Children’s Environmental Health Indicators in Context of the Sustainable Development Goals for Small Island Developing States

Abstract

The unique environmental vulnerability of small island developing states (SIDS) is likely to impact negatively on children’s health. Children’s environmental health indicators (CEHI) are standardized measures that can be used to assess the environmental exposures and their resulting health outcomes in children. This study sought to utilize the United Nations (UN) global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with their associated targets and indicators, as a framework for a CEHI proposal for SIDS. Exposure-side indicators were taken from key themes from the 2012 Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, and health-side indicators were selected based on the most significant contributors to the burden of disease in children. The multiple-exposures–multiple-effect (MEME) framework was then used to show the relationships between environmental exposures and children’s health outcomes. The framework was populated with available data from the World Bank’s DataBank. Whilst there was some data available at a population level, major gaps in both exposure-side and health-side indicators were revealed. In order to progress children’s environmental health in SIDS, a further piece of work is required to propose a fully prioritized set of exposure-side and health-side CEHIs; based on, but not exclusively linked to, the SDGs.

Full text

International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Children’s Environmental Health Indicators in
Context of the Sustainable Development Goals for
Small Island Developing States
Eun Mi Jung 1,2, Paul Jagals 3,4 ID , Claire Brereton 3ID , Peter D. Sly 3, Rokho Kim 5,
Eun Mee Kim 2, 6,* and Eun Hee Ha 1,2,*
1
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University,
07985 Seoul, Korea; mejung@ewhain.net
2Ewha Global Health Institute for Girls, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, 07985 Seoul, Korea
3The University of Queensland, Child Health Research Centre, 4101 Brisbane, Australia;
p.jagals@uq.edu.au (P.J.); claire.brereton@uq.edu.au (C.B.); p.sly@uq.edu.au (P.D.S.)
4School of Public Health and Primary Care, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji
5Health and the Environment, WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific, 1000 Manilla, Philippines;
kimr@who.int
6Department of International Studies, Graduate School of International Studies, Ewha Womans University,
03760 Seoul, Korea
*Correspondence: emkim@ewha.ac.kr (E.M.K.); eunheeha@ewha.ac.kr (E.H.H.);
Tel.: +82-2-2-3277-2101 (E.M.K.); +82-2-2650-5757 (E.H.H.)
Received: 20 May 2018; Accepted: 2 July 2018; Published: 3 July 2018


Abstract:
The unique environmental vulnerability of small island developing states (SIDS) is likely
to impact negatively on children’s health. Children’s environmental health indicators (CEHI) are
standardized measures that can be used to assess the environmental exposures and their resulting
health outcomes in children. This study sought to utilize the United Nations (UN) global Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), with their associated targets and indicators, as a framework for a CEHI
proposal for SIDS. Exposure-side indicators were taken from key themes from the 2012 Rio+20 UN
Conference on Sustainable Development, and health-side indicators were selected based on the most
significant contributors to the burden of disease in children. The multiple-exposures–multiple-effect
(MEME) framework was then used to show the relationships between environmental exposures
and children’s health outcomes. The framework was populated with available data from the World
Bank’s DataBank. Whilst there was some data available at a population level, major gaps in both
exposure-side and health-side indicators were revealed. In order to progress children’s environmental
health in SIDS, a further piece of work is required to propose a fully prioritized set of exposure-side
and health-side CEHIs; based on, but not exclusively linked to, the SDGs.
Keywords:
sustainable development goals; SDG; sustainable development impacts; children’s
environmental health indicators; CEHI; small island developing states; SIDS; pacific island small
states; PSS
1. Introduction
The key to a peaceful, prosperous, and sustainable world is healthy, safe, and empowered
children [
1
]. Because children are particularly vulnerable to environmental risks to their sustained
and healthy development [
2
], creating a safe and healthy environment is one of the essential elements
for improving child survival, helping children to thrive, and achieving health equity [
3
]. In fact,
studies have identified a significant link between the burden of disease and environmental risks [
4
,
5
].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1404; doi:10.3390/ijerph15071404 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1404 2 of 12
Global estimates suggest that 26% of all childhood deaths, and a quarter of the disease burden
in children aged under five, could be prevented by removing modifiable environmental risks [
5
].
The disease burden linked to the environment also tends to be higher in low- and middle-income
countries (LMICs) [
6
]. However, relatively little attention has been paid to the role of the environment
on children’s health [7].
