skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Differing forms, differing purposes: A typology of health impact assessment

Abstract

There is currently considerable diversity in health impact assessment (HIA) practice internationally. Historically this diversity has been described as simple dichotomies, for example the differences between HIAs of projects and policies. However these distinctions have failed to adequately describe the differences that can be observed between different forms of HIAs. This paper describes the three historical and disciplinary fields from which HIA has emerged - environmental health, a social view of health, and health equity. It also puts forward a typology of four different forms of HIA that can be observed in current HIA practice: mandated, decision-support, advocacy, and community-led HIAs. This paper argues that these different forms of HIA serve different purposes and are not necessarily in competition; rather they allow HIA to be responsive to a range of population health concerns and purposes.

Authors:
;
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
21499699
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Environmental Impact Assessment Review; Journal Volume: 31; Journal Issue: 4; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.03.003; PII: S0195-9255(10)00054-5; Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; 29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY; COMMUNITIES; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; HEALTH HAZARDS; POPULATIONS; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC POLICY; DOCUMENT TYPES; GOVERNMENT POLICIES; HAZARDS

Citation Formats

Harris-Roxas, Ben, E-mail: b.harris-roxas@unsw.edu.au, and Harris, Elizabeth, E-mail: e.harris@unsw.edu.a. Differing forms, differing purposes: A typology of health impact assessment. United States: N. p., 2011. Web. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.03.003.
Harris-Roxas, Ben, E-mail: b.harris-roxas@unsw.edu.au, & Harris, Elizabeth, E-mail: e.harris@unsw.edu.a. Differing forms, differing purposes: A typology of health impact assessment. United States. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.03.003.
Harris-Roxas, Ben, E-mail: b.harris-roxas@unsw.edu.au, and Harris, Elizabeth, E-mail: e.harris@unsw.edu.a. 2011. "Differing forms, differing purposes: A typology of health impact assessment". United States. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.03.003.
@article{osti_21499699,
title = {Differing forms, differing purposes: A typology of health impact assessment},
author = {Harris-Roxas, Ben, E-mail: b.harris-roxas@unsw.edu.au and Harris, Elizabeth, E-mail: e.harris@unsw.edu.a},
abstractNote = {There is currently considerable diversity in health impact assessment (HIA) practice internationally. Historically this diversity has been described as simple dichotomies, for example the differences between HIAs of projects and policies. However these distinctions have failed to adequately describe the differences that can be observed between different forms of HIAs. This paper describes the three historical and disciplinary fields from which HIA has emerged - environmental health, a social view of health, and health equity. It also puts forward a typology of four different forms of HIA that can be observed in current HIA practice: mandated, decision-support, advocacy, and community-led HIAs. This paper argues that these different forms of HIA serve different purposes and are not necessarily in competition; rather they allow HIA to be responsive to a range of population health concerns and purposes.},
doi = {10.1016/j.eiar.2010.03.003},
journal = {Environmental Impact Assessment Review},
number = 4,
volume = 31,
place = {United States},
year = 2011,
month = 7
}
  • In recent years the need to enhance public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and the efficacy of alternative mechanisms in achieving this goal, have been central themes in the EIA literature. The benefits of public participation are often taken for granted, and partly for this reason the underlying rationale for greater public participation is sometimes poorly articulated, making it more difficult to determine how to pursue it effectively. The reasons for seeking public participation are also highly diverse and not always mutually consistent. There has been limited analysis of the implications of different forms and degrees of public participationmore » for public decision making based on EIA, and little discussion of how experience with public participation in EIA relates to debates about participation in policy making generally. This paper distinguishes various purposes for public participation in EIA, and discusses their implications for decision making. It then draws on some general models of public participation in policy making to consider how approaches to participation in EIA can be interpreted and valued, and asks what EIA experience reveals about the utility of these models. It argues that the models pay insufficient attention to the interaction that can occur between different forms of public participation; and to the fact that public participation raises issues regarding control over decision making that are not subject to resolution, but must be managed through ongoing processes of negotiation.« less
