









































October 2017 Volume  2

A COMMUNITY GROUNDED HIA: THE BENEFITS OF
CONDUCTING A HIA DURING THE AIRDS BRADBURY

ESTATE REDEVELOPMENT

Karla Jaques; Fiona Haigh; Michael Thorn

Abstract: 

Background:  This paper identifies and discusses the benefits of taking a ‘community grounded’ approach to 
Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in the context of a place based urban renewal setting and reflect on whether this 
is a useful approach for people and organisations wishing to undertake HIA’s in similar settings. The HIA was 
on the redevelopment of the suburban town centre and focussed on the creation of a new multipurpose centre, 
improvements to a manmade pond and the relocation of sporting fields found in the area. The HIA team aimed to 
explore what the planned redevelopment of the local town centre area would mean for the local community and 
its potential health impacts upon residents. 

Methods:  The HIA followed the standard HIA steps. The HIA team took a community grounded approach where 
particular focus was engaging community members in the HIA process. This included community members being 
involved in the HIA working group, reference group and providing evidence for the HIA.

Results:  The HIA report contained a series of recommendations for the redevelopment of the Airds Bradbury 
estate, found in the outskirts of South-Western Sydney, the estate prior to redevelopment being a predominantly 
public housing estate and via redevelopment will include a mixture of privately and publicly-owned housing. 
These recommendations were presented to the Community Reference Group and were adopted by various stake-
holders.

Conclusion: The community grounded approach influenced both how the HIA was carried out, the decisions that 
were made within the HIA and ultimately the findings and recommendations. The HIA of this latest stage of the 
Airds-Bradbury estate redevelopment was a useful project to encourage further collaboration, dialogue and plan-
ning between redevelopment agencies, Local Government, and residents of the Airds Bradbury social housing 
estate. 

i 



A Community Grounded HIA Jaques; Haigh; Thorn

2

Introduction 

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) can be applied to 
many different types of proposals and is adaptable 
to the context in which it is undertaken. This paper 
identifies and discusses the benefits of taking a ‘com-
munity grounded’ approach to HIA in the context of 
a place-based urban renewal setting, and reflects on 
whether this is a useful approach for people and organ-
isations wishing to undertake HIA’s in similar settings.

This HIA was conducted to inform plans to redevelop 
the town centre of the Airds-Bradbury social housing 
estate*  and, through the engagement of residents, to 
ensure that these plans reflected the needs of the com-
munity. This was achieved through the examination of 
greenspace and infrastructure within the town centre, 
and how these might be improved or reconfigured to 
improve the wellbeing and neighbourhood livelihood 
of residents. 

To attain this, the project engaged community mem-
bers of the estate, academics, and service providers in 
a ‘learning-by-doing’ process. This process was useful 
in initiating all participants to this process in a manner 
that was practical and accessible to all members of the 
HIA project team. The effect of undertaking this pro-
cess was this community grounded approach to HIA. 
Community grounded in this context means that the 
HIA is based on the: 

values, behaviours, norms, and worldviews of 
the populations they are intended to serve, and 
therefore are most closely connected to the lived 
experiences and core cultural constructs of the 
targeted populations and communities (Okamoto, 
Kulis, Marsiglia, Holleran Steiker, & Dustman, 
2014, p. 104).

* Throughout this report the term ‘estate’ is used to refer to 
public/social housing, that is; dwellings that are publically owned 
and managed by Housing NSW within NSW Government’s De-
partment of Family and Community Services (FACS).

The Proposal

The Airds Bradbury suburban area is approximately 
50km south-west of Sydney CBD. Airds Bradbury 
is one of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged 
of New South Wales (Australian Bureau of Statis-
tics, 2011) consisting of 1,540 dwellings which the 
majority are publically owned and managed (94%).  
The suburb has a large Aboriginal and Torres Strait 
Islander community making up 15% of the total Airds 
population.  

The Airds Bradbury Renewal project is a large pub-
lic housing estate renewal plan with the objective to 
redevelop the area as a mixed tenure neighbourhood 
of 30% social housing and 70% private housing. This 
involves redeveloping some areas of the estate and 
constructing new private and social housing and also 
making new road connections and new community 
facilities. This includes demolition of some existing 
housing and re-location of residents. 

