Engaging IEHIAS stakeholders: example from water

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The text on this page is taken from an equivalent page of the IEHIAS-project.

As part of the EU-funded INTARESE project, which contributed to the development of this Toolbox, a case study was carried out to assess health impacts associated with domestic water supply.

Error creating thumbnail: Unable to save thumbnail to destination
Error creating thumbnail: Unable to save thumbnail to destination
Figure 1. The preliminary scoping diagram.
Error creating thumbnail: Unable to save thumbnail to destination
Figure 2. An example of an annotated scoping diagram.
Error creating thumbnail: Unable to save thumbnail to destination
Figure 3. The final scoping diagram


Stakeholders were involved in the initial scoping of the water assessment. It was recognised from the start that

health impacts related to water were both variable and significant, so it was considered essential to obtain the assistance of a variety of stakeholders in framing the issues of greatest pertinence. Given limited resources and time constraints, the best means of doing this was to contact the individual stakeholders by email, to send them a very broad outline of what kind of assessment we were planning to carry out, to ask a set of five questions (see below), and then send a scoping diagram on which they were requested to comment. The various responses of the stakeholders and their comments on the diagram were pooled and synthesised into a summary report and draft causal diagram, which was simplified to capture the main themes, and this was once more distributed for final comments. This helped to ensure the clarity and relevance of the assessment and narrowed it down to manageable proportions.

Initial data requested

The data requested for each stakeholder included:

  • Stakeholder type
  • Name of organisation (and web address)
  • Role/institutional aims and objectives
  • Assumed aspects/issues of interest to the stakeholder
  • Anticipated position(s) of the stakeholder on these aspects/issues
  • Contact details (name and email)

Questions asked

  1. Does the framework provide a useable, realistic representation of the current situation? Please comment.
  2. Which aspects, if any, of the framework diagram are unclear to you?
  3. What, if anything, is missing from the framework diagram?
  4. Which aspects of the framework diagram would consider of highest priority to the assessment?
  5. Please add any additional comments or questions as you see fit.

Scoping diagram input

The stakeholders were initially sent a very preliminary version of the scoping diagram (see Figure 1), which they commented on and annotated as they saw fit.

One of the returned versions of the diagram is presented in Figure 2.

Following several rounds of integration of comments, and several iterations of streamlining, the scoping diagram was prepared as in Figure 3.

See also

Integrated Environmental Health Impact Assessment System
IEHIAS is a website developed by two large EU-funded projects Intarese and Heimtsa. The content from the original website was moved to Opasnet.
Topic Pages

Boundaries · Population: age+sex 100m LAU2 Totals Age and gender · ExpoPlatform · Agriculture emissions · Climate · Soil: Degredation · Atlases: Geochemical Urban · SoDa · PVGIS · CORINE 2000 · Biomarkers: AP As BPA BFRs Cd Dioxins DBPs Fluorinated surfactants Pb Organochlorine insecticides OPs Parabens Phthalates PAHs PCBs · Health: Effects Statistics · CARE · IRTAD · Functions: Impact Exposure-response · Monetary values · Morbidity · Mortality: Database

Examples and case studies Defining question: Agriculture Waste Water · Defining stakeholders: Agriculture Waste Water · Engaging stakeholders: Water · Scenarios: Agriculture Crop CAP Crop allocation Energy crop · Scenario examples: Transport Waste SRES-population UVR and Cancer
Models and methods Ind. select · Mindmap · Diagr. tools · Scen. constr. · Focal sum · Land use · Visual. toolbox · SIENA: Simulator Data Description · Mass balance · Matrix · Princ. comp. · ADMS · CAR · CHIMERE · EcoSenseWeb · H2O Quality · EMF loss · Geomorf · UVR models · INDEX · RISK IAQ · CalTOX · PANGEA · dynamiCROP · IndusChemFate · Transport · PBPK Cd · PBTK dioxin · Exp. Response · Impact calc. · Aguila · Protocol elic. · Info value · DST metadata · E & H: Monitoring Frameworks · Integrated monitoring: Concepts Framework Methods Needs
Listings Health impacts of agricultural land use change · Health impacts of regulative policies on use of DBP in consumer products
Guidance System
The concept
Issue framing Formulating scenarios · Scenarios: Prescriptive Descriptive Predictive Probabilistic · Scoping · Building a conceptual model · Causal chain · Other frameworks · Selecting indicators
Design Learning · Accuracy · Complex exposures · Matching exposure and health · Info needs · Vulnerable groups · Values · Variation · Location · Resolution · Zone design · Timeframes · Justice · Screening · Estimation · Elicitation · Delphi · Extrapolation · Transferring results · Temporal extrapolation · Spatial extrapolation · Triangulation · Rapid modelling · Intake fraction · iF reading · Piloting · Example · Piloting data · Protocol development
Execution Causal chain · Contaminant sources · Disaggregation · Contaminant release · Transport and fate · Source attribution · Multimedia models · Exposure · Exposure modelling · Intake fraction · Exposure-to-intake · Internal dose · Exposure-response · Impact analysis · Monetisation · Monetary values · Uncertainty