Divine Mercy Development

Copyright

2011

Published Date

10/31/2011

Published By

Health Impact Project

In 2010, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) received a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conduct a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) on the Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). MDH conducted a desktop HIA on the Divine Mercy Development mixed-use EAW to inform general recommendations of incorporating health and climate change impacts into the EAW. The HIA included assessment of 26 health indicators in 10 health categories, including: air quality, land use, parks, trees and vegetation, transportation, housing, food, water, noise and safety. MDH used the findings from the HIA to inform changes to the EAW.  MDH found that the health indicators in categories of air quality, water, and noise were the most thoroughly analyzed in the EAW. The health indicator categories of housing, food, and safety were almost entirely absent from the EAW. The health categories of transportation, parks, land development, and trees and vegetation were discussed but not thoroughly analyzed from a health perspective.

Outcome

The HIA recommended that the Divine Mercy Development Project consider promoting higher residential and commercial development density, produce a plan to increase tree canopy coverage to 40 percent, and consider creating a shuttle bus route connecting the development to the city. The HIA process did not involve outside stakeholders. Ultimately, the Divine Mercy Development Project was never built, limiting the influence of the HIA.

-

This Health Impact Assessment Report first appeared in The Cross-Sector Toolkit for Health. The Cross-Sector Toolkit for Health was originally developed by the Health Impact Project, formerly a collaboration of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and The Pew Charitable Trusts. The creation of this resource was supported by a grant from the Health Impact Project. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Pew Charitable Trusts, or the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.