  • In both ambient air pollution epidemiology and health impact assessment an accurate assessment of the population exposure is crucial. Although considerable advances have been made in assessing human exposure outdoors, the assessments often do not consider the impact of individual travel behavior on such exposures. Population-based exposures to NO{sub 2} and O{sub 3} using only home addresses were compared with models that integrate all time-activity patterns-including time in commute-for Flanders and Brussels. The exposure estimates were used to estimate the air pollution impact on years of life lost due to respiratory mortality. Health impact of NO{sub 2} using an exposuremore » that integrates time-activity information was on average 1.2% higher than when assuming that people are always at their home address. For ozone the overall estimated health impact was 0.8% lower. Local differences could be much larger, with estimates that differ up to 12% from the exposure using residential addresses only. Depending on age and gender, deviations from the population average were seen. Our results showed modest differences on a regional level. At the local level, however, time-activity patterns indicated larger differences in exposure and health impact estimates, mainly for people living in more rural areas. These results suggest that for local analyses the dynamic approach can contribute to an improved assessment of the health impact of various types of pollution and to the understanding of exposure differences between population groups. - Highlights: Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Exposure to ambient air pollution was assessed integrating population mobility. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer This dynamic exposure was integrated into a health impact assessment. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Differences between the dynamic and residential exposure were quantified. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Modest differences in health impact were found at a regional level. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer At municipal level larger differences were found, influenced by gender and age.« less
  • In Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) the use of health impact assessment (HIA) as a tool for improved policy development is comparatively new. The public health workforce do not routinely assess the potential health and equity impacts of proposed policies or programs. The Australasian Collaboration for Health Equity Impact Assessment was funded to develop a strategic framework for equity-focused HIA (EFHIA) with the intent of strengthening the ways in which equity is addressed in each step of HIA. The collaboration developed a draft framework for EFHIA that mirrored, but modified the commonly accepted steps of HIA; tested the draft frameworkmore » in six different health service delivery settings; analysed the feedback about application of the draft EFHIA framework and modified it accordingly. The strategic framework shows promise in providing a systematic process for identifying potential differential health impacts and assessing the extent to which these are avoidable and unfair. This paper presents the EFHIA framework and discusses some of the issues that arose in the case study sites undertaking equity-focused HIA.« less
  • Internationally the inclusion of health within environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been shown to be limited. While Australian EIA documentation has not been studied empirically to date, deficiencies in practice have been documented. This research developed an audit tool to undertake a qualitative descriptive analysis of 22 Major Project EAs in New South Wales, Australia. Results showed that health and wellbeing impacts were not considered explicitly. They were, however, included indirectly in the identification of traditional public health exposures associated with the physical environment and to a lesser extent the inclusion of social and economic impacts. However, no health datamore » was used to inform any of the assessments, there was no reference to causal pathways between exposures or determinants and physical or mental health effects, and there was no inclusion of the differential distribution of exposures or health impacts on different populations. The results add conceptually and practically to the long standing integration debate, showing that health is in a position to add value to the EIA process as an explicit part of standard environmental, social and economic considerations. However, to overcome the consistently documented barriers to integrating health in EIA, capacity must be developed amongst EIA professionals, led by the health sector, to progress health related knowledge and tools.« less
  • How can planners more systematically incorporate health concerns into practical planning processes? This paper describes a suite of health impact assessment tools (HIAs) developed specifically for planning practice. Taking an evidence-based approach the tools are designed to fit into existing planning activities. The tools include: a short audit tool, the Preliminary Checklist; a structured participatory workshop, the Rapid HIA; an intermediate health impact assessment, the Threshold Analysis; and a set of Plan Review Checklists. This description provides a basis for future work including assessing tool validity, refining specific tools, and creating alternatives.