UK environmental health action plan : public consultation draft.

  • Great Britain. Department of the Environment.
Date:
1995
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: UK environmental health action plan : public consultation draft. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    9/144 (page 3)
    14s The EHAPE (Volume 2, Action in Countries)** 7” distinguishes Group 1 actions concern the basic requirements for environmental health. They aim at preventing or mitigating conditions whose environmental causes are well established and can give rise to widespread and often acute health effects. The conditions would worsen with time if not brought under control. Control may yield immediate benefits, roughly in proportion to the magnitude of the investment, that will be easily recognized by the proportion to the magnitude of the investment, that will be easily recognizable by the public. In addition, most such control measures are technically feasible at reasonable costs. . Group 2 actions concern the prevention and control of medium- and long-term environmental health hazards. Causal relationships may be more difficult to establish at existing environmental concentrations, but the potential for adverse effects on health is recognized. They include long-term effects from both chronic and shorter-term exposures; some of these may be irreversible effects, associated, for example, with increased cancer risks. The benefits of the action may only appear after many years, although when the actions lead to rapid and marked reductions of air and water pollution, their value will be rapidly appreciated by the public. Group 3 actions concern the promotion of human wellbeing and mental health rather than the prevention of disease. Perception of the environment as unpleasant imposes stress on the affected population. Different factors may be perceived as unpleasant by different groups of people, and so considerable expense could be entailed in attempting to satisfy everybody. Thus, even more than with Group 2 actions, priority-setting is crucial here to ensure that most effective investment of resources. Since such priority-setting will involve considerations of public perception, public education and information are essential if the limited funds available are to be invested appropriately. Public willingness to pay is also relevant. On the other hand, a good environment can enhance the quality of life. Environmental planning can support the formation of local social networks. Involvement of communities in planning and maintaining their surroundings will increase awareness of the long-term benefits for health and wellbeing of measures to protect the environment. Te . Commenting on these groups, the EHAPE®* *” says Common to all groups is the consideration that, because some environmental improvements may be expensive and their impact on health uncertain or difficult to quantify, countries need to consider carefully how far they can afford each element, having regard to its cost and likely yield in terms of gain to health or wellbeing.