Looking for some podcasts to listen to while walking to class, doing chores, or avoiding homework? Check out some of our favorite urbanist (or urbanist-adjacent) podcasts and featured episodes below. And if you’re looking for, even more, our September 2020 post includes a few more recommendations.
99% Invisible 323- The House that Came in the Mail Again Design is everywhere in our lives, perhaps most importantly in the places where we’ve just stopped noticing. 99% Invisible is a weekly exploration of the process and power of design and architecture.
Starting in 1908, the company that offered America everything, Sears, began offering what just might be its most audacious product line ever: houses.
Decoder Ring (Slate Podcasts) The Mall is Dead (Long Live the Mall) Decoder Ring is a show about cracking cultural mysteries. In each episode, host Willa Paskin takes a cultural question, object, or habit; examines its history; and tries to figure out what it means and why it matters.
In this episode, author Alexandra Lange explains the atriums, escalators, and food courts of the singular suburban space of the mall.
How to Save a Planet (Gimlet) Make Biking Cool (Again)! Join us, journalist Alex Bumberg and a crew of climate nerds, as we bring you smart, inspiring stories about the climate change mess we’re in and how we can get ourselves out of it.
In this episode, the hosts look at how cycling developed its dorky reputation and counter it with some propaganda of their own.
Next City (Straw Hut Media) The Business That’s Owned by an Idea Each week Lucas Grindley, executive director at Next City, will sit down with trailblazers to discuss urban issues that get overlooked. At the end of the day, it’s all about focusing the world’s attention on the good ideas that we hope will grow.
This episode discusses Artisan Firebrand Bakery, an Oakland bakery owned by a “perpetual purpose trust” where the majority owner is the business’ mission itself.
Created and hosted by award-winning journalist Farai Chideya, Our Body Politic is unapologetically centered on reporting on not just how women of color experience the major political events of today, but how they’re impacting those very issues.
This episode features author Dr. Marisa Franco, who shares insights on the mental and physical benefits of social interactions and community building and how in times of loneliness, people are prone to inadvertently sabotage these critical bonds.
Outside’s longstanding literary storytelling tradition comes to life in audio with features that will entertain, inspire, and inform listeners.
This episode presents the story of a very enterprising librarian who came to a struggling town in Maine and took action on a novel idea: What if, in addition to loaning books, we started lending outdoor gear?
Jeff Wood of The Overhead Wire interviews public officials and advocates about transportation and urban planning policy.
This episode features Dr. V Kelly Turner, Director of Urban Environment Research at UCLA’s Luskin Center for Innovation, and covers how to think about, measure, and regulate urban heat.
The War on Cars brings you news and commentary on the latest developments in the worldwide fight to under a century’s worth of damage wrought by the automobile and to make cities better.
In this episode, the hosts take a look back at author Ray Bradbury’s dystopian vision in his short story “Pedestrian” and talk about how walking contributes to our essential humanity, and what we lose when we build environments that make it impossible for people to walk.
Technopolis is a podcast from CityLab about how cities are changing with new technology.
In this episode, the hosts have a discussion with John Zahurancik from Fluence Energy and Rushad Nanavatty of Rocky Mountain Institute on renewable energy for future cities.
What else should we be listening to? Share your recommendations in the comments below!
Emma Vinella-Brusher is a third-year dual degree Master’s student in City and Regional Planning and Public Health interested in equity, mobility, and food security. Born and raised in Oakland, CA, she received her undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies from Carleton College before spending four years at the U.S. Department of Transportation in Cambridge, MA. In her free time, Emma enjoys running, bike rides, live music, and laughing at her own jokes.
Access to good, nutritious food is essential to our ability to survive and thrive as human beings, but this is not a right afforded to all Americans. Despite being a nation of abundance, the U.S. is plagued by food insecurity and poor diet, though these impacts are disproportionally felt by lower-income families and communities of color. For example, an analysis by Walker et al. (2021) of responses to the 2011-2017 National Health Interview Surveys found that non-Hispanic Black Americans were 1.7 times more likely to be food insecure than their non-Hispanic white counterparts.[i] Food insecurity is also closely tied to obesity, the age-adjusted prevalence of which has been found to be 38.7% among Mexican Americans and 44.1% among non-Hispanic Black people, compared to 32.4% for non-Hispanic white people.[ii] Given these proven disparities in food access and dietary health, it is necessary to understand the racialized history of segregation and discrimination that led to disparate access to a healthy diet. By using the lens of Critical Race Theory, we are able to examine the structural and institutional systems that led to these disparities in Black communities relative to the rest of the United States.[1]
Critical Race Theory
The origin of Critical Race Theory (CRT) can be traced to the philosophical writings of Derrick Bell, a professor at the University of Washington Law School in the 1970s and early 1980s. Many legal scholars, lawyers, and activists at this time recognized that many of the advances of the civil rights era had stopped and even been reversed in some places. In response, scholars began developing alternative legal theories and frameworks to combat the racial inequality continuously experienced by Black Americans. CRT posits that racism is a fundamental part of American society, as it is a nation built by and for white elites, and that racial progress for minorities is only allowed only when seen as in the majority’s self-interest.[iii] This theory helps to explain how inequities in community design and access to resources are manifestations of the structural and systemic racism embedded within American society.
A Short History of Residential Segregation
The United States has had a long history of residential segregation, the impacts of which are still felt today. The 1896 Plessy v Ferguson court ruling and the era of “separate but equal” facilities and communities is thought to have ended with the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education integration of schools, but in reality America’s relationship with segregation extends well beyond both cases.[iv] Academic Richard Rothstein emphasizes the “de jure” nature of segregation – segregation solidified by laws and public policies implemented by the 1933 New Deal, the 1949 Housing Act, the Public Works Administration, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, the U.S. Housing Authority and Housing and Home Finance Agency (now the Department of Housing and Urban Development), and other local municipal housing authorities.[v]
Patterns of food security in places such as the Bay Area, CA follow the original neighborhood grades of the 1930s (Alameda County Community Food Bank)
Exclusionary racial zoning ordinances across the U.S. reclassified residential areas as industrial if African American families moved in, rendered them ineligible for mortgages and therefore homeownership, and prohibited multi-unit housing, most common for these families, in central residential areas. All of these policies made wealth-building through property ownership nearly impossible for Black families and relegated them to “urban African American slums” located in under-resourced areas close to environmentally unsafe polluting industries and far from the exclusive white suburbs.[vi] This long history of segregation and discrimination has impacted the ability of Black communities to access a healthy diet.
