Evaluation Report
For
Central Dunedin Speed
Restriction
Health Impact Assessment
2011
Prepared by Emma O’Neill, Dunedin City Council.
-1-
HIA Evaluation Report
Executive Summary .......................................................................3
Introduction ..................................................................................4
What is HIA?.................................................................................. 4
Background to Central Dunedin Speed Restriction HIA ........................ 4
Goal and objectives of Central Dunedin Speed Restriction HIA ............. 5
Recommendations of the Central Dunedin Speed Restriction HIA .......... 5
Evaluation objectives ....................................................................8
Evaluation approach ....................................................................... 8
Results of the Data collection ...................................................... 10
Observation of HIA process ........................................................... 10
HIA workshops ............................................................................. 10
Review of relevant HIA documentation ............................................ 11
Key stakeholder interviews ............................................................ 12
Time recording ............................................................................. 12
Data analysis ............................................................................... 13
The process evaluation results ....................................................... 13
Discussion ................................................................................... 15
Lessons Learnt ............................................................................19
Conclusion ................................................................................... 19
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Health Impact Assessments (HIA) are applied to draft proposals and use a collection of
tools to predict the health impacts and consequences, to ascertain whether positive
impacts can be amplified and negative impacts mitigated against.
The Dunedin City Council (DCC) and Public Health South (PHS) undertook an HIA of a
proposed extension of the 30km/hour speed limit zone in Dunedin’s city centre. The
work was partly funded from the Ministry of Health’s (MoH) ‘Learning by Doing’ fund and
undertaken between January and June 2010.
The HIA project team formulated several sets of recommendations based on evidence
gathered during the HIA process. These recommendations were for specific agencies –
DCC, Otago Regional Council and MoH. Recommendations included operational,
engineering and policy measures.
An obligatory evaluation of the HIA process was undertaken. Data collection methods for
the evaluation were: participant observation and evaluations of workshops, documentary
analysis and interviews with key stakeholders.
Key strengths identified through this evaluation included the quality of information
brought to the process, particularly through the Literature Review; and the forging
of a positive working relationship between the DCC and PHS.
Key issues were identified that could be applied to help improve HIA for future
projects when the process is new for an organisation. These included assigning an
external mentor, providing clear and succinct communication guidelines and
evaluating when or if HIA is applicable to a project in view to size and resources
available.
The MoH “Learning by Doing” fund enabled an inexperienced project team from both
organisations to understand the HIA process and identify when this process would be
applicable in future projects. This project resulted in significant learning experiences and
strengthening of individual skill sets for project team from the DCC and PHS.
3
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of a formative, process and impact evaluation of a
Health Impact Assessment (HIA) on a proposed extension of the 30km/hour speed limit
zone into selected streets (the zone) in Dunedin’s city centre.
The report gives a brief background to HIA and to the proposed expansion of the zone in
central Dunedin. It outlines the aims and objectives of the HIA applied to Dunedin zone;
evaluates data collection methods and results, and makes recommendations.
An obligatory evaluation of the HIA process was undertaken which is outlined in detail in
this report and provides key recommendations for future undertakings.
BACKGROUND
What is HIA?
Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a tool endorsed by the World Health Organisation.
HIA has been practised in Europe for almost a decade with the UK, Finland and the
Netherlands among others being major proponents.
Health Impact Assessment is applied to draft proposals and uses a collection of tools to
predict the health impacts and consequences and to ascertain whether the positive
impacts can be amplified and the negative impacts mitigated against. HIA also helps
organisations to identify whether the possible effects of the policy affect one group more
than another and helps provide clarity around planning to meet a diversity of needs.
HIA helps to encourage a broader and longer-term focus, rather than short-term, and
fosters interagency collaboration and inclusion. Its aim is to deliver evidence-based
recommendations to inform the decision-making process.
Background to Central Dunedin Speed Restriction HIA
The Central Dunedin Speed Restriction HIA (the HIA) took place between January and
June 2010. The Dunedin City Council (DCC) initiated and the work which was partly
funded from the Ministry of Health’s (MoH) Learning by Doing fund. The DCC led the HIA
in partnership with Public Health South (PHS) which contributed in-kind.
The subject of this HIA was identified during a conversation between the Transportation
Operations Department of the DCC and Iain McCauley, Principal Adviser/Scientist at the
Ministry of Transport, during which it was realised that no evidence of the health and
wellbeing effects of a reduction in speed limits existed in New Zealand. Staff members of
both the DCC and PHS had completed HIA training and were keen to collaborate on the
production of a meaningful contribution to knowledge of public health in NZ.
