Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29524938›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2018

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

Emily Riley, Patrick Harris, Jennifer Kent, Peter Sainsbury, Anna Lane, Fran Baum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. What Is the Best Practice Method for Quantifying the Health and Economic Benefits of Active Transport?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Natural experiments in the built environment: evaluating impacts on health.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Inclusion of Health in Impact Assessment: A Review of Current Practice in Sub-Saharan Africa.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Emily RileyMenzies Centre for Health Policy, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Patrick HarrisMenzies Centre for Health Policy, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jennifer KentUrban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture, Design, and Planning, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Peter SainsburyPopulation Health, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Anna LaneSouthgate Institute for Health, Society, and Equity, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia.
Fran BaumSouthgate Institute for Health, Society, and Equity, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTransport 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsWe 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.

conclusionOur 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.

Indexed as

EnvironmentRisk AssessmentTransportationAustraliaHumansPolicy MakingPublic PolicyContent AnalysisEnvironmental Assessment (EA)HealthInfrastructureTransport

Identifiers

PMID29524938
PMCPMC5819374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.