Abstract
Purpose
In 2010, the Danish government identified socially vulnerable areas in Denmark and defined the most deprived areas as “ghettos.” In 2018, the acting government passed a policy document called “One Denmark without Parallel Societies: No Ghettos in 2030,” which aims to eliminate ghetto areas by 2030. The aim of this study was to conduct a rapid health impact assessment (HIA) of the policy.
Methods
One ghetto area (Stengardsvej, Esbjerg) was selected for the HIA, and an equity-focused HIA tool was applied. A public health knowledge-based assessment was conducted on the policy-based health paradigm determinants. To gain an in-depth understanding of potential health impacts of the policy, two focus group discussions were conducted: one with municipal employees working in the area (four persons), and one with residents living in the area (five persons).
Results
The policy contains four key intervention areas: (1) housing, (2) place of residence, (3) crime prevention, and (4) early start in life. Positive health impacts could be expected to some extent in relation to “early start in life” through enhanced focus on education of children. Negative health impacts could be expected on “housing” and the focus on place of residence in the area. Crime prevention involves issues where the question of restriction of human rights can be raised. The most relevant health outcome mentioned by both residents and municipal employees was mental health. Quantification was not performed due to lack of specific data for targeted areas.
Conclusion
The overall health impacts of the policy “One Denmark without Parallel Societies: No Ghettos in 2030” were rather negative. Besides leading to poor mental health, substantial economic losses can be expected as well as issues related to human rights.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cohen AK, Syme SL (2013) Education: a missed opportunity for public health intervention. Am J Public Health 103(6):997–1001. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300993
Costa A, Cortes M, Sena C, Nunes E, Nogueira P, Shivaji T (2018) Equity-focused health impact assessment of Portuguese tobacco control legislation. Health Promot Int 33(2):279–287. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daw076
Gulis G, Mekel O, Adam B, Cori L (2014) Assessment of population risks of policies, 2014. Springer, New York
Harris-Roxas BF, Harris PJ, Harris E, Kemp LA (2011) A rapid equity focused health impact assessment of a policy implementation plan: An Australian case study and impact evaluation. Int J Equity Health 10(6). https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-10-6
Hatzenbuehler ML, Phelan JC, Link BG (2013) Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities. Am J Public Health 103:813–821. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301069
Hirono K, Haigh F, Gleeson D, Harris P, Thow AM, Friel S (2016) Is health impact assessment useful in the context of trade negotiations? A case study of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. BMJ Open 6(4):e010339. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010339
Hom E, Danneberg AL, Farquhar S, Thornhill L (2017) A systematic review of health impact assessment in the criminal justice system. Am J Crim Just 42:883–908
Kemm J, Parry J, Palmer S (2004) Health impact assessment. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Morgan C, Burns T, Fitzpatrick R, Pinfold V, Priebe S (2007) Social exclusion and mental health. Br J Psychiatry 191:477–483
Newman J (2014) Landscapes of antagonism: local governance, neoliberalism and austerity. Urban Stud 51(15):3290–3305
O’Mullane M (2013) Integrating health impacts assessment with the policy process. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Pharr J, Gakh M, Coughenour C, Clark S (2017) Health impact assessment as an instrument to examine the health implications of education policies. Public Health 145:83–92
Rasmussen LK, (2010) Opening speech in the parliament. October 5th.The Danish Department of State. Danish: http://www.stm.dk/_p_13260.html/ English: http://www.stm.dk/_p_13265.html, accessed on 19/08/2019
Salcito K, Utzinger J, Krieger GR, Wielga M, Singer BH, Winkler MS, Weiss MG (2015) Experience and lessons from health impact assessment for human rights impact assessment. BMC Int Health Hum Rights 15:24
Staver AB, Brekke J-P, Søholt S (2019) Scandinavia’s segregated cities – policies, strategies and ideals, NIBR Report 2019:8, available at https://fagarkivet-hioa.archive.knowledgearc.net/bitstream/handle/20.500.12199/1311/2019-8.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y (last accessed 07 July 2020)
