Methodological
challenges in HIA
A case study applied to urban
policies in France
Françoise Jabot, Anne Roué Le Gall EHESP
1
Introduction
HIA approach in France is emergent
− little knowledge about the topic
− ≈ 5 studies
− initiatives of local authorities
Purpose of this presentation
− to discuss method
• what were the challenges? did we succeed? what
did we learned? what could we do better?
2
HIA applied on urban policy
implemented in 3 metropoles
(conurbations)
1
3 EHESPFive levels
4 EHESPEuropean
level
National
level
Regional
level
Marseille
metropole
57actions
(all districts)
Toulon
metropole
21 actions
(2 districts)
Nice
metropole
5 actions
(1
district)
Fostering urban regeneration and
improving social cohesion
Articulating urban and social policies
on deprived urban areas
(integrated approach of urban issues)
Integrated Urban Projects
Operational program (10 topics)
Call for projects
European funds
Call for projects
Local plans
Why undertaking an HIA ?
Decision one year before the end for:
• knowing impacts of the projects on health and
health inequalities
(retrospective HIA)
• preparing the next projects
• going into in depth on equity in HIA in
collaboration with an european workgroup (
Health
Action Partnership International)
• launching the first governmental HIA
5
Method: building adapted
tools at every stage
2
6
EHESP
Questions for scoping
How dealing with the « Integrated urban projects?
What approach (geographic, topics…)?
7
EHESP
Model for outcome
↪ classify 83 actions to understand UIP
Modeling preference methodology
↪ identify, select, hierarchy a set of relevant criteria
↪ select a panel of actions
Selection
Scoping
Evaluation
Recommendations
Monitoring
European topics
Development of facilities (childhood, shops, health…)
Employment, entreprenariat Solidarity & urban continuity Urban heritage Urban regeneration Sustainable environment Social relationships Citizen engagment Instruction Mobility, accessibility
Better well being, quality of life, health
Reduction of health inequalities Actions within IUP
Attractive urban environment Continuity between districts, cities, conurbation
Opening up of deprived areas
Integration of deprived areas Development of social ties Improvement of social cohesion
Improvment of life conditions Social rehabilitation and employment
Facilities Delivery of services Legislations Organisations Institutions Groups Communities Individuals 8 EHESP
Classification of actions with regards to european topics
Improvement of equipments and facilities Improvement of access to basic services Development of business activity Development of innovation Valorisation of urban heritage Availability of premises
Economic dynamisation of districts Economic développement perennisation Opening up of deprived areas
Decrease of urban sprawl
Valorisation of communities assets Improvement of links citizen /business Development od solidarity mechanisms District ownership
Decrease of neighbourhood violence Engagement dans des projets collectifs Citizen commitment
Improvement of family links Improvement of eduction Empowerment
Skills acquisition (praental) Facilitation to employment Food and income security Adoption of healthy behaviours Stimulated children’minds
Better well being, quality of life,
health
Reduction of health inequalities
Attractive urban environment Continuity between districts, cities, conurbation
Opening up of deprived areas Quality of environment
Preservation of natural spaces Integration of deprived areas Development of social links Improvement of social cohesion Broadening employment area
Improvement of life conditions (nutrition, housing, access to facilities)
Social rehabilitation and employment
Improvement of skills Youth works in districts
Home gardens Social mediations Community actions
Urban regeneration policies Creation of business networks Transports and moving
Cultural events
Trainings
Support fo mobility Support for employment Stimulation of children Social support
Equiping premisses and services (driving school, drugstore…)
Creation of facilities (childhood, social shops…)
Neigbourhood stores
9
EHESP
10
EHESP
Well Being Qualiy of life Health Equity on health Home gardens (M)
Youth works (clean ups) (M)
Community gardens (T) Youth works (cultural event) (T) Support to employment (M) Micro credits (T)
Training sessions and support (N) Childhood facilities (M) Mobility support (M) Cyberbase (T) Drugstore (N) Driving school (N) Social store (N)
Improvement of equipments and facilities Improvement of access to basic services Development of business activity Development of innovation Valorisation of urban heritage Availability of premises
Economic dynamisation of districts Economic développement perennisation Opening up of deprived areas
Decrease of urban sprawl
Valorisation of communities assets Improvement of links citizen /business Development od solidarity mechanisms District ownership
Decrease of neighbourhood violence Engagement dans des projets collectifs Citizen commitment
Improvement of family links Improvement of eduction Empowerment
Skills acquisition (parental) Facilitation to employment Food and income security Adoption of healthy behaviours Stimulated children’minds
Attractive urban environment Continuity between districts, cities, conurbation
Opening up of deprived areas Quality of environment
Preservation of natural spaces Integration of deprived areas Development of social links Improvement of social cohesion Broadening employment area
Improvement of life conditions (nutrition, housing, access to facilities)
Social rehabilitation and employment
Questions for impact assessment
What links between actions and impacts ? How estimating impacts?