Previously established redevelopment plans of the 
Airds Bradbury Renewal Project were used for this 
HIA, as they included crucial community infrastruc-
ture that residents of Airds Bradbury had previously 
identified as key to a successful renewal and redevel-
opment of the area. The HIA focused on stage 3 of the 
Project concept plan which covers the redevelopment 
of the suburban town centre which contains the retail 
centre, local tavern and a multipurpose facility. This 
stage also includes development of new playing fields, 
a multipurpose community centre, redevelopment of 
an existing Pond located off the town centre, a new 
road connection, a Reserve and new housing lots.

The HIA team aimed to explore what the planned 
redevelopment of the local town centre area would 
mean for the local community and its potential health 
impacts upon residents.  The HIA focused on three 
local sites that the redevelopment plans had identified 
as crucial to the well-being of local Airds Bradbury 
residents, and the municipal upkeep of the area, once 
the redevelopment was completed. These sites were 
the creation of a new multipurpose centre, improve-



A Community Grounded HIA Jaques; Haigh; Thorn

3

ments to a manmade pond and the relocation of sporting fields found in the area. 

Methods 

Undertaking a HIA followed a step-by-step process as detailed below (see Table 1)

Table 1 HIA Steps
1. Screening Residents of the Airds Bradbury social housing estate, and staff working locally 

for the New South Wales (NSW) Land and Housing Corporation, met with trainers 
from Centre for Primary Healthcare and Equity (CHETRE) to discuss the possibil-
ity of conducting a HIA on the Airds Bradbury (AB) renewal project. This was as a 
result of calls for expressions of interest for the HIA training. These parties formed 
the project team for carrying out the HIA.

As previously highlighted, this was to be conducted as part of a learning-by-doing 
HIA training conducted by CHETRE. During day one of the training a screening 
tools was used by the project team to develop the rationale for the HIA.

2. Scoping The HIA team hosted a scoping workshop, which included members of the Airds 
Bradbury Community Reference Group (CRG), local school administrators and lo-
cal high school students. Various impacts of the planned redevelopment of the town 
centre were considered and it was agreed that the HIA would focus on the three 
main sites within the town centre (i.e. the multipurpose centre, upgrades to the pond 
and relocation of sporting fields). Initial health impact pathways were developed 
and validated by a member of the local Aboriginal community. 

3. Identification Members of the HIA team conducted a literature review focusing on the health 
impacts of each of the focus areas. Additionally, previous research that had been 
conducted in the Airds Bradbury community were identified and examined for rele-
vance to the HIA.

4. Assessment An assessment meeting was held with local stakeholders, made up of community 
members, service providers, police, council members, members of the local high 
school (including administrators and students), NSW Land and Housing Corpora-
tion staff and the developers of the redevelopment site (Urban Growth). The HIA 
presented the findings of the literature review and previous research, stakeholders 
validated these findings and developed draft recommendations. The findings were 
also shared with and validated by a member of the local Aboriginal Community.



A Community Grounded HIA Jaques; Haigh; Thorn

4

5. Decision making and 
Recommendations

The HIA team developed an initial set of recommendations based on the assessment 
workshop and input from the local Aboriginal men’s group. These were then shared 
with and prioritised by local stakeholders and a member of the local Aboriginal 
community, who corroborated these with members of the local Aboriginal men’s 
group. 

As the HIA was undertaken it also was a standing agenda item at monthly CRG 
monthly meetings meeting between May 2016 through to November 2016 with 
draft recommendations developed at the CRG and reported back to the CRG for 
comment. 

The HIA project team developed a series of report drafts informed through vari-
ous forms of research – census data, the interviewing of local community groups, 
and consultations with members of the CRG.  This was incorporated into the final 
recommendations of the eventual HIA report, the report formally submitted to the 
CRG, the developers Urban Growth, NSW Land and Housing Corporation’s Devel-
opment Director and Campbelltown City Council in December 2016.

6. Monitoring and Eval-
uation 

As of writing it is anticipated that an evaluation plan will be developed by the HIA 
project team. 