The Impacts of Segregation and Racial Discrimination
Wealth and Social Capital
As mentioned, segregation has had a notable impact on the ability of Black families to build generational wealth and the access to power and resources this affords. A 2020 Brookings Institute report found that the net worth of a typical white family is nearly ten times greater than that of a Black family, and high- and middle-income white families are much wealthier than Black families even within the same income bracket.[vii] A lack of generational wealth has made it much harder to Black families to find affordable, quality, stable housing – the homeownership gap between white and Black households is up to 50% in cities such as Minneapolis and Albany and 25% in DC and LA, and Black renters experience 32% of all evictions in the U.S. despite making up 20% of the renterpopulation.[viii],[ix] Eviction affects emotional, social, and physical well-being, and disrupts social capital when families are forced to relocate to entirely new communities and rebuild.
Diet Quality
Bowen, Elliott, and Hardison-Moody (2021) posit that food insecurity and poverty are strongly correlated and are both tied to the structural factors of segregation such as a lack of affordable housing and an inadequate social safety net.[x] Households with physical and financial assets, emergency savings, and stable housing, all more difficult for Black families to acquire due to this history, are less likely to experience food insecurity and poor diet quality and have far more social and economic resources to draw on when needed. Researchers have found that racism is linked to food insecurity due not only to socioeconomic impacts, but also the life-long adversity discrimination brings. Burke et al. conducted a 2016 study of 154 African American respondents, finding that a one-unit increase in the frequency of lifetime racial discrimination was associated with a 5% increase in the odds of being very low food secure. The odds increase was 15% if the discrimination occurred at a workplace or school, 16% if it felt stigmatizing or devaluing, and 39% if threatening or aggressive.[xi]
Geographic Patterns
The legacy of segregation and racial discrimination can also be seen in the geographic patterns of food insecurity. A 2019 Feeding America report found that while majority African American counties make up only 3% of U.S. counties, 92% of these have high food-insecurity rates compared to only 11% of all counties regardless of racial makeup.[xii]Bower et al. (2014) analyzed Census population and InfoUSA food store data and found that at all levels of poverty, predominantly Black census tracts have the fewest supermarkets and white tracts have the most, leading to unequal access to fresh, healthy foods.[xiii]
Outside a McDonald’s in 1980. (Henbury/Daily Mirror/Mirrorpix/Getty Images)
Beyond a lack of nutritious foods, Black neighborhoods also have a high prevalence of fast food options due to these companies actively seeking out particular land use types. National fast food chains such as White Castle have been known to target urban African American neighborhoods by seeking name recognition and brand loyalty, and this is often made easier by the weak retail climate and surplus of low-wage labor fostered by segregation.[xiv] On the flip side, Black neighborhoods are also commonly stigmatized as culturally inferior regardless of socioeconomic profiles, and many retailers such as Starbucks desiring to attract urban professionals with disposable incomes often avoid opening in these communities. Areas with more wealth, political power, and connections are able to control fast food retailer siting and attract healthier food options through enacting desirable changes and preventing undesirable businesses from moving in.[xv] As a result, the services available in segregated urban areas are typically fewer in quantity, poorer in quality, and higher in price than those available in less segregated urban and suburban areas.[xvi]
The Value of a Critical Race Theory Perspective
Viewing food insecurity and diet quality through a Critical Race Theory lens is essential, as it is well documented that racial and ethnic minorities disproportionately live in places that lack the resources necessary to generate and sustain health. A 2008 analysis by Phyllis Jones et al. of data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System even found that simply being socially assigned as white significantly improved your health status, regardless of how oneself identifies.[xvii] As previously mentioned, American residential segregation and its modern-day impacts are an indicator of structural racism, which facilitates laws and policies that explicitly or implicitly advantage white Americans while disadvantaging Black Americans. CRT is vital for understanding and addressing the disparities in access to good food and healthy diet behaviors. Structural racism, as indicated by racial inequities in poverty, unemployment, and homeownership, has been associated with higher obesity rates, fewer supermarkets, and more fast food restaurants when controlling for socioeconomic status and other factors.[xviii] Disparities in access to fresh fruits, vegetables, and other healthy foods are primarily caused by “ostensibly race-neutral policies espoused by the government that have had racialized consequences.”[xix] CRT enables us to examine how our institutions interact and create racialized outcomes that disadvantage Black communities such as food insecurity and obesity.
Conclusion & Interventions
The dietary health disparities we see today are the direct result of the American legacy of racial segregation and discrimination that has existed even before the founding of our nation. As summarized above, there is a wealth of literature regarding the health impacts of this legacy. Our history of segregation has led to racial disparities in the ability to build generational wealth and access the power and resources necessary to live a healthy life – households with more physical and financial assets, emergency savings, and stable housing, all harder for Black families to acquire than white ones, are less likely to experience dietary health concerns. Disparate homeownership and eviction rates have also resulted in a lack of stable housing and inadequate social safety net for many Black Americans, leading to a higher likelihood of both food insecurity and poor diet quality. The services and resources available in segregated urban areas are typically fewer in quantity, poorer in quality, and higher in price than those in less segregated areas, making “healthy” foods inaccessible to communities of color.
Given these racial disparities, Critical Race Theory is an essential lens to use to tackle the food insecurity crisis disproportionately plaguing our communities of color. Any anti-racist intervention to improve social support and address poor diet must center indigenous and racialized communities and tackle racism at all levels – internalized, interpersonal, and institutional. Community-level strategies to create a supportive culture around healthy foods should be centered around building community through events, mentorship and companionship, and goal setting. A built environment that provides public spaces and amenities for community-building is vital for enhancing social support and the ability to address poor diet, as well as the availability of local, convenient, healthy, affordable food options for communities across the U.S. We cannot solve the food insecurity crisis without an anti-racist approach to improving our policies, communities, and built environment.
[1] For the purposes of this piece, the terms “Black” and “African American” are used interchangeably based on the existing literature, although in reality these are two distinct identities that hold different meanings for different communities.
[v] Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing Corporation.
Emma Vinella-Brusher is a second-year dual degree Master’s student in City and Regional Planning and Public Health interested in equity, mobility, and food security. Born and raised in Oakland, CA, she received her undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies from Carleton College before spending four years at the U.S. Department of Transportation in Cambridge, MA. In her free time, Emma enjoys running, bike rides, live music, and laughing at her own jokes.
This post was originally published on December 3, 2019. As we enter year three of the COVID-19 pandemic, we reflect on another global consequence – mountains of waste. A July 2021 study by MIT found that the pandemic alone has generated 7,200 tons of medical waste every day, largely disposable masks.
By Emily Gvino, MCRP/MPH ’21
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Americans produce 25% more trash than usual between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day, generating 1 million tons more waste every week during this time frame.[1] However, the life cycle of this country’s waste poses a critical issue throughout the year. Urban planners, public works departments, and local officials are already dealing with the downstream impacts of our trash generation problems; land use decisions must handle a community’s needs for housing and economic development but also balance the increasing amount of land required to create landfills and resources to facilitate trash management. The upstream causes of waste management should also be the concern of major businesses and employers, such as healthcare organizations. Hospitals – which have relied on single-use plastic items since the 1970s – could step up in an environmental stewardship role for their communities by tackling their plastic waste generation.
The Issue: The Unending Waste Problem
In 2017, representatives from China notified the World Trade Organization of their intent to ban solid waste imports from the United States, Canada, Australia, and other countries at the Committee on Import Licensing.[2] China’s decision marks a monumental shift in global waste management that has sent municipalities and businesses across the United States into a panic. China has long been the main recipient of our garbage, and now manufacturing companies and public works departments alike must scramble to find waste management solutions.[3] Pictures of dump trucks moving debris have been splashed across the news since then, juxtaposed with impoverished workers whose daily job includes sifting through mounds of trash by hand for items that can be recycled. These images dig at our moral sensibilities, as no individual is guilt-free from contributing to this system of unnecessary accumulation. Attention to this issue is framed in the media as a problem for the greedy consumer that gets their coffee to go, orders pizza for dinner in that large cardboard box, and requires multiple plastic bags for every grocery trip.
Source: Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. 2018. “Municipal Solid Waste Factsheet.” Pub. No. CSS04-15.
For decades, the environmental movement has emphasized these individual choices as the essential mechanisms for preventing impending environmental crises: Don’t buy single-use plastics. Recycle your bottles, cardboard, and paper. Accumulate reusable tote bags and use them whenever you go shopping. The maxim of “reduce, reuse, recycle” has become so ingrained that it stands as a cliché, a slogan for an indifferent public. On a community level, we can do better: a Pew Research Center survey from 2016 found that one in five Americans lives in a community that does not encourage recycling, while half live in a community that encourages “but doesn’t seem overly concerned with” recycling efforts, mirroring this sentiment of apathy.[4]
While our garbage accumulation crisis may seem to be a concern only for environmental advocates, we also face more public health threats due to waste. The World Health Organization reports that mercury poisoning can occur through contact or through waterway contamination by chemicals that leach into water systems from landfills.[5] Without China and other countries to process our waste, more plastic products will end up in landfills and incinerators, which can release toxic chemicals harmful to our health. In Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the Roger Eubanks neighborhood faced the public health and environmental justice consequences of a waste disaster.[6] The community, whose residents are a majority African American, was the site of a landfill and waste transfer station. Meanwhile, the neighborhood was denied sewage service until 2017.[7] The Roger Eubanks neighborhood stands as a lesson for all municipal planners and public works directors of the potential environmental justice issues ahead as we will continue to grapple with our waste problem.
Hospitals: Grounds for Impactful Change
We cannot place the sole blame for our trash crisis on the individual who insists on using plastic straws. Large corporations and business entities have manufactured products with cheap plastics for decades without concern for the consequences down the line.[8] The hospital sector has remained unjustifiably free from the line of fire in the environmental movement. A study published by the American Chemical Society in 2015 found that one hysterectomy, the most common surgical procedure on women in the United States, can produce at a minimum 20 pounds of plastic waste. With 500,000 hysterectomies performed in the US each year, that quickly adds up to 10 to 16.5 million pounds of trash annually from hysterectomies alone.[9] According to the Healthcare Plastics Recycling Council, all U.S. healthcare facilities generate 14,000 tons of waste per day, equivalent to the weight of almost 115 blue whales.[10][11] That level of waste generation presents a terrible dichotomy of hospitals working hard to save patients’ lives while simultaneously polluting the air, contaminating the ground, and massively contributing to landfills in the communities they are aiming to heal.
Understandably, perceived barriers to sustainability abound when discussing the options for hospital systems: concerns about sterile environments and patient safety, cost effectiveness of materials, and the efficiency of hospital operations, from surgery in the operating room to outpatient procedures. Given the evidence that single-use plastics were made for convenience rather than medical hygiene, healthcare systems should not remain exempt from our nation’s larger conversation about how we contribute to landfills.[12]
The snag here is convincing a healthcare system to become a champion of environmental stewardship. However, it’s not a far-fetched plan: for example, the Cleveland Clinic launched a pilot of reducing plastic waste in their operating rooms in 2011 by tackling operating room surgery products that were opened during surgery but unused. Their single-use plastic program diverted these unused products from the regulated medical waste incineration path, recycled and reprocessed the items, and sold products to other healthcare providers at a lower cost. The reprocessed products were created under stricter regulations than the original devices and were resold with a higher safety standard.[13] In 2017 alone, Cleveland Clinic reprocessed 66 tons of plastic that would have otherwise ended up in a landfill. Their secondary program to recycle medical plastics also created 50 jobs in 5 years for those with developmental disabilities. A follow-up study by the Government Accountability Office echoed the idea that reprocessing medical products emphasized the reliability and safety of these products, supporting adoption nationwide.[14]
In fact, healthcare systems are the ideal place to implement innovative changes for a few key reasons: First, they are centers of innovation by nature of their sector. A leading healthcare system can create its own standard for plastic waste reduction and roll it out to all of their hospital locations and facilities. Competitor hospitals will see the cost-savings of other sustainability campaigns—and surrounding media attention – and will want to follow suit both in the service of their community and to help their bottom line.[15] Healthcare systems are major employers for many communities and often tied closely with university and research institutions. Voluntary policy adoption in a healthcare system doesn’t require the same amount of lobbying and leadership buy-in as passing mandatory legislation forcing commercial businesses to adjust their practices. These characteristics create the perfect combination of an organization willing to make systemic change with the resources to accomplish this.