The DCC's decision to carry out an HIA was a direct result of funding being made
available by the MoH, an awareness of HIA through staff already trained in the approach
and a renewed level of interest by Council in the future of the central city area based on
feedback received through Community Plan submissions.
The central city area sees the traffic of a large number of pedestrians on a daily basis.
These pedestrians are travelling to and from work and school. They are travelling to the
library, bank and to shop and eat in the retail area. At night-time they are walking to
bars, restaurant, cinemas and theatres. Some are using the central city area as a route
to another destination.
4
The area is also used by a large number of vehicles on a daily basis. These comprise:
those vehicles in transit through the area, public buses (874 buses pass through Octagon
daily), taxis, courier and delivery vans and those vehicles whose drivers wish to park in
the area for shopping, visiting the library etc. Bicycle users also cycle through the area
for the reasons listed above. The central city area is the drop off point for tourists from
the cruise ships – these ships arrive with a regular frequency throughout the year and
deposit a large number of tourists within the city centre. Dunedin Hospital, Dunedin
Police headquarters and St John Ambulance headquarters are located with the area.
School children pass through the area before and after school, especially Otago Girls
School and Otago boys School pupils.
Goal and objectives of Central Dunedin Speed Restriction HIA
The overall aim of the HIA is to support informed decision-making around the further
development of the draft plan and implementation of the final proposal.
The HIA’s objectives are to:
1. Assess the links between city centre traffic speed, health determinants for
Dunedin citizens and their health and wellbeing outcomes
2. Gain an understanding of the perceived effects by community stakeholders of
reducing traffic speed in the selected streets
3. Identify the potential positive impacts on health and wellbeing, and strategies to
enhance them
4. Identify the potential negative impacts on health and wellbeing, and strategies to
reduce or mitigate those impacts
5. Identify existing inequalities in health and wellbeing outcomes for relevant
selected groups in the population
6. Make recommendations that will enhance potential positive impacts on health and
reduce the negative impacts along with measures to mitigate those that cannot
be avoided
7. Make recommendations on how to reduce health inequalities.
Recommendations of the Central Dunedin Speed Restriction HIA:
Recommendations to DCC:
Recommendation 1
That the extended zone be implemented by the DCC as part of the Central City
Strategy.
Recommendation 2
That a range of engineering and other measures that encourage pedestrian use and
increase their safety are implemented by the DCC e.g. Barnes Dances; wider
pavements; raised carriageways, with emphasis on entry treatments.
Recommendation 3
That DCC investigates the opportunity/need to have more “intensive” measures in
areas with high crash rates taking account of time distributions e.g. outside Meridian.
That in relation to this, the DCC takes into account the different traffic profile of St
Andrew Street.
Recommendation 4
That DCC considers the introduction of traffic management measures to encourage
smooth traffic flow in order to reduce emissions. That in support of emission
5
reduction, the DCC investigates methods of managing destination versus through
traffic.
Recommendation 5
That the DCC increase pavement width and amenity to improve access, social
interaction and usability.
Recommendation 6
That the DCC uses a range of methods to support and encourage walking and
cycling in the area, e.g. by providing safe and convenient crossing points in suitable
locations, providing facilities at destinations e.g. cycle parking, reallocating road
space to cyclists and pedestrians, urban design and amenity improvements that
make cycling and walking more appealing and enjoyable, including public art, inlaid
mosaics, sculpture and so on.
Recommendation 7
That the DCC considers an extension of the zone to increase safety for school
children in/around View Street, Smith Street and York Place.
Recommendations to the Otago Regional Council:
Recommendation 8
That the DCC and the Otago Regional Council work together to consider alternative
passenger transport routes in the central area (to help reduce emissions) and provide
more “hub” based approach to services for ease of use.
Recommendation 9
That the Otago Regional Council amends bus contracts to increase penalties for not
conforming to requirements for noise and exhaust emissions and/or require
passenger transport vehicles to elevate the exhaust.
Recommendations to the MoH, Ministry of Transport, New Zealand Transport Authority,
Ministry for the Environment and Environmental Protection Agency:
Recommendation 10
That the Ministry of Transport and NZTA separate noise and exhaust emission
standards for the passenger service vehicles from those for heavy vehicles in New
Zealand.
Recommendation 11
That the MoH/Ministry for the Environment/Environmental Protection Agency/NZTA
and Ministry of Transport work together to devise a more stringent set of passenger
transport emission standards. This revised set should be suitable for use in those
areas of high pedestrian density.
Recommendation 12
That the Ministry of Transport research safety and amenity benefits arising from the
introduction of 30km/hr zones in both central city shopping areas and school zone
areas and develop a New Zealand evidence base of health and well-being effects of
the introduction of 30km/hr speed limits.
Recommendation for PHS and DCC:
6
Recommendation 13
That an investigation into the value of a Memorandum of Understanding between
DCC and PHS whereby projects of interest are identified early on for potential HIA’s
be undertaken.
7
EVALUATION OBJECTIVES
The HIA Team aimed to undertake and report on a formative, a process and an impact
evaluation of the HIA process used to inform the development of the draft plan to lower
the speed limit in selected parts of the central city area.
The HIA team had the following evaluation objectives:
a)
b)
c)
d)
refine and improve the HIA using formative evaluation to describe the background
