The Development of a Rapid Health Impact Assessment Model for Songkhla Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Policy in Southern Thailand
Background: Rapid Health Impact Assessment (Rapid HIA) for Special Economic Zone (SEZ) has not been undertaken in Thailand. We aimed to develop a Rapid HIA model for policymaking by using Songkhla SEZ as a study model.
Methods: Four-stage of the research and development based on HIA process were used: 1) drafting the model using literature reviews and focus group discussions, 2) collecting additional information from 24 stakeholders, and conducting an in-depth interview with six informants, 3) verifying the model by drawing agreements on the model from 17 related agencies and experts, and 4) confirming the validity of the final model using seven experts. The study were conducted from Jan 2018 to Feb 2019. Content analysis and constant comparison were used to analyze the data.
Results: A four-step assessment model was obtained. They included public screening, scoping, assessing, and reviewing and influencing. Public screening is deduced from a meeting with organizations and related personnel. Public scoping is an outcome of literature reviewing and meeting with stakeholders and academics. The assessment step focuses on secondary data from related agencies and a participatory workshop with stakeholders and academics. Finally, a meeting with stakeholders and academics, including internet broadcasting, is the reviewing and influencing process.
Conclusion: This Rapid HIA model was specifically developed for SEZ policy. Reviewing and influencing steps were combined, whereas the monitoring and evaluation step was removed for further operations. This model depends on the official appointment of the steering committee HIA practitioners should be experienced academics from higher educational institutions.
2. Pakdeenurit P, Suthikarnnarunai N, Rattana-wong W (2014). Key Success Factor of Special Economic Zone for Thailand. In: Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists 2014 Vol II, (IMECS 2014). Hong Kong.
3. Frangos J, Ramirez M (2015). Special Eco-nomic Zones in Thailand and Myanmar. J of the American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand, 2:22–3.
4. Cizkowicz P, Cizkowicz-Pelaka M, Pekala P, Rzonca A (2015). The Effects of Special Eco-nomic Zones on Employment and Investment: Spatial Panel Modelling Perspective. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network (National Bank of Poland).
5. Wang J (2013). The economic impact of Special Economic Zones: Evidence from Chinese municipalities. J Dev Econ, 101:133–147.
6. More JB (2015). Impact of Special Econom-ic Zone in India. IRACST –IJCBM, 4(1):873–79.
7. Parwez S, Sen V (2016). Special Economic Zone, Land Acquisition, and Impact on Rural India. Emerging Economy Studies, 2(2):223–239.
8. Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand (2018). EIA Report: Industrial Estate Project in Songkhla Special Economic Zone (full report). Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand.
9. Jantarat R, Wankarem N, Voratammatip S, et al (2018). The Impacts on People in the Establishment of Songkhla Special Economic Zone. In: Proceedings of the 1st National Conference on the Humanities and So-cial Sciences "Wisdom Power for Sustainable De-velopment" Songkhla Rajabhat University; Thailand.
10. Harris-Roxas B, Viliani F, et al (2012). Health impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj A, 30 (1):43–52.
11. Chilaka MA (2010). Vital statistics relating to the practice of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in the United Kingdom. Environ Impact Asses Rev, 30(2):116–119.
12. Haigh F, Harris E, Chok HN, et al (2013). Characteristics of health impact assess-ments reported in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009. Aust N Z J Public Health, 37(6):534–46.
13. Harris A (n.d.) Rapid Health Impact As-sessment: A Guide to Research. Notting-ham, the United Kingdom: New Deal for Communities Unit.
14. Damari B, Vosoogh-Moghaddam A, Riazi-Isfahani S (2018). Implementing Health Impact Assessment at National Level: An Experience in Iran. Iran J Public Health, 47 (2):246–255.
15. National Research Council (2011). Improving Health in the United States: The Role of Health Impact Assessment. Washington (DC): Na-tional Academies Press (US).
16. Suther E, Sandel M (2013). Health Impact Assessments. R I Med J, 27–30.
17. European Centre for Health Policy (1999). Health impact assessment: main concepts and sug-gested approach. Brussels: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
18. den Broeder L, Uiters E, ten Have W, et al (2017). Community participation in Health Impact Assessment. A scoping review of the literature. Environ Impact Ass-es Rev, 66:33–42.
19. Heller J, Givens ML, Yuen TK, et al (2014). Advancing Efforts to Achieve Health Equity: Equity Metrics for Health Impact Assessment Practice. Int J Environ Res Pub-lic Health, 11(11):11054–64.
20. Asian Development Bank (2018). A Health Impact Assessment Framework for Special Eco-nomic Zones in the Greater Mekong Subregion. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.
21. Bourcier E, Charbonneau D, Cahill C, Dan-nenberg AL (2015). An Evaluation of Health Impact Assessments in the United States, 2011 - 2014. Prev Chronic Dis, 12:E23.
22. Forsyth A, Slotterback CS, Krizek KJ (2010). Health impact assessment in planning: Development of the design for health HIA tools. Environ Impact Asses Rev, 30(1):42–51.
23. Early-Alberts J, Hamberg A, Haggerty B (2015). Health Impact Assessment: Oregon’s Practitioner Toolkit A Handbook for Conduct-ing Rapid HIAs. 2nd Ed. Oregon Health Authority.
24. McCallum LC, Ollson CA, Stefanovic IL (2016). Prioritizing Health: A Systematic Approach to Scoping Determinants in Health Impact Assessment. Front Public Health, 4: 170.
25. Pennington A, Dreaves H, Scott-Samuel A, et al (2017). Development of an Urban Health Impact Assessment methodology: indicating the health equity impacts of ur-ban policies. Eur J Public Health, 27:56–61.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.