Current Global Health Impact Assessment Practice

Abstract

Health impact assessment (HIA) practice has expanded across the world, since it was established more than two decades ago. This paper presents a snapshot of current global HIA practice based on the findings of an online questionnaire survey. HIA practitioners from all world regions were invited to participate. A total of 122 HIA practitioners from 29 countries completed the survey, following a broad international outreach effort. The large variety in the types of HIAs conducted, and the application of HIA in various fields reported by respondents, demonstrates that HIA practice has evolved over the past two decades. Although differences in the use of HIA were reported across world regions, an overall increasing trend in global HIA practice can be observed. In order to sustain this upward trend, efforts are needed to address the main barriers in the utilisation of HIA. The establishment of new national and international HIA teaching and training offerings seems to be an obvious strategy to pursue along with the strengthening of policies and legal frameworks that specify the circumstances, under which HIA is required, and to what extent.

Lessons from an International Initiative to Set and Share Good Practice on Human Health in Environmental Impact Assessment

“…The reference paper examines the EIA Directive and European Commission guidance on EIA [ 22 , 23 , 24 ] and regional and national guidance for health in EIA for example [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. It complements guidance for HIA for example, [ 29 , 30 ] and it is informed by international good practice [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ]. It builds on previous work conducted jointly, and separately, by IAIA, EUPHA and the WHO Regional Office for Europe [ 36 , 37 , 38 ].…”

A Comparative Analysis of Health Impact Assessment Implementation Models in the Regions of Montérégie (Québec, Canada) and Nouvelle-Aquitaine (France)

“…International literature reports on HIA implementation around the world [ 33 , 42 ] from historical as well as theoretical, methodological, or even ethical perspectives [ 43 ]. While implementation strategies and differences between countries are well documented [ 7 ], there are fewer publications on the relationship between impact assessment, of any type, and its governance environment [ 35 , 40 ].…”

“…A four-phase research process was used. First, an analytical framework was developed based on a literature review of existing frameworks for describing key contextual factors, preconditions, and mechanisms enabling HIA implementation [ 2 , 7 , 19 , 21 , 31 , 32 , 33 ], more precisely: (1) contextual factors: political support and commitment, policy or administrative framework, legal mandate; (2) implementation scheme: stewardship, roles and responsibilities, technical support and expertise, HIA model, and purpose; and (3) HIA delivery: proponents, practitioners’ profile and capacities, type of HIA, decision level, sector of application, funding, capacity building, and resource generation. Second, in order to ensure that the specificities of the two regional contexts were taken into account, exchanges within the research team and a review of documents related to the implementation schemes in the two regions were undertaken.…”

Association of livestock ownership and household dietary quality: results from a cross-sectional survey from rural India

“…As the data used in this study came from a baseline survey for a HIA, it shows the bene ts gained by conducting HIAs, as it fosters empirical research in settings that are usually neglected [29,30]. Indeed, baseline survey data can be leveraged to better understand about agriculture and nutrition linkages, besides potentially other locally relevant health outcomes.…”