Rapid versus intermediate health impact assessment of foreshore development plansSusan E. Furber A F , Erica Gray A , Ben F. Harris-Roxas B , Leonie M. Neville C , Carolyn L. Dews D and Sarah V. Thackway E
A Division of Population Health and Planning, South East Sydney and Illawarra Area Health Service
B Research Centre for Primary Health Care & Equity, University of New South Wales
C Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Advancement, NSW Department of Health
D The Cancer Council, Wollongong
E Centre Epidemiology and Research, NSW Health Department
F Corresponding author. Email: email@example.com
NSW Public Health Bulletin 18(10) 174-176 https://doi.org/10.1071/NB07076
Published: 26 September 2007
Objective: To describe the main differences between conducting a rapid health impact assessment (HIA) and an intermediate HIA on foreshore development plans and their feasibility from a health service perspective. Methods: A rapid HIA and an intermediate HIA were undertaken on two foreshore development plans. Results: The main differences between the two HIAs were in the identification, assessment and decision-making stages of the HIA. Conclusion: While the rapid HIA was less resource intensive than the intermediate HIA, there are several factors that affect the feasibility of conducting this type of HIA within a short time period.
We acknowledge the contribution of Dian Tranter, Andy Goldie and Cate Wallace in the conduct of the Wollongong HIA and the contribution of Tuesday Wallin, Darren Mayne, Linda Campbell and Diane Hindmarsh in the conduct of the Shellharbour HIA.
 Capon AG, Blakely EJ. Checklist for healthy and sustainable communities. NSW Public Health Bull 2007; 18 51–4.
| CrossRef |
 Neville L, Furber S, Thackway S, Gray E, Mayne D. A health impact assessment of an environmental management plan: the impacts on physical activity and social cohesion. Health Promot J Aust 2005; 16(3): 194–200.