A community grounded HIA: The benefits of conducting a HIA during the Airds Bradbury Estate Redevelopment

Authors

  • Karla Jaques Centre for Health Equity Research, Training and Evaluation, Part of the UNSW Centre for Primary Health Care & Equity, A Unit of Population Health,, South Western Sydney and Sydney Local Health Districts, NSW Health, A Member of the Ingham Institute
  • Fiona Haigh Centre for Health Equity Research, Training and Evaluation, Part of the UNSW Centre for Primary Health Care & Equity, A Unit of Population Health,, South Western Sydney and Sydney Local Health Districts, NSW Health, A Member of the Ingham Institute http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5706-5118
  • Michael Thorn Airds Bradbury Community Member

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18060/21560

Abstract

Background

This paper identifies and discusses the benefits of taking a ‘community grounded’ approach to HIA in the context of a place based urban renewal setting and reflect on whether this is a useful approach for people and organisations wishing to undertake HIA’s in similar settings. The HIA was on the redevelopment of the suburban town centre and focussed on the creation of a new multipurpose centre, improvements to a manmade pond and the relocation of sporting fields found in the area. The HIA team aimed to explore what the planned redevelopment of the local town centre area would mean for the local community and its potential health impacts upon residents.

 

Methods

The HIA followed the standard HIA steps. The HIA team took a community grounded approach where particular focus was give to engaging community members in the HIA process. This included community members being involved in the HIA working group, reference group and providing evidence for the HIA.

 

Results

The HIA report contained a series of recommendations for the redevelopment of the Airds Bradbury estate. These recommendations were presented to the Community Reference Group and were adopted by various stakeholders.

 

Conclusions

 

The community grounded approach influenced both how the HIA was carried out, the decisions that were made within the HIA and ultimately the finidings and recomendations. The HIA of this latest stage of the Airds-Bradbury estate redevelopment was a useful project to encourage further collaboration, dialogue and planning between redevelopment agencies, Local Government, and residents of the Airds Bradbury social housing estate.

 

References

Australian Bureau!of Statistics. Census: Data and Analysis [Internet].Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2011 cited 2016 Aug 10]. Available from:

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/data?opendocument&navpos=200.

Chadderton, C., Elliott, E., Hacking, N., Shepherd, M., & Williams, G. (2012). Health impact assessment in the UK planning system: the possibilities and limits of community engagement. Health Promotion International, 28(4), 533-543. doi:10.1093/heapro/das031

Chilaka, M. A. (2015). Drawing from the well of community participation: an evaluation of the utility of local knowledge in the health impact assessment process. Community Development, 46(2), 100-110. doi:10.1080/15575330.2015.1014060

Council, M. C. (2010). Wiri Spatial Structure Plan: health Impact Assessment Report. Retrieved from http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/health-impact-assessment/completed-nz-health-impact-assessments/wiri-spatial-structure-plan-hia

den Broeder, L., Uiters, E., ten Have, W., Wagemakers, A., & Schuit, A. J. (2017). Community participation in Health Impact Assessment. A scoping review of the literature. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 66, 33-42. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.06.004

Elliott, E., & Williams, G. (2008). Developing public sociology through health impact assessment. Sociology of Health and Illness, 30(7), 1101-1116. doi:SHIL1103 [pii];10.1111/j.1467-9566.2008.01103.x [doi]

Haigh, F., Harris, E., Harris-Roxas, B., Baum, F., Dannenberg, A., Harris, M., . . . Spickett, J. (2015). What makes health impact assessments successful? Factors contributing to effectiveness in Australia and New Zealand. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 1-12. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2319-8

Health, N. (2009). Healthy Urban Development Checklist. Retrieved from NSW:

Mahoney, M. E., Potter, J. L. L., & Marsh, R. S. (2007). Community participation in HIA: Discords in teleology and terminology. Critical Public Health, 17(3), 229-241.

Okamoto, S. K., Kulis, S., Marsiglia, F. F., Holleran Steiker, L. K., & Dustman, P. (2014). A Continuum of Approaches Toward Developing Culturally Focused Prevention Interventions: From Adaptation to Grounding. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 35(2), 103-112. doi:10.1007/s10935-013-0334-z

Parry, J., & Wright, J. (2003). Community participation in health impact assessments: intuitively appealing but practically difficult. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81, 388-388.

Sport, C. f. (2016). Sports Facility Planning and Use.

Wright, J., Parry, J., & Mathers, J. (2005). Participation in health impact assessment: objectives, methods and core values. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 83(1), 58-63.

Downloads

Published

2017-09-28

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 1 (2017)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright to works published in Chronicles of Health Impact Assessment is retained by the author(s). Articles published in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process.