A Case Study on the Evaluation of Environmental Health Status Focused on Multiple Impact and Environmental Justice

다중 영향 및 환경정의를 고려한 지역 환경보건수준 평가 사례연구

  • Park, Choong-hee (Environmental Health Research Division, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Han, Hye-ji (Environmental Health Research Division, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Lee, Young-mee (Environmental Health Research Division, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Yoo, Si-eun (Environmental Health Research Division, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Jung, Da-young (Environmental Health Research Division, National Institute of Environmental Research) ;
  • Chu, Yeon-hee (Environmental Health Research Division, National Institute of Environmental Research)
  • 박충희 (국립환경과학원 환경보건연구과) ;
  • 한혜지 (국립환경과학원 환경보건연구과) ;
  • 이영미 (국립환경과학원 환경보건연구과) ;
  • 유시은 (국립환경과학원 환경보건연구과) ;
  • 정다영 (국립환경과학원 환경보건연구과) ;
  • 추연희 (국립환경과학원 환경보건연구과)
  • Received : 2019.12.04
  • Accepted : 2020.01.09
  • Published : 2020.02.29


Objectives: Based on the concept of environmental justice, we developed an evaluation model for setting and adopting the direction of environmental health policy using environmental health indicators and statistics from the local governments of Seoul, including environmentally susceptible populations. Methods: We selected a total of 20 variables based on data officially released from national and local governments. After the classification of these variables into the five components of environmental pressure, environmental status, environmental disease, sensitive population, and socioeconomic status, a basic model was constructed to calculate the relative scores of the local governments. Results: The cumulative impact scores for assessment of environmental health status were similar to those of the environmental pressure and status components. The highest five cumulative impact scores fell between 114 and 147. Local government A reported the highest scores and had high environmental pressure, environmental status and socioeconomic status. In addition, the evaluation of the other four local governments indicated that they exhibited above average scores for environmental pressure and environmental status, two did so for environmental disease, and four for sensitive population. Conclusion: We constructed a model to evaluate the environmental health status of the local governments of Seoul based on cumulative impact scores under the concept of environmental justice. As an approach for studying environmentally vulnerable areas through relative ranking, this model was feasible for policy-setting. In addition, this approach would be an analytically useful tool for decision-makers.


