Integrated Environmental Health Impact Assessment for Risk Governance Purposes; Across What Do We Integrate?

Abstract

Integrated Environmental Health Impact Assessment (IEHIA) can be considered as an element in the third phase of environmental risk management. Its focus is on providing inclusive descriptions of multiple impacts from multiple stressors in such a way that they can be evaluated against the potential societal benefits of the causes of the stressors. This paper emphasises some differences and difficulties in the integration across professional paradigms and scientific fields, across stakeholder perspectives and differences in impact indicators that emanate from these different fields and paradigms.

Keywords: cognitive distance; economic costs of environmental health impact; environmental burden of disease; hierarchy of science; integrated environmental health impact assessment; risk governance; risk perception and acceptability.

Figure 1

Diagram of the structural framework of the National Research Council (NRC) risk assessment/risk management paradigm [8].

Figure 2

Structural framework of Integrated Environmental Health Impact Assessment (IEHIA) in relation to other forms of risk and impact assessment (from [21]).

Figure 3

Common public health framework (left from [25]) and environmental sciences DPSEEA (Driving force, Pressure, State, Exposure, Effect and Action) causal chain framework (right, after [22] from [2]).

Figure 4

Phases in the process of an Integrated Environmental Health Impact Assessment and associated use of conceptual frameworks [26].

Figure 5

Causal chain, governing physical, chemical and biological processes and evaluation of acceptability of relevant impacts in relation to intervention options within the legal, social, economic, and cultural settings.

Figure 6

Differences and commonalities in (aggregate) impact indicators from different perspectives relevant to Integrated Environmental Health Impact Assessment.

Figure 7

Branches of science and the hierarchy of science, mapped to the scale of the universe (from [35]).

Figure 8

Maps of science of from Fanelli and Glänzel [34] showing probability of sharing references (A); network of shared references (B) and networks by domain (C). Bibliographic coupling network of papers, partitioned by scientific domain (total N = 28,477; yellow = mathematics; blue = physical sciences; darker green = biological-hard sc.; lighter green = biological-soft sc.; red = social sc.; purple = humanities).

Figure 9

Maps of science showing clusters of journal-journal relatedness for major areas of science. Smaller labels denote the disciplinary topics of nearby large clusters of journals. (From [36]; reprinted by permission of Springer).

Figure 10

Co-citation analysis of reviewed literature on roles of scientists as policy advisors by different fields of science. (From [37]; reprinted by permission of Elsevier).

Figure 11

T-shaped skills of professionals [40].