Kim J, Haigh FA. HIA and EIA Are Different, but Maybe Not in the Way We Thought They Were: A Bibliometric Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Aug 28;18(17):9101. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18179101. PMID: 34501690; PMCID: PMC8430742.

Background: The fields of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) have grown with increasing numbers of disciplines and sectors contributing to their advancements, but with it, perceived conflict over methodological and disciplinary approaches to integrate health in impact assessments. This study maps the current field of HIA and health in EIA to examine the scientific landscape of the field.

Methods: We carried out a bibliometric analysis of HIA papers and EIA papers that included a health focus in peer-reviewed journals in the Web of Science Core Collection (n = 229). We carried out co-authorship and co-citation network analyses of authors and documents in VOSviewer.

Results: We identified two main co-authorship and co-citation groupings. Our document co-citation analysis also identified four clusters with two major groups, the Defining HIA cluster and the Describing the fields cluster versus the Active transport quantitative HIA cluster, and the Quantitative modelling tools cluster.

Conclusion: Our findings strongly suggest that there exist two groups of thought in the scholarly fields of HIA and health in EIA. Barriers to developing more methodologically integrated approaches to considering health within EIA are related more to disciplinary differences than field (HIA versus EIA)-based differences and we advocate for the development of transdisciplinary approaches to both HIA and EIA.