Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 10, 2026

Watershed Planning within a Quantitative Scenario Analysis Framework
Published on: July 24, 2016
Rapid versus intermediate health impact assessment of foreshore development plans
Susan E Furber1, Erica Gray, Ben F Harris-Roxas
1Division of Population Health and Planning, South East Sydney and Illawarra Area Health Service. susan.furber@sesiahs.health.nsw.gov.au
Objective:
To describe the main differences between conducting a rapid health impact assessment (HIA) and an intermediate HIA on foreshore development plans and their feasibility from a health service perspective.
Methods:
A rapid HIA and an intermediate HIA were undertaken on two foreshore development plans.
Results:
The main differences between the two HIAs were in the identification, assessment and decision-making stages of the HIA.
Conclusion:
While the rapid HIA was less resource intensive than the intermediate HIA, there are several factors that affect the feasibility of conducting this type of HIA within a short time period.
More Related Videos
07:53Bioindication Testing of Stream Environment Suitability for Young Freshwater Pearl Mussels Using In Situ Exposure Methods
Published on: September 5, 2018
13:00Modifying the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) Protocol for Rapid Assessment of Streambank Erosion in Northeastern Ohio
Published on: February 13, 2015
Related Concept Videos
Design Example: Analyzing Capacity Contours for Flood Risk Assessment
Impact of Pharmacokinetic–Pharmacodynamic Models: Regulatory Decisions
Effect of Sea Water on Concrete
Concrete in areas between tide marks, which undergo...
Habitat Fragmentation
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Rapidly Varying Flow