The impact and effectiveness of health impact assessment: A conceptual framework

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.     

Health impact assessment in spatial planning in England –types of application and quality of documentation

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a decision support approach which is applied in various shapes and forms throughout the world. In England, amongst a range of areas of application, HIA is applied in local (spatial) plan making and project development planning. Whilst various authors have reflected on HIA practice in England, the extent of application and its quality has remained unclear. This paper aims at addressing this gap by reporting on the results of a systematic review of HIA in planning. It is found that between 100 and 200 HIAs are likely being produced each year in England. Whilst most assessments are rapid (desk based), there are also examples of comprehensive and intermediate HIAs, where a participatory procedural approach is followed. An important finding is that those HIAs applied within the context of other assessments (integrated impact assessment -IIA, strategic environmental assessment - SEA/ sustainability appraisal -SA and environmental impact assessment – EIA) tend to be of a higher quality than standalone HIAs, mainly because of the existing comprehensive statutory procedural requirements for these other assessments into which HIA can be integrated.     

The inclusion of migrants in health impact assessments: A scoping review

This article reports the findings of a scoping review assessing the extent and ways in which migrants have been included in health impact assessments (HIAs) and HIA evaluations worldwide. A total of 117 HIAs and two HIA evaluations were included. Only 14% of hand-searched HIAs mentioned migrants, 5% analysed migrants and only 2% included them in their recommendations. Nonetheless, migrants would be expected to be part of the analysis based on the reasons for which migrants were most commonly mentioned. Although the majority of HIAs included in the review mentioned migrants in baseline conditions and impact analysis steps, migrants were seldom included in recommendations. Furthermore, the use of frameworks or tools guiding the completion of an HIA was negatively associated with the inclusion of migrants in recommendations. This is a pivotal risk of frameworks not mentioning migrants. Although workshops and stakeholder engagement were a frequent way of including migrants in HIAs, this usually involved organizations representing migrants, and only seldom included members of the migrant community themselves. The main barriers to including migrants in the HIA impact analysis were the lack of available data on migrants and the significant additional resources required to gather and analyse additional data on migrants. Guidance is needed on ways to optimally include migrants in HIAs and ensure that recommendations for mitigation measures are optimal.     

Health impact assessment in Latin American countries: Current practice and prospects

BackgroundWith the objective to avoid and mitigate potential adverse health impacts of projects, programmes and policies, health impact assessment (HIA) offers an opportunity for disease prevention and health promotion. Although HIA has gained importance over the past two decades, it is unclear whether and to what extent HIA practice has been established and institutionalised in Latin America. To address this issue, the current practice and prospects of HIA in Latin America was assessed in the peer-reviewed literature and existing guidelines.MethodologyThe peer-reviewed literature was systematically searched using five electronic databases until February 2016. Studies were included on a set of pre-defined criteria. The search was carried out in English, French, Portuguese and Spanish. Additionally, a search for HIA guidelines used in Latin American countries and territories was performed by means of a Google search and on websites of government departments and institutions that may promote HIA.ResultsThe search yielded 167 hits in the peer-reviewed literature of which 17 articles met inclusion criteria. Only four peer-reviewed articles described prospective HIAs and four featured a discussion of the HIA approach. The remaining nine articles presented health impact evaluations. Most studies were published only recently, after 2012 (88%). Seven HIA guideline documents were identified, two of which were country-specific (i.e. Brazil and Mexico) and the remaining five addressed HIA at the regional level.ConclusionsThis study confirmed the paucity of literature pertaining to HIA implementation, as well as HIA guidelines in Latin America. Mexico, Brazil and Cuba have the longest track record in scientific literature and guidelines on HIA. In order to better understand current barriers and limitations to practice and institutionalisation of HIA in Latin American countries, a broad discussion among policy makers, academic institutions and HIA practitioners is warranted nationally and regionally.     