The United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [
8
] encourages an inter-sectoral
approach to resolve the shortcomings of health goals in the Millennium Development Goals and
the emerging environmental health challenges. Furthermore, the SDGs provide strong guidance for
governments around the world, to monitor and assess their progress (or lack thereof) towards creating
healthier environments for children [
3
]. The goals target several environmental health risk factors and
provide the indicators to measure their status and progress towards reducing these risks [9].
Disaggregated data collected through scientific, robust, and comprehensible indicators will play a
crucial role in identifying and reaching children who have high risks of being exposed to environmental
risks [
1
]. However, many LMICs will find it difficult to routinely collect such robust data because of
the lack of suitable monitoring and surveillance tools integrated into systems of information flow and
decision-making. Small island developing states (SIDS) are LMICs in a particularly vulnerable position,
with high environmental vulnerability and low economic growth [
10
]. SIDS are examples of countries
who will face significant challenges in measuring their progress toward creating the environments in
which children could “survive, thrive, and transform” [3].
Adopting indicators specifically for children is crucial for assessing, monitoring, and evaluating
children’s environmental health status [
11
]. Furthermore, the data derived from the indicators can be
used to establish policies that help improve children’s health and well-being and reduce environmental
risks. SIDS, in common with other countries, have a significant political focus on progress towards the
SDGs, and a number of the governments and international organizations routinely monitor and report
the SDG indicators. Utilizing existing SDG indicators would have a number of benefits, including
reduced burden of information collection and harmonization of measurements between countries.
This paper explores the extent to which the indicators related to environmental health risks and
impacts under the SDG targets would inform policy makers of the status of children’s environmental
health. It is the premise of this paper that the SDG targets and their indicators will need to be
supplemented and adapted to meet the unique requirements for measuring environmental health
risks and impacts on children. The objective of this study was two-fold: (1) to illustrate how the
selected SDG indicators can be employed for tracking children’s environmental health status in SIDS
and (2) to address the need for more child-specific and age disaggregated data to effectively monitor
and evaluate children’s environmental health in SIDS by presenting openly accessible data from the
World Bank.
2. Materials and Methods
We reviewed the global indicator framework for the SDGs [
12
] to select appropriate indicators
that can be used to express the relationship between environmental exposures and health outcomes for
children. The SDGs were adopted in 2015 by the United Nations, succeeding the expiring Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). They were intended to complete the ‘unfinished business’ of the MDGs
and to extend the scope, addressing the global implications of development for all states and covering
broad agendas such as biodiversity, sustainability, and pollution [
13
]. The 17 SDGs are broad goals,
broken down into more detailed targets, with progress towards each target measured by a number
of indicators (Figure 1). Both targets and indicators may contain a range of topics and measures.
A set of CEHI based on SDGs may therefore need to create a further subset of the indicators, with
disaggregation as required to get child-specific data.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1404 3 of 12
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1404 3 of 11
Figure 1. Sample Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) hierarchy with numbering.
When selecting exposure-side indicators, we first set the strategic themes in relation to the
leading topics of the 2012 Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, which were food;
water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH); energy; cities; and climate change [14]. We modified the
Rio+20 theme of ‘cities’ to ‘cities and human settlements’ to correspond with SDG 11, as well as to
ensure that the many settlements outside cities in SIDS were considered. Because geographical
characteristics and the development status of SIDS can make their cities and human settlements
particularly vulnerable to climate change [15], we linked climate change to cities and human
settlements and concentrated on showing the multiple effects of climate change and unsustainable
settlements on children’s health. In addition, water contamination was identified as one of the major
problems in waste management in SIDS [16], waste management was incorporated as part of WASH.
For health-side indicators, we particularly focused on indicators related to the most significant
contributors to the burden of disease in children of LMICs [9]. Therefore, we selected respiratory
diseases, diarrheal diseases, malaria, and malnutrition as our main health outcomes. We also selected
a health-side indicator addressing disasters as one of our main health-side indicators, because SIDS
are prone to natural disasters, often associated with extreme weather events and climate change [17].
To construct children’s environmental health indicators (CEHI) for SIDS, the multiple-
exposures–multiple-effect (MEME) framework, which was specifically developed for improving,
monitoring, and evaluation of children’s environmental health [2], was populated with the selected
SDG indicators and targets. The MEME framework was chosen because it allows one to describe the
complex relationship between exposures and health outcomes with integrating socio-economic
contexts and policy actions into the framework. Within each strategic theme, exposure-side indicators
and context indicators were selected and health-side indicators were placed alongside the related
exposure or context. Health outcomes were set by using SDG targets. Related SDGs were stated
separately to show the general objectives of the whole CEHI process. Because some measures that are
required to describe the context of the relationship between environmental exposures and health
outcomes were not readily available in the indicators list, we also reviewed indicators from the
MEME framework and included its indicator in the list.
With robust data provided, the SDG indicators integrated into the MEME framework would
enable monitoring and evaluation of children’s environmental health. We searched the World Bank’s
DataBank [18] for the data from 2010 to 2017 for data availability. We used the DataBank as a sole
source of data because other international organizations’ methods of country classifications were
different from the World Bank’s. The World Bank classifies small states into three groups: Caribbean
Figure 1. Sample Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) hierarchy with numbering.
When selecting exposure-side indicators, we first set the strategic themes in relation to the leading
topics of the 2012 Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, which were food; water,
sanitation, and hygiene (WASH); energy; cities; and climate change [
14
]. We modified the Rio+20
theme of ‘cities’ to ‘cities and human settlements’ to correspond with SDG 11, as well as to ensure that
the many settlements outside cities in SIDS were considered. Because geographical characteristics and
the development status of SIDS can make their cities and human settlements particularly vulnerable
to climate change [
15
], we linked climate change to cities and human settlements and concentrated
on showing the multiple effects of climate change and unsustainable settlements on children’s health.
In addition, water contamination was identified as one of the major problems in waste management in
SIDS [16], waste management was incorporated as part of WASH.
For health-side indicators, we particularly focused on indicators related to the most significant
contributors to the burden of disease in children of LMICs [
9
]. Therefore, we selected respiratory
diseases, diarrheal diseases, malaria, and malnutrition as our main health outcomes. We also selected
a health-side indicator addressing disasters as one of our main health-side indicators, because SIDS
are prone to natural disasters, often associated with extreme weather events and climate change [17].
To construct children’s environmental health indicators (CEHI) for SIDS, the multiple-
exposures–multiple-effect (MEME) framework, which was specifically developed for improving,
monitoring, and evaluation of children’s environmental health [
2
], was populated with the selected
SDG indicators and targets. The MEME framework was chosen because it allows one to describe
the complex relationship between exposures and health outcomes with integrating socio-economic
contexts and policy actions into the framework. Within each strategic theme, exposure-side indicators
and context indicators were selected and health-side indicators were placed alongside the related
exposure or context. Health outcomes were set by using SDG targets. Related SDGs were stated
separately to show the general objectives of the whole CEHI process. Because some measures that
are required to describe the context of the relationship between environmental exposures and health
outcomes were not readily available in the indicators list, we also reviewed indicators from the MEME
framework and included its indicator in the list.
With robust data provided, the SDG indicators integrated into the MEME framework would
enable monitoring and evaluation of children’s environmental health. We searched the World Bank’s
DataBank [
18
] for the data from 2010 to 2017 for data availability. We used the DataBank as a sole
source of data because other international organizations’ methods of country classifications were
different from the World Bank’s. The World Bank classifies small states into three groups: Caribbean

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1404 4 of 12
small states (CSS), Pacific Island small states (PSS), and other small states [
19
]. Data for PSS were
used as the closest equivalent for SIDS because the PSS group contains the largest number of LMICs
and exclusively covers island states: nine states included in the PSS were Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall
Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu [
20
].
CSS contains seven LMICs, including Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, and
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines [20].
3. Results
Table 1shows indicators from both the SDGs and the MEME frameworks. The exposure-side and
health-side indicators, SDG targets, and goals were classified according to the strategic themes and
placed in the MEME framework. Eleven exposure-side or context indicators related to food, WASH,
energy, and cities and human settlements associated with climate change were selected from the
global indicator framework and the MEME framework. For instance, poverty was viewed as a context
indicator for food as poverty can create a vicious cycle that involves malnutrition [
21
]. Indicators on
water, sanitation, hygiene, and waste management were matched to WASH as stated above.
Considering that energy is related to access to clean fuel and use of renewable energy sources [
22
],
energy was associated with indoor and outdoor air pollution. CO
2
emissions were placed as a context
indicator for climate change because CO
2
emissions are generally regarded as one of the main causes
of climate change [
23
]. In addition, a MEME indicator on assessing the number of children with
an increased risk of malaria transmission was used as a exposure-side indicator for climate change
because climate change has been suspected to increase malaria-transmissible areas [24].
Health outcomes were composed of seven SDG health-side indicators on malnutrition, diarrheal
diseases, respiratory diseases, malaria, and natural disasters. Thus, these indicators were mapped to
food, WASH, energy, and climate change, respectively. Food was related to malnutrition because of the
link between inadequate food intake and malnutrition. WASH was linked to the WASH mortality rate
instead of mortality as a result of diarrheal disease, because there is no health-side indicator addressing
diarrheal diseases in the global indicator framework for the SDGs.
