Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Research article

The effectiveness of health impact assessment in influencing decision-making in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009

Authors: Fiona Haigh, Fran Baum, Andrew L Dannenberg, Mark F Harris, Ben Harris-Roxas, Helen Keleher, Lynn Kemp, Richard Morgan, Harrison NG Chok, Jeff Spickett, Elizabeth Harris

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) involves assessing how proposals may alter the determinants of health prior to implementation and recommends changes to enhance positive and mitigate negative impacts. HIAs growing use needs to be supported by a strong evidence base, both to validate the value of its application and to make its application more robust. We have carried out the first systematic empirical study of the influence of HIA on decision-making and implementation of proposals in Australia and New Zealand. This paper focuses on identifying whether and how HIAs changed decision-making and implementation and impacts that participants report following involvement in HIAs.

Methods

We used a two-step process first surveying 55 HIAs followed by 11 in-depth case studies. Data gathering methods included questionnaires with follow-up interview, semi-structured interviews and document collation. We carried out deductive and inductive qualitative content analyses of interview transcripts and documents as well as simple descriptive statistics.

Results

We found that most HIAs are effective in some way. HIAs are often directly effective in changing, influencing, broadening areas considered and in some cases having immediate impact on decisions. Even when HIAs are reported to have no direct effect on a decision they are often still effective in influencing decision-making processes and the stakeholders involved in them. HIA participants identify changes in relationships, improved understanding of the determinants of health and positive working relationships as major and sustainable impacts of their involvement.

