









































June 2018 Volume  3 Issue 1

TRACKING STATE-LEVEL HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
LEGISLATION FROM 2012-2016

Joshua Waimberg, JD; Lindsay K. Cloud, JD; Andrew T. Campbell, JD;
Ruth Lindberg, MPH, MUP; Keshia Pollack Porter, PhD, MPH

Abstract: 

Background: Scientifically constructed, open source legal datasets that capture key features of state legislative 
activity can be used for evaluation, and to identify trends in law across jurisdictions and over time.

Methods: Using policy surveillance methods, a team of legal researchers collected and analyzed state-level 
Health Impact Assessment (HIA) legislation across 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. between January 1, 2012 
and December 31, 2016. One dataset captures the characteristics of all HIA bills that were introduced but not 
enacted during the period of the study. The second dataset captures the characteristics of all HIA laws, including 
statutes and regulations that were enacted or amended during the period of the study.  

Results: Between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016, 40 HIA bills were introduced but not enacted, and 
three HIA laws were enacted or amended. Notable trends include: greater legislative activity was observed 
in the Northeastern United States as compared to the rest of the country; a majority of HIA legislation was 
proposed by Democratic members of state government; HIA mandates were promulgated through state agency 
rulemaking process more frequently than the legislative process; and most of the proposed legislation provided 
no explicit source of funding to implement HIAs within the legislative text.

Conclusion: Evaluation research is necessary to understand the factors that drive the success and failure of HIA 
legislation, and its impact when applied to decision-making, health determinants and outcomes, and health 
equity. 

1 



Tracking State-Level Health Impact Assessment Legislation from 2012-2016 Waimberg; Cloud; Campbell; Lindberg; Porter 

2

Introduction 

State policymakers recognize that decisions made 
in housing, criminal justice, and education also 
affect public health and state health care spending 
— spending that amounts to hundreds of billions of 
dollars each year across the United States (Marmot, 
M. & Allen, J., 2014; The Pew Charitable Trusts and 
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 
2016). As legislators aim to reduce costs and improve 
population health, some are exploring how Health 
Impact Assessments (HIAs), which assess the potential 
public health effects of a proposed decision, could 
be used to better inform state-level decision-making. 
One straightforward way that legislators can promote 
HIAs is to require or encourage the practice through 
legislation. 

The impact of HIA legislation on government practice, 
policy making, and social outcomes has not been 
evaluated. In order to gain a deeper understanding 
of HIA legislation, and to support evaluation of its 
implementation and effects, this research captures 
and analyzes trends in requiring, encouraging, or 
incentivizing the use of an HIA, including legislation 
requiring the use of HIA as a tool and HIAs addressing 
state-level policy, between January 1, 2012 and 
December 31, 2016.

To examine the full legal landscape of HIA legislation, 
the bills research included collecting bills that were 
introduced and failed, and those that were introduced 
but still under consideration on December 31, 2016. 
The laws research included collecting legislation that 
was enacted or amended during the period of the 
study. Bills were identified independently from laws 
because identification and analysis of failed or stalled 
efforts to implement HIA legislation, in conjunction 
with the analysis of the successful laws, allows for a 
comprehensive understanding of state-level HIA policy 
activity, or lack thereof. This article summarizes HIA 
legislative activity, notes key patterns and trends, and 
highlights the need for additional research to evaluate 
the impact of laws on population health.  

Background 

HIA is a systematic process that uses an array of data 
sources and analytic methods and considers input 
from stakeholders to determine the potential effects 
of a proposed policy, plan, program, or project on the 
health of a population and the distribution of those 
effects within the population (Quigley, et al., 2006). 
HIAs provide recommendations on monitoring and 
managing those effects (Quigley, et al., 2006). The 
formal elements of an HIA include screening of the 
need for and value of conducting an HIA, scoping and 
creation of objectives, assessment of the baseline 
health status of affected populations, inclusion of 
recommendations, reporting on the findings, and the 
monitoring and evaluation of its results. (National 
Research Council, 2011). HIAs provide pragmatic, 
evidence-informed recommendations about how 
to modify the proposed action to reduce risks and 
promote benefits, as well as provide recommendations 
on monitoring health effects after implementation 
(National Research Council, 2011). HIAs also examine 
whether and to what extent decisions could reduce 
health disparities and improve health equity.

