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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A basic epistemological conflict is found to exist between modern and non-modern practitioners of sustainable development. These categories distinguish the ways professionals interpret or frame reality. The hypothesis developed is that this inconsistency, at least partially, explains the limited success that energy-efficiency research has realized in the prediction and control of climate change catalysed by the built environment. An analysis employs both historical and empirical methods to understand how the North American air-conditioning industry has framed, and subsequently regulated, the inseparable problems of human comfort and energy consumption. Historically, the dominant framework long-inhabited by moderns has constructed a unit-efficiency model of evaluation that is concerned with universal standardization and normal design. In the empirical analysis of the selected case, an emergent framework inhabited by non-moderns constructed a unit-efficacy model of evaluation concerned with local implementation and post-normal design. The two models came into conflict when designers applied code-required energy models and financing formulae based on unit-efficiency assumptions to a case of sustainable, affordable housing. The analysis concludes with seven findings designed to move building energy research and practice beyond the current epistemological divide.
    Building Research and Information 03/2015; DOI:10.1080/09613218.2015.1016379 · 1.32 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Health disparities occur when adverse health conditions are unequal across populations due in part to gaps in wealth. These disparities continue to plague global health. Decades of research suggests that the natural environment can play a key role in sustaining the health of the public. However, the influence of the natural environment on health disparities is not well-articulated. Green spaces provide ecosystem services that are vital to public health. This paper discusses the link between green spaces and some of the nation's leading health issues such as obesity, cardiovascular health, heat-related illness, and psychological health. These associations are discussed in terms of key demographic variables-race, ethnicity, and income. The authors also identify research gaps and recommendations for future research.
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 02/2015; 12(2):1952-1968. DOI:10.3390/ijerph120201952 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study quantifies the co-benefits of Taiwan's low-emission vehicles, which are reduced pollution, extended life expectancy, and reductions in medical expenditures, using the air resource co-benefits model. Analytical results show that new diesel vehicle, LPG vehicle, and biodiesel vehicle are the most beneficial options (zero-cost options) for government policy, and subsidy is unnecessary because the public will purchase as long as they realize the high fuel efficiency and low pollution emission. The high cost–benefit ratio of hybrid vehicle (HV) means that HV is the most expensive alternative. However, the cost–benefit ratio Keywords: ARCoB model; air pollutants; greenhouse gases; life expectancy; low-emission vehicles; medical expenditures Document Type: Research Article DOI: Affiliations: 1: Institute of Environment Engineering and Management, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan 2: Institution of Engineering Technology, Taipei, Taiwan Publication date: January 2, 2015 $(document).ready(function() { var shortdescription = $(".originaldescription").text().replace(/\\&/g, '&').replace(/\\, '<').replace(/\\>/g, '>').replace(/\\t/g, ' ').replace(/\\n/g, ''); if (shortdescription.length > 350){ shortdescription = "" + shortdescription.substring(0,250) + "... more"; } $(".descriptionitem").prepend(shortdescription); $(".shortdescription a").click(function() { $(".shortdescription").hide(); $(".originaldescription").slideDown(); return false; }); }); Related content In this: publication By this: publisher By this author: Tseng, Chao-Heng ; Chen, Ling-Ling ; Shih, Yi-Hsuan GA_googleFillSlot("Horizontal_banner_bottom");
    Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 01/2015; 12(1). DOI:10.1080/1943815X.2014.980747 · 0.56 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 19, 2014