Looking Ahead: Future of Plastic Reduction
Practice Greenhealth, which focuses on environmental initiatives for hospitals, has 1,100 member hospitals, and finds that hospital leadership is interested in making changes but lacks the technical knowledge and support to take steps in the right direction.[16] Stories of hope continue to emerge: Dr. Ravi Gupta, a physician at Inova Fairfax Hospital, advocated for reducing plastic waste and campaigned the hospital administration for a better waste management program. As a result, Inova Fairfax reduced its waste by 1 million pounds in one year while also saving $200,000, and can now market itself as a true sustainable healthcare leader.[17] Inova Fairfax and UNC Healthcare have similar surgical procedure volumes but are on opposite ends of the sustainability leadership spectrum. Inova Fairfax completed 19,402 inpatient surgeries in 2010, while UNC Healthcare completed 20,598.[18] In comparison, UNC Healthcare –despite its connection to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Three Zeros Environmental Initiative –still lacks a sustainability plan or concrete actions regarding the reduction their environmental footprint.
A multifaceted campaign with accompanying policies to decrease plastic waste in hospitals could make a dramatic impact. The Cleveland Clinic was able to record substantial improvements with a simple, two-pronged approach for reprocessing single use plastics for resale and recycling other medical plastics. Change doesn’t have to come in sweeping steps; 90% of IV bags do not need to be processed as regulated medical waste and redirecting IV bags alone could reduce hospital plastic waste by 10%.[19] Practice Greenhealth reports that recycling the blue wrap, which wraps surgical instruments for sterilization, could divert over 255 million pounds of waste per year.[20] Better yet, blue wraps are made with #5 plastic, one of the easiest plastic types to reuse or reprocess. Case studies across the United States have found that plastic waste reduction programs can carry significant cost savings, an added bonus.[21]
Source: Gibbens, S. (2019, October 4). Can medical care exist without plastic? The National Geographic. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/10/can-medical-care-exist-without-plastic
Hospital leadership should invest planning efforts and resources into medical waste reduction programs, for the sake of their patients, communities, and bottom line. By starting small with plastic waste reprocessing programs – even for a single product – they can create a huge impact.
Featured image: Plastic tubes, test strips and insertion devices that have accumulated after many months before they are discarded as medical waste. Laura Forlano.
About the author: Emily Gvino is a second-year master’s student seeking dual degrees from the Department of City and Regional Planning and the Gillings School of Global Public Health. Her research interests involve how the built environment can address social justice issues and the impact of climate change and the environment on health. Prior to attending UNC, Emily earned her bachelor’s degree in urban & environmental planning and Spanish at the University of Virginia.
[1] Doran, G., & Kidwell, J. (2016, December). Creative Ways to Cut Your Holiday Waste. The EPA Blog. Retrieved from https://blog.epa.gov/2016/12/21/creative-ways-to-cut-your-holiday-waste/
[2] WTO. (2017). China’s import ban on solid waste queried at import licensing meeting. World Trade Organization, (October 2017), 2017–2019. Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/impl_03oct17_e.htm
[3] Semuels, A. (2019, March 5). What Happens Now That China Won’t Take U.S. Recycling – The Atlantic. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china-has-stopped-accepting-our-trash/584131/
[4] Pew Research Center. (2016, October 7). Recycling perceptions, realities vary widely in U.S. Retrieved November 23, 2019, from FactTank website: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/07/perceptions-and-realities-of-recycling-vary-widely-from-place-to-place/
[5] Health care solid waste. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2019, from World Health Organization (WHO) website: https://www.who.int/sustainable-development/health-sector/health-risks/solid-waste/en/
[6] UNC Center for Civil Rights. (2017). The State of Exclusion: Orange County, N.C. – An In-depth Analysis of the Legacy of Segregated Communities. 1–10. Retrieved from www.uncinclusionproject.org
[7] Friend, E. (2016, December 27). Sewer lines approved for Rogers Road as ‘reparations’ for housing Orange County landfill. The News and Observer. Retrieved from https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/chapel-hill-news/article122983359.html
[8] Hodges, S. (2017). Hospitals as factories of medical garbage. Anthropology and Medicine, 24(3), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2017.1389165
[9] Thiel, C. L., Eckelman, M., Guido, R., Huddleston, M., Landis, A. E., Sherman, J., … Bilec, M. M. (2015). Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: Life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(3), 1779–1786. https://doi.org/10.1021/es504719g
[10] Healthcare Plastics Recycling Solutions for Hospitals. (2019). Retrieved November 23, 2019, from Healthcare Plastics Recycling Council website: https://www.hprc.org/hospitals
[11] Mallos, N. (2013, May 14). What Does 10 Million Pounds of Trash Look Like? Ocean Conservancy. Retrieved from https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/2013/05/14/what-does-10-million-pounds-of-trash-look-like
[12] Hodges, Sarah. (2017) Hospitals as factories of medical garbage, Anthropology & Medicine, 24:3, 319-333, DOI: 10.1080/13648470.2017.1389165
[13] Additionally: I’m trying to find a header photo for her. Does it need to be open source if I cite it at the bottom? And either way, is there a special way to cite the header photo?
[14] Williamson, R. (2008). REPROCESSED SINGLE-USE MEDICAL DEVICES: FDA Oversight Has Increased, and Available Information Does Not Indicate That Use Presents an Elevated Health Risk. (January), 38. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08147.pdf
[15] Health Research & Educational Trust. (2014, May). Environmental sustainability in hospitals: The value of efficiency. Chicago, IL: Health Research & Educational Trust. Accessed at www.hpoe.org
[16] Chen, I. (2010, July 5). In World of Throwaways, Making a Dent in Medical Waste. The New York. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/health/06waste.html
[17] Nix, M. (2011). Case Study: Inova Fairfax Hospital: Regulated Medical Waste Reduction and Minimization Demographic. Retrieved from www.GreeningTheOR.org
[18] Nix, M. (2011). Case Study: Inova Fairfax Hospital: Regulated Medical Waste Reduction and Minimization Demographic. Retrieved from www.GreeningTheOR.org
Embracing Excellence: The University of North Carolina Health Care System 2010 Annual Report. (2010).
[19] Gibbens, S. (2019, October 4). Can medical care exist without plastic? The National Geographic. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/10/can-medical-care-exist-without-plastic
[20] Bodkin, C. (2018, November 1). Blue Wrap and the Circular Economy. Practice Greenhealth. Retrieved from https://practicegreenhealth.org/about/news/blue-wrap-and-circular-economy
[21] Kaplan, S., Sadler, B., Little, K., Franz, C., & Orris, P. (2012). Can Sustainable Hospitals Help Bend the Health Care Cost Curve? The Commonwealth Fund, 29(1641). Retrieved from www.hpoe.orgcontact:hpoe@aha.orgor
Last summer, Emily Gvino (MCRP and MPH 2021 alumna), teamed up with Dr. Ferdouz Cochran to conduct a needs assessment of public health practitioners across the southeastern United States to understand the impact of extreme weather and climate events in their work. With support from Carolina Integrated Sciences and Assessments (CISA), the duo surveyed 108 professionals from emergency management and disaster services, healthcare coalitions, hospital or clinical based organizations, government-based public health agencies, and other community organizations.
The survey found that public health stakeholders are concerned about not just hurricanes, but also heavy rain, prolonged rain events, and heat. Funding, political climate, and organizational leadership are the main barriers to addressing the health impacts of climate change. Participants were also very concerned about power and infrastructure failures. Participants are greatly concerned about the health impacts of heat but less frequently utilize wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) in their work. WBGT is different from the commonly known heat index as it accounts for “temperature, humidity, wind speed, sun angle, and cloud cover (solar radiation)” in direct sunlight.[1]
A preview of the report’s findings can be found below, while the full report can be accessed on the CISA website.
Concern about Extreme Weather and Climate Events
Participants were very concerned about heavy rain, prolonged rain, heat, and hurricanes. Participants across all organization types were more concerned about heavy rain events (that may lead to flash flooding events) compared to prolonged periods of rain or flood events themselves. Participants were not at all concerned about fog and generally only somewhat concerned about drought, tornadoes, wildfire, and wind. Healthcare coalitions and emergency management—which operate on local and regional scales—are very concerned about localized impacts of winter weather, which is a lesser concern for other organizations that may operate on a larger scale. Non-profit and community organizations expressed a higher level of concern across flood-related hazards, heat, hurricanes, and storms. Those working in hospital- or clinical-based settings (primarily based in North Carolina) were very concerned about heat and prolonged rain.
The health risks of extreme heat events, from the question, “In your role, which of the following individual-level health risks of excessive heat concern you?”
The health risks of extreme heat events, from the question, “In your role, which of the following individual-level health risks of excessive heat concern you?”
Information and Tools
Despite concern about the health impacts of heat, survey participants less frequently use wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) in their work—a widely accepted and promoted measure of heat stress. The vast majority of respondents had not heard of WBGT and represent a key demographic that could benefit from access to more information, awareness, and tools regarding WBGT for their work, in comparison to relying on ambient temperatures alone. Across all types of extreme weather and climate events, participants trust the National Weather Service over other information sources, such as other phone apps, national TV stations such as the weather channel, or other web-based sources, such as Weather Underground. When asked to share what sources of information they are lacking in their current work, participants identified real-time phone and web alerts, showcasing opportunities here for improved climate communication.
In addition, public health stakeholders expressed interest in applying future climate projections and priority mapping to their current work. Based on these results, there may be opportunities for increased communication about the health risks of extreme heat and climate events for those in the public health and medical fields. For example, when it comes to heart attacks as a result of winter weather events, there was a disconnect between emergency management, who were very concerned about heart attacks, and those working in hospital or clinical settings, who were mostly concerned about car accidents due to winter weather events. Further research could explore this disconnect between different types of public health stakeholders.
Local Capacity and Leadership Building
Across all types of organizations, survey participants expressed that local levels of leadership should be responsible for preparing for extreme weather and climate events. However, survey participants shared that funding, political climate, and leadership are the most prominent barriers to action regarding addressing extreme weather and climate events in their work. Participants also expressed high levels of concern about power and infrastructure failures and access to healthcare facilities, which may require more regional capacity building and leadership across stakeholder groups. The majority of participants shared that their organizations had an emergency preparedness plan, and over half of these respondents had support the preparation of the plan. While participants reported Hazard Vulnerability Assessments (HVA) were fairly common at their organizations, less than one-third of respondents said that an HVA was prepared annually. Less than half of survey participants and their associated organizations are involved in a healthcare coalition. This summary reports our detailed findings across the top three extreme weather and climate events concerning public health stakeholders: extreme heat, winter weather, and flooding.
Featured image: Cows who survived Hurricane Florence, stranded on a porch, surrounded by flood waters in North Carolina. Courtesy of Jo-Anne McArthur, Unsplash
This post was originally published on February 12, 2021. Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the largest single increase to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to date. Beginning October 1, SNAP benefits will permanently increase by 21%, or an average of $36.24 per person. This historic move by the Biden administration will help feed the more than 42 million Americans participating in SNAP each month. As the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to drag on, this piece is once again relevant.