A total of 419 HIAs have been conducted in the United 
States as of June 2017 (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 
2015). They have aimed to inform decision-making at 
the federal, state, and local levels in a range of sectors, 
including agriculture, criminal justice, labor and 
employment, education, transportation, and housing 
(The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2015). Approximately 18% 
of these 419 HIAs (n=76) focused on state-level policy 
decisions (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2015). These 
HIAs examined state legislation, such as paid sick leave 
and food tax policies; state programs or regulations 
and their implementation, such as housing inspection 
and tax credit grant programs; and projects by state-
level decision-makers, such as highway design and 
redevelopment (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2015).



Tracking State-Level Health Impact Assessment Legislation from 2012-2016 Waimberg; Cloud; Campbell; Lindberg; Porter 

3

Prior research by the National Conference of State 
Legislatures (NCSL) identified 56 bills that were 
introduced in 17 states between January 2009 and 
May 2014 that would require some consideration of 
health effects in decision-making (National Conference 
of State Legislatures, 2014). Most of these bills, 
however, did not meet the formal definition of an HIA 
(Health Impact Project, 2015; National Conference of 
State Legislatures, 2014). NCSL’s analysis found eight 
states that considered legislation that required or 
encouraged assessments that met most, but not all, 
requirements of a formal HIA. Policymakers in three 
of these eight states ¬— Massachusetts, Vermont, and 
Washington — enacted legislation that ranged in scope 
from requiring an HIA for a specific bridge replacement 
project, to establishing the use of HIAs to determine 
the health effects of state transportation projects. 

In 2016, through a grant from the Health Impact 
Project — a collaboration of the Robert Wood 
Johnson Foundation and The Pew Charitable Trusts 
— the Policy Surveillance Program of the Center for 
Public Health Law Research at Temple University 
developed two longitudinal datasets in order to create 
a comprehensive and systematic study of recent HIA 
legislative activity.  

This study, which builds on the research conducted by 
NCSL from 2009-2014 (National Conference of State 
Legislatures, 2014), illuminates the variation that exists 
in successful, unsuccessful, and pending HIA legislation 
across the 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., from 
2012 to 2016 as it pertains to HIA requirements, 
techniques, and various sectors and industries. 

Methods  

The research team used the methods outlined in 
Anderson et al., (2013) as a foundation to develop a 
policy surveillance mapping study on HIA legislation. 
Policy surveillance, one form of scientific legal mapping, 
is the ongoing, systematic collection, analysis, and 
dissemination of policies across jurisdictions, and over 

time (Burris, 2014). The HIA study focused on state-
level HIA legislation from January 1, 2012 to December 
31, 2016 across the United States. The research team 
created two distinct datasets. One dataset, HIA Bills, 
captures characteristics of all HIA bills that were 
introduced but not enacted during the time period 
of the study. The second dataset, HIA Laws, captures 
the characteristics of all HIA laws that were enacted 
or amended during the period of the study. For the 
purposes of the study, both statutes and regulations 
were included as laws. The research team consisted 
of two legal researchers and one legal supervisor 
from the Policy Surveillance Program of the Center for 
Public Health Law Research at Temple University who 
collaborated with two subject matter experts from the 
Health Impact Project.

The researchers included policies that explicitly use the 
term “health impact assessment(s)” within the legal 
text, and/or include the six formal elements of an HIA. 
Policies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were 
excluded, including legislation requiring only health 
risk assessments, community health assessments, or 
proposals where vague references to assessing public 
health impacts were discussed.