The implementations of the HIA recommendations, as articulated within the final 
report, are being monitored by the CRG. The HIA is a standing agenda item for 
ongoing CRG meetings.

It is anticipated that this HIA could act as a case study in which a ’grounded HIA’ 
approach worked well with the local community, and the case study can outline 
how this was achieved and what contributed to its success.

Results

The potential impacts of the planned redevelopment 
of the town centre were identified through a creation 
of a pathway diagram. This considered the potential 
impacts that the redevelopment would have on Airds 
Bradbury residents. 

The impacts were identified using existing evidence 
and data collected in a workshop with CRG members. 
This involved accessing data collected during prior 
consultations, a rapid literature review, data collect-
ed by the Airds Community Renewal team, City of 
Campbelltown Council and Department of Sports and 
Recreation, and anecdotal evidence from the Airds 

Bradbury Community Reference Group (CRG) mem-
bers. Data included previously collected information 
from a telephone survey and various community 
consultations. Given the context specific background 
of the HIA team, members had direct experience with 
the community and had a sound understanding of the 
current needs of the community.

Prior HIA projects, both internationally and locally 
based, were also researched by the project team to 
validate the approach taken. It is noted, however, the 
limited critical nature of this research, in that this 
research was undertaken ultimately to identify similar 
kinds of urban redevelopment. The success of these 
redevelopment projects remained largely unexplored. 



A Community Grounded HIA Jaques; Haigh; Thorn

5

While the research demonstrates what is involved in 
changing the urban landscape - the introduction of 
green spaces, outdoor recreation facilities, and fixed 
areas for exercise – what is lacking in the commentary 
of the redevelopment projects is how effective these 
changes were toward improving living standards in the 
neighbourhood. 

While the changes obviously improved the landscapes 
from an aesthetic standpoint, missing were substantial 
measurements or metrics demonstrating an improve-
ment of the overall health within the neighbourhoods 
that these changes took place. What the research did 
provide value toward, however, was providing solid 
examples on how landscape design can be directed in 
the process toward improving the quality of life within 
urban landscapes. This informed the process that the 
HIA took in assessing what residents considered to be 
effective urban landscape design.. 

The HIA report contained a series of recommendations 
for the redevelopment of the Airds Bradbury estate. 
These recommendations were presented to the CRG 

and were adopted by various CRG stakeholders. While 
these recommendations are not binding and do not 
have authority over the key estate redeveloper Urban 
Growth, all members of the CRG consider the report 
as capturing the views and wants offered by residents 
in relation to the redevelopment. As a consequence, 
the HIA report is seen as a substantial document by the 
CRG. 

As a member of the CRG, Urban Growth considers 
the community feedback the report offers to be of 
relevance, as the report forms part of the local consul-
tation requirements required to be legally met when 
undertaking redevelopment on the Airds Bradbury 
estate. Before the HIA report was completed, Ur-
ban Growth requested any early findings of the HIA 
report to inform their planning, suggesting that Urban 
Growth considered the HIA as a major source for local 
feedback regarding the redevelopment.

As of writing the CRG will have a future role in 
reviewing the Stage 3 concept plan of the Airds Brad-
bury redevelopment, through a tabling of the draft 

Activity Results
Upgrades and relocation 
of the playing fields

Potential for positive impact on the community as evidence from the literature 
and the community demonstrates that improvements in the built environment and 
access to recreational opportunities have the potential to lead to improved physical 
activity, social cohesion and mental wellbeing.

Upgrades to pond and 
surrounding area

Evidence from the literature and community suggest that this had the potential to 
positively impact the community. Improvements to the built environment have the 
potential to lead to ownership and improve positive community integration, de-
crease stigma and improve mental wellbeing.

Creation of new
multipurpose centre

Evidence from th eliterature and community found that this activity has the poten-
tial to impact the community both positively and negatively.
Positive impacts included an increase in availability of local childcare services and 
employment.
Negative impacts included the shifting of the current effective model of practice 
would lead to a decrease in established community ownership and connection. A 
reduction in community space would lead to a decrease in utilisation, causing a re-
duction in community activity, involvement, physical activity and connectedness.

