Environment Assessment and Management Research Centre, University of Liverpool, 74 Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L697ZQ, UK.
Research Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.
BMC Public Health. 2024 Oct 14;24(1):2819. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-20203-7.
This article reports on research commissioned by (what was at the time) Public Health England (PHE). The objective is to reflect on the normative effectiveness of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) applied to two planning projects; (a) the new town at Cranbrook, Devon (HIA prepared in 2007), and (b) the regeneration of the Marsh farm area in Luton (HIA prepared in 2009). In this context, the focus is on the contribution of HIA to actions that are intended to lead to good or improved health and wellbeing.
Normative HIA effectiveness criteria derived from a literature review were used to guide the analysis. The two included HIA cases were previously identified as good practice examples with regards to procedure and report quality. Semi-structured interviews with public health, planning and other actors originally involved in the HIAs were conducted in 2021. This was followed up by web-searches for evidence on actual developments in 2023.
Interviews indicated that normative effectiveness initially appeared to be high, but that the longer-term effects of the financial crash of 2008 reduced this. Delays in initially anticipated timelines and HIA actors moving elsewhere or retiring meant that HIAs were not followed-up and connections between developments and the HIAs were no longer made. However, web-based searches conducted in 2023 found that key HIA suggestions were eventually implemented, albeit with delay. There is also evidence for improved IMD (index of multiple deprivation) rankings in the Marsh farm regeneration case.
A mismatch is observed with regards to HIA exercises appearing to be largely 'forgotten' after over a decade of their publication, but recommendations still being implemented, possibly as a result of 'institutional memory'. Making monitoring and follow-up of HIA binding rather than advisory would allow for direct linkages to be made.
本文报告了由(当时的)英国公共卫生署委托进行的研究。目的是反思健康影响评估(HIA)应用于两个规划项目的规范性有效性;(a)德文郡克兰布鲁克的新城镇(2007 年编制的 HIA),以及(b)卢顿马什农场地区的再生(2009 年编制的 HIA)。在这种情况下,重点是 HIA 对旨在改善健康和福利的行动的贡献。
从文献综述中得出的规范性 HIA 有效性标准被用来指导分析。这两个被纳入的 HIA 案例之前被确定为程序和报告质量方面的良好实践范例。2021 年对最初参与 HIA 的公共卫生、规划和其他行为者进行了半结构化访谈。之后,在 2023 年对实际发展情况进行了网络搜索。
访谈表明,规范性有效性最初似乎很高,但 2008 年金融危机的长期影响降低了这一效果。最初预期的时间表的延迟,以及 HIA 行为者转移到其他地方或退休,意味着 HIA 没有得到跟进,发展与 HIA 之间的联系也不再建立。然而,2023 年进行的网络搜索发现,关键的 HIA 建议最终得到了实施,尽管有所延迟。在马什农场再生案例中,也有证据表明 IMD(多重剥夺指数)排名有所改善。
观察到 HIA 演习出现了一种不匹配的情况,即它们在发表十多年后似乎被“遗忘”,但建议仍在实施,这可能是由于“机构记忆”。使 HIA 的监测和跟进具有约束力而不是咨询性质,将允许建立直接联系。