Thondoo M, Rojas-Rueda D, Gupta J, de Vries DH, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ (2019) Systematic literature review of health impact assessment in low and middle-income countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16:2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16112018
Tobollik M, Keuken M, Sabel C, Cowie H, Tuomisto J, Sarigiannis D, Künzli N, Perez L, Mudu P (2016) Health impact assessment of transport policies in Rotterdam: decrease of total traffic and increase of electric car use. Environ Res 146:350–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.01.014
Vable AM, Cohen AK, Leonard SA, Glymour MM, Duarte C, Yen IH (2018) Do the health benefits of education vary by socioeconomic subgroups? Differential returns to education and implications for health inequalities. Ann Epidemiol 28(11):759–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.08.014
Winkler MS, Furu P, Viliani F, Cave B, Divall M, Ramesh G, Harris-Roxas B, Knoblauch AM (2020) Current Global Health impact assessment practice. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:2988. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17092988
World Health Organisation (1999) Health Impact Assessment: Main Concepts and Suggested Approach. Gothenburg Consensus Paper, WHO. http://www.impactsante.ch/pdf/HIA_Gothenburg_consensus_paper_1999 (last accessed 26 April 2019)
Zabel NL (2019) Planning for Just Cities? Master thesis, Stockholm University, available at https://su.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1320899/FULLTEXT01.pdf (last accessed 07July 2020)
Zajacova A, Lawrence EM. (2018) The relationship between education and health: reducing disparities through a contextual approach. Annu Rev Public Health 39:273–289, available at https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044628 (last accessed 08 July 2020)
Funding
No funding was provided for the presented work; it was done as part of usual research work within normal working time.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest related to the presented work.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was not applicable.
Informed consent
Verbal informed consent was sought as described in the Methods section.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix I Detailed list of the five main intervention areas and 22 actions
1. Demolition or conversion of socially disadvantaged areas
-
1.
Physical conversion of residential areas
-
2.
New opportunities for settlement in socially disadvantaged areas
-
3.
Access to terminate tenants on the sale of public housing
2. More firm/strict control of who can live in socially disadvantaged areas
-
1.
Stop municipal relocation of people who receive social benefits to socially disadvantaged areas
-
2.
Flexible rental opportunities in socially disadvantaged areas
-
3.
Lower benefits for residents living within ghetto areas
-
4.
Stop relocation of people receiving integration benefits to socially disadvantaged areas
-
5.
Financial incentives/rewards to municipalities succeeding with integration efforts
3. Enhanced police effort and higher punishments for crimes committed in ghetto areas, to fight crime and create security
-
1.
Strengthened police effort in “especially” socially disadvantaged areas
-
2.
Higher punishment in certain areas (sharp penalty zone)
-
3.
Criminals out of the ghettos
4. A good start in life for all children and young people
-
1.
Mandatory daycare must ensure better Danish competencies before school start
-
2.
Better distribution (of children) in daycare
-
3.
Targeted language tests in grade 0
-
4.
Penalties for poor performance in school
-
5.
Strengthened parental responsibility through possibility of losing child allowances and individual parenting orders
-
6.
Better distribution of students in gymnasiums (high schools)
-
7.
Criminalization of re-acculturation trips (forced trips of young people to their parents’ homeland)
-
8.
Tougher course against domestic violence
-
9.
Early detection of vulnerable children
-
10.
Tough punishment for breach of the special extended notification obligation
5. The government will follow up on the efforts against parallel societies
-
1.
Three special ghetto representatives with the necessary skills
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gulis, G., Safi, M. & Linde, D.S. Rapid health impact assessment of a Danish policy document: One Denmark without Parallel Societies: No Ghettos in 2030. J Public Health (Berl.) 30, 983–989 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-020-01375-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-020-01375-z