Table 2: Summary of key findings



A Community Grounded HIA Jaques; Haigh; Thorn

6

Activity Recommendations

Upgrades and relocation of 
the playing fields

• Prioritise local sport needs
• Develop promotion strategy for local use
• Develop strategy for low cost participation for locals
• Ensure fields and amenities are safe (lighting, surveillance)
• Ensuring historical name and significance is displayed
• Establish adjacent spaces applicable for different age groups and ability 

levels
• Acknowledge the sensitivity of the placement of fields near significant 

Aboriginal land.
Upgrades to the pond and 
surrounding area

• Establish ongoing maintenance plan (waste disposal, vegetation, water 
quality and safety)

• Physical design to include information about local flora and fauna and lo-
cal aboriginal history and significance and have facilities including shade, 
lighting, drinking water and rest stations. 

• Design to encourage participation e.g. walkability, age and ability appro-
priate. 

Upgrades for multipurpose 
centre

• Physical design meets minimum requirements for community use as 
deemed appropriate by local community

• Continue to have staffed reception area
• Adequate amenities including kitchen and toilets 
• Minimum opening hours 5 days a week.

Participation • Employ community development office to encourage and support health 
and wellbeing and social participation throughout period of change in the 
estate

• Continue to support existing relationships between current community 
centre and local residents 

• Ensure all three design components (playing fields, pond and multipurpose 
centre) are easily accessible and integrated.

• In longer term, consider alternative modes of operation which reflect needs 
of the changing community, use of IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation 
recommended. 

• Where possible, naming of existing or newly established infrastructure 
should be made in consultation with local community including the local 
Aboriginal community. 

Cultural participation • Ensure appropriate ongoing engagement with local Aboriginal community 
to recognise the significance of local Aboriginal community.

• Consider introduction of a cultural learning/sharing space within town 
centre

• Consider regular organisation of cultural events that reflect local communi-
ty

• Consider the use of public art that reflects local cultural diversity

Table 3: Summary of key findings



A Community Grounded HIA Jaques; Haigh; Thorn

7

plan by Urban Growth to the CRG, and the CRG then 
seeking to assess this plan against the recommenda-
tions contained within the HIA. The HIA remains as 
a standing agenda item at CRG meetings. Redevel-
opment under Stage 3 is expected to commence in 
the latter half of 2017 after local council consents to 
Urban Growth’s future Development Application. 
This suggests the HIA will continue to exist as an on-
going referencing tool for Stage 3 of the Airds Brad-
bury redevelopment. That is, the CRG making sure the 
outcomes of the HIA are included and fulfilled where 
necessary during the formation of the draft plan by 
Urban Growth, and then later via the Development 
Application by Urban Growth to Local Government. 

Table 2 displays a summary of the key findings and 
table 3 gives a brief summary of the key recommenda-
tions arising from the HIA.

Discussion

HIAs of social housing regeneration projects are rel-
atively common (Harris, Haigh, Thornell, Molloy, & 
Sainsbury, 2014; Kearney, 2004; McCormick, 2007). 
Regenration project have significant health  impacts 
on the communities living in in these areas. However, 
communities often have limited involvement in HIA 
processes. For example Kearney (Kearney, 2004) in 
an evaluation of community participation in a regen-
erartion HIA found that “The results suggest that there 
may be a large gap between professional rhetoric and 
the reality of community participation, and that barri-
ers to community participation in HIA may be sub-
stantial and institutionalised” 

 Community participation is often considered as a cen-
tral practice for effective HIAs (den Broeder, Uiters, 
ten Have, Wagemakers, & Schuit, 2017; Mahoney, 
Potter, & Marsh, 2007). The presence of local residen-
tial involvement and contribution in HIAs has been 
shown to have a positive impact on the success of 
projects from development through to implementation 
(Chadderton, Elliott, Hacking, Shepherd, & Williams, 

2012; Chilaka, 2015; den Broeder et al., 2017; Elliott 
& Williams, 2008; Haigh et al., 2015; Wright, Parry, & 
Mathers, 2005). However, community participation is 
often hard to establish, and also for it to be best man-
aged within the timeframes and expectations of policy 
making, which can make a truly collaborative HIA 
process a challenge to attain (Chadderton et al., 2012; 
Parry & Wright, 2003). 