Knowledge, data and interests: Challenges in participation of diverse stakeholders in HIA

Stakeholder participation is considered an integral part of HIA. However, the challenges that participation implies in a multi-disciplinary and multi-ethnic society are less studied. This paper presents the manifestations of the multiplicity of sectors and population groups in HIA and discusses the challenges that such diversity imposes. Specifically, there is no common ground between participants, as their positions entail contradictory knowledge regarding the current situation, reliance on distinct data and conflicting interests. This entails usage of multiple professional and ethnic languages, disagreements regarding the definition of health and prioritizing health issues in HIA, and divergent perceptions of risk. These differences between participants are embedded culturally, socially, individually and, maybe most importantly, professionally. This complex picture of diverse stakeholder attributes is grounded in a case study of stakeholder participation in HIA, regarding zoning of a hazardous industry site in Israel. The implication is that participatory HIAs should address the multiplicity of stakeholders and types of knowledge, data and interests in a more comprehensive way.     

Community participation in Health Impact Assessment. A scoping review of the literature

Currently, the engagement of local communities in Health Impact Assessment is becoming more and more important. A scoping review was performed to take stock of visions, methods and experiences in this field.A combined Scopus and Medline search yielded 100 articles in scientific journals. The final selection consisted of 43 papers, including case studies, evaluation studies, reviews, and opinion papers. After analysis, consultation of four experts was performed to check preliminary study outcomes. A grey literature web search was performed to check and complement the results.Results show that community participation is generally considered a core element in HIA. Views as expressed in the papers concern, firstly, the need for and value of local knowledge, secondly, the adherence to or application of democratic values and, thirdly, empowerment of communities. Three categories of methods are used in relation to community participation, often in combination: methods to facilitate knowledge elicitation, to ensure the inclusion of communities in the HIA process, and to build community capacity to participate in policy development. However, the theoretical or practical underpinning of the choice for specific methods is mostly not presented. The experiences described in the papers mainly focus on the access to local knowledge and its usability as a source of evidence in the HIA process. Described effects of community participation are (improved) relations between communities and local agencies, policy makers and professionals and the empowerment of community members. Although these effects are ascribed to community participation, many papers do not provide support for this conclusion beyond the retrospective perception of participants. Expert consultation and additional analysis of the grey literature supported the results derived from the scientific literature and provided more in-depth knowledge. In the grey literature theoretical frameworks, methods and tools for community participation in HIA were more extensively reported as compared to the scientific literature.We conclude that the visions, methods and experiences concerning community participation show that a participative approach may contribute to better, context specific knowledge. It appears that participative HIA has health promotion potential as it helps develop responsive policies.To accomplish this, HIA should, firstly, be better embedded in broader health promotion programmes. Secondly, the methods and approaches for community participation applied in HIA should be theory-informed and well described. The grey literature offers entry points. Finally, more robust and systematic evaluation and research is needed to assess the impact of HIAs on communities and policies.     

Health impact assessment and health equity in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review

BackgroundNatural resource extraction projects can have positive but also negative effects on the health of affected communities, governed by demographic, economic, environmental, physical and social changes. Negative effects often prevail and these might widen existing health inequities. Health impact assessment (HIA) is a decision-support tool that aims at maximizing benefits and minimizing negative impacts on people's health. A core value of HIA is equity; yet, little is known about health equity in the frame of HIA, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.MethodologyWe conducted a scoping review to determine whether and to what extent HIA in sub-Saharan Africa addresses health equity. We included peer-reviewed publications and guidelines pertaining to HIA, environmental impact assessment (EIA) and social impact assessment (SIA). Health equity was investigated by identifying (i) how health considerations were addressed and (ii) whether health was stratified by subgroups of the community.ResultsOut of 1′640 raw hits, we identified 62 articles (16 HIA, 36 EIA, one SIA and nine integrated assessments), 32 of which specifically addressed health. While 20 articles focused on a specific health topic, 12 articles used a more comprehensive approach to address health. In 15 articles there were specific subgroup analyses (e.g. mothers, children or marginalized groups) as a measure of health equity. Another 12 papers referred to the community in a more general way (e.g. affected). Without exception, health was an integral part of the nine included guidelines. HIA guidelines addressed health systematically through environmental health areas, risk assessment matrix or key performance indicators.ConclusionsWe found evidence that previously conducted HIA in sub-Saharan Africa and current guidelines address health equity. However, there is a need to stratify community subgroups more systematically in order to determine health differentials better. Future HIA should consider community heterogeneity in an effort to reduce health inequities by “leaving no one behind”, as suggested by the Sustainable Development Goals.     

