Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 93, Supplement 1, pp S24–S28 | Cite as

Cross-disciplinary Communication Needed to Promote the Effective Use of Indicators in Making Decisions

  • Joan L. AronEmail author
  • Robert H. Zimmerman
Article

Abstract

This paper examines problems of assessment and decision-making that result from poor or inadequate communication of indicators among the disciplines of public health, the physical sciences, and economics. The specific examples used are drawn from climate impacts in the Americas although the issues are more general to environmental health. In terms of physical processes, problems arise in confusion about indicators at different steps along the DPSEEA framework of environmental health indicators and general scientific uncertainty about the underlying physical processes. Communication between public health and economics is hindered by a lack of understanding of economic costs used in making decisions and the presence of implicit value judgments in economic analysis. Organizational structures may further inhibit the effective use of indicators. Finally, the paper discusses the Pan American Health Organization proposal to enhance the communication of indicators by using information technology networking to support communication among program managers and decision-makers at the national and local levels. The aim of this initiative is to establish a better environment for making decisions. The problem of cholera in Peru is shown as an example of the need for better communication.

Résumé

L’article porte sur les difficultés de l’évaluation et de la prise de décisions liées à de mauvaises ou trop peu nombreuses communications au sujet des indicateurs entre les disciplines de la santé publique, des sciences physiques et des sciences économiques. Même si les enjeux sont d’ordre plus général sur le plan de l’hygiène de l’environnement, les exemples sont tirés des répercussions sur le climat des Amériques. Du point de vue des processus physiques sous-jacents, il y a confusion quant aux indicateurs de l’hygiène de l’environnement pour les diverses étapes du cadre DPSEEA, et il règne une incertitude générale chez les scientifiques. Le manque de compréhension des coûts économiques utilisés pour la prise de décisions et les jugements de valeur qu’on porte implicitement dans l’analyse économique font obstacle à la communication entre les intervenants du secteur de la santé publique et ceux du secteur économique. De plus, les structures organisationnelles peuvent nuire à l’utilisation efficace des indicateurs. Les auteurs analysent aussi la proposition de l’Organisation panaméricaine de la santé visant l’amélioration des communications sur les indicateurs au moyen du réseautage des technologies de l’information pour faciliter les échanges entre les gestionnaires de programmes et les décideurs à l’échelle nationale et régionale. L’objectif du projet est d’améliorer les conditions pour la prise de décisions. Le problème de choléra au Pérou est utilisé comme un exemple à illustrer le besoin de la meilleure communication.

References

  1. 1.
    Corvalán C, Briggs D, Kjellström T. Development of environmental health indicators. In: Briggs D, Corvalán C, Nurminen M (Eds.), Linkage Methods for Environment and Health Analysis: General Guidelines. Office of Global and Integrated Environmental Health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1996; Chapter 2: pp. 28–35.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pielke RA Jr. Asking the right questions: Atmospheric sciences research and societal needs. Bull Amer Meteorol Soc 1997;78(2):255–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pan American Health Organization. Conclusions and Recommendations. Meeting on Evaluation of Preparedness and Response to Hurricanes Georges and Mitch. 16–19 February 1999, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization, 1999;xi.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sarewitz D, Pielke R Jr. Breaking the global-warming gridlock. The Atlantic Monthly 2000;286(1):55–64.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glantz MH, Streets DG, Stewart TR, Bhatti N, Moore CM, Rosa CH. Exploring the Concept of Climate Surprises: A Review of the Literature on the Concept of Surprise and How it is Related to Climate Change. Argonne National Laboratory Decision and Information Sciences Division / National Center for Atmospheric Research Environmental and Societal Impacts Group. ANL/DIS/TM-46, Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scott M, Cutter S. GIS and environmental equity: An analysis of the assumptions. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Initiative 19 on GIS and Society. URL http://www.geo.wvu.edu/i19/papers/scott.html (Date Last Modified 8/13/1997).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Obermeyer NJ. The hidden GIS technocracy. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Initiative 19 on GIS and Society. URL http://www.geo.wvu.edu/i19/papers/hidntech.html (Date Last Modified 7/14/1997).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Obermeyer NJ. Spatial conflicts in the information age. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Initiative 19 on GIS and Society. URL http://www.geo.wvu.edu/i19/papers/spatialconfl.html (Date Last Modified 5/2/1997).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barkenbus J. Expertise and the Policy Cycle. National Center for Environmental Decision-Making Research, Decision Path, URL http://www.ncedr.org/decision_path/default.html (Date Last Modified 12/4/1998). Page 6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huq A, Sack RB, Colwell RR. Cholera in global ecosystems. In: Aron JL, Patz JA (Eds.), Ecosystem Change and Public Health: A Global Perspective. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001; Chapter 11.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seas C, Miranda J, Gil AI, Leon-Barua R, Patz J, Huq A, et al. New insights on the emergence of cholera in Latin America during 1991: The Peruvian experience. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2000;62(4):513–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bell RG, Wilson J. How much is too much? Thoughts about the use of risk assessment for countries in transition and the developing world. Resources (Resources for the Future) 2000;140(Summer):10–13.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anderson C. Cholera epidemic traced to risk miscalculation. Nature 1991;354:255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Plan for Microbial Pathogens and Disinfection ByProducts in Drinking Water. EPA/600/R-97/122 (November). Washington, DC: Office of Water, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997;81.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moore TG. Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry About Global Warming. Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salazar-Lindo E, Alegre M, Rodriguez M, Carrion P, Razzeto N. The Peruvian cholera epidemic and the role of chlorination in its control and prevention. In: Craun GF (Ed.), Safety of Water Disinfection: Balancing Chemical and Microbial Risks. Washington, DC: ILSI Press, 1993;401–13.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    World Resources Institute. World Resources 1998–99: A Guide to the Global Environment. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Semenza JC, Roberts L, Henderson A, Bogan J, Rubin CH. Water distribution system and diar-rheal disease transmission: A case study in Uzbekistan. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1998;59(6):941–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roberts L, Confalonieri UEC, Aron JL. Too little, too much: How the quantity of water affects human health. In: Aron JL, Patz JA (Eds.), Ecosystem Change and Public Health: A Global Perspective. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001;Chapter 14.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glantz MH. Currents of Change: El Nino’s Impact on Climate and Society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Olson RS, Sarmiento JP, Olson RA, Gawronski VT, Estrada A. The Marginalization of Disaster Response Institutions: The 1997–1998 El Niño Experience in Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Special Publication 36. Boulder, Colorado: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado, 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pan American Health Organization. Natural Disaster Mitigation in Drinking Water and Sewerage Systems. Guidelines for Vulnerability Analysis. Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Relief Coordination Program. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Okun DA. Historical overview of drinking water contaminants and public water utilities. In: National Research Council (Ed.), Identifying Future Drinking Water Contaminants. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999; Chapter 1.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Herrick C, Jamieson D. The social construction of acid rain. Some implications for science/policy assessment. Global Environmental Change 1995;5(2):105–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science Communication StudiesColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations