Applying Environmental Burden of Disease Models to Strengthen Public Policy

Part of the Environmental Science and Technology Library book series (ENST, volume 24)


The methods described in this book can provide a foundation for the next generation of environment and health strategic plans. Our approach provides an empirically validated means for the kinds of cooperative planning by the various levels of government, nongovernmental organizations and local communities needed in order to reduce human impacts on the environment and environmental impacts on human health. The project documented in this book followed three major steps: (1) developing preliminary environmental burden of disease estimates for 14 risk categories, (2) engaging stakeholders in a systematic process to prioritize these 14 risk categories based on the burden of disease information and other factors, and (3) analyzing in detail the burden of disease for eight key risk categories emerging from the priority-setting exercise. This chapter integrates the environmental burden of disease estimates from  Chaps. 4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10, and  11. It provides a big-picture view of the United Arab Emirates’ environmental disease burden across risk categories. It then outlines how the environmental burden of disease model described in these chapters can serve as a foundation for systematically analyzing interventions to improve environmental quality and lessen the associated disease burden. Next, it explains how a process like that in  Chap. 2 could provide the foundation for the next generation of environment and health strategic plans, in which stakeholders come together to prioritize environmental interventions from a menu of options. The chapter also explains how ecological impacts of interventions could be incorporated in this priority-setting process. The budget struggles that many nations face as they contend with the continuing global economic crisis underline the need for renewed environment and health strategic planning. The approach outlined in this book paves the way for doing more with less—for increasing the public health gains of environmental interventions without necessarily increasing the economic burden on governments and their citizens.


Environmental burden of disease United Arab Emirates Systematic prioritization of public health interventions Land-use regression modeling Hydrodynamic modeling Risk management decision-making Integrated environment and health modeling system 


  1. Coulliette, A.D., E.S. Money, M.L. Serre, and R.T. Noble. 2009. Space/time analysis of fecal ­pollution and rainfall in an eastern North Carolina estuary. Environmental Science & Technology 43(10): 3728–3735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dominici, F., R.D. Peng, C.D. Barr, and M.L. Bell. 2010. Protecting human health from air pollution: Shifting from a single-pollutant to a multipollutant approach. Epidemiology 21(2): ­187–194. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181cc86e8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Elhakeem, A., W. Elshorbagy, and R. Chebbi. 2007. Oil spill simulation in the Arabian (Persian) Gulf with special reference to the UAE coast. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 184(1–4): 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hahn, R.W., and P.C. Tetlock. 2008. Has economic analysis improved regulatory decisions? Journal of Economic Perspectives 22(1): 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hubbell, B.J., A. Hallberg, D.R. McCubbin, and E. Post. 2004. Health-related benefits of attaining the 8-hr ozone standard. Environmental Health Perspectives 113(1): 73–82. doi: 10.1289/ehp.7186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ki-moon, B. 2011. The clock is ticking. The New York Times, October 31.Google Scholar
  7. Mallin, M.A., K.E. Williams, E.C. Esham, and R.P. Lowe. 2000. Effect of human development on bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecological Applications 10(4): 1047–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. United Nations. 1992. Agenda 21: The United Nations programme of action from Rio. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  9. Wandersman, A.H., W.K. Hallman, B. Keenan, L. Lefton, E. Vaughan, L.P. Wandersman, N. Weinstein, et al. 1993. Understanding public concerns about environmental threats: Are people acting irrationally? American Psychologist 48(6): 681–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. World Health Organization. 2007. Environmental burden of disease: Country profiles. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  11. Willis, H.H., M.L. DeKay, M.G. Morgan, H.K. Florig, and P.S. Fischbeck. 2004. Ecological risk ranking: Development and evaluation of a method for improving public participation in environmental decision making. Risk Analysis 24: 363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Yach, D., C. Hawkes, C.L. Gould, and K.J. Hofman. 2004. The global burden of chronic diseases: Overcoming impediments to prevention and control. Journal of the American Medical Association 291(21): 2616–2622. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.21.2616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gillings School of Global Public HealthUniversity of North Carolina–Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Environment Agency–Abu DhabiAbu DhabiUnited Arab Emirates
  3. 3.Health Authority–Abu DhabiAbu DhabiUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations