Visie van professionals: burgerparticipatie binnen Health Impact Assessment

Perceptions of professionals regarding citizen participation in Health Impact Assessment

Samenvatting

Burgerparticipatie is een actiepunt op veel gemeentelijke beleidsagenda’s. In het kader van integraal gezondheidsbeleid en de nieuwe Omgevingswet wordt burgerparticipatie steeds belangrijker. Om deze reden is de perceptie van professionals met betrekking tot burgerparticipatie binnen Health Impact Assessment [HIA] onderzocht. Hiertoe zijn individuele interviews met zeven professionals en drie focusgroepgesprekken met twintig professionals gehouden die actief zijn op het gebied van HIA en geworven zijn via het netwerk van het RIVM. De professionals vinden het huidige niveau van burgerparticipatie te laag en willen burgers meer, en in een vroeg stadium, betrekken bij HIA in Nederland. Burgerparticipatie in HIA zorgt voor een groter draagvlak voor (toekomstig) beleid en draagt bij aan kennis ten behoeve van integraal gezondheidsbeleid. De vraag hoe burgerparticipatie in HIA praktisch moet worden uitgevoerd blijft deels onbeantwoord. Twijfels over de kennis en de capaciteiten van burgers spelen hierbij een grote rol.

Abstract

In many municipal policy strategies in the Netherlands, citizen participation is a key issue. Participation has become more and more important in the framework of Health in All Policies (HiAP) and the new Environment Act. Perceptions of professionals regarding citizen participation in Health Impact Assessment (HIA) were explored by conducting interviews with seven professionals and three focus group sessions (with a total of twenty professionals), all active in the field of HIA. All professionals were recruited through the network of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. The professionals consider the current level of citizen participation within HIA as insufficient; they prefer a higher level of citizen participation in HIA, that should also take place earlier in the process. Citizen participation is considered to enhance the support basis for policies and to contribute to HiAP. However, the question how citizens should be engaged in practice remained partly unanswered, due to doubts about knowledge and capabilities of citizens.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figuur 1

Literatuur

  1. 1.

    Storm I. General introduction. Towards a HiAP cycle: Health in All Policies as a practice-based improvement process. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit; 2016. pag. 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Storm I, Zoest F van, Broeder L den. Integraal gezondheidsbeleid: theorie en toepassing. Bilthoven: RIVM; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    WHO European Centre for Health Policy. Health impact assessment. Main concepts and suggested approach. Gothenburg Consensus Paper. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    World Health Organization. The Adelaide Statement on Health in All Policies: moving towards a shared governance for health and well-being. Health Promot Int. 2010;25(2):258–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Mindell JS, Boltong A, Forde I. A review of health impact assessment frameworks. Public Health. 2008;122(11):1177–87.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Informatiepunt Omgevingswet. 2018. https://aandeslagmetdeomgevingswet.nl/aandeslag/. Geraadpleegd op 8 mei 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Delsen L. From welfare state to participation society. Welfare state reform in the Netherlands: 2003–2010. NiCe Working Paper 12-103. Nijmegen Center for Economics, Institute for management Research, Radboud University. 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Broeder L den, Staatsen B. Health Impact Assessment in the Netherlands. In: Kemm J, redactie. Health Impact Assessment. Past achievement, current understanding, and future progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Boeije H. Analysis in qualitative research. London: SAGE; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Ludema J, Fry R. The practice of appreciative inquiry. The Sage handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. London: SAGE; 2008. pag. 280–96.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Edelenbos J, Monnikhof R. Lokale interactieve beleidsvorming. Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar de consequenties van interactieve beleidsvorming. Utrecht: Lemma; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Broeder L den, Uiters E, Have W ten, et al. Community participation in Health Impact Assessment. A scoping review of the literature. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2017;66(Supplement C):33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Kemm J. Values and ethics of Health Impact Assessment. In: Kemm J, redactie. Health Impact Assessment. Past achievement, current understanding, and future progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. pag. 62–71.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mahoney ME, Potter JLL, Marsh RS. Community participation in HIA: discords in teleology and terminology. Crit Public Health. 2007;17(3):229–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hebert KA, Wendel AM, Kennedy SK, et al. Health impact assessment: a comparison of 45 local, national, and international guidelines. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2012;34(Supplement C):74–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Plunkett R, Leipert BD, Ray SL. Unspoken phenomena: using the photovoice method to enrich phenomenological inquiry. Nurs Inq. 2013;20(2):156–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Maclennan CF, Ghosh TS, Juliusson L, et al. Derby district redevelopment in Colorado: case study on the health impact assessment process. J Environ Health. 2012;75(1):8–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Broeder L den, Chung KY, Geelen L, et al. We are all experts! Does stakeholder engagement in health impact scoping lead to consensus? A Dutch case study. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 2016;34(4):294–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Bekker M. The politics of healthy policies: redesigning health impact assessment to integrate health in public policy. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Vaandrager L, Wagemakers A, Saan H. Evidence in gezondheidsbevordering. Tijdschr Gezondheidswet. 2010;88:271–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Lindblom CE. The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administr Rev. 1959;19:79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angeliek Verdonschot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verdonschot, A., Wagemakers, A. & den Broeder, L. Visie van professionals: burgerparticipatie binnen Health Impact Assessment. Tijdschr Gezondheidswet 96, 159–165 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12508-018-0138-x

Download citation

Trefwoorden

  • Health Impact Assessment
  • Nederland
  • perceptie
  • participatie

Keywords

  • Health Impact Assessment
  • Netherlands
  • perception
  • community participation