to and actual HIA process including its participants
to determine, in terms of process:
 If the objectives of the HIA were met
 The strengths of the HIA process
 The constraints of the HIA process
 Possible ways the HIA process could have been improved
 The resources used throughout the HIA process and whether they were used
effectively
In terms of impact:
 The impact of the HIA on the decision-makers
 If the HIA added value to the planning process? If so in what ways?
 Whether the draft plan was changed as a result of conducting the HIA
 If the recommendations were / weren’t taken on board and why / why weren’t
they and the consequences of this
 Any unintended consequences (negative or positive) that resulted from the
HIA.
With regards to overall issues the evaluation aimed to identify:
 What key lessons can be taken from the HIA for the DCC and other potential
users of this procedure
 Whether and how HIA can be built into the DCC planning and development
processes
Evaluation approach
The evaluator worked with the HIA team and an independent facilitator throughout the
process.
The evaluation approach used the following methods for its data collection, analysis and
reporting processes:
1. Determine from the outset, with the HIA team, what key background documents
and data are required to inform the evaluation, e.g. the draft plan, record of time
spent, meeting and workshop minutes and all documents and reports emanating
from HIA
2. Analyse the above documents and data to inform the description and review of
the HIA’s process and impact
3. Prepare post scoping and appraisal workshop evaluation forms (questionnaires)
4. Review data from the HIA’s screening session
5. Attend the HIA’s scoping workshop, distribute, collect and analyse workshop
participants’ evaluation forms and review the HIA’s scoping report
6. Attend the HIA’s appraisal workshop(s), distribute and collect the workshop
participants’ evaluation forms, and review the HIA’s appraisal workshop reports
7. Participate and reflect on the process of any key planning meetings
(teleconferences, meetings following scoping and appraisal meetings)
8. Conduct eight to 10 key participants face-to-face or telephone interviews to
determine the overall value and effectiveness of the HIA’s process and impact
8
following conclusion of HIA i.e. when decision-making regarding the HIA’s
recommendations is completed.
9
RESULTS OF THE DATA COLLECTION
Observation of HIA process
Various meetings and discussions initiated the HIA process. These were generally held at
DCC, whiteboards were used for recording ideas, and minutes were distributed following
meetings.
The initial screening meeting considered that the benefits from the expansion of the zone
could not be fully identified, and it was considered that using HIA would better inform
decision making. Following this, the project team and roles within it were identified. As
experience of HIA was very limited within the project team, an understanding of time
commitments for various roles was also limited. Following the initial screening session
and commitment of funding for the project, an external facilitator was utilised which was
extremely beneficial to the team.
The project team had difficulty in finding an evaluator at reasonably short notice and
decided on an experienced peer reviewer and an inexperienced evaluator. Due to this,
the formal reporting of the evaluation process was behind schedule.
HIA workshops
Scoping Workshop
The project team and key stakeholders were invited to a scoping workshop. The
workshop was held in an accessible, central location, there was plenty of light and space
and adequate refreshments were provided. There was a formal seating layout and formal
presentations with an opportunity to informally meet and talk, plus introductions at the
beginning of the session so everyone had an opportunity to meet each other.
Presentations made by members of the project team included:
 The key findings of the literature review;
 Examples of urban design and how streetscape can play a part in slowing traffic
speeds down and making a more pedestrian focused environment;
 Crash data for Dunedin, both pedestrian and vehicular; and
 A community profile.
The aim of the scoping workshop was to address the following questions:
a. What determinants of health/wellbeing are most affected by this proposal – and
should be the focus of the HIA
b. Which population groups are most likely to be affected by this proposal– and
should be the focus of the HIA
c. Are there any particular components of 30kph zone that the HIA should focus on
or should it cover the whole?
d. What are the aims and objectives of the HIA?
e. Who must be involved to make this a success?
f. What are some immediate sources of evidence that we can think of?
g. How will the HIA outcomes be fed back to the decision makers?
h. What
are the timeframes
for
the proposal
and
what
resources
(people/money/skills) are available to contribute to the HIA?
The questions were addressed following the presentations, through facilitated discussion.
10
Appraisal workshop
The project team and a range of stakeholders were invited to an appraisal workshop held
at the same location as the scoping workshop. The workshop outlined what an HIA aims
to do, outlined how the zone could be achieved, gave an overview of the literature
review and an overview of crash data. Participants broke into discussion two groups, one
concerned with senior citizens and visitors, the other with youth, preschoolers and
visitors.
Both groups would discuss the following to consider the effect of a speed reduction to
30km/hr on:
1. Physical activity.
2. Community activities and public affairs.
3. Personal safety.
The group discussing “senior citizens and visitors” was made up of representatives from:
 Age Concern, Grey Power; Living Streets, Disability Information Service, Citibus,
the DCC Transportation Planning and Transportation Operations, PHS, HairRaiser
Tours Guided Walks, and New Zealand Transport Agency. The group addressed
the following questions:
The group discussing “youth, pre-schoolers and visitors” was made up of representatives
from:
 Spokes Dunedin, Living Streets, Youth Action Council, University Proctor, Campus
Watch, York Place Preschool, the DCC Urban Design and PHS. The group
