Waste and materials management, land use planning, transportation and infrastructure including water and energy can have indirect or direct beneficial impacts on the environment and public health. The potential for impact, however, is rarely viewed in an integrated fashion. To facilitate such an integrated view in support of community-based policy decision making, we catalogued and evaluated associations between common, publically available, Environmental (e), Health (h), and Sustainability (s) metrics and sociodemographic measurements (n = 10) for 50 populous U.S. cities. E, H, S indices combined from two sources were derived from component (e) (h) (s) metrics for each city. A composite EHS Index was derived to reflect the integration across the E, H, and S indices. Rank order of high performing cities was highly dependent on the E, H and S indices considered. When viewed together with sociodemographic measurements, our analyses further the understanding of the interplay between these broad categories and reveal significant sociodemographic disparities (e.g., race, education, income) associated with low performing cities. Our analyses demonstrate how publically available environmental, health, sustainability and socioeconomic data sets can be used to better understand interconnections between these diverse domains for more holistic community assessments.
References
[1]
Committee on Incorporating Sustainability in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; National Research Council. Sustainability and the U.S. EPA; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. Available online: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13152 (accessed on 13 February 2013).
[2]
Smart Growth. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/ (accessed on 13 February 2013).
[3]
County Health Rankings. Available online: http://www.countyhealthrankings.org (accessed on 13 February 2013).
[4]
Kalenzig, W. The SustainLane U.S. City Rankings. How Green is Your City?; New Society Press: British Columbia, Canada, 2007; pp. 21–165.
[5]
Urban Environment Report. Available online: http://files.earthday.net/UER/report/ (accessed on 13 February 2013).
[6]
State & County QuickFacts. Available online: http://quickfacts.census.gov (accessed on 13 February 2013.
[7]
Earth Day Network—Urban Environment Report Methodology. Available online: http://files.earthday.net/UER/report/pdfs/EDN_UER_Methodology_121206.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2013).
[8]
Metro Economies Report Index. Available online: http://usmayors.org/metroeconomies/ (accessed on 13 February 2013).
[9]
Fiksel, J. Sustainability and resilience: Toward a systems approach. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Pol. 2006, 2, 14–21.
[10]
Diez Roux, A.V.; Mair, C. Neighborhoods and health. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 2010, 1186, 125–145, doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05333.x.
[11]
Lynch, J.; Smith, G.D.; Hillemeier, M.; Shaw, M.; Raghunathan, T.; Kaplan, G. Income inequality, the psychosocial environment, and health: comparisons of wealthy nations. Lancet 2001, 358, 194–200.
[12]
Ludwig, J.; Duncan, G.J.; Gennetian, L.A.; Katz, L.F.; Kessler, R.C.; Kling, J.R.; Sanbonmatsu, L. Neighborhood effects on the long-term well-being of low-income adults. Science 2012, 337, 1505–1510.
[13]
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/tri/ (accessed on 13 February 2013).
[14]
Abel, T.D. Skewed riskscapes and environmental injustice: A case study of metropolitan St. Louis. Environ. Manage. 2008, 42, 232–248, doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9126-2.
[15]
Abel, T.D.; White, J. Skewed riskscapes and gentrified inequities: Environmental exposure disparities in Seattle, Washington. Am. J. Public. Health 2011, 101, S246–S254, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300174.
[16]
Payne-Sturges, D.; Gee, G.C.; Crowder, K.; Hurley, B.J.; Lee, C.; Morello-Frosch, R.; Rosenbaum, A.; Schulz, A.; Wells, C.; Woodruff, T.; et al. Workshop summary: Connecting social and environmental factors to measure and track environmental health disparities. Environ. Res. 2006, 102, 146–153, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2005.11.001.
[17]
Biello, D. How green is my city. Sci. Am. 2011, 305, 66–69, doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0911-66.
[18]
Fischetti, M. The Efficient City. Sci. Am. 2011, 305, 74–75, doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0911-74.
[19]
Miranda, M.L; Mohai, P.; Bus, J.; Charnley, G.; Dorward-King, G.E.; Foster, P.; Munns, W. Human-Ecological Interconnections: Policy Concepts and Applications. In Interconnections Between Human Health and Ecological Integrity; Digiullio, R., Benson, W., Eds.; Setac Press: Pensacola, FL, USA, 2002; pp. 15–42.
[20]
Carlson, C.; Aytur, S.; Gardner, K.; Rogers, S. Complexity in built environment, health, and destination walking: A neighborhood-scale analysis. J. Urban Health 2012, 89, 270–284, doi:10.1007/s11524-011-9652-8.
[21]
Lobdell, D.T.; Jagai, J.S.; Rappazzo, K.; Messer, L.C. Data sources for an environmental quality index: Availability, quality, and utility. Am. J. Public Health 2011, 101, S277–S285, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300184.
[22]
Tanguay, GA.; Rajaonson, J.; Lanoie, P. Measuring the sustainability of cities: An analysis of the use of local metrics. Ecol. Indicat. 2010, 10, 407–418, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.07.013.
[23]
Niemeijer, D.; De Groot, R.S. A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicators sets. Ecol. Indicat. 2008, 8, 14–25, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.11.012.
[24]
Webster, P.; Sanderson, D. Healthy cities indicator—A suitable instrument to measure health? J. Urban Health 2012, doi:10.1007/s11524-011-9643-9.
[25]
Corburn, J.; Bhatia, R. Lessons from San Francisco: Health impact assessments have advanced political conditions for improving population health. Health Affair 2011, 30, 2410–2418, doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.1303.
