Academic journal article Journal of Environmental Health

Part 3: Public Health Indicators Associated with Land Reuse and Redevelopment: Results of a 40-Community Analysis

Academic journal article Journal of Environmental Health

Part 3: Public Health Indicators Associated with Land Reuse and Redevelopment: Results of a 40-Community Analysis

Article excerpt

Background

This final series installment highlights the development of a set of community-derived public health indicators associated with land reuse and redevelopment created using the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR) Action Model (ATSDR, 2019). We designed the Action Model to engage communities in land reuse and redevelopment plans with a goal to measure changes in overall community health status. To track these changes, the Action Model promotes the development of community-derived health measures across a broad range of public health categories, from physical and mental health to environmental and economic health.

ATSDR introduced the first three Action Model pilot communities in a publication in the July/August 2013 issue of the Journal of Environmental Health (Berman & Forrester, 2013). By 2018, over 45 different communities across the U.S. have used the Action Model in redevelopment planning. Our objective was to create a data set of types of community-derived public health indicators associated with land reuse and redevelopment. Our secondary objective for creating the set of indicators was to provide a resource to accompany the Action Model that communities can use for measuring outcomes of land reuse and redevelopment activities that can lead to improved overall community health status.

Methods

Communities who used the Action Model were community partnership pilot communities (i.e., communities in which we provided technical assistance on land reuse) or grantees from a past funding program (i.e., ATSDR community health projects related to contamination at brownfield/land reuse sites). Collaborative relations with over 45 Action Model communities provided us access to these Action Models and an opportunity to consolidate the models with the intention of developing a set of community-derived public health indicators associated with land reuse and redevelopment. We ultimately consolidated 40 Action Models to a set of 69 public health indicators through an iterative process of data consolidation and assessment:

1. Abstraction: We abstracted all indicators from the Actions Models into Microsoft Excel, resulting in several hundred different community-derived indicators. We categorized indicators by various community-selected health categories in one spreadsheet. Categories were not modified at this time.

2. Consolidation: We combined or separated multiple duplications of public health categories and multiple duplications of indicators. This work required multiple iterations. For example, the indicator of access to green space appeared under categories of Environment, Built Environment, and Economy. We eliminated these duplicates and moved this indicator under Environmental Improvement as it appeared there more frequently. We then grouped the indicators related to access to green space and recreation into one category (e.g., trails, parks, and playgrounds, to name a few). An indicator related to partnership and funding for environmental improvement efforts appeared under both Environment and Economy but more frequently under Environment. As such, we grouped these indicators under a new category called Environmental Resources. We did not include indicators that were specific to only one community, such as odor issues.

3. Recategorization: With the exclusion of indicators specific to only one community, anywhere from a minimum of 4% to a maximum of 58% of communities derived common indicators. The average percentage of communities that derived similar indicators was 18% and the median percentage that derived similar indicators was 13%. We rounded the average value of communities that derived common indicators to 20% and selected that as the cutoff value for inclusion in the data set. We then grouped indicators that were commonly derived among the 40 communities under 9 community health categories. The regrouping of indicators in the consolidation process made some community-selected category names irrelevant and warranted the renaming categories. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.