addressed the following questions:
There were a number of representatives from different community sectors that were
unable to attend the workshop. The project manager organised alternative sessions with
these stakeholders. In the case of young people this was more appropriate and relevant
than them attending the main workshop. The DCC and PHS subsequently contacted
those who had been unable to attend and visited them to ascertain their evidence on
extending the 30km/hr zone. Workshop participants provided evaluation feedback. The
template of questions and a summary of feedback from both workshops are attached as
Appendices 1 and 2. The feedback is discussed in the Data Analysis chapter of this
report.
Review of relevant HIA documentation
Literature Review
The literature review was completed early on in the process, prior to the scoping
workshop. This was advantageous as the project team and other participants were given
a good background to some of the issues and some of the findings. The literature review
was considered by the project team and scoping workshop participants as a very high
quality document - thorough research and a quality deliverable in the HIA process.
The literature review looked at the impacts of traffic speed on health and wellbeing,
particularly through researching:
 road injuries;
 social connectedness;
 active lifestyles;
 equity and cultural diversity;
 economic development; and
 the environment.
11
The key findings of the literature include:
 a link between a drop in speed and a drop in numbers and severity of accidents;
 a link between reduced speeds and transport noise levels;
 the economic benefits of links between reduced speeds limits and shifts to other
transport modes – particularly the retailing benefits of more people walking
around the area;
 the negative impacts of increased speeds on social connectedness; and
 indirect examples of links between traffic speed and physical activity.
The HIA report
A report was written clearly presenting the process and findings of the HIA. The report
made clear detailed reference to qualitative and quantitative research undertaken
through the process. The project team and stakeholders involved in the process all had
an opportunity to view and comment on the report – either directly or through
evaluation interviews.
Key stakeholder interviews
Interviews were carried out with six direct participants in the process from the DCC and
PHS and the external facilitator. One community stakeholder involved with the process
was also interviewed.
Interview questions were benchmarked from other HIA evaluation processes and then
tested against this HIA’s evaluation objectives to ensure appropriateness. Questions
asked for consideration of the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of the HIA
process.
Interview questions and interviewees’ responses are attached as Appendix 3. The
responses are discussed in the Data Analysis chapter of this report.
Time recording
Project team members kept a timesheet of hours spent through the process. A total 659
hours were spent on the HIA process. This excludes time spent on a peer review of final
report, or on a peer review of the evaluation report.
The anticipated time commitment for the project team was significantly less than that
actually spent on the process; the reasons for this are discussed further in the Data
Analysis chapter.
12
DATA ANALYSIS
The process evaluation results
The objectives of the process evaluation were to assess whether this HIA achieved its
objectives, to identify successes and identify opportunities for improvements in the
process. The following analysis is based on observations, participants’ formal evaluation
feedback on workshops, and feedback from participants’ interviews.
Development of the HIA, and the screening phase
Developing the application for MoH funding essentially became a part of the HIA
screening phase. The initial application was declined because the project did not meet
the Ministry’s Request for Proposal criteria. The project team revised the application to
include a more focused proposal with more a commitment to meet funding deadlines;
this application received funding and the project commenced at pace.
The key areas that participants identified as weaknesses of the process could have been
mitigated, during this early development of the HIA. These areas include better clarity
and expectation of the HIA process, roles and time allocation required.
Evaluation interviewees considered that the proposal was not a stand alone project; that
in the future an HIA would be better suited to a proposal with imminent implementation.
One suggestion was that the HIA process would be more applicable to highly detailed
design of a proposal or for a set of design options for a proposal.
An external facilitator was commissioned on receipt of funding. This was particularly
valuable as the project team was not experience with the HIA process. Their role was to
guide the team through the process. The external facilitator was extremely valuable in
steering the process, and the team now have experience of the HIA process for future
application.
The project team worked well together and feedback was given on the enthusiasm of
participants to get the process moving.
Time commitments generally was a significant issue for all direct participants, and
possibly a more realistic expectation could have been sought at the start of the process,
or the process could have been refined slightly. An associated weakness with this was
the lack of a strategic lead-in for the process, resulting in an inability for participants to
reorganise other core work.
Feedback was that a better explanation of the process could have been made, or shared,
to direct participants at the start.
Scoping phase
Scoping Workshop attendees gave feedback on the session; a summary of this is
presented as Appendix 1.
Key points from participants’ feedback were when asked whether the session met its
stated objectives, the average response was 3 (on a scale of 1 ‘not at all’ to a possible
5).
Attendees were asked whether they found the session interesting and whether they were
likely to use the content of the session; both were highly rated with an average of 4 (on
13
a scale of 1 ‘not at all’ to a possible 5). Other general comments on the workshop
included:






