Engaging Stakeholders and Vulnerable Populations in HIA

  • Catherine L. Ross
  • Marla Orenstein
  • Nisha Botchwey
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter provides instruction on effective ways to engage stakeholders and vulnerable populations in health impact assessment (HIA), as a vital and integral component of HIA practice. The chapter begins with an introduction to community engagement, participation, and inclusion. It describes who might comprise HIA stakeholders and emphasizes that the purpose of engaging stakeholders is both to improve the quality of HIA itself and to help the HIA remain in conformance with the underlying value of democracy. Too often, engagement is not conducted with sufficient rigor and omits the input of the most vulnerable populations subject to the potential impact. The chapter provides guidance on how to identify and engage stakeholders in ways that are tailored to their specific context. It also provides an inventory of stakeholder engagement processes in a sample of HIAs completed in the USA. The chapter ends with a framework practitioners can follow to identify and engage all stakeholders in a process that is inclusive and effective.

Keywords

Vulnerable populations Stakeholders Community engagement Stakeholder Engagement Engagement process Engagement methods Engagement framework 

References

  1. Arnstein S (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Jam Am I Planners 35(4):216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Kearney M (2004) Walking the walk? Community participation in HIA: a qualitative interview study. Environ Impact Asses 24(2):217–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Kochtitzky C (2011) Vulnerable populations and the built environment. In: Dannenberg AL, Frumkin H, Jackson RJ (eds) Making healthy places. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. Kwiatkowski RE (2011) Indigenous comity-based participatory research and health impact assessment: A Canadian example. Environ Impact Asses 31(4):445–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. North American HIA Practice Standards Working Group (2010) Minimum elements and practice standards for health impact assessment, version 2. http://hiasociety.org/documents/PracticeStandardsforHIAVersion2.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2013
  6. Quick KS, Feldman MS (2011) Distinguishing participation and inclusion. J Plan Educ Res 31(3):272–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Roberts N (2004) Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The Am Rev Public Adm 34(4):315–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ross C, Elliott M, Marcus Rushing M et al (2011) Aerotropolis Atlanta brownfield redevelopment. Center for quality growth and regional development. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. http://www.cqgrd.gatech.edu/research/aerotropolis-atlanta-brownfield-redevelopment-health-impact-assessment. Accessed 18 June 2013
  9. Stakeholder Participation Working Group of the 2010 HIA of the Americas Workshop (2012) Best practices for stakeholder participation in health impact assessment. http://hiasociety.org/documents/guide-for-stakeholder-participation.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2013Google Scholar
  10. Tamburrini A, Gilhuly K, Harris-Roxas B (2011) Enhancing benefits in health impact assessment through stakeholder consultation. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 29(3):195–204Google Scholar
  11. Tri-County Health Department (2007) Health impact assessment, Derby redevelopment, historic commerce city, Colorado. http://www.healthimpactproject.org/resources/document/derby-redevelopment.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2013
  12. Veazie MA, Galloway JM et al (2005) Taking the initiative: implementing the American Heart Association guide for improving cardiovascular health at the community level: healthy people 2010 heart disease and stroke partnership community guideline implementation and best practices workgroup. Circulation 112:2538–2554.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine L. Ross
    • 1
  • Marla Orenstein
    • 2
  • Nisha Botchwey
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Quality Growth and Regional DevelopmentGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Habitat Health Impact Consulting Corp.CalgaryCanada
  3. 3.School of City and Regional Planning College of ArchitectureGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations