Methodological challenges in HIA

Transcription

1 Methodological challenges in HIA A case study applied to urban policies in France Françoise Jabot, Anne Roué Le Gall 1

2 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

3 1 HIA applied on urban policy implemented in 3 metropoles (conurbations) 3

4 Five levels European funds Call for projects Call for projects European level National level Regional level Fostering urban regeneration and improving social cohesion Articulating urban and social policies on deprived urban areas (integrated approach of urban issues) Operational program (10 topics) Marseille metropole Toulon metropole Nice metropole Local plans (specific priorities) Integrated Urban Projects 57actions 21 actions 5 actions (all districts) (2 districts) (1 district) 4

5 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

6 2 Method: building adapted tools at every stage in a participatory way with stakeholders 6

7 Questions for scoping How dealing with the «Integrated urban projects? What approach (geographic, topics )? Selection Scoping Evaluation Recommendations Monitoring evaluation 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 7

8 Classification of actions with regards to european topics Actions within IUP European topics Facilities Delivery of services Development of facilities (childhood, shops, health ) Attractive urban environment Legislations Organisations Institutions Employment, entreprenariat Solidarity & urban continuity Urban heritage Urban regeneration Sustainable environment Continuity between districts, cities, conurbation Opening up of deprived areas Integration of deprived areas Better well being, quality of life, health Reduction of health inequalities Groups Communities Social relationships Citizen engagment Development of social ties Improvement of social cohesion Individuals Instruction Mobility, accessibility Improvment of life conditions Social rehabilitation and employment Adapted from the Swiss model for outcome 8

9 UIP Actions Equiping premisses and services (driving school, drugstore ) Creation of facilities (childhood, social shops ) Neigbourhood stores Urban regeneration policies Creation of business networks Transports and moving Cultural events Youth works in districts Home gardens Social mediations Community actions Trainings Support fo mobility Support for employment Stimulation of children Social support 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 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 Better well being, quality of life, health 9 Reduction of health inequalities

10 The more preferred actions 10

11 Childhood facilities (M) Mobility support (M) Cyberbase (T) Drugstore (N) Driving school (N) Social store (N) Support to employment (M) Micro credits (T) Home gardens (M) Youth works (clean ups) (M) Community gardens (T) Youth works (cultural event) (T) Training sessions and support (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 Improvement of skills Well Being Qualiy of life Health Equity on health

12 Questions for impact assessment What links between actions and impacts? How estimating impacts? Selection Scoping Evaluation Recommendations Monitoring evaluation Logic models to understand actions Impact assessment matrix (5 categories, 13 sub categories, 60 variables) to analyse factors influencing determinants Dalgren & Whitehead model Model for outcome to make sense / area 12

13 Determinants Potential impacts (-3 to +3) Probability (poss, prob, cert) Sources of data Populations ( children, vulnerables) Health inequities 0 +1 Individus Lifestyles Life conditions Competencies Communuties Family relations Citizen engagment Solidarity networks Social support Social diversity Physical environment Quality of settings, climate, natural resources Urban settlement Transport, moving, mobility Socioeco environment Housing Employment, income Working conditions Land-use Public services Enfance, services sociaux 13

14 Global assessment 14

15 Some determinants affected, some not Youth works in neigbourhood Authenticity of neutral impacts? 15

16 Actions very similar but opposite impacts Community or family gardens Influence of context 16

17 Micro crèches (33 MPM) Centrale mobilité (27-29 MPM ) Club Ambition (13-14 MPM) Jardins familiaux (41 MPM) Printemps quartiers (37-40 MPM) 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 Modèle PUI de MPM Environnement 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 Qualité de vie Sentiment de sécurité, renforcement de la cohésion sociale, santé perçue Santé Amélioration nutrition, diminution activité physique, estime de soi Inégalités Égalité H/F / emploi

18 Questions for recommendations How make results useful for decision-makers, projects managers, actions leaders? 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 18

19 3 Capacity of the method to meet the challenges 19

20 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

21 Assets, strengths Use of complementary tools Logic model Action Descriptive Mechanisms for change Swiss model for outcome Action Projects Interactions between impacts Impacts matrix Action Quantification, qualification of impacts Targets of impacts Social inequities Radar analysis Action(s) Type of impacts Relative approach Systemic vision Focus on impacts Distribution of impacts Context influences 21

22 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

23 4 How doing better? 23

24 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)? Thanks to the working group members and all participants for their contribution in this study. 24