The researchers identified and recorded citations 
of relevant bills and laws (including statutes and 
regulations) from Westlaw, a legal research database. 
The researchers developed search strings and 
conducted keyword searches for each dataset: 
“TE(health /5 (assessment or impact or review))”; 
“health and impact and assessment”; and “health and 
impact and review.” When these searches yielded a 
relevant bill or law, the researchers examined the table 
of contents to determine if any of the surrounding 
statutes or regulations were also relevant. The 
researchers supplemented keyword searches by 
consulting secondary sources. For quality control, the 
team conducted redundant research, in which each 
researcher independently identified and recorded 
relevant citations for each jurisdiction. The supervisor 
then compared the research to identify and resolve 



Tracking State-Level Health Impact Assessment Legislation from 2012-2016 Waimberg; Cloud; Campbell; Lindberg; Porter 

4

all divergences (or differences in research results) 
between the original and redundant research. Once 
the citation list was finalized, the researchers collected 
the legal text from each state legislature’s website. 
This research process was repeated in batches of ten 
states at a time until all relevant bills and laws were 
collected. HIA bills that were separately proposed in 
each chamber of the state legislature were individually 
collected. However, if there were multiple versions of 
the same bill, the researchers collected the most recent 
version of the bill that included the HIA requirement.

The team developed a list of constructs, or important 
features of the policies, based on the policies collected 
for the first ten states. Coding questions were drafted 
from the list of constructs in order to observe the 
policies’ characteristics. HIA experts reviewed and 
refined the coding questions to ensure that the key 
elements of the policies were captured within the 
coding scheme. Once the questions were finalized, 
the team entered them into MonQcleSM, a coding-
software platform. 
Each jurisdiction was independently coded by two 

legal researchers. The supervisor compared the 
results and the team resolved discrepancies through 
discussion and consultation with HIA experts. The team 
developed a research protocol to record the divergence 
rates and outline the coding scheme, definitions, and 
scoping parameters, including inclusion and exclusion 
criteria. Each dataset contains downloadable text of 
the policies, an interactive map and table, summary 
report, research protocol, codebook, and empirical 
legal data (Policy Surveillance Program, 2017a; Policy 
Surveillance Program, 2017b).

Results 

Between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016, 
40 bills were introduced but not passed in the 51 
jurisdictions (50 states and the District of Columbia) 
surveyed across the United States. These 40 HIA bills 
were introduced in 11 jurisdictions (Fig. 1; Policy 
Surveillance Program, 2017a). Of the 40 bills, seven 
were introduced in 2012, ten in 2013, four in 2014, 14 
in 2015, and five in 2016.  During this period, one law 
was enacted in California in 2015, one regulation was 



Tracking State-Level Health Impact Assessment Legislation from 2012-2016 Waimberg; Cloud; Campbell; Lindberg; Porter 

5

readopted in New Jersey in 2014, and one regulation 
was amended in New Hampshire in 2016 (Fig. 1; Policy 
Surveillance Program, 2017b).
The collected bills and laws varied in focus and scope. 
Some legislation proposed that an HIA be conducted 
for a specific project, such as 2016 MD H.B. 363, which 
required that an HIA be conducted by a specific date 
on the deployment of smart meters across Maryland. 
Some proposed legislation would have mandated the 
use of an HIA for specific activities conducted within 
the state. For example, 2015 NY S.B. 902 proposed 
that an HIA be conducted for all horizontal gas drilling 
and high-volume hydraulic fracturing activities in New 
York, while 2015 MN H.F. 3261 proposed that an HIA 
be conducted for projects involving clear-cutting in 
Minnesota. Other legislation had a broader focus, such 
as 2014 NM S.B. 48, which proposed that an HIA be 
conducted whenever a construction or development 
project in New Mexico would require an environmental 
assessment pursuant to state or federal law.

The study shows how state legislatures’ approaches 
compare to each other, and thereby lays the 
groundwork for studies evaluating the implementation 
of state-mandated HIAs and the potential impact of 
such legislation on public health. The following sub-
sections describe the key trends and features of HIA 
legislation from 2012-2016 captured by the study.