For energy, because the use of biomass fuel is a major source of household air pollution [
25
],
access to clean fuels and technologies for cooking and heating can reduce the mortality rate attributed
to household air pollution. Fossil fuel combustion can generate a number of air pollutants including
sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter [
26
], all of which can cause outdoor air pollution.
It has been inferred that these air pollutants could result in pulmonary diseases [
27
]. Therefore,
indicator 3.4.1 was used as a health-side indicator for energy because it includes chronic respiratory
disease as health outcomes of interest.
Although there is a wide variety of effects of climate change on children’s health [
28
], climate
change was specifically linked with malaria and natural disasters because of their relevance to SIDS.
Furthermore, as climate change has been suspected to be linked to increased risks of mosquito-borne
diseases [
29
], malaria was selected as a health outcome for climate change. As the frequencies of
extreme events, including droughts, floods, and extreme temperatures, can be affected by climate
change [30], climate change is thought to be a potential contributor to natural disasters.
Actions consisted of nine SDG targets corresponding to outcomes. Targets tackling health
outcomes tend to involve multiple health outcomes in one target. Thus, health outcome targets
were included if those targets state the health outcome of interest. For instance, WASH has four targets,
two of which are health outcome targets. Because target 3.3 states water-borne diseases and target 3.4
states mortality due to water contamination, presumably related to diarrheal diseases, targets 3.3 and
3.4 were used as action indicators for WASH. Similarly, target 3.4 could be incorporated as an action
indicator for energy because non-communicable diseases encompass chronic respiratory diseases.
Because target 3.3 has malaria as one of the health outcomes of interests, it also links to climate change.
The target on natural disasters was also regarded as an action indicator for climate change. Targets on
poverty reduction and improving food security were employed for food.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1404 5 of 12
Seven SDGs that indicate general objectives of each CEHI process are shown. SDG 3, “Ensure
healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages [
12
]”, was included as a common goal and each
strategic theme has corresponding goals.
Table 1.
Children’s environmental health indicators designed for small island developing states (SIDS) *.
A. Strategic Theme: Food
Contexts/Exposures Related SDGs
1.2.1 Proportion of population living below the national poverty line,
by sex and age
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms
everywhere
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food
security and improved nutrition, and
promote sustainable agriculture
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and
promote well-being for all at all ages
Health outcomes
2.2.1 Prevalence of stunting (height for age <−2 standard deviation
from the median of the World Health Organization (WHO) Child
Growth Standards among children under five years of age
2.2.2 Prevalence of malnutrition (weight for height >+2 or <−2
standard deviation from the median of the WHO Child Growth
Standards among children under five years of age, by type (wasting
and overweight)
Actions
1.2 By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women,
and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions
according to national definitions
2.1 By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in
particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including
infants, to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food all year round
B. Strategic theme: Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)
Contexts/Exposures Related SDGs
6.1.1 Proportion of population using safely managed drinking
water services
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and
promote well-being for all at all ages
Goal 6. Ensure availability and
sustainable management of water and
sanitation for all
6.2.1 Proportion of population using safely managed sanitation
services, including a hand-washing facility with soap and water
6.3.1 Proportion of wastewater safely treated
6.3.2 Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality
11.6.1 Proportion of urban solid waste regularly collected and with
adequate final discharge out of total urban solid waste generated,
by cities
12.4.2 Hazardous waste generated per capita and proportion of
hazardous waste treated, by type of treatment
Health outcomes
3.9.2 Mortality rate attributed to unsafe water, unsafe sanitation, and
lack of hygiene (exposure to unsafe Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene
for All (WASH) services)
Actions
3.3 By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and
neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne
diseases and other communicable diseases
3.9 By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses
from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and
contamination

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1404 6 of 12
Table 1. Cont.
C. Strategic theme: Energy
Contexts/Exposures Related SDGs
7.1.2 Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels
and technology
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and
promote well-being for all at all ages
Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable,
reliable, sustainable, and modern
energy for all
11.6.2 Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (e.g., PM
2.5
and
PM10) in cities (population weighted)
Health outcomes
3.4.1 Mortality rate attributed to cardiovascular disease, cancer,
diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease
3.9.1 Mortality rate attributed to household and ambient
air pollution
Actions
3.4 By 2030, reduce premature mortality from non-communicable
diseases by one-third through prevention and treatment and
promote mental health and well-being
3.9 By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses
from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution
and contamination
7.1 By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable, and
modern energy services
D. Strategic theme: Cities and human settlements - Climate change
Contexts/Exposures Related SDGs
9.4.1 CO2emission per unit of value added
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and
promote well-being for all at all ages
Goal 11. Make cities and human
settlements inclusive, safe, resilient,
and sustainable
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat
climate change and its impacts
11.1.1 Proportion of urban population living in slums, informal
settlements, or inadequate housing
Children aged 0–14 years living in areas endemic for insect-borne
diseases [2]
Health outcomes
3.3.3 Malaria incidence per 1000 population
11.5.1 Number of deaths, missing persons, and directly affected
persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population
Actions
3.3 By 2030, end the epidemics of malaria and neglected tropical
diseases and combat water-borne diseases and other
communicable diseases
11.5 By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the
number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct
economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by
disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on
protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations
Sources: Briggs, 2003 [
2
]; United Nations General Assembly, 2014 [
31
]. * Context/exposure/health outcome/action
numbering taken from Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) target and indicator numbering as described in
Figure 1. Abbreviations: AIDS, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome; PM
10
, particulate matter less than or equal
to 10 µm in diameter; PM2.5, particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 µm in diameter.
Table 2provides data variables and data availability for the selected exposures. One indicator
could have a number of data variables in the DataBank. Labels of data variables presented here are
identical to those in the DataBank. Discrepancies between, as well as within, strategic domains were
observed. Accessibility to data on climate change was relatively high. Data on WASH and energy were

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1404 7 of 12
only available at a basic level, such as percentage of people using basic drinking water services and
mean annual concentration of PM
2.5
. An advanced level of data, including people having access to
safely managed drinking water or people having exposure to PM
2.5
concentration exceeding WHO
interim target-3 level, was not readily accessible. For WASH, indicators on waste management and
water quality did not even have data variables specified in the DataBank. Data for poverty were not
found in the Databank. Even though some of the exposure-side indicators were disaggregated by
location of residence, none of the data were child specific.
Table 2. Data on the selected exposures in Pacific Island small states (PSS).
Strategic Theme Exposure-Side Data Variables Data Availability
Food 1.2.1 Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (%
of population; total, rural, and urban) Data not available
Water, sanitation, and
hygiene (WASH)
6.1.1 People using at least basic drinking water services (%
of population; total, rural, and urban)
As for population
6.2.1 People practicing open defecation (% of population;
total, rural, and urban)
6.2.1 People using at least basic sanitation services (% of
population; total, rural, and urban)
6.1.1 People using safely managed drinking water services
(% of population; total, rural, and urban)
Data not available
6.2.1 People using safely managed sanitation services (% of
population; total, rural, and urban)
6.2.1 People with basic handwashing facilities including
soap and water (% of population; total, rural, and urban)
6.3.1 Proportion of wastewater safely treated
No data variable
6.3.2 Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient
water quality
11.6.1 Proportion of urban solid waste regularly collected
and with adequate final discharge out of total urban solid
waste generated, by cities
12.4.2 Hazardous waste generated per capita and
proportion of hazardous waste treated, by type
of treatment
Energy
7.1.2 Access to clean fuels and technologies for cooking (%
of population)
As for population
7.1.2 Access to electricity (% of population; total, rural,
and urban)
11.6.2 PM2.5 air pollution, mean annual exposure
(micrograms per cubic meter)
11.6.2 PM2.5 air pollution, population exposed to levels
exceeding WHO guideline value (% of total)
11.6.2 PM2.5 air pollution, population exposed to levels
exceeding WHO Interim Target-1 value (% of total)
Data not available
11.6.2 PM2.5 air pollution, population exposed to levels
exceeding WHO Interim Target-2 value (% of total)
11.6.2 PM2.5 air pollution, population exposed to levels
exceeding WHO Interim Target-3 value (% of total)

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1404 8 of 12
Table 2. Cont.
Strategic Theme Exposure-Side Data Variables Data Availability
Cities and human
settlements: climate
change
9.4.1 CO2emission per unit of value added (kg per 2010
US$ of GDP)
As for population
9.4.1 CO2emission per unit of value added (kg per 2011
PPP $ of GDP)
9.4.1 CO2emission per unit of value added (kg per PPP $
of GDP)
9.4.1 CO2emission per unit of value added (metric tons
per capita)
Children aged 0–14 years living in areas endemic for
insect-borne diseases Not applicable
(Sources: DataBank from the World Bank Group [
18
] and Briggs, 2003 [
2
]). Abbreviations: PM
2.5
, particulate
matter less than or equal to 2.5
µ
m in diameter; WHO, World Health Organization; US$, United States Dollar; PPP,
purchasing power parity; GDP, gross domestic product.
