Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (한국환경영향평가학회)
권호 표지

A Study on Introduction Scheme of Health Impact Assessment Compared to EIA System in the United States

미국의 EIA 사례에 비추어 본 건강영향평가 도입 방안

  • Han, Young-Han (Asia Pacific Environment & Management Institute) ;
  • Kim, Im-Soon (Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Kwangwoon University) ;
  • Han, Sang-Wook (Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Kwangwoon University)
  • Received : 2006.11.23
  • Accepted : 2007.03.06
  • Published : 2007.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

With its more than 35 years of experience with EIA of NEPA in United States, the extensive knowledge base of EIA could be the most suitable place for initial field of HIA to explore lessons available for. However, caution is needed as the technical differences in analysis, different policy context, and distinct professional culture between EIA and HIA might be. The successe of EIA of NEPA is the integration of environmental goals into decision making process, improved planning, and increased transparency and public involvement, whereas shortcomings of it were defined as the excessive volume and complexity of EIA documents, the limited and adversarial public involvement, the procedural process (not substantive), focus on projects (not on policies and programs), and the limited consideration of health impacts. Integrating HIA into existing EIA process is positive in two reasons that the human health is closely related with natural environment and EIA process is a fully established process that effectively cuts across bureaucratic and sectoral boundaries. Also, integrating of HIA into EIA might be a way with least resistance for the widespread use. A freestanding HIA separated from EIA is desirable in terms of excessive volume of EIA documents and the procedural and legal focus of EIA. It is needed to develop the formulated methodologies for advancing HIA whether it is a part of or separated from EIA, and to estimate the potential values of HIA in the substantial society context. When possible, HIA should be established on the ways that EIAs have been used successfully.

Keywords

References

  1. 김임순, 김충곤, 강선홍, 한상욱, 2005 , 지속성을 위한 보건영향평가의 국제적인 동향 고찰 및 환경영향평가와의 연계방안 연구, 환경영향평가학회지, 14 (5), 1- 15
  2. 김임순, 2006, 환경영향평가의 원칙과 절차, 전략 환경평가포럼자료집 (I), 113-156
  3. 김임순, 박주현, 한상욱, 2 006, 한국에서 환경평가 의 부분으로서 건강영향평가의 통합적 접근 에 관한 연구, 환경영향평가, 15(5), 1-14
  4. 한상욱, 2 0 01, 지속발전 이념의 효과적 구현을 위한 환경영향평가의 새로운 제도적 틀 형성과 예측 .평가기법의 개발의 필요성, 환경영향 평가학회,권두언
  5. British Medical Association, 1998, Health and Environmental Impact Assessment: An Integnated Approacb, London: Earthscan
  6. Bullard, R. D. , ed. , 1993, Confronting EnνironmentaI Racism: Voices from the Grass-roots. Boston: South End
  7. California Office of Planning and Research, 2001. Announcements from the State Clearinghouse - Summer, CEQA Update. www.opr.ca.gov/clearinghouse/summer 2001.shthl
  8. Cole, B. L., Wilhelm, M., Long, P. V., Fielding, J. E., Kominski, G., and Morgenstern, H., 2004, Prospects for Health Impact Assessment in the United States: New and Improved Environmental Impact Assessment or Something Different?, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 29(6), 1153-1186 https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-29-6-1153
  9. Cole, B.L., Shimkhada, R., Fielding, J. E., Kominski, G., and Morgenstern, H., 2005, Methodologies for Realizing the Potential of Health Impact Assessment, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(4), 382-389 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.01.010
  10. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President, 1997a, The National Environmental Policy Act: A Study of Its Effectiveness after TwentyFive Years. Washington DC: Council on Environmental Quality
  11. Council on Environmental Quality, 1997b, Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality
  12. Eccleston, C. H., 1999, The NEPA Planning Process: A Comprehensive Guide with an Emphasis on Efficiency, New York: Wiley and Sons
  13. Fehr, R., 1999, Environmental Health Impact Assessment: Evaluation of a Ten-Step Model, Epidemiology, 10, 618-625 https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199909000-00031
  14. Kemm, J., 2003, Perspectives on Health Impact Assessment, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81(6), 387
  15. Powell, M. R., 1999, Science at EPA:Information in the Regulatory Process, Washington, DC, Resources for the Future
  16. Sadler, B., 1996, Environmental Assessment in a Changing World, International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment, Final Report. Ottawa, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
  17. Scott-Samuel, A., 1998, Health impact assessment - theory into practice, J. Epidemiol. Community Health, 52, 704-705 https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.11.704
  18. Signal, L. and G. Durham, 2000, Health Impact Assessment in New Zealand Policy Context, Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 15, 11-26
  19. Steinemann, A., 2000, Rethinking Human Health Impact Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20, 627-645 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00068-8
  20. The Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment, 2003, US principles and guidelines Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(3), 231-250 https://doi.org/10.3152/147154603781766293
  21. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000, Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health, 2nd ed., Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
  22. WHO, 2001, Health Impact Assessment in Development Policy and Planning, Report of an Informal WHO Consultative Meeting, 11-13