National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5 Human Health and the Built Environment
Suggested Citation:"6 Human Health and the Social Environment." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Health and the Environment in the Southeastern United States: Rebuilding Unity: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10535.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"6 Human Health and the Social Environment." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Health and the Environment in the Southeastern United States: Rebuilding Unity: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10535.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"6 Human Health and the Social Environment." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Health and the Environment in the Southeastern United States: Rebuilding Unity: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10535.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"6 Human Health and the Social Environment." Institute of Medicine. 2002. Health and the Environment in the Southeastern United States: Rebuilding Unity: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10535.
×
Page 47

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

6 Human Health and the Social Environment The social environment can be defined broadly as the social conditions that influence our lives and the life of our communities. An important part of the social environment is our social connectedness, which ranges from our individu- al interactions with one another to interactions in groups and organizations. The concept that social connectedness is essential for ensuring human health and well-being has been the subject of much research and is now well established (see Putnam, 2000, for review). A panel of speakers and respondents explored the concept of social capital, delineated the positive effects of social capital on health, and discussed means of restoring social capital in our communities. They also described the tenets of the environmental justice movement, discussed areas in which environmental justice is still needed, and emphasized the importance of bringing environmental justice to bear in every part of society. SOCIAL CAPITAL Economists often define accumulated items of worth as capital, a limited resource that enhances productivity. The term “capital” can refer to physical objects (tools, materials, structures), human properties (individual intellect, edu- cation, training), or social connections within a community (social networks, civic engagement). Whereas human capital refers only to the contribution of the individual, social capital can be defined as the accumulated connections, or so- cial networks, among individuals and the norms of shared trustworthiness and reciprocity that arise from them (Putnam, 2000). The term “social capital” calls attention to the ways in which our lives are made more productive by social ties (Putnam, 2000). Social connections, or networks, are formed informally among family and friends and in neighborhoods, and more formally in the workplace, in places of worship, and in a variety of other organizations. Social capital implies a continu- 44

HUMAN HEALTH AND THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 45 ity of interaction over time and a level of trust that allows people to feel comfort- able working together to accomplish goals for the common good. Social capital includes specific reciprocity between individuals and a norm of generalized rec- iprocity, where something is done with no expectation of immediate return but with the expectation that the return will come later from elsewhere (Putnam, 2000). In short, social capital is the “glue” that holds society together. Creating and maintaining social capital are ways of ensuring that people stay healthy and that communities are healthy environments, stated Winsome Hawkins, the Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta. The positive effects of social capital on various areas of individual and community life have been well documented (Knack and Keefer, 1997; La Porta et al., 2000). Economic studies have shown that increased social capital makes workers more productive, busi- nesses more effective, and nations more prosperous (Putnam, 2000). Studies in- Creating and maintaining social capital dicate that high levels of social capital are ways of ensuring that people stay make individuals less prone to depres- healthy and that communities are sion and more inclined to help each oth- healthy environments. er and that social capital decreases the rate of suicide and the incidence of Winsome Hawkins colds, heart disease, strokes, and can- cer (Putnam, 2000). Research even sug- gests that joining just one group boosts life expectancy as much as if a smoker stops smoking. Sociological studies reveal that crime, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, and child abuse de- crease in areas of increased social capital. Political studies show that increased social capital makes government agencies more responsive, efficient, and in- novative. On an individual level, social capital ensures that if we are sick or unemployed, we will receive help from others and that we will have compan- ionship as we enjoy the benefits of our community (Putnam, 2000). Throughout America’s history, levels of civic engagement have risen and fallen (Putnam, 2000). In the last 25 years, levels of social capital appear to have declined in this country (Etzioni, 1993; Putnam, 2000). A survey was recently undertaken by 40 community foundations across the nation to establish bench- mark levels of social capital within their respective geographic areas (Saguaro Seminar, 2002). The study measured levels of trust, diversity and friendship, political participation, informal socializing, civic and associational involvement, giving and volunteering, and faith-based engagement. On the index of giving and volunteering, respondents in metropolitan Atlanta scored higher than the national level (39 percent versus 35 percent, respectively) (Horne, 2001), but they scored lower than the national level on social trust (24 percent versus 33 percent, respectively). Only 19 percent of metropolitan Atlanta respondents re- ported a high level of participation in civic activity compared with the national level of 24 percent. Hawkin noted that a comparison of social capital and indica-