Table 3shows data variables and data availaiblty for the selected health outcomes. Health data
were rarely available for PSS. Data have been collected for only two health outcomes; namely
prevalence of undernourishment and mortality from cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or
chronic respiratory disease between the exact ages 30 and 70. However, data were not child-specific.
For other indicators, data were either not available or data variables did not exist in the Databank.
Health-side indicators on food were the only indicators that are child-specific, but no data have
been collected.
Table 3. Data on the selected health outcomes in PSS.
Strategic Themes Health-Side Data Variables Data Availability
Food
2.2.1 Prevalence of undernourishment (% of population)
As for population
2.2.1 Prevalence of severe wasting, weight for height (%
of children under five; total, female, and male)
Data not available
2.2.1 Prevalence of stunting, weight for height (% of
children under five; total, female, and male)
2.2.1 Prevalence of underweight, weight for height (% of
children under five; total, female, and male)
2.2.1 Prevalence of wasting, weight for height (% of
children under five; total, female, and male)
Water, sanitation, and
hygiene (WASH)
3.9.2 Mortality rate attributed to unsafe water, unsafe
sanitation, and lack of hygiene (exposure to unsafe water,
sanitation, and hygiene for all (WASH) services)
No data variable
Energy
3.4.1 Mortality from cardiovascular disease, cancer,
diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease between exact
ages 30 and 70 (%)
As for population
3.9.1 Mortality rate attributed to household and ambient
air pollution No data variable
Cities and human
settlements: Climate
change
3.3.3 Malaria incidence per 1000 population Data not available
11.5.1 Number of deaths, missing persons, and directly
affected persons attributed to disasters per
100,000 population
No data variable
Sources: DataBank from the World Bank Group [18].

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1404 9 of 12
4. Discussion
The SDGs and MEME indicators were formulated around the MEME framework to illustrate the
relationship between the selected environmental risks and health consequences in children. The four
strategic themes, namely, food, WASH, energy, and climate change, associated with cities and human
settlements were selected because of their significance in the SDGs and relevance to situations in
SIDS. For instance, food insecurity has been a major concern in SIDS [
32
], and SIDS heavily rely on
combustion of fossil fuels [
33
] to generate energy. Depletion of fresh water, lack of proper sanitation
facilities, and inappropriate treatment of waste water have been environmental threats to SIDS [
34
],
and SIDS are vulnerable to the imminent impacts of climate change [35].
The strategic themes were linked to the leading causes of childhood mortality [
6
,
9
], preventable
through improving environmental conditions. The limitation of this approach was that we linked
a single environmental exposure to a specific health outcome, but there are many cases where
multiple exposures can cause multiple health outcomes in a complex relationship. However, use
of the MEME framework can reduce the bias because it allows a more systematic approach to the
complex relationship between exposures and health outcomes.
The indicators in the framework can be used to generate scientific data for SIDS. In addition,
because of their relevance to the SDGs, the indicators can inform policy makers of the glimpse of the
current environmental health status. To determine the data availability and simulate future usage,
data from the World Bank’s DataBank were presented.
PSS were used as a probe for SIDS because PSS encompassed the largest number of LMICs
and exclusively contained island states. CSS include Belize and Suriname, which are not island
countries [
36
]. Because the common characteristics can stem from the geographical peculiarity of
islands [
37
], using PSS as an example was plausible. The shortcoming that was found in the scrutiny
of data was that because the SDG indicators were developed to be used at country level to feed into a
global level perspective, they are not ideally fitted for assessing children’s environmental health status
for SIDS. Therefore, SIDS should develop complementary/supplementary indicators that meet their
national needs.
In addition, none of the exposure data were disaggregated by age. Similarly, the health-side
indicators in the SDGs are mostly not child-specific. Even though the guidelines for SDG indicator
measurement include data disaggregation into age bands where possible [
38
], it is unclear whether
source data from SIDS contain the detail required to achieve this. We know that children are
disproportionately affected by environmental exposures because of their unique exposure pathways
and their growing bodies and systems [
39
], making it especially important to collect disaggregated
data by age group to track progress in children’s health.
Furthermore, data robustness could also be enhanced through collection and summarization of
age metadata. Analysis of age-disaggregated data would then enable identification of susceptible age
groups and analysis of health status gaps between age groups. In addition, this information would
help prioritize the allocation of limited resources in SIDS. Thus, it is inferred that disaggregating these
indicators by age will be required before adopting the indicators for assessing children’s environmental
health status in SIDS.
Collection of data on both environmental risks and the related health outcomes provides a basis
for identifying the effects of environmental interventions on health outcomes. Data availability was
appraised for each strategic theme and was found to be mostly unavailable—especially in health
outcomes. Only 2 out of 18 data variables have data collected in health outcomes.
In addition to the lack of data availability, there was a tendency for a number of health outcomes
to be included in one health-side target and separate data variables were not provided in the
data list. For instance, health-side target 3.3; “By 2030, end the epidemics of Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), tuberculosis, malaria, and neglected tropical diseases and combat
hepatitis, water-borne diseases, and other communicable diseases [
12
]”, did not have a disaggregated

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1404 10 of 12
data variable for water-borne diseases in the Databank. If a data variable is missing, the corresponding
data would not be accessible either.
Similarly, exposure data were not appropriately elaborated in the data. For instance, energy
only focused on access to clean fuel, while improved stove could be more feasible in LMICs settings.
Hence, it is
crucial to specify a complete set of indicators in the data variables to collect robust data
and monitor children’s environmental health status for SIDS.
5. Conclusions
This study proposes a coherent set of the most important CEHIs for SIDS, using the MEME
framework to show the linkages between exposure-side indicators and health-side indicators. The SDG
goals, targets, and indicators, supplemented by indicators from the MEME children’s environmental
health framework, provide a common reference point. There are many advantages to developing
a set of CEHIs that are based on SDG targets and indicators. SIDS are required to regularly report
progress on SDGs so a proposal for collection of data , which contributes to this reporting, will align
with existing focus areas.
Whilst most of the SDG indicators are not child-specific, the guidelines for data collection
request disaggregation into age and gender groups. This disaggregated data is unavailable in
the World Bank DataBank, but some may be available from other sources. Not all of the SDG
indicators are ideally suited for assessing children’s environmental health, and SIDS should develop
complementary/supplementary indicators for more specific exposure-side and health-side indicators.
Setting up a data collection process and system based on a suitable set of indicators will provide
evidence that will help SIDS to identify and target their most important children’s environmental
health issues.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, E.M.J. and P.J.; Data curation, E.M.J.; Formal Analysis, E.M.J.;
Investigation, E.M.J., P.J., and C.B.; Methodology, E.M.J., R.K., E.H.H., and E.M.K.; Writing—Original Draft
Preparation, E.M.J.; Writing—Review & Editing, E.M.J., P.J., C.B., R.K., P.D.S., E.M.K., and E.H.H.; Supervision,
E.M.K. and E.H.H.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments:
We would like to gratefully acknowledge support from the Korea International Cooperation
Agency [Grant number: 2017-002]; and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [Grant number: OPP1150374].
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
UNICEF. Global Goals for Every Child: Healthy, Safe, Educated and Empowered Children and Young People Are the
Key to a Peaceful, Prosperous and Sustainable World; UNICEF: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
2.
Briggs, D.J. World Health Organization. Making a Difference: Indicators to Improve Children’s Environmental
Health; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
3.
Neira, M.; Fletcher, E.; Brune-Drisse, M.N.; Pfeiffer, M.; Adair-Rohani, H.; Dora, C. Environmental health
policies for women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health. Bull. WHO 2017,95, 604. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Valent, F.; Little, D.A.; Bertollini, R.; Nemer, L.E.; Barbone, F.; Tamburlini, G. Burden of disease attributable
to selected environmental factors and injury among children and adolescents in europe. Lancet
2004
,
363, 2032–2039. [CrossRef]
5.
Prüss-Üstün, A.; Neira, M. Preventing Disease through Healthy Environments: A Global Assessment of the Burden
of Disease from Environmental Risks; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
6.
Kassebaum, N.; Kyu, H.H.; Zoeckler, L.; Olsen, H.E.; Thomas, K.; Pinho, C.; Bhutta, Z.A.; Dandona, L.;
Ferrari, A.; Ghiwot, T.T. Child and adolescent health from 1990 to 2015: Findings from the global burden of
diseases, injuries, and risk factors 2015 study. JAMA Pediatrics 2017,171, 573–592. [PubMed]
7.
Dora, C.; Haines, A.; Balbus, J.; Fletcher, E.; Adair-Rohani, H.; Alabaster, G.; Hossain, R.; de Onis, M.;
Branca, F.; Neira, M. Indicators linking health and sustainability in the post-2015 development agenda.
Lancet 2015,385, 380–391. [CrossRef]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1404 11 of 12
8.
UN. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York,
NY, USA, 2015.
9.
WHO. Don’t Pollute My Future! The Impact of the Environment on Children’s Health; World Health Organization:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
10. OECD. Making Development Co-Operation Work for Small Island Developing States; OECD: Paris, France, 2018.
11.
Jung, E.M.; Kim, E.M.; Kang, M.; Goldizen, F.; Gore, F.; Drisse, M.N.B.; Ha, E.H. Children’s environmental
health indicators for low- and middle-income countries in asia. Ann. Glob. Health
2017
,83, 530–540.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
12.
UN General Assembly. Work of the Statistical Commission Pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development (a/res/71/313); UN General Assembly: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
13.
Hill, P.S.; Buse, K.; Brolan, C.E.; Ooms, G. How can health remain central post-2015 in a sustainable
development paradigm? Glob. Health 2014,10, 18. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
UN. Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY,
USA, 2012.
15.
Campbell-Lendrum, D.; Corvalán, C. Climate change and developing-country cities: Implications for
environmental health and equity. J. Urban Health 2007,84, 109–117. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
UNEP. Waste Management in Small Island Developing States. Progress in the Implementation of the
Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. Available online:
http://islands.unep.ch/d99-6a2.htm (accessed on 14 June 2018).
17.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Urbanization and Climate Change in Small Island
Developing States; UN-Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya, 2015.
18. The World Bank Group. Databank; The World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
19.
The World Bank Group. Countries and Economies. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/country
(accessed on 15 June 2018).
20.
The World Bank Group. Low & Middle Income. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/income-
level/low-and-middle-income?view=chart (accessed on 15 June 2018).
21.
Schiff, M.; Valdes, A. Poverty, food intake, and malnutrition: Implications for food security in developing
countries. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1990,72, 1318–1322. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22.
McCollum, D.; Gomez Echeverri, L.; Riahi, K.; Parkinson, S. Sdg7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable,
sustainable and modern energy for all. UN Chron. 2017. [CrossRef]
23.
Anderson, T.R.; Hawkins, E.; Jones, P.D. CO
2
, the greenhouse effect and global warming: From the pioneering
work of arrhenius and callendar to today’s earth system models. Endeavour
2016
,40, 178–187. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
24.
Caminade, C.; Kovats, S.; Rocklov, J.; Tompkins, A.M.; Morse, A.P.; Colón-González, F.J.; Stenlund, H.;
Martens, P.; Lloyd, S.J. Impact of climate change on global malaria distribution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2014,111, 3286–3291. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
De Koning, H.W.; Smith, K.R.; Last, J.M. Biomass fuel combustion and health. Bull. WHO
1985
,63, 11–26.
[PubMed]
26. IEA OECD. Energy and Air Pollution: World Energy Outlook Special Report; OECD: Paris, France, 2016.
27.
Kurt, O.K.; Zhang, J.; Pinkerton, K.E. Pulmonary health effects of air pollution. Curr. Opin. Pulm. Med.
2016
,
22, 138–143. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28.
Ahdoot, S.; Pacheco, S.E. Global climate change and children’s health. Pediatrics
2015
,136, e1468–e1484.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
29.
Reiter, P. Climate change and mosquito-borne disease. Environ. Health Perspect.
2001
,109, 141–161. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
30.
Field, C.B. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
31.
UN General Assembly. Draft Outcome Document of the Third International Conference on Small Island
Developing States; UN General Assembly: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
32.
Charlton, K.E.; Russell, J.; Gorman, E.; Hanich, Q.; Delisle, A.; Campbell, B.; Bell, J. Fish, food security and
health in pacific island countries and territories: A systematic literature review. BMC Public Health
2016
,
16, 285. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,15, 1404 12 of 12
33.
Prasad, R.D.; Bansal, R.C.; Raturi, A. A review of fiji’s energy situation: Challenges and strategies as a small
island developing state. Renew.Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017,75, 278–292. [CrossRef]
34.
WHO. Sanitation, Drinking-Water and Health in Pacific Island Countries: 2015 Update and Future Outlook;
WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific: Manila, Philippines, 2016.
35.
Carabine, E.; Dupar, M. The Ipcc’s Fifth Assessment Report: What’s in It for Small Island Developing States?
2014. Available online: http://cdkn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/IPCC-AR5-Whats-in-it-for-SIDS_
WEB.pdf (accessed on 3 July 2018).
36.
Augustin, A. Globalization Challenges for Small Island Developing States. Unpublished Thesis, University
of Trier, Trier, Germany, 2007.
37.
Kelman, I. Islandness within climate change narratives of small island developing states (SIDS).
Island Stud. J.
2018,13, 149–166. [CrossRef]
38.
UN. Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators; UN Economic and
Social Council: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
39.
Sly, J.L.; Carpenter, D.O. Special vulnerability of children to environmental exposures. Rev. Environ. Health
2012,27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
©
2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).