By Emma Vinella-Brusher, Angles Managing Editor
Of all of the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, one that has been at the top of my mind is the exacerbation of the already severe food insecurity problem we have here in the U.S.
Food insecurity, or a lack of consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life, was a health concern already affecting 35 million Americans, including nearly 11 million children, prior to the start of the pandemic. An October 2020 report by Feeding America projected a 15.6% food insecurity rate for the year, equal to 50.4 million Americans.[1] In other words, 1 in 6 people, including 1 in 4 children, likely experienced food insecurity in 2020.
Here in North Carolina as in so many other states across the U.S., the coronavirus has had a disproportionate toll on Black and Latinx communities. In May, the Durham County Health Department found that Latinx residents (14% of the population) accounted for 24% of county COVID-19 cases, while Black residents (37% of the population) accounted for 42% of confirmed cases.[2] This disproportionate burden of COVID-19 outcomes on minorities stems from longstanding economic and health inequities. Prior to the pandemic, Black individuals were 2.4 times as likely as White individuals to live in food insecure households.[3] We can trace this heightened risk of contracting and therefore dying from COVID-19 back to related health disparities stemming from the harmful history of segregation and redlining here in the U.S.
Many experts are concerned about the long-term inequitable implications of pandemic-induced food insecurity, as households with reduced incomes facing higher retail prices are likely to cut down on the quantity and quality of food consumption, with potentially long-lasting impacts on nutrition and health.[4] Beginning in March of 2020, Congress and the USDA have attempted to address this by expanding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and creating a temporary Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) program for low-income children. Further investing in this program, sometimes referred to as the nation’s “first line of defense against hunger,” is vital to addressing health disparities across the U.S. The COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted the immense inequities in health outcomes in our nation, particularly related to race, and presents an opportunity for us to get serious about ending food insecurity once and for all.
So how can you, as an individual, help? Beyond urging your congressperson to expand SNAP benefits and the Pandemic EBT program, there are some great ways to get involved in our community here in the Triangle in a safe, COVID-friendly way (and donations are always a good option if you’re short on time!). Here are a few of the many opportunities right now, ranging from food sorting and packing, to meal delivery, to farming and gardening:
Emma Vinella-Brusher is a second-year dual degree Master’s student in City and Regional Planning and Public Health interested in equity, mobility, and food security. Born and raised in Oakland, CA, she received her undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies from Carleton College before spending four years at the U.S. Department of Transportation in Cambridge, MA. In her free time, Emma enjoys running, bike rides, live music, and laughing at her own jokes.
Carolina Planning Journal is accepting abstracts for papers relating to: PLANNING FOR HEALTHY CITIES
“The power of community to create health is far greater than any physician, clinic, or hospital” – Dr. Mark Hyman, physician
Planning has been deeply intertwined with the need for healthier urban populations from the very beginning, with early planners such as Ebenezer Howard and Frederick Law Olmsted attempting to balance public health concerns with the economic and social benefits of the urban environment. Decentralization was pivotal, but as Americans fled to suburbs to escape the poor health conditions of the city center, sprawling development patterns decreased physical activity and food access while increasing rates of asthma and traffic fatalities, particularly in marginalized communities. Modern research has revealed that housing, transportation, and green space all have significant impacts on public health outcomes. Continued urbanization and globalization have only underscored the shared goals of these disciplines.
With an estimated 70% of the world’s population living in urban areas by 2050, organizations such as the European Union, World Health Organization, and American Planning Association have recognized the key role planners play in improving and protecting the public’s health for generations to come. There is an ongoing need for planners and public health professionals to collaborate and find sustainable, equitable solutions to creating healthier communities to live, work, and play in.
We welcome articles that explore the nexus of planning and health from students, professionals, and researchers alike.
Submission Guidelines
By August 13, 2021,interested authors should submit a two-page proposal. Proposals should include a title, a description of the proposed topic and its significance, a brief summary of the literature or landscape, and a preliminary list of references (not counted toward the two-page limit). Final papers typically do not exceed 3,000 words. Submit proposals and questions to CarolinaPlanningJournal@gmail.com.
By September 17, 2021, Carolina Planning Journal will notify authors regarding their proposals. Drafts of full papers will be due by December, and editors will work with authors on drafts of their papers over the course of the winter. The print version of the Journal will be published in the Spring of 2022. Carolina Planning Journal reserves the right to edit articles accepted for publication, subject to the author’s approval, for length, style, and content considerations.
Post by Emma Vinella-Brusher, Angles Managing Editor
Of all of the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, one that has been at the top of my mind is the exacerbation of the already severe food insecurity problem we have here in the U.S.
Food insecurity, or a lack of consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life, was a health concern already affecting 35 million Americans, including nearly 11 million children, prior to the start of the pandemic. An October 2020 report by Feeding America projected a 15.6% food insecurity rate for the year, equal to 50.4 million Americans.[1] In other words, 1 in 6 people, including 1 in 4 children, likely experienced food insecurity in 2020.
Here in North Carolina as in so many other states across the U.S., the coronavirus has had a disproportionate toll on Black and Latinx communities. In May, the Durham County Health Department found that Latinx residents (14% of the population) accounted for 24% of county COVID-19 cases, while Black residents (37% of the population) accounted for 42% of confirmed cases.[2] This disproportionate burden of COVID-19 outcomes on minorities stems from longstanding economic and health inequities. Prior to the pandemic, Black individuals were 2.4 times as likely as White individuals to live in food insecure households.[3] We can trace this heightened risk of contracting and therefore dying from COVID-19 back to related health disparities stemming from the harmful history of segregation and redlining here in the U.S.
Many experts are concerned about the long-term inequitable implications of pandemic-induced food insecurity, as households with reduced incomes facing higher retail prices are likely to cut down on the quantity and quality of food consumption, with potentially long-lasting impacts on nutrition and health.[4] Beginning in March of 2020, Congress and the USDA have attempted to address this by expanding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and creating a temporary Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) program for low-income children. Further investing in this program, sometimes referred to as the nation’s “first line of defense against hunger,” is vital to addressing health disparities across the U.S. The COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted the immense inequities in health outcomes in our nation, particularly related to race, and presents an opportunity for us to get serious about ending food insecurity once and for all.