HIA Required

Some legislation mandates an HIA in order to assess 
a program or activity’s public health impacts, while 
others only encourage their use (Health Impact 
Project, 2015). Of the 40 HIA bills analyzed, 37 (92.5%) 
required that an HIA be conducted, as opposed to 
simply encouraging the use of an HIA. 

All three (100%) of the enacted HIA laws required, as 
opposed to encouraged, that an HIA be conducted.

Political Affiliation

Political affiliation of the sponsor may correlate 
with HIA legislative activity (Wismar, et al, 2007). 
Democratic members of state legislatures introduced 
more HIA legislation than representatives from other 
political parties. Democrats introduced 30 (75%) of 
the 40 HIA bills, while four (10%) bills were introduced 
by Republicans, and one (2.5%) was introduced by 
an Independent legislator. Three (7.5%) bills were 
sponsored by a combination of Republican and 
Democratic legislators. HIA provisions were included in 
two budget bills (5%) with no named sponsor. 

A Democratic state senator initially introduced 
California’s enacted law. New Jersey’s administrative 
regulation was readopted under a Republican governor, 
and New Hampshire’s regulation was amended under 
a Democratic governor.

Geographic Location

Although non-legislative HIAs have been conducted 
in nearly all states (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2015), 
legislative activity to mandate or encourage HIAs was 
concentrated in specific geographic regions in the 
study’s period. Twenty-four (60%) bills were introduced 
in the Northeastern United States, with the majority 
originating in New York and Massachusetts. States in 
the Midwest followed with seven (17.5%) bills and the 
Southern states introduced five (12.5%) bills. States in 
the West proposed three (7.5%) bills, while only one 
(2.5%) bill came from the Southwest. 

Two (66.7%) of the three states that enacted an HIA 
law are located in the Northeastern United States, in 
New Jersey and New Hampshire. The third HIA law was 
passed in the West, in California.

Sectors Specified

The research team classified HIA legislation based on 
the various sectors and industries that are generally 
targeted in HIA legislation in order to determine 



Tracking State-Level Health Impact Assessment Legislation from 2012-2016 Waimberg; Cloud; Campbell; Lindberg; Porter 

6

whether HIAs are more commonly used to address 
decisions within specific sectors (National Conference 
of State Legislatures, 2014). The sectors were selected 
based on the North American Industry Classification 
System (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). The 40 HIA bills 
required their proposed HIAs to apply in seven distinct 
sectors. Environment – not including agriculture or oil 
and gas – was included most frequently, with 17 (42.5%) 
bills focused on issues in that sector, such as air and 
water, waste facilities, or forestry. Oil and gas was the 
focus in 10 (25%) of the HIA bills, the transportation 
sector accounted for six (15%) of the 40 bills, and the 
remaining bills were targeting other sectors including 
two in health care ( 5%), two in construction ( 5%), two 
in education ( 5%), and one in agriculture (2.5%). Three 
(7.5%) bills did not apply to a specific sector. 

Each of the three enacted HIA laws targeted specific 
sectors. California’s law requires HIAs in the health 
care sector; New Jersey’s regulation applies to the 
environmental sector; and New Hampshire’s regulation 
applies to oil and gas.

Organizations Required to Conduct HIA

HIA legislation generally specifies the organization that 
is required to conduct the required or encouraged HIA 
(National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014). In 
this study, twenty (50%) of the HIA bills tasked their 
state’s department of health to conduct the HIA. A 
public health program within a local university was 
explicitly mentioned in eight (20%) of the bills. Local 
governments were required to conduct the mandated 
HIA in five (12.5%) bills. Three (7.5%) of the bills required 
a private, non-government contractor to conduct the 
HIA. The remaining organizations included private 
entities (2 bills, 5%), a specific committee or task force 
(2 bills, 5%), the department of transportation (2 bills, 
5%) and the department of environment (1 bill, 2.5%). 