The session could have been better planned and facilitated.
The session could have covered more in the time / could have been shorter.
The session could have had less time on presentations, and more on the process
of HIA and what was the session trying to be achieved.
Some of the debate that took place could have taken place by email afterwards.
It would have been better to have feedback straight afterwards or the following
day.
The literature review was very good.
Appraisal phase
Appraisal Workshop attendees gave feedback on the session; a summary of this is
presented as Appendix 2.
Feedback on the Appraisal Workshop was that it was much better planned and facilitated
than the Scoping Workshop. Attendees rated the session as meeting its objectives with
an average of 4 on a scale of 1 – 5 (1 being ‘not at all’). Feedback on how the workshop
could have been improved was that it was a great session with less need for
improvement than the scoping session.
Attendees were asked whether they found the session interesting and whether they were
likely to use the content of the session; both were highly rated with an average of 4 (on
a scale of 1 ‘not at all’ to a possible 5). Generally participants gained knowledge from
the session and found it productive.
14
DISCUSSION
Did the HIA achieve what it set out to?
The HIA assessed the links between city centre traffic speed, health determinants for
Dunedin citizens and their health and wellbeing outcomes. Ongoing reference was made
to evaluation material in order to improve on process at each phase.
Through the Literature Review and the Appraisal Workshops, the project team gained a
good understanding of the perceived effects by community stakeholders of reducing
traffic speed in the zone. Consultation of targeted groups in more appropriate forums
following the main Appraisal Workshop enabled the project team to target questions to
those specific groups. The DCC and PHS staff who carried out these extra workshops felt
they revealed information that would otherwise not have been forthcoming and that a
more quality consultation process was achieved as a result.
Ultimately the HIA made a series of recommendations to enhance potential positive
impacts on health and to reduce the negative impacts. It proposed measures to mitigate
impacts that cannot be avoided, and made recommendations on how to reduce health
inequalities. Participant’s feedback was positive in respect to the HIA generally achieving
its objectives.
1. Assess the links between city centre traffic speed, health determinants
for Dunedin citizens and their health and wellbeing outcomes
There was a focus on assessing these links throughout the HIA process - Literature
Review, workshops and HIA report. Recommendations made addressed these links.
2. Gain an understanding of the perceived effects by community
stakeholders of reducing traffic speed in the selected streets
The consultation undertaken did highlight specific areas of potential expansion of the
zone. Consultation also revealed information that might not otherwise have been taken
into consideration, for instance: the unique nature of traffic use in St Andrew Street and
the resultant need to deal with it differently; and the impact of noise and exhaust
emissions on pedestrian activity. The HIA may have given additional leverage to pushing
the Central City Strategy proposal further in the future.
3. Identify the potential positive impacts on health and wellbeing, and
strategies to enhance them
And
4. Identify the potential negative impacts on health and wellbeing, and
strategies to reduce or mitigate those impacts
The Literature Review flagged a breadth of new material in the area of transport related
HIA and was well utilised in the stakeholder workshops and the rest of the HIA.
Presentations at workshops included a variety of statistical transport related data,
summaries of material from the Literature Review as well as various design related
examples of traffic speed control measures. This combination of information and ideas
gave stakeholders and the project team a strong platform of material to focus in on, in
identifying the key impacts of the proposal.
15
Some unintended impacts of the proposal were identified through consultation, for
example the boy racers being pushed out of the town, and teenage girls feeling more
comfortable and therefore more likely to use the town centre as a result.
5. Identify existing inequalities in health and wellbeing outcomes for
relevant selected groups in the population
And
6. Make recommendations that will enhance potential positive impacts on
health and reduce the negative impacts along with measures to mitigate
those that cannot be avoided
And
7. Make recommendations on how to reduce health inequalities
Recommendations made vary from traffic engineering actions, to urban design concepts,
to strategic policy direction. All recommendations made are aimed at enhancing positive
health impacts, reducing negative health impacts or reducing health inequalities.
8. Did the process develop capacity within Dunedin for HIA?
The DCC and PHS working together potentially created a springboard for future HIA
processes. More people are now aware of and have a better understanding of HIA
process and associated benefits. Whilst the process has set the infrastructure in place in
terms of forging relationships between DCC and PHS, this could have been done through
alternative means.
Feedback from participants did not give a strong message that HIA referenced
approaches would likely be used on a regular or a routine basis for transport planning
proposals. The process was not ‘trusted’ enough yet, and concern shared for how it
might be applied to a more complex proposal.
It was not clear whether buy-in from senior management of each organisation had been
sought, partially because senior management were not represented on the project
group, and were unlikely to be represented given the time constraints. In the case of the
DCC the nascent status of the Central City Strategy meant it was not yet appropriate for
involvement by senior management. As an issue this was separate to the HIA objective,
whereby involvement of senior management is sought. The HIA process identified this
disconnect.
How effectively were resources used in the process?
The major resource that was used was people hours. All people hours were necessary
and effective, but the number of people hours required was significantly under-estimated
at the beginning of the process. Because people lacked a good understanding of the
process, there was also a lack of ability to plan ahead to an extent. An observation of
the workload of participants and consequent re-allocation of tasks (both by the project
manager and by individuals) would have improved the process. There has been no cost
benefit analysis of this HIA. The time and resources used by stakeholders other than
direct the DCC and PHS participants were not taken into account. The time constraints
of the process meant that there was little opportunity for stakeholders to consult their
own organisations or groups and feed any input back into the process.
16
In terms of their skills and input, the right people from organisations were involved, the
DCC and PHS staff were utilised effectively. Stakeholders represented a good variety of
organisations and sectors of the community.
Facilities and material resources were well utilised, workshops were held in central,
accessible locations, presentations and overheads were clear, whiteboards were utilised
to make clear notes of key points raised.
Strengths of the HIA process
As discussed a key strength was the quality of information bought to the process
particularly through the Literature Review and through workshop presentations.
Early in the process the DCC had highlighted a need for improved methods/levels of
consultation and this process appeared to provide that.
The impact of HIA on decision makers
There was no senior management from the DCC or PHS represented on the project team
or directly involved through the process. The recommended actions for decision makers
in a number of organisations are yet to be taken up and therefore cannot be evaluated
at present.
Were the recommendations taken on board?
It is too early to establish whether the various recommendations made will be taken on
board or not. However the recommended opportunities for the Central City Strategy are
timely and have been included for consideration in the Research and Analysis, and
Issues and Opportunities phases of the Central City Strategy programme.
The impacts of the HIA are unknown because the proposal to expand the zone is still a
proposal. There is an opportunity to strengthen the evaluation process by using NZTA’s
Community Street Audit resource as a before and after tool. This tool requires a full
audit of a street-scape and the difference between the before and after audits would
provide valuable information as to how effective the recommendations had proved.
Constraints of the HIA process
The time-scale and time requirements of the HIA process were major constraints. The
project team were inexperienced in HIA process and a lack of clarity around the process
and expectations made planning ahead difficult.
Possible areas for improvement
The evaluation suggests that being able to plan a strategic lead-in to the process would
improve it significantly for direct participants. Simple explanations of the HIA process at
each stage of the process would be beneficial in the future, as would clarity around roles
and time commitments at an early stage in the process.
Suggested areas for improvement around stakeholder involvement are that the process
should enable stakeholders attending workshops, and stakeholders consulted in a
smaller forum, to have equal opportunity for level of input to the process. Another
improvement would be time allocated in the process for stakeholders to go and consult
their own groups or communities to feed their input back into the process; this would
also raise the profile and benefits of HIA more widely.
17
The evaluation suggests including senior management representation directly in the
process to get high level buy in.
18
LESSONS LEARNT