So how can you, as an individual, help? Beyond urging your congressperson to expand SNAP benefits and the Pandemic EBT program, there are some great ways to get involved in our community here in the Triangle in a safe, COVID-friendly way (and donations are always a good option if you’re short on time!). Here are a few of the many opportunities right now, ranging from food sorting and packing, to meal delivery, to farming and gardening:
Featured Image Courtesy of The Denver Post, MediaNews Group
About the Author: Emma Vinella-Brusher is a first-year dual degree Master’s student in City and Regional Planning and Public Health interested in equity, mobility, and food security. Born and raised in Oakland, CA, she received her undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies from Carleton College before spending four years at the U.S. Department of Transportation in Cambridge, MA. In her free time, Emma enjoys running, bike rides, live music, and laughing at her own jokes.
Reflecting on the pandemic response thus far, I’m struck by the shift in tone surrounding personal and community responsibility related to COVID-19. The initial lockdown and self-isolation periods felt more like a call to sacrifice for a larger public good. We were asked, even if we were healthy, to please stay home and avoid being the link in a transmission chain that could lead to another person’s death.
As we head into the fourth month of COVID-19 response, I’ve felt a shift in tone from collective duty to an “every person for themselves” approach. Under this personal risk assessment framework, we as individuals are responsible solely for our own well-being; you can go get a haircut if you feel comfortable with the personal risk incurred regardless of your effect on public health.
To those who are immunocompromised or at a higher risk of contracting the virus, this approach says, “Yeah, I know it’s inconvenient (maybe even impossible) to survive without going outside, but how I deal with the risks of the virus is my choice and how you deal with it is your choice. I will not be inconvenienced to accommodate your needs.”
Under this approach, the navigation of public space becomes a complex question of communicating, interpreting, and acting in response to the personal risk choices of others. It becomes a question of respecting stranger’s personal bodily autonomy and choice; in essence, it becomes a question of consent.
The times that I have felt personally the most anxious and/or annoyed in public space during the pandemic are those instances where my risk mitigation choices are clearly ignored. Walking with a friend one afternoon, we maintained a six-foot distance between us and transitioned from walking next to each other to walking single-file when crossing paths with others as a means of maintaining distance from strangers and each other.
When we crossed paths with another couple, both strangers witnessed our intricate dance to maintain social distance but made no effort to do the same. In the end, they entered the space we had clearly tried to safeguard. This felt not just annoying but invasive.
Of course, this type of invasion of space is not uncommon in public places. I’ve experienced countless instances of someone standing a little too close on the metro, choosing an adjacent seat when the rest of the bus is empty, or attempting to chat when I’m clearly reading a book and keeping to myself. None of these actions are necessarily malicious, but they exemplify the ways in which our culture has always struggled with issues of consent.
As the pandemic presses onward and people return to public spaces, I will be interested to see how these interactions occur and shape our feelings towards our communities and our neighbors. It is my sincere hope that we all become more practiced in the art of consent by paying attention to the signals of others and respecting their personal risk mitigation choices even if they differ from our own. Thankfully, there are many sex educators and gender-based violence advocates doing this work already. I hope to see the planning field consider the ways in which personal risk preference, public space, and consent interact to create more welcoming, although perhaps socially distanced, places in the future.
Featured Image: UNC’s Polk Place. Photo Credit: Johnny Andrews/UNC-Chapel Hill
Amy Sechrist is a second-year master’s candidate in the Department of City and Regional Planning with a concentration in Housing and Community Development. Her research interests include affordable housing, planning for equity, and the intersection of gender and planning. Prior to UNC she worked as a Housing Advocate and Shelter Manager at a gender-based violence crisis center and as a federal project management consultant. Amy holds a certificate in Creative Placemaking from the New Hampshire Institute of Art and a bachelor’s degree in Political Communication from George Washington University.
This piece was originally published by Patience Wall on the Coastal Resilience Blog on May 18, 2020
Public information is at the core of our public safety and natural disaster resilience work. It’s a reliable source we can turn to when outcomes are uncertain and emergency responses are ambiguous. But in a world where we’re constantly bombarded with growing misinformation, contentious mistrust of government and the scripted drama of endlessly breaking news, all of the efforts that go into providing reliable public information often go unseen and perhaps even undervalued.
Keith Acree
I was reminded of those many unseen efforts during Keith Acree’s guest lecture in the Coastal Resilience Center’s Natural Hazards and Resilience Speaker Series in April. Acree serves as a Public Information Officer with North Carolina’s Department of Public Safety. As a part of the Emergency Management team, he works with other public information officers to manage external affairs communications to the public. In natural disaster emergencies, he helps coordinate messaging through the state’s Joint Information System by collaborating with the other public information officers to ensure there’s consistent emergency communications across state agencies and departments. This external communication work extends to composing messaging for press briefings with the Governor and other administrators.
North Carolina Emergency Management “Safety messaging.” Photo Credit: Keith Acree’s Natural Hazard Resilience Series guest lecture
Outside of natural disaster work, Acree’s day-to-day work includes safety messaging campaigns and preparation. This messaging covers a wide array of hazards and risks from grill safety to power line warnings to mold precautions. These preparedness campaigns are supported through a host of in-person and virtual campaigns including but not limited to: ReadyNC.org, NC 211, the emergency management podcast and several Preparedness Weeks for hurricanes and other recurring severe weather events.
The sheer span of these campaigns speaks to the unseen efforts I noted earlier. While I have heard of several of the programs Acree mentioned, I often feel as if they’re taken for granted in a modern world with a short attention span and a variety of methods to receive news. In particular, creating effective messaging in this context is a challenging undertaking.
