Use of Health Impact Assessment in the U.S: 27 Case Studies, 1999–2007

Dannenberg, Andrew L.; Bhatia, Rajiv; Cole, Brian L.; Heaton, Sarah K.; Feldman, Jason D.; Rutt, Candace D.

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.11.015

« Previous Next »American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Volume 34, Issue 3 , Pages 241-256, March 2008

Use of Health Impact Assessment in the U.S:

27 Case Studies, 1999–2007

Andrew L. Dannenberg, MD, MPH
- National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
- Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Andrew L. Dannenberg, MD, MPH, Division of Emergency and Environmental Health Services, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop F-60, Atlanta GA 30341.
Rajiv Bhatia, MD, MPH
- San Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, California
Brian L. Cole, DrPH
- School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
Sarah K. Heaton, MPH
- National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Jason D. Feldman, MPH
- National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Candace D. Rutt, PhD
- National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

Objectives

To document the growing use in the United States of health impact assessment (HIA) methods to help planners and others consider the health consequences of their decisions.

Methods

Using multiple search strategies, 27 HIAs were identified that were completed in the U.S. during 1999–2007. Key characteristics of each HIA were abstracted from published and unpublished sources.

Results

Topics examined in these HIAs ranged from policies about living wages and after-school programs to projects about power plants and public transit. Most HIAs were funded by local health departments, foundations, or federal agencies. Concerns about health disparities were especially important in HIAs on housing, urban redevelopment, home energy subsidies, and wage policy. The use of quantitative and nonquantitative methods varied among HIAs. Most HIAs presented recommendations for policy or project changes to improve health. Impacts of the HIAs were infrequently documented.

Conclusions

These completed HIAs are useful for helping conduct future HIAs and for training public health officials and others about HIAs. More work is needed to document the impact of HIAs and thereby increase their value in decision-making processes.