The Importance of Using Public Health Impact Criteria to Develop Environmental Health Indicators: The Example of the Indoor Environment in New Zealand

Kylie Mason, Kirstin Lindberg, Deborah Read and Barry Borman
Additional contact information
Kylie Mason: Environmental Health Indicators Programme, Massey University, Wellington Campus, P.O. Box 756, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Kirstin Lindberg: Environmental Health Indicators Programme, Massey University, Wellington Campus, P.O. Box 756, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Deborah Read: Environmental Health Indicators Programme, Massey University, Wellington Campus, P.O. Box 756, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
Barry Borman: Environmental Health Indicators Programme, Massey University, Wellington Campus, P.O. Box 756, Wellington 6140, New Zealand

IJERPH, 2018, vol. 15, issue 8, 1-22

Abstract: Developing environmental health indicators is challenging and applying a conceptual framework and indicator selection criteria may not be sufficient to prioritise potential indicators to monitor. This study developed a new approach for prioritising potential environmental health indicators, using the example of the indoor environment for New Zealand. A three-stage process of scoping, selection, and design was implemented. A set of potential indicators (including 4 exposure indicators and 20 health indicators) were initially identified and evaluated against indicator selection criteria. The health indicators were then further prioritised according to their public health impact and assessed by the five following sub-criteria: number of people affected (based on environmental burden of disease statistics); severity of health impact; whether vulnerable populations were affected and/or large inequalities were apparent; whether the indicator related to multiple environmental exposures; and policy relevance. Eight core indicators were ultimately selected, as follows: living in crowded households, second-hand smoke exposure, maternal smoking at two weeks post-natal, asthma prevalence, asthma hospitalisations, lower respiratory tract infection hospitalisations, meningococcal disease notifications, and sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI). Additionally, indicators on living in damp and mouldy housing and children’s injuries in the home, were identified as potential indicators, along with attributable burden indicators. Using public health impact criteria and an environmental burden of disease approach was valuable in prioritising and selecting the most important health impacts to monitor, using robust evidence and objective criteria.

Keywords: environmental health indicators; environmental burden of disease; attributable burden; public health impact (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/8/1786/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/8/1786/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:8:p:1786-:d:164665

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().