Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk Assessment, Impact Assessment, and Evaluation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Assessment of Population Health Risks of Policies

  • 762 Accesses

Abstract

The European Union, first at the Treaty of Maastricht and more explicitly at the Amsterdam Treaty, declared that “a high level of health protection shall be ensured at the definition and implementation of all Community policies activities.” The strategy of “Health in All Policies” (HiAP), adopted at the Finnish European Union (EU) Council Presidency in 2006, has become increasingly important in Europe as governments realize that reducing inequalities and improving health are fundamental enablers for economic development. The second programme of Community action in the field of health (2008–2013) of the European Parliament and Council also calls “to support the mainstreaming of health objectives in all Community policies and activities.”

The increasing call for a better protection of citizen’s health demands a better understanding of the existing forms for characterizing health impacts of policies, and the purposes for which they are undertaken. Differences in concepts, frameworks and procedures among various approaches (risk assessment, health impacts assessment, etc.) have arisen in relation to specific issue of concern (i.e., waste disposal; electromagnetic fields, biotechnology, social disparities, urban planning, etc.), or due to perceived weakness in practice (i.e., the food safety crisis that took place in late 1980s and 1990s as the occurrence of BSE (mad-cow)). The present chapter intends to provide an overview of some of those approaches, especially risk assessment for health and health impact assessment, considering them in the political context they appeared, and the purpose they have been applied for. Finally some attention will be paid to the process called “policy evaluation,” as a different tool used in the improvement of healthy policy formulation and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abrahams, D., Pennington, A., Scott-Samuel, A., Doyle, C., Metcalfe, O., den Broeder, L., et al. (2004). European Policy Health Impact Assessment (EPHIA) – A guide. IMPACT. Liverpool: University of Liverpool.

    Google Scholar 

  • ATSDR (U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry). (2005). Public health assessment: Guidance manual (update). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services-Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia, R., & Seto, E. (2011). Quantitative estimation in health impact assessment: Opportunities and challenges. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(3), 301–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia, R., & Werham, A. (2008). Integrating human health into Environmental Impact Assessment: An unrealized opportunity for the environmental health and justice. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(8), 991–1000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Calafat, A. M., Ye, X., Silva, M. J., Kuklenyik, Z., & Needham, L. L. (2006). Human exposure assessment to environmental chemicals using biomonitoring. International Journal of Andrology, 29(1), 166–171.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, B. L., Shimkhada, R., Fielding, J., Kominski, G., & Morgenstern, H. (2005). Methodologies for realizing the potential of health impact assessment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(4), 382–389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, G., & Whitehead, M. (2007). European strategies for tackling social inequities in health: Levelling up, Part 2. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dannenberg, A. L., Bhatia, R., Cole, B. L., Heaton, S. K., Feldman, J. D., & Rutt, C. D. (2008). Use of health impact assessment in the U.S.: 27 case studies, 1999-2007. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(3), 241–256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, C., Mathers, J., & Parry, J. (2006). Use of health impact assessment in incorporating health considerations in decision making. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60, 196–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2012). Guidance on selected default values to be used by the EFSA Scientific Committee, Scientific Panels and Units in the absence of actual measured data. EFSA Journal, 10(3), 2579.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1984. Risk assessment and management: Framework for decision-making. EPA/600/985/002. Washington, DC: Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Science policy council handbook: Risk characterization. EPA/100/B-00/002. Washington, DC: Science Policy Council, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Recommended use of body weights the default method in derivation of the oral reference dose. EPA/100/R11/0001. Washington, DC: Office of the Science Advisor Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011b. Exposure handbook-2011 edition. EPA/600/R-09/052F. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Framework for human health risk assessment to inform decision making: EPA risk assessment forum external review draft. EPA/601/D12/001. Washington, DC: Office of the Science Advisor Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU (European Union). (2012). Addressing the new challenges for risk assessment. Brussels: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2007. Decision No 1350/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 establishing a second programme of Community action in the field of health (2008–13). Official Journal L 301, 20/11/2007. Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Communities. (1997). Article 152, Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and WHO (World Health organization). (1995). Application of risk analysis to food standards issues. Geneva: Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and WHO (World Health organization). (2003). Codex alimentarius commission. Procedural manual (13th ed.). Rome: Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and WHO (World Health organization). (2006). Food safety risk analysis: A guide for national food safety authorities. Rome: FAO and WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, W. J. (2005). The application of qualitative risk assessment methodology to prioritize issues for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62, 1576–1587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehlert, S., Sohmer, D., Sacks, T., Mininger, C., McClintock, M., & Olopade, O. (2008). Targeting health disparities: A model linking upstream determinants to downstream interventions. Health Affairs, 27(2), 339–349.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hänninen, O., & Knol, A. (Eds.). (2011). European perspectives on environmental burden of disease. Estimates for nine stressors in six countries. Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL).

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris-Roxas, B., & Harris, E. (2011). Differing forms, differing purposes: A typology of health impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31, 396–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, F., Hunt, A., Cowie, H., Holland, M., Miller, B., Pye, S., et al. (2005). Methodology for the cost-benefit analysis for CAFE Volume 2: Health impact assessment. Oxon: AEA Technology Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety). (2008). Guidance document on characterizing and communicating uncertainty in exposure assessment. In: IPCS Harmonization Project Document. IPCS. Uncertainty and Data Quality in Exposure Assessment No. 6. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety)-World Health Organization. (2004). IPCS risk assessment terminology Harmonization project document no. 1. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joffe, M., & Mindell, J. (2002). A framework for the evidence base to support Health Impact Assessment. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56, 132–138.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Joffe, M., & Mindell, J. (2004). A tentative step towards healthy public policy. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 966–968.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Joffe, M., & Mindell, J. (2005). Health impact assessment. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62, 907–912.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Joffe, M., & Mindell, J. (2006). Complex causal process diagrams for analyzing the health impacts of policy interventions. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 473–479.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kearns, N., & Pursell, L. (2011). Time for a paradigm change? Tracing the institutionalisation of health impact assessment in the Republic of Ireland across health and environmental sectors. Health Policy, 99, 91–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kemm, J. (2000). Can health impact assessment fulfil the expectations it raises? Public Health, 114, 431–433.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kemm, J. (2001). Health impact assessment: A tool for healthy public policy. Health Promotion International, 16(1), 79–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kemm, J. (2007). What is HIA and why might be useful? In M. Wismar, J. Blau, K. Ernst, & J. Figueras (Eds.), The effectiveness of health impact assessment: Scope and limitations of supporting decision-making in Europe (pp. 3–13). Copenhagen: WHO, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemm, J. (Ed.). (2013). Health impact assessment: Past achievement, current understanding, and future progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kickbusch, I. (2003). The contribution of the World Health Organization to a new public health and health promotion. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 383–388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lalonde, M. (1974). A new perspective on the health of Canadians. Ottawa, NJ: Ministry of National Health and Welfare, Government of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, S. S., Vos, T., Flaxman, A. D., Danaei, G., Shibuya, K., et al. (2012). A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet, 380(9859), 2224–2260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, V., Jone, C. M., Synnot, A., & Wismar, M. (2012). Synthesizing the evidence: How governance structures can trigger governance actions to support Health in all policies. In D. V. MacQeen, M. Wismar, V. Lin, C. M. Jones, & M. Davies (Eds.), Intersectoral governance for health in all policies. Structures, actions and experiences (pp. 23–55). Copenhagen: World Health Organization, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lock, K., & McKee, M. (2005). Health impact assessment: Assessing opportunities and barriers to intersectoral health improvement in an expanded European Union. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 356–360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M., Potter, J. L., & Marsh, R. (2007). Community participation in HIA: Discods in teleology and terminology. Critical Public Health, 17, 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maldonado, G., & Greenland, S. (2002). Estimating causal effects. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 422–429.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Olmedo, P. (2013). Implementing and institutionalizing health impact assessment in Spain: Challenges and opportunities. In M. O’Mullane (Ed.), Integrating health impact assessment into the policy process: Lessons and experiences from around the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McQueen, D. V., Wismar, M., Lin, V., & Jones, C. M. (2012). Introduction Health in all policies, the social determinants of health and governance. In D. V. MacQeen, M. Wismar, V. Lin, C. M. Jones, & M. Davies (Eds.), Intersectoral Governance for Health in all policies: Structures, actions and experiences (pp. 3–22). Copenhagen: World Health Organization, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, O., & Higgins, C. (2009). Healthy public policy – is health impact assessment the cornerstone? Public Health, 123, 296–301.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mindell, J. S., Boltong, A., & Forde, I. (2008). A review of health impact assessment frameworks. Public Health, 122, 177–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montage, P. (2004). Reducing the harms associated with risk assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 733–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, C. J., Ezzati, M., Lopez, A. D., Rodgers, A., & Vander Hoorn, S. (2003). Comparative quantification of health risk: Conceptual framework and methodological issues. Population Health Metrics, 1, 1–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969). 1969. Public Law 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (National Research Council). (1983). Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (National Research Council). (1994). Science and judgement in risk assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (National Research Council). (2009). Science and decisions: Advancing risk assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascal, M., Corso, M., Chanel, O., Declercq, C., Badaloni, C., Cesaroni, G., et al. (2013). Assessing the public health impacts of urban air pollution in 25 European cities: Results of the APHEKOM project. Science of the Total Environment, 449, 390–400.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prüss-Üstün, A., Mathers, C., Corvalan, C., & Woodward, A. (2003). Introduction and methods: Assessing the environmental burden of disease at national and local levels. WHO Environmental Burden of Disease Series 1. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricci, P. (2006). Environmental and health risk assessment and management: Principles and practices. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salay, R., & Lincoln, P. (2008). The European Union and health impact assessments: Are they an unrecognised statutory obligation? London: National Heart Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreider, J., Barrow, C., Birchfield, N., Dearfield, K., Devlin, D., Henry, S., et al. (2010). Enhancing the credibility of decisions based on scientific conclusions: Transparency is imperative. Toxicological Sciences, 116(1), 5–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (2004). Why health equity? In S. Anand, F. Peter, & A. Sen (Eds.), Public health, ethics and equity (pp. 21–34). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soerjomataram, I., de Vries, E., Engholm, G., Paludan-Müller, G., Brønnum-Hansen, H., Storm, H. H., et al. (2010). Search. Impact of a smoking and alcohol intervention programme on lung and breast cancer incidence in Denmark: An example of dynamic modelling with Prevent. European Journal of Cancer, 46(14), 2617–2624. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2010.07.051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Solar, O., & Irwin, A. (2010). A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. Social determinants of health discussion. Paper 2 (Policy and Practice). Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ståhl, T., Wismar, M., Ollila, E., Lahtinen, E., & Leppo, K. (Eds.). (2006). Health in all policies. Prospects and potentials. Finland: Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treasury, H. M. (2011). The magenta book: Guidance for evaluation. London: H.M. Treasury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veerman, J. L., Barendregt, J. J., & Mackenbach, J. P. (2005). Quantitative health impact assessment: Current practice and future directions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 361–370.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (1948). Preamble to the constitution of the World Health Organization. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (1986). The Ottawa Charter on health promotion. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (1999). Health 21—Health for all in the 21st century. Copenhagen: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (2000). Evaluation and use of epidemiological evidence in environmental health risk assessment. A WHO guideline document. Copenhagen: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (2002). The world health report 2002: Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (2004). Comparative quantification of health risks: Global and regional burden of disease attributable to selected major risk factors. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (2009). Global health risks: Mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO and Government of South Australia. (2010). Adelaide statement on health in all policies: Moving towards a shared governance for health and well-being. Adelaide: World Health Organization and Government of South Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHOEurope. (1999). Gothenburg consensus paper on health impact assessment: Main concepts and suggested approaches. Brussels: European Centre for Health Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, R., & Marmot, M. (2003). The solid facts: Social determinants of health (2nd ed.). Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wismar, M., Blau, J., & Ernst, K. (2007). Is HIA effective? A synthesis of concepts, methodologies and results. In M. Wismar, J. Blau, K. Ernst, & J. Figueras (Eds.), The effectiveness of health impact assessment: Scope and limitations of supporting decision-making in Europe (pp. 15–33). Copenhagen: WHO, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública, Cuesta del Observatorio 4, 18080, Granada, Spain

    Piedad Martin-Olmedo

  2. Unit Innovation in Health, NRW Centre for Health (LZG.NRW), Bielefeld, 33611, Germany

    Odile Mekel

Authors
  1. Piedad Martin-Olmedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Odile Mekel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Piedad Martin-Olmedo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Unit for Health Promotion Research, University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark

    Gabriel Guliš

  2. Unit Innovation in Health, NRW Centre for Health, Bielefeld, Germany

    Odile Mekel

  3. University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg, Denmark, and University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Balázs Ádám

  4. Institute of Clinical Physiology, National Research Council, Rome, Italy

    Liliana Cori

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Martin-Olmedo, P., Mekel, O. (2014). Risk Assessment, Impact Assessment, and Evaluation. In: Guliš, G., Mekel, O., Ádám, B., Cori, L. (eds) Assessment of Population Health Risks of Policies. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8597-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8597-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8596-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8597-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation