SEGH Articles

Health in Impact Assessment: primer published

02 July 2017
The changes to the EIA directive as recast in April this year (2017) brings human health very firmly into consideration. Any project which is subject to EIA (Environmental Impact assessment) is required to evaluate the impact from the project on human and population health.

The changes to the EIA directive (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/52/oj)  as recast in April this year (2017) brings  human health very firmly into consideration. Any project which is subject to EIA (Environmental Impact assessment) is required to evaluate the impact  from the project on human and population health.  Projects may range from major infrastructure projects, such as new railways and airport runways, waste incinerators, industrial scale agricultural activities, to applications for fracking, open cast mines, amongst others.

 

In order to move the consideration of human and population health central stage within the process of impact assessment, the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) has worked with Ben Cave Associates, and the Faculty of Public Health, to produce a primer which is intended to spark discussion across all professionals. Impact assessment requires the input of many different specialists; it is hoped that all of them will become engaged in this debate.

Although Health Impact Assessment  (HIA) has been carried out successfully for many projects, evaluation of human and population health has sadly been missing from many projects. It is worth remembering that the impacts can be both positive and negative. Getting the balance right is imperative. Impacts may derive from release of contaminants during the construction phase, through to contamination of water, release of proposed use of chemicals of concern, or equally may be the health benefits of the construction of a new health care facility, with release of dust and noise during the construction phase, but with a longer term overall benefit. Likewise, the disruption and impact from construction of a railway may be negative, but a shift in mode of transport away from the car in developed nations brings about improved air quality, and in developing nations provides transport which may previously have been absent, improving quality of life, not least of which may be access to healthcare facilities, or the ability to transport perishable goods to market in a timely manner. It should not be assumed that a HIA will try to get in the way of development, but rather that it will look at appropriate outcomes.

 

Balancing the various impacts is context sensitive. The geology and geography of the land to be developed will vary.  For example, water availability, permeability of rocks, or fragility of habitats, will vary, depending upon the location of a project, as will a wide number of other considerations. Identifying these issues correctly and evaluating health impacts is imperative.

The directive also requires adherence to the principle of resource efficiency. A move away from mining for new materials for production, to a requirement for re-use of materials, helps to decrease the impact on many communities, as well as the land itself. The directive requires a move towards sustainability.

Health Impact Assessment takes into account not only the ‘hard’ environmental impacts, but also the less visible ones, such as social cohesion, engagement with hard to reach communities, loss of amenity as well as impact on employment.

The EIA directive does not explicitly ask for a full  HIA to be carried out. However, in order for meaningful evaluation of human and population health to be taken into account, engagement needs to be early, and cross sectoral, as well as competent. HIA can do this. The primer does not argue for full HIAs to be undertaken, simply that human and population health is evaluated in a timely and competent manner.

As an organisation which promotes consideration of health from many directions, the research which SEGH members undertake can often be influential in the decision –making which Impact Assessment needs to undertake. Personally, I have often quoted pieces of research which have been presented at SEGH conferences. Although HIA professionals work with a good evidence base, sometimes it is necessary to err on the side of caution. Extending our evidence base is imperative. One of the stated aims of SEGH is the sharing of knowledge. Using that knowledge wisely for the good of others is the outcome we should seek.

Although the  IEMA primer is intended to be used initially in the UK, the questions which we pose are legitimate in other countries too. (Like SEGH, IEMA is an international organisation.)  Early intervention and engagement can ensure best outcomes for all concerned, driving best practice, and improving the health outcomes of   wider communities.

 The pdf is free to download from IEMA.  (https://www.iema.net/assets/newbuild/documents/IEMA%20Primer%20on%20Health%20in%20UK%20EIA%20Doc%20V11.pdf) Hard copies are available from IEMA, but the cost of these is £25.00.

Please feel free to use this within your various communities.


By Gillian Gibson, Gibson Consulting and Training

Keep up to date

SEGH Events

Submit Content

Members can keep in touch with their colleagues through short news and events articles of interest to the SEGH community.

Science in the News

Latest on-line papers from the SEGH journal: Environmental Geochemistry and Health

  • Status, source identification, and health risks of potentially toxic element concentrations in road dust in a medium-sized city in a developing country 2017-09-19

    Abstract

    This study aims to determine the status of potentially toxic element concentrations of road dust in a medium-sized city (Rawang, Malaysia). This study adopts source identification via enrichment factor, Pearson correlation analysis, and Fourier spectral analysis to identify sources of potentially toxic element concentrations in road dust in Rawang City, Malaysia. Health risk assessment was conducted to determine potential health risks (carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks) among adults and children via multiple pathways (i.e., ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation). Mean of potentially toxic element concentrations were found in the order of Pb > Zn > Cr(IV) > Cu > Ni > Cd > As > Co. Source identification revealed that Cu, Cd, Pb, Zn, Ni, and Cr(IV) are associated with anthropogenic sources in industrial and highly populated areas in northern and southern Rawang, cement factories in southern Rawang, as well as the rapid development and population growth in northwestern Rawang, which have resulted in high traffic congestion. Cobalt, Fe, and As are related to geological background and lithologies in Rawang. Pathway orders for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks are ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation, involving adults and children. Non-carcinogenic health risks in adults were attributed to Cr(IV), Pb, and Cd, whereas Cu, Cd, Cr(IV), Pb, and Zn were found to have non-carcinogenic health risks for children. Cd, Cr(IV), Pb, and As may induce carcinogenic risks in adults and children, and the total lifetime cancer risk values exceeded incremental lifetime.

  • Erratum to: Preliminary assessment of surface soil lead concentrations in Melbourne, Australia 2017-09-11
  • In vivo uptake of iodine from a Fucus serratus Linnaeus seaweed bath: does volatile iodine contribute? 2017-09-02

    Abstract

    Seaweed baths containing Fucus serratus Linnaeus are a rich source of iodine which has the potential to increase the urinary iodide concentration (UIC) of the bather. In this study, the range of total iodine concentration in seawater (22–105 µg L−1) and seaweed baths (808–13,734 µg L−1) was measured over 1 year. The seasonal trend shows minimum levels in summer (May–July) and maximum in winter (November–January). The bathwater pH was found to be acidic, average pH 5.9 ± 0.3. An in vivo study with 30 volunteers was undertaken to measure the UIC of 15 bathers immersed in the bath and 15 non-bathers sitting adjacent to the bath. Their UIC was analysed pre- and post-seaweed bath and corrected for creatinine concentration. The corrected UIC of the population shows an increase following the seaweed bath from a pre-treatment median of 76 µg L−1 to a post-treatment median of 95 µg L−1. The pre-treatment UIC for both groups did not indicate significant difference (p = 0.479); however, the post-treatment UIC for both did (p = 0.015) where the median bather test UIC was 86 µg L−1 and the non-bather UIC test was 105 µg L−1. Results indicate the bath has the potential to increase the UIC by a significant amount and that inhalation of volatile iodine is a more significant contributor to UIC than previously documented.