California’s HIA law requires that the California Health 
Benefit Review Program, a program established by the 
University of California (local university public health 

program), conduct the HIA. New Jersey’s regulation 
requires the HIA be conducted by a private entity 
seeking permit approval, while New Hampshire’s 
regulation requires that an independent health and 
safety expert, (private, non-government contractor) 
conduct the HIA.

Methods Used in Conducting the HIA

The HIA process can be accomplished using a variety 
of methods, including risk assessments, population 
analysis, and expert opinion (National Research Council, 
2011). Twenty (50%) of the collected HIA bills required 
that the entity managing the HIA conduct their own 
original research, data collection, and analysis. Other 
methods that are required within the HIA bills include 
risk assessments in 10 (25%) bills, population analysis 
in nine (22.5%), literature review in nine (22.5%), and 
stakeholder engagement in eight (20%). Expert opinion 
was required in six (15%) bills, while secondary data 
analysis was only specified in two (5%) bills. Notably, 
14 (35%) bills did not require any specific methods be 
followed while implementing the HIAs.

California’s HIA law requires original research and 
data collection, expert opinion, and policy analysis. 
New Jersey’s HIA law requires original research and 
data collection, risk assessment, and secondary 
data analysis, and New Hampshire requires just risk 
assessment and expert opinion.  

Funding Mechanism

The provision of funding is an important practical 
consideration in HIA legislation (National Conference 
of State Legislatures, 2014). Of the HIA bills, 10 (25%) 
included a funding mechanism within the language of 
the bill, while 28 (70%) of the bills did not mandate 
any funding for the required HIAs within the legislative 
text. Two of the bills (5%) did not require governmental 
funding, but did mandate that a private entity that is 
required to conduct an HIA fund such an HIA on its 
own. 



Tracking State-Level Health Impact Assessment Legislation from 2012-2016 Waimberg; Cloud; Campbell; Lindberg; Porter 

7

Of the three states that passed or amended HIA laws, 
only California creates a funding mechanism for HIAs, 
requiring that the Health Care Benefits Fund in the 
State Treasury fund the assessments. The regulations 
in New Jersey and New Hampshire do not create an 
explicit funding source within the legal text.

Discussion   
 
Only three HIA laws were enacted or amended at the 
state-level across the country between January 1, 2012 
and December 31, 2016. The failure to pass or amend 
HIA legislation was a common thread throughout 
the United States regardless of the variation among 
the legislation’s applicable sector, the HIA methods 
required by the legislation, the geographic location 
of the state, or the legislation’s inclusion of an HIA 
funding mechanism.  

Although HIAs do not require legislative authorization, 
policy support, including HIA legislation, has been 
identified as an enabling factor for HIA use (Dannenberg, 
2016). Most bills introduced in state legislatures fail to 
pass, and this study was not designed to identify the 
reasons the proposed bills did not become law. It is 
possible that some or all of these bills failed simply 
because lawmakers were opposed, or were unfamiliar 
with HIAs and their potential utility. Other political 
and contextual factors, such as funding constraints, or 
controversy over the sector or subject area that would 
be the focus of the HIA (such as fracking), may also be 
responsible (National Research Council, 2011). Further 
research on HIA policymaking may illuminate how 
HIA proponents can use policy advocacy, policymaker 
education, or translational research to improve the 
adoption rate in the future. It would also be valuable 
to examine if and how the success and failure rates 
of state HIA legislation compare with other types of 
legislation, which may generate knowledge that can 
help with policy formulation and adoption.

Research gaps remain in understanding how HIA laws 
are implemented, the impact of those laws on decision-
making in various sectors, and ultimately how HIA 
laws affect health determinants and health outcomes. 
Future research could track the implementation of 
the three successful HIA laws from this time period, 
as well as others that may arise in future state 
legislative sessions, to understand the facilitators and 
barriers of these laws and to monitor their impacts. 
Monitoring these laws’ effects on health determinants 
and outcomes, a formal step of HIAs that includes 
process, impact, and outcome evaluation, could 
also help advance HIA practice, since the monitoring 
step of the HIA process is often omitted in practice. 
(Dannenberg, 2016). Studying the implementation of 
these laws could also help to identify and establish the 
critical components that any HIA bill should contain 
in the future. It is likely that HIA laws need to provide 
sufficient clarity in terms of how the HIA will be carried 
out and provide enough guidance and support, such as 
funding or staffing mechanisms, for the HIA process to 
be successful. 

The findings presented in this paper also highlight the 
disproportionate distribution of HIA bills and laws in 
terms of geography, sector, and political affiliation of 
the primary sponsor. Approximately two-thirds (66%) 
of the HIA bills and laws in the datasets were introduced 
in the Northeastern United States, and most of the 
bills sought to use HIAs to inform decisions related to 
environmental issues, oil and gas, and transportation. 
Future research should explore these trends in more 
depth and seek to understand why policymakers may 
be more likely to pursue HIA bills and laws in specific 
sectors or topic areas. The findings also demonstrate 
that Democrats introduced 75% of the HIA bills. Again, 
future research may benefit from exploring these 
differences by political ideology. 
As of June 2017, HIAs have been conducted in 42 of 50 
states and the District of Columbia (regardless of legal 
mandate), and have informed decisions across a range 



Tracking State-Level Health Impact Assessment Legislation from 2012-2016 Waimberg; Cloud; Campbell; Lindberg; Porter 

8

of sectors including transportation, natural resources 
and energy, housing, criminal justice, education, 
and labor and employment (The Pew Charitable 
Trusts, 2015). These HIAs are being conducted across 
the country, but recent legislative activity has only 
occurred in 11 states within the period of this study. 
Clearly, HIA practice is expanding in the absence of 
legislation, with 419 HIAs being conducted as of June 
2017 (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2015). The lack of 
state-level HIA legislation in recent years raises the 
question of whether state-level HIA laws are necessary, 
and whether they should be promoted to support HIA 
activity over more voluntary practices. Future research 
may test the hypothesis that HIA growth and practice 
differs by whether or not a state has HIA legislation, 
and to examine differences among the impacts of HIAs 
conducted because of legislation compared to those 
undertaken without legislation. This information can 
help practitioners identify whether HIA legislation 
as policy support is a critical enabler for HIA use, 
and may provide empirical data to support policy 
diffusion from one state to another (Nicholson-Crotty, 
2015). If research finds that legislation is unnecessary, 
identifying which non-legislative approaches best 
support state-level HIA activity will be crucial in order 
to meet the goal of positively affecting population 
health and health equity. 

Limitations 

The research team designed the study to exclude bills 
and laws requiring forms of public health analysis that 
did not meet the narrow definition, or include the 
specific criteria, of a formal HIA, such as the exclusion of 
health risk assessments and community health needs 
assessments. Also excluded were bills and laws that 
included vague provisions ordering the examination of 
the potential impact of a specific issue or project on 
health, but did not provide details to suggest that an 
HIA would be the mechanism. Moreover, the study’s 
state-level mapping does not capture HIA provisions 
enacted at the federal or local levels. This focus on 
formal, state-legislated HIAs may underestimate the 

true volume of HIA legislative activity.

Additionally, this project observed the policies as 
written in the bills, statutes, and regulations, and thus 
it does not provide insight on how well an HIA was 
carried out in practice. Further, if a law was passed 
prior to January 1, 2012 and was still effective during 
the period of the study it was excluded as out of scope. 
Lastly, while we captured introduced bills that were 
not enacted, we did not capture proposed rules and 
regulations that had failed or were still pending, as only 
successfully amended or promulgated HIA regulations 
were included in the scope of the study.

Conclusion

Legislative action can encourage the use of HIAs 
across the United States to examine the public health 
implications of decisions in a range of sectors. The 
findings presented in this study highlight the need for 
additional research to understand the factors that may 
drive success or failure of HIA bills, such as political will 
and resources, in addition to the question of whether 
state-level HIA legislation is the best approach to drive 
HIA implementation. Further research is needed to 
understand how HIA legislation is being implemented 
and the impacts of HIA legislation on decision-making, 
health determinants and outcomes, and health equity. 



