Suchergebnisse

Scientific investigations have progressively refined our understanding of the influence of the environment on human health, and the many adverse impacts that human activities exert on the environment, from the local to the planetary level. Nonetheless, throughout the modern public health era, health has been pursued as though our lives and lifestyles are disconnected from ecosystems and their component organisms. The inadequacy of the societal and public health response to obesity, health inequities, and especially global environmental and climate change now calls for an ecological approach which addresses human activity in all its social, economic and cultural complexity. The new approach must be integral to, and interactive, with the natural environment. We see the continuing failure to truly integrate human health and environmental impact analysis as deeply damaging, and we propose a new conceptual model, the ecosystems-enriched Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effects, Actions or 'eDPSEEA' model, to address this shortcoming. The model recognizes convergence between the concept of ecosystems services which provides a human health and well-being slant to the value of ecosystems while equally emphasizing the health of the environment, and the growing calls for 'ecological public health' as a response to global environmental concerns now suffusing the discourse in public health. More revolution than evolution, ecological public health will demand new perspectives regarding the interconnections among society, the economy, the environment and our health and well-being. Success must be built on collaborations between the disparate scientific communities of the environmental sciences and public health as well as interactions with social scientists, economists and the legal profession. It will require outreach to political and other stakeholders including a currently largely disengaged general public. The need for an effective and robust science-policy interface has never been more pressing. Conceptual models can facilitate this by providing theoretical frameworks and supporting stakeholder engagement process simplifications for inherently complex situations involving environment and human health and well-being. They can be tools to think with, to engage, to communicate and to help navigate in a sea of complexity. We believe models such as eDPSEEA can help frame many of the issues which have become the challenges of the new public health era and can provide the essential platforms necessary for progress. Crown

Scientific investigations have progressively refined our understanding of the influence of the environment on human health, and the many adverse impacts that human activities exert on the environment, from the local to the planetary level. Nonetheless, throughout the modern public health era, health has been pursued as though our lives and lifestyles are disconnected from ecosystems and their component organisms. The inadequacy of the societal and public health response to obesity, health inequities, and especially global environmental and climate change now calls for an ecological approach which addresses human activity in all its social, economic and cultural complexity. The new approach must be integral to, and interactive, with the natural environment. We see the continuing failure to truly integrate human health and environmental impact analysis as deeply damaging, and we propose a new conceptual model, the ecosystems-enriched Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effects, Actions or 'eDPSEEA' model, to address this shortcoming. The model recognizes convergence between the concept of ecosystems services which provides a human health and well-being slant to the value of ecosystems while equally emphasizing the health of the environment, and the growing calls for 'ecological public health' as a response to global environmental concerns now suffusing the discourse in public health. More revolution than evolution, ecological public health will demand new perspectives regarding the interconnections among society, the economy, the environment and our health and well-being. Success must be built on collaborations between the disparate scientific communities of the environmental sciences and public health as well as interactions with social scientists, economists and the legal profession. It will require outreach to political and other stakeholders including a currently largely disengaged general public. The need for an effective and robust science-policy interface has never been more pressing. Conceptual models can facilitate this by providing theoretical frameworks and supporting stakeholder engagement process simplifications for inherently complex situations involving environment and human health and well-being. They can be tools to think with, to engage, to communicate and to help navigate in a sea of complexity. We believe models such as eDPSEEA can help frame many of the issues which have become the challenges of the new public health era and can provide the essential platforms necessary for progress.

"April 1975." ; Shipping list no.: 94-0143-M. ; Distributed to depository libraries in microfiche. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Microfiche. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; s ; 2

The technique of environmental impact analysis (EIA) was developed initially in the United States in response to a requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Now adopted with variations in at least 30 countries and by the European Community, EIA has proved to be a valuable component of a group of related techniques for discovering and projecting the probable consequences of proposed action.(Abstract amended)

The technique of environmental impact analysis (EIA) was developed initially in the United States in response to a requirement of the National 15nvironmental Policy Act of 1969. Now adopted with variations in at least 3 0 countries antf by the European Community, EIA has proved to be a va1ua't)le component of a group of related techniques for discovering and projectirig the probable consequences of proposed action. In pursuit of iriprovenicnt in analytic technique, however, the policy rationale for EIA has too oftcii been obscured. EIA depends for full effectiveness upon in‐ tcgration into the policy‐making process. Separated from commitment to environmental policy objectives, El.4 IS at risk of becoming redundant paperwork.

Environmental impact statements (EISs) examine the effect of the proposed action – typically a construction project, but sometimes a government policy or other activity – on the environment. However, increasing attention is now devoted to looking in the other direction – at how changes in the environment might affect a project. Reverse environmental impact analysis, as I will call it, has been with us for some time. For example, if a building is planned downwind of a smokestack or downstream of a contaminated groundwater plume, this effect of the outside world has long been considered. However, the emergence of scientific understanding of climate change is shining a light on the issue. For example, if during the expected lifetime of a proposed building, its site may be endangered by sea level rise, should this be disclosed in the EIS, so that governmental decision-makers can consider this prospect before granting approvals? This article explores the protocols that various government agencies have issued for reverse environmental impact analysis. It then discusses one pending case on the issue. It reports on a survey that investigated whether and how reverse environmental impact analysis is being performed in recent EISs, and it summarizes the analysis in a number of EISs.

Item 424-C-2 ; Bibliography: p. 5-26 - 5-60. ; Mode of access: Internet.