HIA provides organisations with a framework for considering health issues at an
early stage of a proposal.

The time consuming – and therefore relatively high cost – of undertaking HIA
due to the amount of consultation undertaken suggests this process is more
suitable for major policy developments rather than smaller proposals.

HIA may not always be the most appropriate tool for the project; consideration
should be given as to what the best tool might be to consult groups on a
proposal, and to promote health issues around a proposal.

When HIA is new to an organisation, external mentoring and simple and clear
explanation of expectations through the process is necessary.

At the screening phase it is important to consider the scale of the HIA and the
proposal, alongside the resources and time available to the organisations.

A resource for lay people that explains HIA concepts simply would be useful for
people new to the process. Clear simple explanation and context setting of the
HIA process, at the beginning of the screening, scoping and appraisal workshops
helps to ensure understanding of expectations.

A realistic time-scale for the process needs to be sought, including opportunity
between workshops for stakeholders to consult their own groups and feed back
into the process.

If HIA were planned for as part of organisations’ work programmes, a strategic
lead-in period might be sought so that work programmes do not suffer as a
result.

Direct involvement from senior management would assist in high level buy-in
and help overcome hurdles to embed HIA as part of planning processes for the
organisation.

HIA could be communicated internally
understanding of it is more widespread.
through
organisation
so
that
CONCLUSION
The MoH’s “Learning by Doing” fund enabled a project team inexperienced in HIA to
undertake an HIA which resulted in significant learning experiences and a forging of
relationships between the DCC and PHS. However, there may have been other more cost
effective ways of forging these relationships. The HIA enabled staff to strengthen their
skill sets.
The inclusion of health determinants defined in this HIA into the development of a
Central City Strategy increases the opportunity for a healthy central city environment,
and healthier users of the urban environment. The proposed expansion of the speed limit
zone is one proposal within the Central City Strategy. There may be other proposals
within the Central City Strategy of which the application of an HIA might be more
appropriate and cost effective.
19
References
 Flaherty C and Lynch E. 2010. Central Dunedin Speed Restriction Health Impact
Assessment Report. Prepared in partnership with DCC and PHS with the
assistance of M. Ward.

McClennan V and Signal L. 2009. Health impact Assessment on Draft Hastings
District Council Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: the results of a process and impact
evaluation.

McClennan V and Signal L. 2009. Health Impact Assessment on the Wairoa
District Council’s Draft Waste Management Activity plan: the results of a process
and impact evaluation.

Public Health Advisory Committee. 2005. Second Edition. A Guide to Health
Impact Assessment: A policy tool for New Zealand.
Appendices
1. Scoping Workshop Feedback
2. Appraisal Workshop feedback
3. Summary of interviews
20
Appendix 1
Appendix 1: Scoping Workshop - Summary of Participants’ Feedback
Workshop feedback
Feedback question
a
b
c
d
Today’s session met its
stated objectives or
intention.
I personally found the
session interesting
I am likely to use the
content of the session
The session provided
me with new
information &
understandings:
e
I could apply or pass on
the new information in
following ways:
f
Something I will do
differently as a result of
attending the session is:
g
The session could have
been improved by:
Comments
Scale 1-5
5 being
highest
Mean 3
Mean 4
Mean 4















PHS gave me better understanding of impacts of speed limit on health through lit
review presentation.
Information on severity of crash information connected to speed.
Thought provoking discussion on city centre users.
Gauging the thoughts of the area users provided most worthwhile information.
That there are different ways to change driver behaviour other than speed limits.
Include information as evidence demonstrating the likely benefits of change.
Designing safety projects for vulnerable users.
Talking to community groups about active transport.
Possibly change own driving habits.
Think in more structured way about what the impacts of different transportation
planning decisions might have on people’s health.
Use information regarding severity of injury compared to speed, in presentations
to user groups, to emphasise need for careful behaviour.
Avoid arguing about the meaning of ‘population group’
More guidance as to what is acceptable for an HIA.
Clearer viewpoint given about what are priority community sectors – most
vulnerable or majority?
Being more organised at the beginning.
21




Other comments







Being longer, to cover more ground in the latter part of the meeting.
Better planning and facilitation.
Less time on presentations – some doubled up on info.
Should have spent more time on establishing who most affected not talking
about traffic calming measures- this could be discussed if and when a 30km zone
is agreed upon.
Being shorter.
Starting earlier, finishing late had expensive impact, end session was rushed.
Left feeling quite confused about potentially onerous process.
Literature review was very good.
It was a rush to decide who the key stakeholders were which meant lots of
emailing afterwards. This debate should have taken place in the workshop, so we
all had clear direction where HIA was heading.
There was little discussion around health outcomes.
Would have been better to get feedback forms same or following day.
22
Appendix 2: Appraisal Workshop – Summary of Participants’ Feedback
Workshop feedback
a
b
c
d
Feedback
question
Today’s session met
its stated objectives
or intention.
I personally found
the session
interesting
I am likely to use
the content of the
session
The session
provided me with
new information &
understandings:
Comments
Scale 1-5
5 being
highest
Mean
4
Mean
4
Mean
4