Supported by : 국립환경과학원


  1. Morris GP, Beck SA, Hanlon P, Robertson R. Getting strategic about the environment and health. Public Health. 2006; 120: 889-907.
  2. Covalan CF, Kjellstrom T, Smith KR. Health, environmental and sustainable development. Identifying links and indicators to peomote action. Epidemiology. 1999; 10(5): 656-660.
  3. Corvalan C, Briggs D T, Kjellstrom T. Development of environmental health indicators. In: Briggs D., Corvalan C., Nurminen M. editors. Linkage Methods for Environment and Health Analysis: General guidelines. A report of the Health and Environment Analysis for Decision-making (HEADLAMP) Project. World Health Organization, Geneva; 1996: 19-53.
  4. Wcislo E, Dutkiewicz T, Konczalik J. Indicator-Based Assessment of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects in the Industrial Cities of Silesia, Poland. Environ Health Perspect. 2002; 110(11): 1133-1140.
  5. Clerici N, Bodini A, Ferrarini A. Sustainability at the Local Scale: Defining Highly Aggregated Indices for Assessing Environmental Performance. The Province of Reggio Emilia (Italy) as a Case Study. Environmental Management. 2004; 34(4): 590-608.
  6. Carlin DJ, Rider CV, Woychik R, Brimbaum LS. Unraveling the health effects of environmental mixtures: an NIEHS priority. Environ health Presp. 2013; 121(1): a6-a8.
  7. OEHHA. Responses to major comments on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 public review draft. Sacramento, CA. 2017. [Available:].
  8. EC European Commission, Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007-2013). 2006. [Available:].
  9. EC European Commission. Horizon 2020-the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020). 2013. [Available:].
  10. Karjalainen T, Hoeveler A, Draghia-Akli R. European Union research in support of environment and health: building scientific evidence base for policy. Environ. Int. 2017; 103: 51-60.
  11. Rievanos RS. Retooling CalEnviroScreen: Cumulative pollution burden and race-based environmental health vulnerabilities in Califonia. Int Environ Res & Public Health. 2018; 15(765). DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15040762.
  12. Jung SW, Lee YM, et al. A case Study on the Evaluation of Environmental Health Status Based on Environmental Health Indicators. J Environ Health Sci. 2016; 42(5): 1-12.
  13. Alcala E, Brown P, Captiman JA, Gonzalez M, Cisneros R. Cumulative impact of environmental pollution and population vulnerability on pediatric asthma hospitalization: A multilevel analysis of CalEnviroScreen. 2019; 16(2683). DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16152683.
  14. Greenfield BK, Rajan J, Mckone T. A multivariate analysis of CalEnviroScreen: comparing environmental and scioeconomic stressors versus chronic diseases. Environ. Health. 2017; 16(131). DOI: 10.1186/s12940-017-0344-z
  15. OEHHA, Cumulative impacts: building a foundation. CA. 2010. [Available:].
  16. Committee on Environmental Justice, Institute of Medicine. Reference. In Toward Environmental Justice: Research, Education, and Health Policy Needs; The National Academic Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
  17. Morello-Frosch R, Zuk M, Jerrett M, Shamasunder, B, Kyle AD. Understanding the cumulative impacts of inequalities in environmental health: Implications for policy. Health Aff. 2011; 30: 879-887.
  18. Morello-Frosch R, Zuk M, Jerrett M, Shamasunder B, Kyle AD. Understanding the cumulative impacts of inequalities in environmental health: Implications for policy. Health Affairs. 2011; 30(5): 879-887.
  19. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Implementing Cumulative Risk Assessment. In Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment; The National Academies Press: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2009; 213-239.
  20. Health Effects Institute (HEI). Reference. In Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality: A Special Report of the Institute's Particle Epidemiology Reanalysis Project; Health Effects Institute: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000.
  21. Finkelstein MM, Jerrett M, DeLuca P, Finkelstein N, Verma DK, Chapman K, Sears MR. Relation between income, air pollution and mortality: A cohort study. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2003; 169: 397-402.
  22. Lin M, Chen Y, Villeneuve PJ, Burnett RT, Lemyre L, Hertzman C, McGrail KM, Krewski D. Gaseous air pollutants and asthma hospitalization of children with low household income in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004; 159: 294-303.
  23. August LM, Faust JB, Cushing L, Zeise L, Alexeeff GV. Methodological Considerations in Screening for Cumulative Environmental Health Impacts: Lessons Learned from a Pilot Study in California. Int J Environ Res. Public Health. 2012; 9: 3069-3084.
  24. Alexeef GV, Faust JB, August LM, Milanes C, et al. A screening mehtod for assesssing cumulative effects. IJER&PH. 2012; 9: 648-659.
  25. Wilson S, Burwell-Naney K, Jiang C, Zhang H, Samantapudi A, Murray R, et al. Assessment of sociodemographic and geographic disparities in cancer risk from air toxics in South Carolina. Environ Res. 2015; 140: 562-568. [Available:].
  26. Lee YM, Jung Sw, et al. Development and Prospects of Environmental Health Indicators in Korea. J Environ Health Sci. 2016; 42(5): 1-9.
  27. Hwang MY, Hong SY, et al. Differences of Chemical Exposure Levels according to Residential and Personal Life-style Characteristics of Korean adult population-from Korean National Environmental Health Survey. J Environ Health Sci. 2019; 45(2): 142-153.
  28. Huang G, London JK. Cumulative environmental vulnerability and environmental justice in California's San Joaquin Valley. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2012; 9: 1593-1608.
  29. Adler NE, Rehkorf DH. U.S. disparities in health: Description, causes, and mechanisms. Annu Rev. Public Health. 2008; 29: 235-252.
  30. Park, CH, Hwang MY, et al. Urinary phthalate metabolite and bisphenol A levels in the Korean adult population in association with sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics: Korean National Environmental Health Survey (KoNEHS) 2012-2014. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. 2019; 222: 903-910.
  31. Sadd J, Pastor M, Morello-Frosch R, Scoggins J, Jesdale B. Playing it safe: Assessing cumulative impact and social vulnerability through an environmental justice screening method in the south coast air basin, California. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2011; 8: 1441-1459.
  32. Pleis JR, Lethbridge-Cejkn M. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey. Vital Health Stat. 2006; 10: 1-153.
  33. Local Basic Government of Seoul. Statistical yearbook. Basic local government. 2018.