Tracking State-Level Health Impact Assessment Legislation from 2012-2016 Waimberg; Cloud; Campbell; Lindberg; Porter 

9

References

Anderson, E., Tremper, C., Thomas, S., Wagenaar, A. (2013). Measuring statutory law and regulations for empirical 
research. In Wagenaar AC, Burris S (Eds.), Public Health Law Research: Theory and Methods (pp. 237-260). San 
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Burris, S. (2014, July). A technical guide for policy surveillance. Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-
34. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2469895 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2469895. 

Dannenberg, A. L. (2016). Effectiveness of health impact assessments: a synthesis of data from five impact evaluation 
reports. Preventing Chronic Disease, 13, E84: 150559. Doi: 10.5888/pcd13.150559.

Health Impact Project. (2015, February). Health impact assessment legislation in the states. Retrieved from http://www.
pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/01/hia_and_legislation_issue_brief.pdf.

Marmot, M., Allen, J. (2014). Social determinants of health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 104 (S4), 
S517-S519. Doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302200.

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2014, July). An analysis of state health impact assessment legislation. 
Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/an-analysis-of-state-health-
impact-assessment-legislation635411896.aspx. 

National Research Council. (2011). Improving health in the United States: the role of health impact assessment. 
Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Retrieved from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13229/improving-
health-in-the-united-states-the-role-of-health. 

Nicholson-Crotty, S., Carley S. (2015). Effectiveness, implementation, and policy diffusion or “can we make that work for 
us?” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 16(1), 78-97.

The Pew Charitable Trusts. (2015, November 4). Health Impact Assessments in the United States. [Map illustrating HIAs 
completed in the U.S.]. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/multimedia/data-visualizations/2015/hia-map.

The Pew Charitable Trusts and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. (2016, May) State health care spending: 
key findings. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/05/state-health-care-spending.pdf.

Policy Surveillance Program. (2017a). Health impact assessment (HIA) bills. Retrieved from http://lawatlas.org/page/hia-
bills.

Policy Surveillance Program. (2017b). Health impact assessment (HIA) laws. Retrieved from http://lawatlas.org/page/hia-
laws.

Quigley R., den Broeder, L., Furu, P., Bond, A., Cave, B., Bos, R. (2006, September). Health impact assessment: 
international best practice principles. Special Publication Series No. 5. Fargo, N.D.: International Association for 
Impact Assessment; Retrieved from http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/SP5.pdf. 

U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). North American Industry Classification System, United States. Retrieved from https://www.
census.gov/eos/www/naics/2017NAICS/2017_NAICS_Manual.pdf.

Wismar M., Blau J., Ernst K., Figueras J (Eds.). (2007). The effectiveness of health impact assessment: scope and 
limitations of supporting decision-making in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Observatory on Health Systems 
and Policies. Retrieved from http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/98283/E90794.pdf.



Tracking State-Level Health Impact Assessment Legislation from 2012-2016 Waimberg; Cloud; Campbell; Lindberg; Porter 

10

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Joshua Waimberg, JD
Law & Policy Analyst
Policy Surveillance Program at Temple University’s Center for Public Health Law Research
1819 N. Broad Street, Barrack Hall, Suite 300
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122
jwaimberg@temple.edu

CHIA Staff:

Editor-in-Chief  
Cynthia Stone, DrPH, RN, Professor, Richard M. Fairbanks School of  Public Health, Indiana University-Purdue 
University Indianapolis

Journal Manager 
Angela Evertsen, BA, Richard M. Fairbanks School of  Public Health, Indiana University-Purdue University 
Indianapolis

Chronicles of  Health Impact Assessment Vol. 3 Issue 1 (2018) DOI: 10.18060/22249
© 2018 Author(s): Waimberg, J.; Cloud, L.; Campbell, A.; Lindberg, R.; Pollack Porter, K.
       This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License