Advancing the practice of health impact assessment in Canada: Obstacles and opportunities

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is recognized as a useful tool that can identify potential health impacts resulting from projects or policy initiatives. Although HIA has become an established practice in some countries, it is not yet an established practice in Canada. In order to enable broader support for HIA, this study provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the peer-reviewed and gray literature on the state of HIA practice. The results of this review revealed that, although there is an abundance of publications relating to HIA, there remains a lack of transparent, consistent and reproducible approaches and methods throughout the process. Findings indicate a need for further research and development on a number of fronts, including: 1) the nature of HIA triggers; 2) consistent scoping and stakeholder engagement approaches; 3) use of evidence and transparency of decision-making; 4) reproducibility of assessment methods; 5) monitoring and evaluation protocols; and, 6) integration within existing regulatory frameworks. Addressing these issues will aid in advancing the more widespread use of HIA in Canada.     

Health impact assessment research and practice: A place for paradigm positioning?

In this article, we provide a critical review of the place of paradigm in health impact assessment (HIA) research and practice. We contend that most HIA practitioners have given insufficient attention to paradigm positioning when developing and applying HIA methodologies and that some concerns about current HIA practice can be attributed to this. We review HIA literature to assess the extent and nature of attention given to paradigm positioning and these related concerns. We then respond to our critique by exploring the implications, opportunities and challenges of adopting a critical realist paradigm, which we believe has the potential to help HIA practitioners to develop HIA methodology in a way that addresses these issues.     

A new approach to criteria for health risk assessment

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a developing component of the overall impact assessment process and as such needs access to procedures that can enable more consistent approaches to the stepwise process that is now generally accepted in both EIA and HIA. The guidelines developed during this project provide a structured process, based on risk assessment procedures which use consequences and likelihood, as a way of ranking risks to adverse health outcomes from activities subjected to HIA or HIA as part of EIA.The aim is to assess the potential for both acute and chronic health outcomes. The consequences component also identifies a series of consequences for the health care system, depicted as expressions of financial expenditure and the capacity of the health system.These more specific health risk assessment characteristics should provide for a broader consideration of health consequences and a more consistent estimation of the adverse health risks of a proposed development at both the scoping and risk assessment stages of the HIA process.     

The role of Health Impact Assessment in the setting of air quality standards: An Australian perspective

The approaches used for setting or reviewing air quality standards vary from country to country. The purpose of this research was to consider the potential to improve decision-making through integration of HIA into the processes to review and set air quality standards used in Australia.To assess the value of HIA in this policy process, its strengths and weaknesses were evaluated aligned with review of international processes for setting air quality standards.Air quality standard setting programmes elsewhere have either used HIA or have amalgamated and incorporated factors normally found within HIA frameworks. They clearly demonstrate the value of a formalised HIA process for setting air quality standards in Australia.The following elements should be taken into consideration when using HIA in standard setting. (a) The adequacy of a mainly technical approach in current standard setting procedures to consider social determinants of health. (b) The importance of risk assessment criteria and information within the HIA process. The assessment of risk should consider equity, the distribution of variations in air quality in different locations and the potential impacts on health. (c) The uncertainties in extrapolating evidence from one population to another or to subpopulations, especially the more vulnerable, due to differing environmental factors and population variables. (d) The significance of communication with all potential stakeholders on issues associated with the management of air quality.In Australia there is also an opportunity for HIA to be used in conjunction with the NEPM to develop local air quality standard measures. The outcomes of this research indicated that the use of HIA for air quality standard setting at the national and local levels would prove advantageous.     