Influence of parked cars on risk assessment.
Visibility issues created by parked cars for pedestrians.
Effect that lower speeds might have on people who drive from place to place
within city centre – might walk instead.
Being better able to fine tune literature review.
The ability to change behaviour so largely with seemingly unrelated
environmental changes.
Other points of view.
The importance of design in influencing pedestrian behaviour.
The importance of the inter-relation between different groups.
Understanding the ‘project’ but realising how much its success depends on other
aspects of traffic management.
A better understanding of what was being attempted.
Opinions and thoughts from the groups selected – good!
Importance of seeing others’ perspectives e.g. young people.
Mainly helpful to understand the process.
The beginning of a process such as this.
23

e
I could apply or
pass on the new
information in
following ways:















f
Something I will do
differently as a
result of attending
the session is:










Accident spots and future thinking regarding the possible methods of reducing
risk for students at university.
Bus drivers’ perspective.
Elderly perspective.
Evidence / argument to support the proposal.
Via literature review.
Information can be generalised to my own work.
Can use information to help inform / educate people using my service.
I will use the accident statistics.
Working with advocacy groups to facilitate positive input in this vein.
In my work – debating issues with NZTA.
More discussion at meetings with similar people.
Recognise that this is ongoing process and need to be involved at every step of
the way.
Pass information on to my work place.
Circulating newsletters & discussion with clients.
Training sessions for Campus Watch staff at the University of Otago.
To those seeking information on Dunedin’s health or disability services etc,
verbally, newsletters etc.
Have a more robust proposal, better preparation.
Wish we’d had more input from / connection with schools.
Don’t think it will make me do anything radically different, but all discussion and
experience informs future discussions / behaviour.
Liaise more effectively with the DCC staff who are working towards more
intelligent transport solutions – creating shared spaces etc.
Rethink how I would present my thoughts.
Scale and severity was a little confusing, perhaps might have ranked (ie.
Everyone stick a post-it on issue of most importance).
Remember how important and wide ranging health impacts are.
Think more about what is happening about this work.
Observe what is happening now to think about what could change in the future.
Encourage people to come into the CBD.
24
g
The session could
have been improved
by:
Other comments















Ensuring participants are better prepared.
Moving faster through the impacts – process quite boring by time got to 3rd
health determinant – and session on this impact was a bit too long.
Having young people would have been better.
More big picture discussion.
More depth, sharing of background material, more focus on controversy.
Should have focused on the benefits for car owners as well.
Would benefit from a bigger picture discussion.
Input by these ‘users’ affected – e.g. elderly individuals not just organisations.
All good.
It was great as is.
Fantastic session – great listening to others’ comments.
Need more options than reducing speed – I believe slowing drivers down makes
little difference, removing cars from city centre and improving PT would make far
greater difference.
Quite happy with the session.
Everyone was very respectful about the proposal which was excellent.
Went better than last meeting – well done everyone who organised it!
25
Appendix 3: Summary of Interviews
Summary of interviews with direct participants
Questions on HIA process:
1. Based
on
your
experience what were the
main strengths of the
HIA process?
2. Based
on
your
experience,
can
you
identify weaknesses of
the HIA process?

























3. What do you think could
have
been
done
to
improve the HIA process?









Useful illustration of how to apply principles of HIA.
Drew attention to health issues early on.
Having a framework to look at health impacts.
It provided an opportunity to go beyond preconceptions.
Networking, forming relationships with PHS and stakeholders.
Networking with others, in-house and outside DCC.
The connectivity of the process, getting PHS and DCC working together & also inter-departmentally.
Quality of information brought to the process.
Literature Review.
Identifying most vulnerable user groups particularly valuable for other projects e.g. CCS.
Those who are most vulnerable from any change being highlighted meant not just the loudest voice of
stakeholders get listened to .
Enthusiasm and commitment from DCC staff.
Good sense of ownership.
Insufficient time allocated for everyone.
Need to build in the work way in advance of applying for the funding.
Conflict between the HIA work and core work, so don’t end up doing more than what is absolutely necessary on
HIA.
Calendar timing - some events would have ideally been closer together.
Very time consuming.
Time consuming process.
Lack of focus at times.
Lacked focus, maybe because it was the first HIA the group carried out.
Lacking in direction and clarity at times.
Needed clearer cut direction.
Would have done an HIA on a much more detailed (design of) proposal or on a set of design options.
The 30km Zone proposal is not a stand alone project, HIA would be better suited to something implemented in
the near future – to get better buy in.
Steep learning curve for some people.
Nothing springs to mind.
The scoping workshop not as effective as could have been, although from process point of its outcome was fine.
Lack of participation of some stakeholders.
Timescale could have been more flexible.
Better time planning.
Setting more realistic expectations regards time requirements.
Provide a strategic lead-in.
If more people had been able to commit their time (i.e. an observation of their circumstances).
26



4. How
effectively
were
resources were used in
the process?
5. How well was the HIA
aligned to the Council’s
planning
processes?
(LTCCP)
6. Based
on
your
experience do you think
the HIA achieved the
following objectives: (If
yes or no, in what ways):
a. To develop capacity in
Dunedin for HIA
Better explanation at the start as to the process, and what it was all about.
Better clarity of roles for the facilitator and project manager.
Set out the HIA process more clearly at the beginning. At the end of the process realised similarity between HIA
and EIA – if had known this would have flagged different things up at the beginning of the process.

