Including Health in Environmental Assessments of Major Transport Infrastructure Projects: A Documentary Analysis

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Menzies Centre for Health Policy, Sydney, NSW, Australia

2 School of Public Health, and Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

3 Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture, Design, and Planning, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

4 Population Health, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia

5 Southgate Institute for Health, Society, and Equity, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia

Abstract

Background
Transport policy and practice impacts health. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are regulated public policy mechanisms that can be used to consider the health impacts of major transport projects before they are approved. The way health is considered in these environmental assessments (EAs) is not well known. This research asked: How and to what extent was human health considered in EAs of four major transport projects in Australia.
 
Methods
We developed a comprehensive coding framework to analyse the Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) of four transport infrastructure projects: three road and one light rail. The coding framework was designed to capture how health was directly and indirectly included.
 
Results
We found that health was partially considered in all four EISs. In the three New South Wales (NSW) projects, but not the one South Australian project, this was influenced by the requirements issued to proponents by the government which directed the content of the EIS. Health was assessed using human health risk assessment (HHRA). We found this to be narrow in focus and revealed a need for a broader social determinants of health approach, using multiple methods. The road assessments emphasised air quality and noise risks, concluding these were minimal or predicted to improve. The South Australian project was the only road project not to include health data explicitly. The light rail EIS considered the health benefits of the project whereas the others focused on risk. Only one project considered mental health, although in less detail than air quality or noise.
 
