| hia_underlying_principles.pdf |
| who_report_health_in_impact_assessments_opportunities_not_to_be_missed.pdf |
| iaia_2015_social_impact_assessment_guidance_document.pdf |
Health Impact Assessment
Source (original modified): http://www.who.int/hia/tools/en/
Health Impact Assessment (HIA) has become increasingly prominent as a data driven tool to assess the “livability” of transportation infrastructure projects. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines HIA as a means of assessing the health impacts of policies, plans and projects in diverse economic sectors using quantitative, qualitative and participatory techniques. The key to HIA is to understand the manner in which the individual elements, factors and performance measures are packaged to reflect the impact of a project on a community.
Unfortunately, transportation professionals have been left on their own to decipher exactly what HIA is while new regulations on livability become part of the proposal and award process void of financial incentive or supplemental support. The irony is that transportation professionals have unknowingly conducted a form of HIA even before HIA became “in vogue”. These performance tools are reflected in the environmental impact assessment process, Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS), and Sustainable Return on Investment as the basis of most transportation infrastructure projects. For example, the definition and application of CSS developed by the US DOT is the foundation of program decision-making and engineering design that ensures that community input, land use, safety and mobility are taken into account during all phases of a project.
In September 2011, the National Research Council (NRC) published recommendations on Health Impact Assessment (HIA). The main premise of these broad recommendations is to demonstrate that HIA can be implemented as a tool in instances in which there is “added value” to a project. HIA is NOT intended to replace existing performance metrics however this is not the message that is being communicated to the public or to transportation infrastructure professionals.
Expert Opinion by Andrew Buroni, PhD
"My opinion is that health has and will always be a part of EIA. The whole purpose of EIA was to protect the environment, not for some altruistic reason, but to protect the environment to sustain good health. This is also the underlying principal behind sustainable development. It is to ensure a sustainable environment for people to live in. The problem is people have lost sight of this message. As EIA developed it was quite rightly split up to cover the key disciplines / health pathways (air quality, nose, transport, etc). However, we now focus on assessing the potential impact within each of these disciplines, without actually saying what the outcome will be on health.
We are slowly bringing health back into planning and even looking at improving the opportunities (and not just the risks), which will go a long way to facilitate healthy urban design, which we already know can be applied to design out many of today’s significant mental, social and physical health issues. This is not only the most ethical approach, but is also the most cost-effective.
The 2012 HIA Conference (http://www.hia2012.ca/112/Conference_Program.html) brings to light the divide and some conflicting views between health practitioners, planners, developers and the general public on the matter. The truth is, the objectives are mutual, so the practice should be equally common between parties.
HIA is ultimately intended to deliver that win-win-win scenario through the following objectives:
So am I saying that ‘HIA are or could be supported through a public-private partnership agreement’? The truth is, that’s what I do now. I am the intermediary between public, private and community stakeholders trying to get the win-win-win. The Hinkley nuclear power station HIA project RPS did in the UK is a perfect example. We worked out what all three parties want and need (through extensive engagement and community profiling), then worked with the client to refine the plan to best deliver the mutual objectives. We then assessed the final option, considered the effectiveness of mitigation measures and assessed the residual impacts to communities. This was followed by more engagement to discuss and further refine the mitigation and support measures. We then performed the final assessment, issued our conclusion and provided a detailed Health Action Plan including the largest health care planning contribution provided on any major infrastructure project. Following that, RPS provided feedback to the Public Sectors Local Impact Report responding to our assessment and attended the issue specific hearings to address any remaining issues.
This wasn't easy as the developer, local authorities, health stakeholders and local communities initially didn't trust us. You need to work with and for all of these bodies to truly get the job done right. But how do you get this level of buy-in when HIA is a voluntary, unregulated, uncertified process with no set process or syllabus?
What is needed:
It is not a private or public item, it is something that is inherent to all planning and decision making and needs to be made a more prominent feature in the existing process to facilitate the delivery of vibrant, cohesive and healthy communities."