HIA and pollution prevention control: What they can learn from each other

Following the implementation of the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations on 1st August 2000, health authorities (now Primary Care Trusts) became statutory consultees for permits issued to industry by the environmental regulators (the Environmental Agency, Local Authorities). The aims of this paper are to review the process of providing public health input in the light of its similarities to and differences from HIA and to identify the opportunities for both HIA and PPC to learn from each other's practice. We emphasise the challenges that are encountered by public health professionals who provide the public health input in the PPC. We use both our own experience of providing this input on behalf of health authorities and our expertise in HIA, environmental epidemiology and contaminated land.     

Equity-focused health impact assessment: A tool to assist policy makers in addressing health inequalities

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 framework 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.     

HIA, the next step: Defining models and roles

If HIA is to be an effective instrument for optimising health interests in the policy making process it has to recognise the different contests in which policy is made and the relevance of both technical rationality and political rationality. Policy making may adopt a rational perspective in which there is a systematic and orderly progression from problem formulation to solution or a network perspective in which there are multiple interdependencies, extensive negotiation and compromise, and the steps from problem to formulation are not followed sequentially or in any particular order. Policy problems may be simple with clear causal pathways and responsibilities or complex with unclear causal pathways and disputed responsibilities. Network analysis is required to show which stakeholders are involved, their support for health issues and the degree of consensus.From this analysis three models of HIA emerge. The first is the phases model which is fitted to simple problems and a rational perspective of policymaking. This model involves following structured steps. The second model is the rounds (Echternach) model that is fitted to complex problems and a network perspective of policymaking. This model is dynamic and concentrates on network solutions taking these steps in no particular order. The final model is the “garbage can” model fitted to contexts which combine simple and complex problems. In this model HIA functions as a problem solver and signpost keeping all possible solutions and stakeholders in play and allowing solutions to emerge over time. HIA models should be the beginning rather than the conclusion of discussion the worlds of HIA and policymaking.     

Evaluating impacts of marine governance on human communities: Testing aspects of a human impact assessment model

A human impact assessment (HIA) model was developed to guide research to understand how changes in a fishery can impact fishermen and fishing communities. Path analysis demonstrates that job satisfaction is an important variable intervening between marine governance and well-being. Individual-level variables in the demographic latent variable influence aspects of job satisfaction as well as well-being. It is variance in management that influences satisfaction with fishing which has a direct effect on well-being. In the HIA model, the three components of job satisfaction (self-actualization, income, and psycho-social) have the greatest total impact on well-being. The model also indicates complex relationships between management, fishing activity attributes, job satisfaction, and individual and social attributes. Relationships between community context and differences in job satisfaction in the Northeast and Alaska regions confirmed that these factors, also included in the HIA model, are important aspects of impact assessment. Results help to show that changes in ocean governance have impacts on the human communities who use these important resources. To anticipate and ameliorate potential impacts on human well-being as indicated by tools such as the HIA model, research needs to be accomplished to appropriately design and account for these impacts.     

Developing a framework to assess costs and benefits of Health Impact Assessment

This paper presents some early thinking as to how the costs and benefits of HIA might be assessed. After considering previous work it uses a comprehensive HIA in Dulwich, SE London as a case study to highlight the possibilities and difficulties of collecting necessary data on costs and benefits. It then sets a context for developing a cost–benefit framework for analysis. The framework is viewed alongside the major types of economic evaluation. The paper concludes with a review of outstanding issues and considers how evidence on cost and benefit might make a difference in the application of HIA.     

