
- 156.Ziafati Bafarasat A, Sharifi A. How to achieve a healthy city: a scoping review with ten city examples. J Urban Health 2024;101(1):120-40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157.Green G. Intersectoral planning for city health development. J Urban Health 2012;89(2):247-57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158.Dooris M. Healthy cities and local agenda 21: the UK experience - challenges for the new millennium. Health Prom Int 1999;14(4):365-75. [Google Scholar]
- 159.World Health Organization. The 1st International Conference on Health Promotion, Ottawa, 1986 [internet]. WHO; 1986. [cited 2025 Oct 30]. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/health-promotion/enhanced-wellbeing/first-global-conference.
- 160.Prescott SL, Logan AC. Planetary health: from the wellspring of holistic medicine to personal and public health imperative. Explore 2019;15(2):98-106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161.Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Khreis H, Verlinghieri E, Mueller N, Rojas-Rueda D. Participatory quantitative health impact assessment of urban and transport planning in cities: a review and research needs. Environ Int 2017;103:61-72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162.Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. Urban and transport planning pathways to carbon neutral, liveable and healthy cities; a review of the current evidence. Environ Int 2020;140:105661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163.Barton H, Grant M. Testing time for sustainability and health: striving for inclusive rationality in project appraisal. JR Soc Promot Health 2008;128(3):130-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164.De La Haye A, Gow R, Lake AA, Ball C, van Herk S, Rofin Serra M, et al. A thematic analysis of UK healthy planning frameworks and tools designed to support the inclusion of health in urban planning. Cities Health 2024;8(5):956-72. [Google Scholar]
- 165.Pineo H, Glonti K, Rutter H, Zimmermann N, Wilkinson P, Davies M. Urban health indicator tools of the physical environment: a systematic review. J Urban Health 2018; 95(5):613-46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 166.Couper I, Jaques K, Reid A, Harris P. Placemaking and infrastructure through the lens of levelling up for health equity: a scoping review. Health Place 2023;80:102975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167.Giles-Corti B, Lowe M, Arundel J. Achieving the SDGs: evaluating indicators to be used to benchmark and monitor progress towards creating healthy and sustainable cities. Health Policy 2020;124(6):581-90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 168.Gray S, Carmichael L, Barton H, Mytton J, Lease H, Joynt J. The effectiveness of health appraisal processes currently in addressing health and wellbeing during spatial plan appraisal: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2011;11:889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 169.McClure M, Machalaba C, Zambrana-Torrelio C, Feferholtz Y, Lee KD, Daszak P, et al. Incorporating health outcomes into land-use planning. EcoHealth 2019;16(4):627-37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 170.Callway R, Le Gouais A, Bird EL, Chang M, Kidger J. Integrating health into local plans: a comparative review of health requirements for urban development in seven local planning authorities in England. Int J Env Res Public Health 2023;20(5). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 171.De La Haye A, Jones A, van Herk S, Rofin-Serra M, Lake AA, Moore HJ. Mapping healthy planning frameworks. Perspect Public Health 2023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 172.Chaparro R, Melendi S, Santero M, Seijo M, Elorriaga N, Belizan M, et al. A review of assessment indicators used by Healthy Municipalities and Communities Program in Latin America and the Caribbean region. Health Prom Int 2020;35(4):714-29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 173.Chang M, Carhart N, Callway R. Spatial plans as a critical intervention in improving population health. A discourse arising from a health census review of the state of current local planning policy in England. J Plan Lit 2024:40(2):154-69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 174.Pineo H, Glonti K, Rutter H, Zimmermann N, Wilkinson P, Davies M. Use of urban health indicator tools by built environment policy- and decision-makers: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. J Urban Health 2020;97(3):418-35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 175.Nadin V, Stead D. European spatial planning systems, social models and learning. disP Plan Rev 2012;44(172):35-47. [Google Scholar]
- 176.Maantay J. Zoning, equity, and public health. Am J Public Health 2001;91(7):1033-41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 177.Bird EL, Ige JO, Pilkington P, Pinto A, Petrokofsky C, Burgess-Allen J. Built and natural environment planning principles for promoting health: an umbrella review. BMC Public Health 2018;18(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 178.Yuille A, Davies J, Green M, Hardman C, Knight J, Marshall R, et al. Moving from features to functions: Bridging disciplinary understandings of urban environments to support healthy people and ecosystems. Health Place 2024;90:103368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
See Supplemental File 2 (http://links.lww.com/SRX/A147) for the full data extraction dataset.
As 542 reports were assessed for eligibility, reasons for exclusion are summarized in the manuscript. Further details (ie, individual information source exclusions) are available on request.