For more information on EIA-HIA process please contact:
Andrew Buroni, PhD
Principal Consultant - Environmental Planning & Development
Group Leader: Health Impact Assessment
RPS Group
6-7 Lovers Walk
Brighton, East Sussex BN1 6AH
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0) 1273 546 800
Email: buronia@rpsgroup.com
Below is a PDF file of the National Research Council recommendations on HIA and a legal review of HIA.
Unfortunately, transportation professionals have been left on their own to decipher exactly what HIA is while new regulations on livability become part of the proposal and award process void of financial incentive or supplemental support. The irony is that transportation professionals have unknowingly conducted a form of HIA even before HIA became “in vogue”. These performance tools are reflected in the environmental impact assessment process, Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS), and Sustainable Return on Investment as the basis of most transportation infrastructure projects. For example, the definition and application of CSS developed by the US DOT is the foundation of program decision-making and engineering design that ensures that community input, land use, safety and mobility are taken into account during all phases of a project.
In September 2011, the National Research Council (NRC) published recommendations on Health Impact Assessment (HIA). The main premise of these broad recommendations is to demonstrate that HIA can be implemented as a tool in instances in which there is “added value” to a project. HIA is NOT intended to replace existing performance metrics however this is not the message that is being communicated to the public or to transportation infrastructure professionals.
Expert Opinion by Andrew Buroni, PhD
"My opinion is that health has and will always be a part of EIA. The whole purpose of EIA was to protect the environment, not for some altruistic reason, but to protect the environment to sustain good health. This is also the underlying principal behind sustainable development. It is to ensure a sustainable environment for people to live in. The problem is people have lost sight of this message. As EIA developed it was quite rightly split up to cover the key disciplines / health pathways (air quality, nose, transport, etc). However, we now focus on assessing the potential impact within each of these disciplines, without actually saying what the outcome will be on health.
We are slowly bringing health back into planning and even looking at improving the opportunities (and not just the risks), which will go a long way to facilitate healthy urban design, which we already know can be applied to design out many of today’s significant mental, social and physical health issues. This is not only the most ethical approach, but is also the most cost-effective.
The 2012 HIA Conference (http://www.hia2012.ca/112/Conference_Program.html) brings to light the divide and some conflicting views between health practitioners, planners, developers and the general public on the matter. The truth is, the objectives are mutual, so the practice should be equally common between parties.
- Developers want: a successful, risk free, well received project recognised as having significant health benefits for local communities;
- Authorities want: a successful, risk free project which supports the delivery of strategic and health objectives facilitating healthy, vibrant and cohesive communities; and
- Communities want a risk free project which has significant health benefits and opportunities for them.
HIA is ultimately intended to deliver that win-win-win scenario through the following objectives:
- design out and address potential risks;
- design in and maximise health opportunities;
- assess and address the distribution of both ; and
- facilitate more health conscious decision making.
So am I saying that ‘HIA are or could be supported through a public-private partnership agreement’? The truth is, that’s what I do now. I am the intermediary between public, private and community stakeholders trying to get the win-win-win. The Hinkley nuclear power station HIA project RPS did in the UK is a perfect example. We worked out what all three parties want and need (through extensive engagement and community profiling), then worked with the client to refine the plan to best deliver the mutual objectives. We then assessed the final option, considered the effectiveness of mitigation measures and assessed the residual impacts to communities. This was followed by more engagement to discuss and further refine the mitigation and support measures. We then performed the final assessment, issued our conclusion and provided a detailed Health Action Plan including the largest health care planning contribution provided on any major infrastructure project. Following that, RPS provided feedback to the Public Sectors Local Impact Report responding to our assessment and attended the issue specific hearings to address any remaining issues.
This wasn't easy as the developer, local authorities, health stakeholders and local communities initially didn't trust us. You need to work with and for all of these bodies to truly get the job done right. But how do you get this level of buy-in when HIA is a voluntary, unregulated, uncertified process with no set process or syllabus?