When asked how his office gauges the effectiveness of their preparedness campaigns, Acree cited social media sharing and engagement as an important indicator of the effectiveness of their outreach strategies. This makes sense considering social media’s impact and its reputation as a ubiquitous platform for constant communication and contact. Still, social media’s effectiveness can often become clouded by its low barriers to entry, which undermines the reliability of information found on its platforms. Anyone can make a social media profile and disseminate information under the guise of public welfare, and public information officers have to navigate how to ensure their verified campaigns can effectively counter misinformation campaigns in this murky context.
NC Gov. Roy Cooper gives an update on the state’s preparations for Hurricane Florence in Sept. 2018. Photo Credit: Sam DeGrave/Asheville Citizen-Times.
Concerns over misinformation campaigns and how public officials should counter them have resurfaced as of late in the midst of COVID-19 responses, and these concerns impact Acree’s work as public information does not end with natural hazards, but extends to biological threats as well. Acree says his office tries to battle misinformation by directing the public to reliable sources and noted that their news conferences and briefings as good ways to do that. But what happens when the reliability of public information is in question? The same contentious mistrust of government that I spoke to earlier has eroded the perceived reliability of public information, and regardless of where we place the blame for this mistrust, it is fueling the public’s consumption of misinformation.
Herein lies the core challenge for public information officials working in today’s world: How do we get the public to trust us? Yes, we want to know how you adequately publicize what the public needs to know in a world of crowded sources of information (both true and purposefully misleading). But we also need to know if people are getting what they need and believing it. Answering this question is key to ensuring we can reach our resilience goals. Without public trust, our public information would not only be undervalued, it may not even be used.
About the Author: Patience Wall is pursuing a MBA/ MCRP dual-degree with concentrations in Economic Development and Real Estate. While at Carolina, she’s focusing on how to attain equity in regional economic development and housing opportunities through public-private partnerships. Her past work experience includes a dash of elementary education, a brief stint as a pollster and time leading research and policy engagement initiatives at Duke. She obtained her undergraduate degree in Public Policy Studies from Duke University in 2015.
Featured Image: NC Emergency Management Logo. Photo Credit: defensealliancenc.org
This post was originally published by Anna Patterson on November 24, 2017. As COVID-19 has limited much of our activity and movement to our homes, many people are turning to the outdoors for a bit of refuge.Exploring the importance of green spaces- particularly on public health- this piece is once again relevant.
Planning for Preventative Health
Urban green space provides a place to escape the concrete and steel of urban city centers, spend time in nature, connect with others, and get moving. As Americans become increasingly sedentary, a push towards funding and implementing green space as a means of increasing individual health has gained traction. Doctors now write green prescriptions for patients to go walk at their local park three days a week or to visit the local farmers market weekly to purchase healthy local fruits and vegetables. Not to mention, green space is aesthetically pleasing and likely to increase property values. But planners and public health practitioners often underestimate the power of green space to prevent disease and serve as a promotive factor for physical, social, and emotional health.
In young children, green space promotes muscle strength, coordination, cognitive thinking, and reasoning abilities—all important aspects to the future health and success of children. Additionally, green space promotes cleaner air and increased exercise.
Research demonstrates that the relationship between green space and increased health outcomes is particularly strong for individuals from lower socioeconomic statuses. In large cities, elderly, youth, and those whose highest level of education was secondary benefited most from living near green space.
Research regarding the mental health benefits of green space is emerging. It is widely accepted in current Western culture that stress is ubiquitous. However, when a person is exposed to high levels of stress for long periods of time, the resulting toxic stress can wreak havoc on the body and result in negative health outcomes. Previous research demonstrates that the quantity of green space in a person’s living environment is linked to stress on the biological level. Individuals with less green space exhibited higher cortisol levels, an indicator of stress, than individuals who lived in greener environments.
Partnerships for Prosperous Green Spaces
Partnerships, especially between public health and city and regional planning practitioners, are crucial to the work of health equity. Ultimately, successful large-scale green space initiatives require investment from commercial, philanthropic, and government organizations.
High Line Park in Manhattan’s West Side exemplifies a successful, large-scale, public-private investment. Friends of the High Line, the conservation group that organized to save the old High Line railway, agreed from the start to pay the entire cost of operations of the park. In turn, the City of New York paid most of the construction costs for the park. Today, the park attracts over 3 million visitors per year and provides a unique and aesthetically pleasing landscape for residents and visitors alike to get their daily dose of green space.
High Line Park in New York City. Photo Credit: David Berkowitz
Problems with the Popularity of Green Space
Admittedly, a multitude of factors contribute to the impacts that access to green space has on individual health outcomes. For example, residents who work odd hours or multiple jobs may not benefit as much from access to green space, since they are unable to utilize such spaces during daytime hours or have other priorities that take precedence.
Little research has been done on the effects of urban green space, which is traditionally built in blighted areas that have not been developed because of their high poverty rates and lack of surrounding attractions. How do residents interact with visitors to parks and green space built in low-income areas? Do residents have a voice in the building of such parks, which will not only literally change the landscape of the neighborhood, but create a gentrifying force that attracts trendy restaurants, rising property taxes, and increased traffic to the place they call home.
How Can Planners Participate in the Green Space Movement?
Ultimately, green space serves as a unifying force, fostering social health and understanding amongst individuals who might not otherwise interact. It provides a place to reflect, relax, and mentally recharge. The effects of green space on physical, mental, and social health are often overlooked.
Planners’ participation in the creation and conservation of green space requires advocating for and educating others about the benefits of green space, particularly for marginalized populations. Green space should be viewed not as a luxury or architectural aesthetic, but as a necessity. While preserving and maintaining green space, and particularly parks, is likely more expensive and less profitable than razing the land for an asphalt parking lot or strip mall development, the health benefits truly do add up.
Photo Credit: Pixabay, Creative Commons.
About the Author: Anna Patterson is a dual degree master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning and the Department of Health Behavior. Her scholarly interests include health and the built environment, vulnerable populations, and community development. Prior to coming to UNC, Anna worked as a program officer for a health foundation in Alamance County, NC. She likes American folk music, slalom water skiing, and hikes along the Haw River.
Featured Image: Coker Arboretum at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Source: Anna Patterson
