Including health in environmental impact assessments of three mega transport projects in Sydney, Australia: A critical, institutional, analysis

Abstract This article details how health impacts came to be assessed in three mega, billion dollar, transport infrastructure projects, two road tunnels and one light rail, in Sydney Australia. The known health impacts of transport decisions include environmental, behavioural and social factors. EIA practice prioritises environmental risks, and there has been scant attention to understanding why this is persistently the case. Here we provide a critical theory lens, using critical realist methodology, to analyse empirical data collected through interviews and documents for the three cases. Our analysis focusses on EIA practice within its institutional context, building on ‘new institutional’ approaches to policy analysis that emphasise actors (the stakeholders involved in the EIA), structures (the ‘rules of the game’ that influence practice in systems), and power. We find that the various actors engaged in the EIAs principally to address particular goals that were pre-determined by the system in which they worked or belonged. Structurally, each EIA was undertaken as a compliance process relatively late in the planning process. Considering project options was not part of the EIA's purpose. Resources to undertake the EIAs were provided by those funding the projects (“the proponents”) and determined the types of issues to be considered. The full range of links between transport and health were not identified. Concerning power, health impacts were considered through inter-professional technical negotiation. The inability to engage in the fundamental options driving projects meant impacted communities questioned the validity of the EIA, and the health assessment within this. Our institutional analysis provides important knowledge about how the EIAs preferenced a focus on specific health risks to the detriment of the known broader determinants that shape the health impacts of transport.

[1]  Lars Emmelin,et al.  Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: Theorising the nature and implications of their political constitution , 2010 .

[2]  Paul Cairney,et al.  Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues , 2011 .

[3]  O. Bina.  A critical review of the dominant lines of argumentation on the need for strategic environmental assessment , 2007 .

[4]  Mark Stevenson,et al.  City planning and population health: a global challenge , 2016, The Lancet.

[5]  J. Weston.  EIA THEORIES — ALL CHINESE WHISPERS AND NO CRITICAL THEORY , 2010 .

[6]  P. Hall,et al.  Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms , 1996 .

[7]  Bo Elling,et al.  Rationality and effectiveness: does EIA/SEA treat them as synonyms? , 2009 .

[8]  Marcus Grant,et al.  Testing time for sustainability and health: striving for inclusive rationality in project appraisal , 2008, The journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health.

[9]  Robert V. Bartlett,et al.  The Theory of Environmental Impact Assessment: Implicit models of policy making , 1999 .

[10]  Richard K. Morgan.  Environmental impact assessment : a methodological perspective , 1998 .

[11]  P. Harris,et al.  Assessing Health Impacts within Environmental Impact Assessments: An Opportunity for Public Health Globally Which Must Not Remain Missed , 2015, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[12]  Rajiv Bhatia,et al.  Integrating Human Health into Environmental Impact Assessment: An Unrealized Opportunity for Environmental Health and Justice , 2008, Environmental health perspectives.

[13]  A. Sayer,et al.  Realism and Social Science , 1999 .

[14]  E. Harris,et al.  Human health and wellbeing in environmental impact assessment in New South Wales, Australia: Auditing health impacts within environmental assessments of major projects , 2009 .

[15]  L. Kørnøv.  FACES AND FUNCTIONS OF THEORY IN IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESEARCH , 2015 .

[16]  C. Whitbeck,et al.  A Realist Theory of Science. , 1977 .

[17]  Tuija Hilding-Rydevik,et al.  Human health frames in EIA – the case of Swedish road planning , 2013 .

[18]  S. Gray,et al.  Health-integrated planning at the local level in England: Impediments and opportunities , 2013 .

[19]  Margaret S. Archer,et al.  Realist social theory: The morphogenetic cycle , 1997 .

[20]  P. Harris,et al.  Health impact assessment in Australia: A review and directions for progress , 2011 .

[21]  S. Friel,et al.  ‘Including health in systems responsible for urban planning’: a realist policy analysis research programme , 2015, BMJ Open.

[22]  John Glasson,et al.  Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment , 1999 .

[23]  Alan Bond,et al.  The role and functioning of environmental assessment: theoretical reflections upon an empirical investigation of causation. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[24]  David P. Lawrence,et al.  Planning theories and environmental impact assessment , 2000 .

[25]  Margaret S. Archer,et al.  Abstraction: A realist interpretation , 2013 .

[26]  T. Richardson,et al.  Space for action: How practitioners influence environmental assessment , 2015 .

[27]  Tim Richardson,et al.  Power and environmental assessment: Introduction to the special issue , 2013 .

[28]  F. Baum,et al.  Including Health in Environmental Assessments of Major Transport Infrastructure Projects: A Documentary Analysis , 2017, International journal of health policy and management.

[29]  Andrew Sayer,et al.  Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach , 1984 .

[30]  Matthew Asa Cashmore,et al.  The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory , 2004 .

[31]  B. Flyvbjerg.  What you Should Know about Megaprojects and Why: An Overview , 2014, 1409.0003.

[32]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[33]  M. Haugaard.  Reflections on Seven Ways of Creating Power , 2003 .

[34]  Christopher Wood,et al.  Environmental impact assessment: Retrospect and prospect , 2007 .

[35]  B. Flyvbjerg.  RATIONALITY AND POWER: DEMOCRACY IN PRACTICE , 1999 .

[36]  B. Flyvbjerg,et al.  Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition , 2003 .

[37]  Richard K. Morgan.  Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art , 2012 .

[38]  Tim Richardson,et al.  Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality, and ethics , 2005 .

[39]  P. Harris,et al.  Including health in environmental impact assessments: is an institutional approach useful for practice? , 2015 .

[40]  Matthew Asa Cashmore,et al.  The mediation of environmental assessment's influence: What role for power? , 2013 .

[41]  Alan Bond,et al.  The Contribution of Environmental Assessment to Sustainable Development: Toward a Richer Empirical Understanding , 2007, Environmental management.

[42]  Julio A. Soria-Lara,et al.  Towards a more effective EIA in transport planning: a literature review to derive interventions and mechanisms to improve knowledge integration , 2017 .

[43]  Brian L Cole,et al.  Prospects for Health Impact Assessment in the United States: New and Improved Environmental Impact Assessment or Something Different? , 2004, Journal of health politics, policy and law.