Advertisement

International Case Studies

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

Abstract

This chapter discusses the drivers that have led regional development of health impact assessment (HIA) in Europe, South America, Africa, the Asia-Pacific region, and Canada. For example, a number of European countries were frontrunners in the emergence and development of HIA and now have HIA firmly entrenched into their decision-making frameworks. In South America and Africa, the application of HIA has primarily been driven by major lending banks and is usually integrated into environmental, social, and health impact assessments. In the Asia-Pacific region, countries such as Thailand and Mongolia have been pioneers in building HIA into local environmental impact assessment requirements. The chapter concludes by presenting three case studies of HIAs carried out in the European Union, Mozambique, and New Zealand to highlight the diversity of HIA approaches. The first case study highlights an HIA that assessed the potential health impacts of a pan-European Employment Strategy. The second case study examines effects of a dam redevelopment project in Mozambique’s Nampula Province. The final case study examines a land-use framework proposed for a New Zealand suburb, with a strong lens on how the local Maori population would be affected. By looking at these case studies from around the world, we can better understand the role and trajectory of HIA in the USA.

Keywords

Regulatory environment(s) Gothenburg HIA framework Institutionalized European employment strategy Infrastructure project International finance corporation Spatial structure Urban design 

References

  1. African Development Bank (2003) Integrated environmental and social impact assessment guidelines. http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Policy-Documents/Integrated%20Environmental%20and%20Social%20Impact%20Assesment%20Guidelines.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2013
  2. Erlanger JE, Krieger G, Singer BH, Utzinger J (2007) The 6/94 gap in health impact assessment. Environ Impact Asses 28(4–5):349–358Google Scholar
  3. European Centre for Health Policy (1999) Gothenburg consensus paper. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  4. Harris-Roxas B (2011) Health impact assessment in the Asia Pacific. Environ Impact Asses 31(4):393–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Harris-Roxas B, Harris E (2011) Differing forms, differing purposes: a typology of health impact assessment. Environ Impact Asses 31(4):396–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harris P, Spickett J (2011) Health impact assessments in Australia: a review and directions for progress. Environ Impact Asses 31(4):425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Health Impact Assessment Coordinating Unit (2010) Thailand’s rules and procedures for the health impact assessment of public policies. National Health Commission Office, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  8. IMPACT Group (University of Liverpool, UK); Institute of Public Health (Ireland); and RIVM (Netherlands); IOEGD (Germany) (2004) Policy HIA for the European Union: a health impact assessment of the European employment strategy across the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2001/monitoring/fp_monitoring_2001_a6_frep_11_en.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2013
  9. International Finance Corporation (2009) Introduction to health impact assessment. International Finance Corporation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. International Finance Corporation (2012) Overview of performance standards on environmental and social sustainability, effective Jan 1 2012. International Finance Corporation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Krieger GR, Utzinger J, Winkler MS et al (2010) Barbarians at the gate: storming the Gothenburg consensus. The Lancet 375(9732):2129–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Manukau City Council (2010) Wiri spatial structure plan HIA. http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=101558. Accessed 18 June 2013
  13. Ministry of Health (2007) Whanau Ora health impact assessment. New Zealand Ministry of Health, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Vohra S, Cave B, Viliani F, Harris-Roxas B, Bhatia R (2010) New international consensus on health impact assessment. Lancet 376(9751):1464–1465. (author reply 65)Google 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