We didn’t take accounts of stakeholders who were present at the forum as much as those who were contracted
past forum. Could those with clear views at the forum have been contacted afterwards to elaborate? (and these
be taken into account when considering recommendations).

Would have been better if Martin had peer reviewed the literature review, would have cut down on time if had
had better direction.

Major resource that was used was people hours, all people hours were necessary and effective, but the number
of people hours required was significantly underestimated.

Astounded at how much time was necessary. People should be realistically informed going into the process.

Not very well.

Resources were used as effectively as they could be, but because people lacked understanding of the process,
there was a lack of ability to plan ahead.

Quite well.

Choice of rooms, whiteboards, overheads were all good.

Team – the right people were around the table - used DCC and PHS staff effectively.

Not clear, but understand it meets a number of outcomes.

Would have been good to have a diagram showing the context of HIA within DCC projects, especially the Central
City Strategy.

Could have had better communication that HIA happened.

Don’t think we could use it all the time, could use it if health benefits are part of the problem.

Not clear on appropriateness of when to use HIA.

Don’t trust HIA process yet, hoped it would inform the Central city Strategy more than it did.

Yes, it fits well with strategic projects such as Central City Strategy.

Don’t know.

n/a.
Questions on the impact of the HIA on the development of the 30km proposal:






Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes – the 2 organisations working together and as a springboard for other HIA’s.
Yes, more people know more about HIA, and as a result possibly a catalyst to other HIA events on Dunedin.
It set the infrastructure in place in terms of forging relationships between DCC and PHS, but the time
27
b. For the HIA-referenced
approaches to transport
planning on a regular or
a routine basis.
c.
To identify the positive
and negative unintended
impacts of the proposal
on selected populations
group.
d. To identify measures to
enhance
the
positive
effects and to mitigate
the negative effects.
e. To prepare a better
proposal
using
the
evidence produced by the
HIA process.
Other issues:
7. Do you think the 30km
Zone
HIA
helped
specifically to get buy in
to
the
HIA
process
generally: (If so in what
way / if no, why?)
a. At
DCC
senior
management level?
b. At
PHS
senior
management level?














requirements were a disincentive for people.
No, don’t trust the process enough yet.
It set the infrastructure in place in terms of forging relationships between DCC and PHS, but the time
requirements were a disincentive for people.
If HIA was in a DCC-wide newsletter then maybe, and if it highlighted that HIA it was possible to do HIA more
quickly it would help.
Yes because quite a diverse group on the project, and their understanding of benefits.
Maybe, maybe not.
n/a.
Yes.
Yes.
I have experience of HIA particularly transport related – and new material definitely came out of this HIA.
Yes, very successful in doing this – the workshop bought up lots of impacts we had not considered. E.g. boy
racer being pushed out of town and teenage girls feeling more comfortable using town as a result.
Unclear whether this was achieved or not.
No – due to the nature of HIA.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
I have experience of HIA particularly transport related – and new material definitely came out of this HIA.
No – don’t think HIA did that, I think that could have been achieved by same individuals.
Yes.
Yes.
Definitely.
Steve involved connected safety with design.
No, not in terms of physical design of a more detailed proposal.
n/a – because HIA not on a specific project, it was not really a proposal but more of an idea.






Unknown.
Unknown at this stage.
n/a.
n/a.
No, they are not aware of this.
No – there weren’t any senior managers on the steering group, and need them to be represented in the process.



Buy-in probably there already, for PHS to have gotten involved. It has probably increased the capacity of HIA.
Yes.
Unknown.










28
8. What do you think are
the lessons for DCC and
PHS?










n/a.
n/a.
n/a.
Has made it easier for future HIA’s in Dunedin.
Forged bonds between PHS and DCC which is good.How to better apply the HIA process.
The most important thing is that the impacts of health of everyday activities are considered.
A good way to get health on the agenda at the start.
HIA can be really useful, especially objectives c. and d. above but process needs to be sharpened up and
shortened.
Plan in (1 year ideally) as much advance as you can.
Time requirements of HIA.
Other comments:

Could be helpful in getting buy-in from the community and helpful for transport planners in determining the benefits of different proposals.

Stakeholder uptake not as great as had hoped, if uptake had have been better, the HIA may have been more beneficial or may have had a
different outcome.

Senior managers should be involved next time.

Would not undertake an HIA lightly – it was too complicated even for a simple proposal.

Probably would not undertake another – as struggle to see how could apply it to a transportation Strategy or something as complex.
Interview with community stakeholder
Questions on HIA process:
1.
Based on your experience what were the main strengths of the HIA
process?
2.
Based on your experience, can you identify weaknesses of the HIA
process?
3.
What do you think could have been done to improve the HIA process?
4.
5.

The proposal and what wanting to achieve was well portrayed

Ran out of time at the end (of the Scoping Workshop) – could
have had better facilitation.

Lack of time to inform wider community group and feed that back
into the process.
Questions on the impact of the HIA on the development of the 30km proposal:
Do you think the HIA has helped to get buy-in to the 30km zone proposal

Yes at surface level – but could have been wider.
at a community level? Why?
Have you seen the Draft HIA report? If so what do you think?
 Yes have seen the report, it is going in the right direction.
Other comments:
 Problems were raised that can be addressed – integrated package
including a Barnes Dance.
29