This HIA provides a case study of taking a commu-
nity grounded approach in the context of an urban 
redevelopment project taking place in a locationally 
disadvantaged community. In the early planning stages 
of the HIA a decision was made to ground the HIA in 
the experiences and knowledge of the local commu-
nity. The HIA was conducted in collaboration with a 
variety of local stakeholders, particularly those asso-
ciated with the Airds Bradbury Community Reference 
Group (CRG). The CRG consists of the NSW Land 
And Housing Corporation (LAHC), Campbelltown 
City Council, Urban Growth, Family And Community 
Services (FACS) Housing Services, local schools, resi-
dents, and local churches. In addition, a representative 
from Tharawal Aboriginal community provided input 
into the HIA scoping and assessment steps. The HIA 
team consisted of representatives of NSW Land and 
Housing Corporation, (responsible for the manage-
ment of the NSW Government’s social housing port-
folio), residents from the Airds and Bradbury suburbs, 
the Centre for Health Equity, Training Research and 
Evaluation (an academic research unit that is also a 
unit of the Local Health District) in collaboration with 
South West Sydney Local Health District Population 
Health Unit.

Although engaging community members in HIAs 
is standard good practice, evaluations of HIAs have 
found variation in levels of community engagement 
and community perspectives are often missing or lim-
ited to providing evidence in the identification stage 
(Haigh et al., 2015; Schuchter, Bhatia, Corburn, & 
Seto, 2014).This similar to the consideration of equi-
ty in HIA, where equity is a core value and expected 



A Community Grounded HIA Jaques; Haigh; Thorn

8

to be considered all HIAs however in reality is often 
missed or superficially considered (Povall, Haigh, 
Abrahams, & Scott-Samuel, 2013).  Similar to the 
Equity Focussed HIA approach developed in Australia 
(Simpson, Mahoney, Harris, Aldrich, & Stewart-Wil-
liams, 2005) we felt that it would be useful to adopt 
an HIA approach that was explicitly grounded in the 
community. In the community grounded approach, 
community members had ownership and power in the 
HIA process. In practical terms the HIA team explicit-
ly considered at each step of the HIA how community 
perspectives were incorporated into the HIA. This had 
two main implications for how decisions were made 
during the HIA:
• The views of community members were prioritised 

when deciding on the areas of focus; and
• The views and experience of community members 

was given a high priority in the assessment stage of 
the HIA.

This grounded approach also influenced the process of 
the HIA:
• Community members were part of the HIA work-

ing group and therefore had power to influence the 
HIA processes and decision making throughout the 
HIA. 

• Throughout the process opportunities were sought 
to engage community members. 

Table 4 demonstrates how the community grounded 
approach influenced each step of the HIA process.

Despite having community members in the HIA 
working group, engaging the community actively 
in the HIA was still challenging. A key issue in the 
screening and scoping stage of the HIA was how the 
broader Airds Bradbury community would be engaged 
in the HIA. At the time that the HIA project group was 

Screening A key driver for deciding to carry out the HIA was the interest from community mem-
bers in both an HIA being carried out and also being directly involved in the HIA

Scoping The views of community members were prioritised when deciding on the areas of 
focus. 

Community members were part of the HIA working group and therefore had power to 
influence the HIA processes and decision making throughout the HIA.

Identification As well as data from the community being included in the identification stage commu-
nity members were also involved in deciding what data should be collected and were 
involved in collecting data from other community members (e.g. local school)

Assessment Community members were involved in carrying out the assessment step. The views 
and experience of community members was given a high priority when identifying and 
describing priority impacts.

Recommendations 
and decision making

Community members as part of the working group identified an initial set of recom-
mendations that were then validated and elaborated on by a wider community reference 
group.

Evaluation and
monitoring

It is expected that community representatives will be involved in the ongoing monitor-
ing of the recommendations.

Table 4: Implications of community grounded approach for each step of the HIA



A Community Grounded HIA Jaques; Haigh; Thorn

9

formed, the estate redevelopment that the HIA would 
cover (Stage 3) was only in draft phase by redevelop-
ment agencies, and had yet to be approved by Local 
Government and still to be tendered by the key devel-
oper Urban Growth. Further, as this estate redevelop-
ment stage was only in a draft phase, this also effec-
tively rendered the HIA itself a hypothetical exercise 
at the time of the HIA’s undertaking. 