Conclusions

This study clearly demonstrates direct and indirect effectiveness of HIA influencing decision making in Australia and New Zealand. We recommend that public health leaders and policy makers should be confident in promoting the use of HIA and investing in building capacity to undertake high quality HIAs. New findings about the value HIA stakeholders put on indirect impacts such as learning and relationship building suggest HIA has a role both as a technical tool that makes predictions of potential impacts of a policy, program or project and as a mechanism for developing relationships with and influencing other sectors. Accordingly when evaluating the effectiveness of HIAs we need to look beyond the direct impacts on decisions.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference WHO: Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. 2008, Geneva: Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, World Health Organization WHO: Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. 2008, Geneva: Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, World Health Organization
2.
go back to reference Wendel A, Dannenberg A, Frumkin H: Designing and building healthy places for children. Int J Environ Health. 2008, 2: 338-355. 10.1504/IJENVH.2008.020927. Wendel A, Dannenberg A, Frumkin H: Designing and building healthy places for children. Int J Environ Health. 2008, 2: 338-355. 10.1504/IJENVH.2008.020927.
3.
go back to reference Harris-Roxas B: Health impact assessment in the Asia Pacific. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2011, 31 (2): 393-395. Harris-Roxas B: Health impact assessment in the Asia Pacific. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2011, 31 (2): 393-395.
4.
go back to reference WHO: World health report 2008: primary health care - Now more than ever. 2008, Geneva: World Health Organization WHO: World health report 2008: primary health care - Now more than ever. 2008, Geneva: World Health Organization
5.
go back to reference WHO: Megacities and urban health. 2009, Kobe, Japan: Kobe Centre, World Health Organization WHO: Megacities and urban health. 2009, Kobe, Japan: Kobe Centre, World Health Organization
6.
go back to reference WHO ROA: Libreville declaration on health and environment in Africa, Libreville, 29 August 2008. 2009, World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa: Brazzaville, Republic of Congo WHO ROA: Libreville declaration on health and environment in Africa, Libreville, 29 August 2008. 2009, World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa: Brazzaville, Republic of Congo
7.
go back to reference WHO: Rio political declaration on social determinants of health, world conference on social determinants of health, Rio de Janeiro, 19–21 October 2011. 2011, Geneva: World Health Organization WHO: Rio political declaration on social determinants of health, world conference on social determinants of health, Rio de Janeiro, 19–21 October 2011. 2011, Geneva: World Health Organization
8.
go back to reference Harris-Roxas B, Viliani F, Bond A, Cave B, Divall M, Furu P, Harris P, Soeberg M, Wernham A, Winkler M: Health impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 2012, 30 (1): 43-52. 10.1080/14615517.2012.666035. Harris-Roxas B, Viliani F, Bond A, Cave B, Divall M, Furu P, Harris P, Soeberg M, Wernham A, Winkler M: Health impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 2012, 30 (1): 43-52. 10.1080/14615517.2012.666035.
9.
go back to reference Committee on Health Impact Assessment of the National Academy of Sciences; National Research Council of the National Academies: Improving health in the United States: the role of health impact assessment. 2011, Washington: The National Academics Press Committee on Health Impact Assessment of the National Academy of Sciences; National Research Council of the National Academies: Improving health in the United States: the role of health impact assessment. 2011, Washington: The National Academics Press
10.
go back to reference Hebert KA, Wendel AM, Kennedy SK, Dannenberg AL: Health impact assessment: a comparison of 45 local, national, and international guidelines. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2012, 34: 74-82. Hebert KA, Wendel AM, Kennedy SK, Dannenberg AL: Health impact assessment: a comparison of 45 local, national, and international guidelines. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2012, 34: 74-82.
11.
go back to reference Dannenberg AL, Bhatia R, Cole BL, Heaton SK, Feldman JD, Rutt CD: Use of health impact assessment in the U.S: 27 case studies, 1999–2007. Am J Prev Med. 2008, 34 (3): 241-256. 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.11.015.PubMed Dannenberg AL, Bhatia R, Cole BL, Heaton SK, Feldman JD, Rutt CD: Use of health impact assessment in the U.S: 27 case studies, 1999–2007. Am J Prev Med. 2008, 34 (3): 241-256. 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.11.015.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Wismar M, Blau J, Ernst K, Figueras J: The effectiveness of health impact assessment: scope and limitations of supporting decision-making in Europe. 2007, Brussels: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies Wismar M, Blau J, Ernst K, Figueras J: The effectiveness of health impact assessment: scope and limitations of supporting decision-making in Europe. 2007, Brussels: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies
13.
go back to reference Harris-Roxas B, Harris E: The impact and effectiveness of health impact assessment: a conceptual framework. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2013, 42: 51-59. Harris-Roxas B, Harris E: The impact and effectiveness of health impact assessment: a conceptual framework. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2013, 42: 51-59.
14.
go back to reference Morgan RK: Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 2012, 30 (1): 5-14. 10.1080/14615517.2012.661557. Morgan RK: Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 2012, 30 (1): 5-14. 10.1080/14615517.2012.661557.
15.
go back to reference IEMA: The state of environmental impact assessment practice in the UK. 2011, Lincoln, UK: Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment IEMA: The state of environmental impact assessment practice in the UK. 2011, Lincoln, UK: Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment
16.
go back to reference Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J: Sustainability assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 2012, 30 (1): 53-62. 10.1080/14615517.2012.661974. Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J: Sustainability assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 2012, 30 (1): 53-62. 10.1080/14615517.2012.661974.
17.
go back to reference Bond A, Pope J: The state of the art of impact assessment in 2012. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 2012, 30 (1): 1-4. 10.1080/14615517.2012.669140. Bond A, Pope J: The state of the art of impact assessment in 2012. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 2012, 30 (1): 1-4. 10.1080/14615517.2012.669140.
18.
go back to reference Fundingsland Tetlow M, Hanusch M: Strategic environmental assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 2012, 30 (1): 15-24. 10.1080/14615517.2012.666400. Fundingsland Tetlow M, Hanusch M: Strategic environmental assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 2012, 30 (1): 15-24. 10.1080/14615517.2012.666400.
19.
go back to reference Elliott E, Francis S: Making effective links to decision-making: Key challenges for health impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2005, 25 (7–8): 747-757. Elliott E, Francis S: Making effective links to decision-making: Key challenges for health impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2005, 25 (7–8): 747-757.
20.
go back to reference Parry JM, Kemm JR: Criteria for use in the evaluation of health impact assessments. Public Health. 2005, 119 (12): 1122-1129. 10.1016/j.puhe.2005.05.002.PubMed Parry JM, Kemm JR: Criteria for use in the evaluation of health impact assessments. Public Health. 2005, 119 (12): 1122-1129. 10.1016/j.puhe.2005.05.002.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Birley M: A fault analysis for health impact assessment: procurement, competence, expectations, and jurisdictions. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 2007, 25 (4): 281-289. 10.3152/146155107X246297. Birley M: A fault analysis for health impact assessment: procurement, competence, expectations, and jurisdictions. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 2007, 25 (4): 281-289. 10.3152/146155107X246297.
22.
go back to reference Donabedian A: Evaluating the quality of medical care. The Milbank Q. 2005, 83 (4): 691-729. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x.PubMed Donabedian A: Evaluating the quality of medical care. The Milbank Q. 2005, 83 (4): 691-729. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x.PubMed
23.
go back to reference Stake RE: Multiple case study analysis. 2005, London: Guilford Press Stake RE: Multiple case study analysis. 2005, London: Guilford Press
24.
go back to reference Haigh F, Harris E, Chok HNG, Baum F, Harris-Roxas B, Kemp L, Spickett J, Keleher H, Morgan R, Harris M, et al: Characteristics of health impact assessments reported in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009. Aust New Z J Public Health. 2013, 37 (6): 534-546. 10.1111/1753-6405.12102. Haigh F, Harris E, Chok HNG, Baum F, Harris-Roxas B, Kemp L, Spickett J, Keleher H, Morgan R, Harris M, et al: Characteristics of health impact assessments reported in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009. Aust New Z J Public Health. 2013, 37 (6): 534-546. 10.1111/1753-6405.12102.
25.
go back to reference Blau J, Wismar M: Conceptual framework and key results from the effectiveness of health impact assessment project. Eur J Public Health. 2006, 16: 534-546. Blau J, Wismar M: Conceptual framework and key results from the effectiveness of health impact assessment project. Eur J Public Health. 2006, 16: 534-546.
26.
go back to reference Harris PJ, Kemp LA, Sainsbury P: The essential elements of health impact assessment and healthy public policy: a qualitative study of practitioner perspectives. BMJ Open. 2012, 2 (6): e001245-doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012- 001245PubMedPubMedCentral Harris PJ, Kemp LA, Sainsbury P: The essential elements of health impact assessment and healthy public policy: a qualitative study of practitioner perspectives. BMJ Open. 2012, 2 (6): e001245-doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012- 001245PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
The effectiveness of health impact assessment in influencing decision-making in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009
Authors
Fiona Haigh
Fran Baum
Andrew L Dannenberg
Mark F Harris
Ben Harris-Roxas
Helen Keleher
Lynn Kemp
Richard Morgan
Harrison NG Chok
Jeff Spickett
Elizabeth Harris
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1188

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

BMC Public Health 1/2013 Go to the issue