12
EHESP
Model for outcome
↪ to make sense / area
Impact assessment matrix
(5 categories, 13 sub categories, 60 variables)
↪ to analyse factors influencing determinants
Selection
Scoping
Evaluation
Recommendations
Monitoring
evaluation
Logic models
↪to understand actions
Determinants
Potential impacts
(-3 to +3)
Probability
(poss, prob, cert)
So
urces of
data
Populations
(♀♂ children, vulnerables)Health
inequities
0 +1Individus
Lifestyles Life conditions CompetenciesCommunuties
Family relations Citizen engagment Solidarity networks Social support Social diversityPhysical environment
Quality of settings,climate, natural resources Urban settlement Transport, moving, mobility
Socioeco environment
Housing Employment, income Working conditions Land-usePublic services
Enfance, services sociaux
Global assessment
14
Some determinants affected, some not
Youth works in neigbourhood
15
EHESP
Actions very similar but opposite impacts
16
EHESP
Influence of context
Amélioration des infrastructures
Amélioration de l'accès aux services de base Développement des entreprises locales
Aménagement et entretien espaces verts Mise à disposition d’espaces collectifs Dynamisation économique du quartier
Pérennisation du développement éco Désenclavement du quartier
Diminution de l'extension urbaine
Valorisation des compétences quartier
Amélioration lien citoyens / entreprises Développement de mécanismes solidarité
Participation citoyenne / quartier Réinvestissement espaces résiduels Appropriation du quartier
Engagement dans des projets collectifs Mixité sociale et intergénérationnelle
Amélioration du niveau d'instruction Sensibilisation à la santé
Acquisition de compétences
Amélioration compétences parentales
Autonomisation des individus, mobilité
Facilitation accès ou retour à l'emploi
Sécurité alimentaire et des revenus Amélioration des comportements sains
Développement de l'éveil des enfants
Qualité de vie
Sentiment de sécurité, renforcement de la cohésion sociale, santé perçueSanté
Amélioration nutrition, diminution activité physique, estime de soiInégalités
Égalité H/F / emploiEnvironnement urbain attractif Qualité des milieux
Diminution îlots chaleur
Continuité quartiers, ville, agglo
Conservation espaces naturels
Désenclavement du quartier
Développement lien social proximité
Réduction de l’isolement Intégration espaces urbains Elargissement bassin emploi
Amélioration des conditions de vie
(alimentation, logement, retour à l’emploi, accès aux services)
Adoption comportements sains Sensibilisation
Jardins familiaux
(41 MPM)Printemps quartiers
(37-40 MPM)Club Ambition
(13-14 MPM)Micro crèches
(33 MPM)Centrale
mobilité
(27-29 MPM )Modèle PUI de MPM
Questions for recommendations
How make results useful for decision-makers, projects managers,
actions leaders?
18
EHESP
Selection
Scoping
Evaluation
Recommendations
Monitoring
evaluation
Questions
(determinants)Yes
How?
No
Possibility for
action? Y/N
Nth Negative
impacts?
To improve
Topics
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Capacity of the method to
meet the challenges
3
19
Difficulties/weaknesses
• Size of sample
(13 actions)
− but illustratives of diversity of strategies, actions
categories, every area context
• Not enough data
(specially from recipients)
− but coherence between empiric data and literature
• Quantification
of impacts
− sum for analysis (no difference/strength)
− no difference between strength and probability
• Reduction of inequities
− while projects are focused on deprived areas
20
Assets, strengths
Use of complementary tools
21
EHESP
Logic model
Swiss model for
outcome
Impacts matrix
Radar analysis
Action
Action
Projects
Action
Action(s)
Descriptive
Interactions
between impacts
Quantification,
qualification of
impacts
Targets of impacts
Social inequities
Type of impacts
Relative approach
Mechanisms
for change
Systemic vision
Focus on impacts
Distribution of
impacts
Lessons learned
Better understanding of impacts nature
• nature of each impact
− meaning about the neutrality (really or not)
• intensity
-
minor: weak? little probability? easy to mitigate?
• direction
− variability (+/-) with regards to the success of the action
− impacts ≠ on the same variables (role of context)
Systemic approach
− synergy of strategies
22
How doing better?
4
23
Questions
➜ Was the « action » the right unit of analysis?
➜ How better quantify the impacts?
➜ How better appreciate inequities?
➜ Did we avoid to fall into the trap of carrying out
projects evaluation (instead HIA)?
24
EHESP