However, there was substantial good faith within 
the CRG that redevelopment of the town centre area 
would eventually be made part of the overall redevel-
opment program for the Airds Bradbury estate. The 
CRG (which included community representatives) 
decided to limit consultation so as not to raise sug-
gestions and confusion within the broader community 
that redevelopment of these key town centre areas had 
officially commenced. 

The HIA process played a part in a collaborative 
exercise in identifying and addressing the needs of 
residents, Government agencies, community organi-
sations, and Urban Growth as the key agency respon-
sible for estate redevelopment. Through intensive 
dialogue with residents, the presence of a steering 
committee consisting of a variety of stakeholders 
attached to the Airds-Bradbury estate, and a rede-
velopment agency with commitment to participating 
within community groups such as the Airds Bradbury 
CRG, the HIA has proved to be a useful reference tool 
for each of these stakeholders. UG involvement in the 
HIA was a way to further demonstrate their commit-
ment to community and potentially enhancing trust 
with all stakeholders to the estate. 

As a document informing the decision making of the 
CRG during this current stage of redevelopment on the 
Airds-Bradbury estate, the HIA itself demonstrated the 
existence of locational disadvantage within the context 
of urban renewal. This was demonstrated through the 
HIA highlighting the importance of neighbourhood 
life to public housing residents, especially those resi-
dents that continue to live on the estate, or will return 

to the estate after stages of redevelopment are com-
pleted. 

Also of consideration was the influx of private resi-
dents to the estate through the social mix of privately 
and publicly-owned housing stock established within 
the redevelopment. This created a challenge for the 
HIA project team, in which the team needed to iden-
tify how overall health of public housing residents 
would be managed within this social mix component. 
This required the HIA project team to identify to what 
extent the redevelopment stage would identify local 
need, and from this propose a series of recommenda-
tions addressing the specific needs of public housing 
residents in the face of the pending redevelopment.

In the interest of ongoing community vitality within 
the Airds-Bradbury estate before and after redevelop-
ment, planning for this redevelopment site would par-
ticularly need to consider the maintenance, and even 
improvement, of the community infrastructure found 
within this location. This was demonstrated in the HIA 
report through recommending the construction of out-
door exercising apparatus, creation of footpaths and 
walking tracks, the creation of a multipurpose centre 
allowing local infrastructure and facilities. There-
fore an ongoing addressing of needs of both old and 
new residents, and the restoration of playing fields to 
reinvigorate organised sport within the suburb. Main-
taining community vitality through redesigning the 
local landscape is within the scope of Urban Growth 
to manage.

There were a range of contextual factors that influ-
enced the success of taking a community grounded 
approach. The CRG ensured the autonomy of the HIA 
project team and due to the sensitivity of the HIA proj-
ect to the local community, the CRG maintained con-
fidentiality of the project group during the formation 
and drafting of the HIA report. This provided a space 
for open discussions with key community stakehold-
ers that would have been otherwise difficult given the 
sensitivity of the project. This did however place the 



A Community Grounded HIA Jaques; Haigh; Thorn

10

CRG in a position where it needed to be sensitive with 
how it would mention the activity of the HIA project 
group to residents, as the redevelopment of the part of 
the Airds Bradbury estate that the HIA would cover 
was yet to be made official by Urban Growth. 

In this HIA, taking a community grounded approach 
was facilitated by the existence of collaborative bodies 
already attached to a redevelopment project. In the in-
stance of the Airds-Bradbury estate, this was reflected 
through the existence of the CRG, a steering commit-
tee existing within the estate for several years and had 
a firm presence on the estate prior to estate redevelop-
ment commencing. 

Further to this was the implementation of the HIA 
being based upon draft plans of the redevelopment 
stage, rather than final plans, thus limiting the scope 
of the project team. This restricted the amount of 
engagement that the project team could have with the 
local community. As they were draft plans, the project 
team also needed to take into consideration that the 
plans may be subject to change, and so the team had 
concerns about the HIA raising false expectations for 
residents, and causing possible concern for activities 
that may or may not go ahead. 