Conclusion
Our findings suggest EIAs lag behind the known evidence linking transport infrastructure to health. If health is to be comprehensively included, a more complete model of health is required, as well as a shift away from health risk assessment as the main method used. This needs to be mandatory for all significant developments. We also found that considering health only at the EIA stage may be a significant limitation, and there is a need for health issues to be considered when earlier, fundamental decisions about the project are being made.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Giles-Corti B, Vernez-Moudon A, Reis R, et al. City planning and population health: a global challenge. Lancet. 2016;388(10062):2912-2924. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30066-6
  2. Cohen JM, Boniface S, Watkins S. Health implications of transport planning, development and operations. J Transp Health.2014;1(1):63-72. Doi:10.1016/j.jth.2013.12.004
  3. Sallis JF, Bull F, Burdett R, et al. Use of science to guide city planning policy and practice: how to achieve healthy and sustainable future cities. Lancet. 2016;388(10062):2936-2947.DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30068-X
  4. United Nations. Draft outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III). http://nua.unhabitat.org/uploads/DraftOutcomeDocumentofHabitatIII_en.pdf.  Published 2016.
  5. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/. Published 2015.
  6. Morgan RK. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 2012;30(1):5-14. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.661557
  7. Harris P, Viliani F, Spickett J. Assessing health impacts within environmental impact assessments: an opportunity for public health globally which must not remain missed. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(1):1044-1049. Doi:10.3390/ijerph120101044
  8. Morgan RK. Environmental Impact Assessment: a methodological perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1998.
  9. Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. Routledge; 2013.
  10. Cashmore M. The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2004;24(4):403-426.
  11. British Medical Association. Health & Environmental Impact Assessment: An Integrated Approach. London: Earthscan publications; 1998.
  12. Harris PJ, Harris E, Thompson S, Harris-Roxas B, Kemp L. Human health and wellbeing in environmental impact assessment in New South Wales, Australia: Auditing health impacts within environmental assessments of major projects. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2009;29(5):310-318.
  13. Alenius K. Consideration of health aspects in environmental impact assessments for roads. Stockholm: National Institute of Public Health; 2001.
  14. Kågström M, Hilding-Rydevik T, Sjöberg I. Human health frames in EIA–the case of Swedish road planning. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 2013;31(3):198-207. Doi:10.1080/14615517.2013.772708
  15. Giroult E. WHO interest in environmental health impact assessment. In: Wathern P, ed. Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice. London: Unwin Hyman; 1988.
  16. Kemm J. Can Health Impact Assessment fulfil the expectations it raises? Public Health. 2000;114(6):431-433.
  17. Mindell J, Ison E, Joffe M. A glossary for health impact assessment. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(9):647-651.
  18. Cole BL, Fielding JE. Health impact assessment: a tool to help policy makers understand health beyond health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28(1):393-412. DOI:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.083006.131942
  19. Steinemann A. Rethinking human health impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2000;20(6):627-645.
  20. Chadwick A. Socio-economic Impacts: Are They Still the Poor Relations in UK Environmental Statements? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2002;45(1):3-24.
  21. International Council on Mining and Minerals. Health Impact Assessment. http://www.icmm.com/page/84142/our-work/projects/articles/health-impact-assessment-hia. Published 2010.
  22. Litman T. Transportation and public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34:217-233. DOI:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114502
  23. Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Gunn JAE, Pope J, Retief F. Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management. Journal of Environmental Management. 2015;151:97-104. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.12.030
  24. Harris P, Spickett J. Health impact assessment in Australia: a review and directions for progress. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2011;31(4):425-432.
  25. Australian Government. Australian Infrastructure Audit: Our Infrastructure Challenges. In: Infrastructure Australia, ed. Canberra: Australian Government; 2015.
  26. Harris P, Friel S, Wilson A. ‘Including health in systems responsible for urban planning’: a realist policy analysis research programme. BMJ Open. 2015;5(7):e008822. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008822
  27. Yin RK. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (vol 5). Sage; 2009.
  28. Fehr R, Viliani F, Martuzzi M, Nowacki J. “Health in Impact Assessments. Opportunities not to be missed.” WHO Europe, European Association of Public Health and IAIA; 2015.
  29. World Health Organisation. Health in Environmental Impact Assessments in Low and Middle Income Country Contexts. Unpublished technical paper prepared for the WHO and supporting the WHO training workshop on health in EIA held in Mongolia from November 4-6, 2014.
  30. Fisher M, Baum F, MacDougall C, Newman L, McDermott D. A qualitative methodological framework to assess uptake of evidence on social determinants of health in health policy. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 2015;11(4):491-507.
  31. Kent JL. Carsharing as active transport: What are the potential health benefits? J Transp Health. 2014;1(1):54-62. Doi:10.1016/j.jth.2013.07.003
  32. Langlois M, Wasfi RA, Ross NA, El-Geneidy AM. Can transit-oriented developments help achieve the recommended weekly level of physical activity? J Transp Health. 2016;3(2):181-190. Doi:10.1016/j.jth.2016.02.006
  33. Roads and Maritime Services. NorthConnex environmental impact statement; 2014.
  34. WestConnex Delivery Authority. WestConnex M4 East Environmental Impact Statement (vol 1A); 2015.
  35. Fehr R, Viliani F, Nowacki J, Martuzzi M. Health in Impact Assessments. Geneva: WHO; 2014.
  36. Kemm J. What is health impact assessment and what can it learn from EIA? Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2004;24(2):131-134.
  37. United Nations. TST issues brief: Health and Sustainable Developement. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/18300406tstissueshealth.pdf.
  38. WHO. Advancing the Right to Health: The Vital Role of Law. Geneva; WHO: 2017.
  39. Barton H, Grant M. Testing time for sustainability and health: striving for inclusive rationality in project appraisal. J R Soc Promot Health. 2008;128(3):130-139.
  40. Bhatia R, Wernham A. Integrating Human Health into Environmental Impact Assessment: An Unrealised Opportunity for Environmental Health and Justice. Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116(8):991-1000. DOI:10.1289/ehp.11132
  41. Carmichael L, Barton H, Gray S, Lease H. Health-integrated planning at the local level in England: Impediments and opportunities. Land Use Policy. 2013;31:259-266.
  42. Bamberg S, Schmidt P. Theory‐Driven Subgroup‐Specific Evaluation of an Intervention to Reduce Private Car Use1. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2001;31(6):1300-1329. Doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02675.x
  43. Verplanken B, Walker I, Davis A, Jurasek M. Context change and travel mode choice: Combining the habit discontinuity and self-activation hypotheses. J Environ Psychol. 2008;28(2):121-127. Doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.005
  44. Erlanger TE, Krieger GR, Singer BH, Utzinger J. The 6/94 gap in health impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2008;28(4-5):349-358. Doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.07.003