Article

The Built Environment, Climate Change, and Health. Opportunities for Co-Benefits

National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, USA.
American journal of preventive medicine (Impact Factor: 4.28). 12/2008; 35(5):517-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.017
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The earth's climate is changing, due largely to greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity. These human-generated gases derive in part from aspects of the built environment such as transportation systems and infrastructure, building construction and operation, and land-use planning. Transportation, the largest end-use consumer of energy, affects human health directly through air pollution and subsequent respiratory effects, as well as indirectly through physical activity behavior. Buildings contribute to climate change, influence transportation, and affect health through the materials utilized, decisions about sites, electricity and water usage, and landscape surroundings. Land use, forestry, and agriculture also contribute to climate change and affect health by increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, shaping the infrastructures for both transportation and buildings, and affecting access to green spaces. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected with regard to transportation, buildings, and land use, and are most at risk for experiencing the effects of climate change. Working across sectors to incorporate a health promotion approach in the design and development of built environment components may mitigate climate change, promote adaptation, and improve public health.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Stephen M Vindigni, Aug 09, 2015
3 Followers
 · 
160 Views
  • Source
    • "Milner et al. (2012) for example, emphasise how housing energy efficiency impacts upon urban air quality, thermal comfort, and associated wellbeing, and has co-benefits associated with reductions in certain types of chronic disease. Others have pointed to the joint benefits afforded by policies that promote cycling and walking over motor vehicle use in cities (Younger et al., 2008). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anthropogenic climate change is progressively transforming the environment despite political and technological attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to tackle global warming. Here we propose that greater insight and understanding of the health-related impacts of climate change can be gained by integrating the positivist approaches used in public health and epidemiology, with holistic social science perspectives on health in which the concept of ‘wellbeing’ is more explicitly recognised. Such an approach enables us to acknowledge and explore a wide range of more subtle, yet important health-related outcomes of climate change. At the same time, incorporating notions of wellbeing enables recognition of both the health co-benefits and dis-benefits of climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies across different population groups and geographical contexts. The paper recommends that future adaptation and mitigation policies seek to ensure that benefits are available for all since current evidence suggests that they are spatially and socially differentiated, and their accessibility is dependent on a range of contextually specific socio-cultural factors.
    Environmental Science & Policy 12/2014; 44:271–278. DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.08.011 · 3.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Our findings extend previous research in adult populations that suggest non- Whites perceive climate change as a higher risk than whites (Smith and Leiserowitz 2012). Some have explained this difference by noting that some non-White populations are disproportionately exposed to the negative effects of climate change as minority populations are more likely to live in inner cities affected by air pollution and heat-island effects (Younger et al. 2008) or in areas more prone to sea-level rise and storm surges (Kleinosky et al. 2006), risks which are projected to be exacerbated by climate change (Michener et al. 1997; Younger et al. 2008). As individuals who personally experience adverse effects of a specific threat are more likely to perceive that threat as high risk (Slovic and Weber 2002), similar factors may partially explain why non-White adolescents in our study appear more likely to accept AGW. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Though many climate literacy efforts attempt to communicate climate change as a risk, these strategies may be ineffective because among adults, worldview rather than scientific understanding largely drives climate change risk perceptions. Further, increased science literacy may polarize worldview-driven perceptions, making some climate literacy efforts ineffective among skeptics. Because worldviews are still forming in the teenage years, adolescents may represent a more receptive audience. This study examined how worldview and climate change knowledge related to acceptance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and in turn, climate change risk perception among middle school students in North Carolina, USA (n = 387). We found respondents with individualistic worldviews were 16.1 percentage points less likely to accept AGW than communitarian respondents at median knowledge levels, mirroring findings in similar studies among adults. The interaction between knowledge and worldview, however, was opposite from previous studies among adults, because increased climate change knowledge was positively related to acceptance of AGW among both groups, and had a stronger positive relationship among individualists. Though individualists were 24.1 percentage points less likely to accept AGW than communitarians at low levels (bottom decile) of climate change knowledge, there was no statistical difference in acceptance levels between individualists and communitarians at high levels of knowledge (top decile). Non-White and females also demonstrated higher levels of AGW acceptance and climate change risk perception, respectively. Thus, education efforts specific to climate change may counteract divisions based on worldviews among adolescents.
    Climatic Change 10/2014; 126(3-4):1-12. DOI:10.1007/s10584-014-1228-7 · 4.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Future research should examine the role of enforcement on pedestrian safety in LMICs (Ebel et al., 2009; Nasar and Troyer, 2013). The WHO and UN Road Safety Collaboration have created several manuals, including one on pedestrians, that provide guidance on interventions that may help improve road safety (Younger et al., 2008). Our study also suggests that careful consideration of strategies to encourage vehicle and pedestrian compliance with signalization are important. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Safe walking environments are essential for protecting pedestrians and promoting physical activity. In Peru, pedestrians comprise over three-quarters of road fatality victims. Pedestrian signalization plays an important role managing pedestrian and vehicle traffic and may help improve pedestrian safety. We examined the relationship between pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions and the presence of visible traffic signals, pedestrian signals, and signal timing to determine whether these countermeasures improved pedestrian safety. A matched case-control design was used where the units of study were crossing locations. We randomly sampled 97 control-matched collisions (weighted N=1134) at intersections occurring from October, 2010 to January, 2011 in Lima. Each case-control pair was matched on proximity, street classification, and number of lanes. Sites were visited between February, 2011 and September, 2011. Each analysis accounted for sampling weight and matching and was adjusted for vehicle and pedestrian traffic flow, crossing width, and mean vehicle speed. Collisions were more common where a phased pedestrian signal (green or red-light signal) was present compared to no signalization (odds ratio [OR] 8.88, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.32-59.6). A longer pedestrian-specific signal duration was associated with collision risk (OR 5.31, 95% CI 1.02-9.60 per 15-s interval). Collisions occurred more commonly in the presence of any signalization visible to pedestrians or pedestrian-specific signalization, though these associations were not statistically significant. Signalization efforts were not associated with lower risk for pedestrians; rather, they were associated with an increased risk of pedestrian-vehicle collisions.
    Accident; analysis and prevention 05/2014; 70C:273-281. DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2014.04.012 · 1.65 Impact Factor
Show more