This was especially important when the team was 
required to make comment on the stage of the 
Airds-Bradbury redevelopment that the HIA was 
implemented toward, this stage being a substantial one 
as it incorporates the central area of Airds-Bradbury, 
where there will continue to be an ongoing traffic of 
cars and people before and after redevelopment is 
completed. 

This is also a redevelopment stage where much of the 
central community infrastructure in Airds-Bradbury is 
located, which includes a substantial man-made water 
feature, a multipurpose centre currently owned by the 
NSW FACS, and commercial establishments such as a 
hotel pub and local shopping centre.  It is an important 
stage of estate redevelopment in terms of maintaining 

community harmony and identity, and so information 
relating to the draft plans needed to be handled sen-
sitively by the project team when communicating to 
estate residents. 

While urban redevelopment of social housing estates 
in NSW are no longer a new advent, the challenge 
toward addressing how redevelopment impacts current 
and future estate residents, and the incoming cohort 
of private residents, remains. As a community project, 
the creation of a HIA is especially beneficial towards 
identifying areas of locational disadvantage within 
urban renewal projects, and to document the views 
and needs of a community already having substantial 
engagement with the agencies responsible for urban 
renewal. The methodology applied by the HIA when 
creating this final report may have value for future 
HIAs within estates undergoing urban redevelopment. 
This HIA has undertaken a ‘community grounded 
HIA’, a report relying upon extensive consultation and 
documentation of residents, especially long-term resi-
dents, and respecting the pre-existing CRG as a cen-
tral body for all stakeholders connected to the Airds 
Bradbury estate. The formation of a HIA project group 
was essentially a collaborative effort between Govern-
ment agencies and residents, with the group also able 
to maintain regular contact with the CRG. Members of 
the project group also demonstrated a commitment to 
documenting the views of residents while remaining 
linked to the CRG. 

The value that the HIA placed upon the stakeholders 
attached to the Airds Bradbury estate, and respect 
towards the collaborative local community bodies also 
in existence at the time of the HIA, primarily served to 
inform this ‘community grounded’ approach. Rath-
er than prescribe or attempt to introduce alternative 
models toward improving community vitality in lieu 
of estate redevelopment, the HIA instead resolved to 
identify and respect previously established stakehold-
ers of the Airds-Bradbury estate. Further, the HIA 
actively recognised the strengths and commitment that 
these stakeholders offered to the collaborative effort. 



A Community Grounded HIA Jaques; Haigh; Thorn

11

This ‘grounded HIA’ model can be applied within 
other contexts, and other social housing redevelop-
ment programs in NSW, Australia and internationally. 
It serves as a methodology ensuring a documentation 
of not only how pending redevelopment can affect 
long term residents of an estate, but also suggesting 
recommendations for redevelopment that is informed 
through identifying the views, opinions and efforts of 
residents and other relevant stakeholders attached to 
the redevelopment.

Conclusion

The redevelopment of Airds Bradbury will impact cur-
rent and future residents of these suburbs. Moreover, 
with specific reference to the areas of focus of this 
HIA, research has shown that a focused introduction 
of upgrades to existing greenspace has the potential 
to positively impact local communities. These types 
of facilities have the potential to considerably influ-
ence community members’ participation in sporting 
and recreational activities and in turn overall physical 
activity levels (Council, 2010; Health, 2009; Sport, 
2016). 

In this sense, while the HIA has formed recommen-
dations on this current redevelopment stage of the 

Airds-Bradbury estate, there will still be reliance upon 
the CRG to adhere to these recommendations, and ul-
timately Urban Growth to respect these recommenda-
tions as ones that have been previously sourced from 
estate residents. To this end it is unknown how effec-
tive these recommendations are until redevelopment 
on the estate is actually completed.