What is needed:
- Strategic level mechanism to establish when, where, how and who are required to do HIA (Ideally, this is public sector or government through a regulatory requirement).
- Local level mechanism where local authorities establish the key healthy urban design principals they want all developers to sign up to and enhance in their plans (in the UK this is invariably done through the health boards).
- Project level mechanism where developers scope in HIA and engagement with key health stakeholders to discuss and further address the health issues and enhance the opportunities. Following scoping, public engagement is applied to iteratively refine the project and assessment (tailored to local priorities, perceptions and values).
- Decision making mechanism is required where health is made a material consideration (planning authorities do this through EIA disciplines, but need to expand to consider public health); and
- Health Action Planning is the final mechanism where planning contributions, design features and wider community support initiatives are applied through planning to support local health objectives.
It is not a private or public item, it is something that is inherent to all planning and decision making and needs to be made a more prominent feature in the existing process to facilitate the delivery of vibrant, cohesive and healthy communities."
For more information on EIA-HIA process please contact:
Andrew Buroni, PhD
Principal Consultant - Environmental Planning & Development
Group Leader: Health Impact Assessment
RPS Group
6-7 Lovers Walk
Brighton, East Sussex BN1 6AH
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0) 1273 546 800
Email: buronia@rpsgroup.com
Below is a PDF file of the National Research Council recommendations on HIA and a legal review of HIA.
| neap_webinar_transport_and_health_20130930.ppt |
| boston_transit_fare_increases_and_hia.pdf |
| a-08h-3_health_impact_assessment_final.pdf |
| hia_nrc_guidelines.pdf |
| legal_review_hia.pdf |
| speed_limit_hia.pdf |
The Impact and Effectiveness of Health Impact Assessment: A Conceptual Framework
Ben Harris-Roxas and Elizabeth Harris
Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
The use of health impact assessment (HIA) has expanded rapidly and there are increasing demands for it to demonstrate its effectiveness. This paper presents a conceptual framework for evaluating HIA and describes its development through (i) a review of the literature, (ii) a review of work undertaken as part of a major HIA capacity building project and (iii) an in-depth study of seven completed HIAs. The framework emphasises context, process and impacts as key domains in understanding and evaluating the effectiveness of an HIA. This new framework builds upon the existing approaches to evaluating HIA and extends them to reflect the broad range of factors that comprise and influence the effectiveness of HIAs. It may be of use in evaluating completed HIAs and in planning HIAs that are yet to be undertaken.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved
Written permission has been granted by the main author, Ben Harris-Roxas to share with visitors to the TPH Link website.
Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
The use of health impact assessment (HIA) has expanded rapidly and there are increasing demands for it to demonstrate its effectiveness. This paper presents a conceptual framework for evaluating HIA and describes its development through (i) a review of the literature, (ii) a review of work undertaken as part of a major HIA capacity building project and (iii) an in-depth study of seven completed HIAs. The framework emphasises context, process and impacts as key domains in understanding and evaluating the effectiveness of an HIA. This new framework builds upon the existing approaches to evaluating HIA and extends them to reflect the broad range of factors that comprise and influence the effectiveness of HIAs. It may be of use in evaluating completed HIAs and in planning HIAs that are yet to be undertaken.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved
Written permission has been granted by the main author, Ben Harris-Roxas to share with visitors to the TPH Link website.
| harris-roxas_b_2012_the_impact_and_effectiveness_of_hia_-_conceptual_framework.pdf |
Differing Forms, Differing Purposes: A Typology of Health Impact Assessment
Ben Harris-Roxas and Elizabeth Harris
Centre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation (CHETRE), part of the UNSW Research Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
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.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Written permission has been granted by the main author, Ben Harris-Roxas to share with visitors to the TPH Link website.
Centre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation (CHETRE), part of the UNSW Research Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
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.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Written permission has been granted by the main author, Ben Harris-Roxas to share with visitors to the TPH Link website.
| harris-roxas_b_2010_typology_of_hia.pdf |