Environmental monitoring of genetically modified crops

Genetically modified (GM) crops are now approved for commercial use in several world areas. In terms of commercial acreage, the majority of these products possess either herbicide tolerance or insect protection traits. Prior to commercialization, each product underwent a country specific review of environmental safety data by independent regulatory authorities. Registration was granted after review of the data allowed authorities to conclude that the risks were minimal or manageable when balanced with the benefits. As a condition of registration, insect resistance management (IRM) has been imposed for insect protected products in most countries. Other world areas have reviewed similar data packages and have not yet been able to grant registration for commercial release. Post-registration environmental monitoring of GM crops is viewed in some world areas as a means of enabling approvals by addressing uncertainty that exists with this technology. Questions such as, who should monitor and who should pay for it, how should monitoring be conducted, what information is necessary to collect and how long should a given product be monitored are yet to be answered. Monitoring methods could be general (surveys and questionnaires) or specific (scientific studies to address specific questions). Independent research currently underway in countries where GM crops are commercial involves monitoring the benefits as well as the risks of these products. Experience with other products has shown that monitoring of GM crops will be of value only if the questions are clearly defined, the methods are appropriate and the end points (data collected) are interpretable.     

Evaluating the impact of HIA on urban reconstruction decision-making. Who manages whose risks?

Practitioners and academic researchers increasingly look to evaluation of health impact assessment (HIA) to improve its practice, its efficiency and its legitimacy. Evaluation is also used to account to policy-makers, who express doubts that the benefits of HIA justify its costs. Until recently evaluation of HIA focused on instrument design and procedures but now the focus needs to shift to analysis of the interaction of HIA and decision-making. Multiple case studies have been applied to identify the conditions in which HIA produces the desired benefits. These studies used analytical concepts derived from the literature on evaluation, knowledge utilization, science of sociology and knowledge management.This paper describes a case study in which the strategic motives of the decision-makers affected the impact of an HIA. This HIA comprised of a quantitative environmental model ‘City & Environment’ that was used to assess environmental health impacts of an urban reconstruction plan in a Dutch city. The evaluation of the HIA shows that the decision to follow the recommendations of the HIA was part of a damage control strategy. The more HIA goals deviate from the policy problem and the less HIA is embedded in institutional procedures, then the more HIA impact will be subject to strategic decision-making behaviour. Appropriate cognitive and social strategies are needed to avoid ‘negative learning’ in those the HIA seeks to influence.     

Stakeholder participation in health impact assessment: A multicultural approach

The literature on impact assessment (HIA) registers the importance of stakeholder participation in the assessment process, but still lacks a model for engaging stakeholders of diverse ethnic, professional and sectorial backgrounds. This paper suggests that the multicultural approach can contribute to HIA through a revision of the generic 5-step HIA model, and its implementation in a metropolitan plan in Southern Israel. The health issue scoped by the stakeholders in the HIA is related to land uses in the vicinity of the national hazardous industry and hazardous waste site. The stakeholders were representatives of the diverse populations at stake, including rural Bedouins and Jewish city dwellers, as well as representatives from the public sector, private sector, non-governmental organizations and academia. The case study revealed that a multicultural stakeholder participation process helps to uncover health issues known to the community which were not addressed in the original plan, and provides local knowledge regarding health conditions that is especially valuable when scientific data is uncertain or absent. It enables diverse stakeholders to prioritize the health issues that will be assessed. The case study also reveals ways in which the model needs revisions and improvements such as in recruitment of diverse participants. This paper presents a multicultural model of HIA and discusses some of the challenges that are faced when HIA is implemented in the context of current decision-making culture.     

A prospective health impact review of the redevelopment of Central Manchester Hospitals

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is increasingly being acknowledged as an important tool for considering the health implications of projects and programmes of activity at local, national and international levels. However, standard HIA tools can be difficult to apply when the policy of programme under consideration is particularly complex and intertwined or where significant time, resource and skill constraints are involved. This paper describes a Health Impact Review (HIR) of the plans for a major redevelopment of Central Manchester Hospitals (England). This approach to HIA drew not only from HIR but also from Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) in order to produce a summary of the most significant health impacts of a policy, programme or project in a more timely and cost-effective way. This example highlights the potential for involving Local Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committees in the HIA process as a way of ensuring that the recommendations of HIA are mainstreamed as part of the ongoing development of projects.