The HIA of this latest stage of the Airds-Bradbury es-
tate redevelopment was a useful project to encourage 
further collaboration, dialogue and planning between 
redevelopment agencies, Local Government, and 
residents of the Airds Bradbury social housing estate. 
However, there remains uncertainty over whether the 
lessons of this project can be automatically applied 
to similar redevelopment programs on other estates 
in Australia. While the HIA was a useful tool in this 
instance toward consolidating previously-existing 
collaboration between residents and redevelopment 
agencies during estate urban renewal, the local context 
within other redevelopment programs would need to 
be identified and then integrated toward the overall 
‘grounded approach’. 

This collaboration extended to the writing of this pa-
per which was a joint effort by all members of the HIA 
working group.



A Community Grounded HIA Jaques; Haigh; Thorn

12

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census: Data and Analysis [Internet].Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2011 cited 
2016 Aug 10]. Available from:

 http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/data?opendocument&navpos=200.
Chadderton, C., Elliott, E., Hacking, N., Shepherd, M., & Williams, G. (2012). Health impact assessment in the UK plan-

ning system: the possibilities and limits of community engagement. Health Promotion International, 28(4), 533-543. 
doi:10.1093/heapro/das031

Chilaka, M. A. (2015). Drawing from the well of community participation: an evaluation of the utility of local knowledge 
in the health impact assessment process. Community Development, 46(2), 100-110. doi:10.1080/15575330.2015.1014
060

Council, M. C. (2010). Wiri Spatial Structure Plan: health Impact Assessment Report. Retrieved from http://www.health.
govt.nz/our-work/health-impact-assessment/completed-nz-health-impact-assessments/wiri-spatial-structure-plan-hia: 

den Broeder, L., Uiters, E., ten Have, W., Wagemakers, A., & Schuit, A. J. (2017). Community participation in Health Im-
pact Assessment. A scoping review of the literature. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 66, 33-42. doi:https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.06.004

Elliott, E., & Williams, G. (2008). Developing public sociology through health impact assessment. Sociology of Health 
and Illness, 30(7), 1101-1116. doi:SHIL1103 [pii];10.1111/j.1467-9566.2008.01103.x [doi]

Haigh, F., Harris, E., Harris-Roxas, B., Baum, F., Dannenberg, A., Harris, M., . . . Spickett, J. (2015). What makes health 
impact assessments successful? Factors contributing to effectiveness in Australia and New Zealand. BMC Public 
Health, 15(1), 1-12. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2319-8

Health, N. (2009). Healthy Urban Development Checklist. Retrieved from NSW: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/urban-
health/Publications/healthy-urban-dev-check.pdf

Mahoney, M. E., Potter, J. L. L., & Marsh, R. S. (2007). Community participation in HIA: Discords in teleology and ter-
minology. Critical Public Health, 17(3), 229-241. 

Okamoto, S. K., Kulis, S., Marsiglia, F. F., Holleran Steiker, L. K., & Dustman, P. (2014). A Continuum of Approaches 
Toward Developing Culturally Focused Prevention Interventions: From Adaptation to Grounding. The Journal of 
Primary Prevention, 35(2), 103-112. doi:10.1007/s10935-013-0334-z

Parry, J., & Wright, J. (2003). Community participation in health impact assessments: intuitively appealing but practically 
difficult. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81, 388-388. 

Sport, C. f. (2016). Sports Facility Planning and Use. Retrieved from: https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/knowl-
edge_base/organised_sport/sports_administration_and_management/sports_facility_planning_and_use

Wright, J., Parry, J., & Mathers, J. (2005). Participation in health impact assessment: objectives, methods and core values. 
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 83(1), 58-63. 



A Community Grounded HIA Jaques; Haigh; Thorn

13

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Karla Jaques
Centre for Health Equity Research, Training and Evaluation
Part of  the UNSW Centre for Primary Health Care & Equity, A Unit of  Population Health
South Western Sydney and Sydney Local Health Districts, NSW Health
A Member of  the Ingham Institute

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. 2 (2017) DOI: 10.18060/21560
© 2017 Author(s): Jaques, K.; Haigh, F.; Thorn, M.
       This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the HIA working group - Deborah Follers, AUTHOR, Jen Rignold, AUTHOR and 
Tuyen Duong. We would also like to acknowledge the various individuals and organisations that contributed to this 
health impact assessment. In particular, this project would not have been possible without the support of  the Centre 
for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation and South Western Sydney Local Health District.