46 HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES tors of child well-being by area of the country showed that social capital was low in areas with few indicators of child well-being. These findings suggest that levels of social capital need to be restored in the Southeast and throughout society. Where levels of trust are low, we must find ways to encourage trust and to promote the perception that individual efforts contribute to the good of the whole. Community building and social capital for- mation are needed to move our society forward, Community building and social said Elliot Sclar. A master’s program in commu- capital formation are needed to nity building has recently been established at Co- move our society forward. lumbia University, he noted. The program aims to teach students methods for strengthening the Elliot Sclar social capital of communities. These methods in- volve commanding resources and engaging in the political process of policy change in areas such as land use and transportation. Educators need to ensure that information on community building is under- standable so that all community members are inspired to engage in restoring social capital, stated Hawkins. A great deal of social capital already exists in faith communities throughout the Southeast, she noted. Building unity among these smaller community groups by bringing them together around broader is- sues may be an effective way to increase social capital on a larger scale. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The environmental justice movement is a multiethnic, multicultural move- ment that was founded in the South in the early 1980s as a response to the placement of a toxic waste site in a predominantly poor, minority community (Bullard, 2000). The movement embraces the principle that all communities have a right to equal protection under the laws and regulations governing the environ- ment, housing, transportation, and civil rights. Environmental justice ensures that no population, because of policy or economic disempowerment, is forced to bear a disproportionate burden of the negative human health or environmental impacts of pollution or other environmental consequences (Bullard, 1996). The impetus for the environmental jus- The first and foremost principle, is tice movement has come from grassroots that people must speak for community groups that have forced the issue themselves and that their opinions to the forefront of the nation’s attention, stat- must be respected; agreement is ed Robert Bullard, Clark Atlanta University. not necessary, but respect must be Through coalitions, alliances, and partner- maintained. ships, these organizations have battled to keep the issues of disparity in health, environment, Robert Bullard transportation, and housing visible to govern-

HUMAN HEALTH AND THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 47 ment officials and to the public. Seventeen principles of environmental justice were developed at a summit in Washington, D.C., in 1991 (Lee, 1992). This principle safeguards the right of all community members, especially those who are unequally affected by environmental hazards, to participate in the dialogue that advocates change. In Atlanta, many issues involving environmental justice still need to be addressed. Large disparities among racial and ethnic groups continue to exist in land use patterns, housing, transportation, air quality, and toxic exposures. Near- ly 83 percent of Atlanta’s African-American population compared to 60 percent of whites lives in zip codes that have an uncontrolled hazardous waste site. While African Americans and other minorities constitute 29.8 percent of the population in the five most populous counties that are contiguous to Atlanta (Fulton, Cobb, DeKalb, Gwinnett, and Clayton counties), they represent the ma- jority of residents in five of the ten “dirtiest” zip codes in these large counties (Bullard et al., 2000). Nationally, 57 percent of whites, 65 percent of African Americans, and 80 percent of Hispanics live in areas with substandard air quality (Wernett and Nieves, 1992). The poor air quality has a disproportionate impact on the health of poor children, poor adults, and people of color. Transportation- related air pollution has a disproportionate effect on minority populations, even though 35 percent of African Americans in Atlanta do not own cars (Bullard et al., 2000). Because members of minority groups do more walking than others, they are at greater risk for pedestrian injuries in a city that eschews safe pedestri- an environments. The ever-increasing sprawl of the city, with its growing con- gestion and continued destruction of green space, places costs on its population that are disproportionately borne by minority members. Some panelists agreed that addressing environmental justice and forging solutions to the problems of environmental health require reaching across bound- aries of race, ethnicity, culture, profession, neighborhood, and county to create a dialogue. Progress can be made when we build networks based on trust and reciprocity and work together toward common goals, many speakers suggested. The environmental justice movement has borrowed much from Native Americans and indigenous people in terms of living in harmony with nature, explained Bullard. Several speakers concurred that for our long-term health as a species, we must view ourselves as a subset of the environment and make the health of the natural environment, and our place in it, our paramount goal. To create a bridge between the individualistic spirit in American society and the notion of social capital as valuable for the whole society, we must realize that each individual must make compromises for the common good. Accompanying this view must be the understanding that what is good for the whole society is also good for the individual. As educators, environmentalists, and health profes- sionals, it is incumbent on us to create this vision in our communities.

Next: References »
Health and the Environment in the Southeastern United States: Rebuilding Unity: Workshop Summary Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $29.00 Buy Ebook | $23.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The purpose of this regional workshop in the Southeast was to broaden the environmental health perspective from its typical focus on environmental toxicology to a view that included the impact of the natural, built, and social environments on human health. Early in the planning, Roundtable members realized that the process of engaging speakers and developing an agenda for the workshop would be nearly as instructive as the workshop itself. In their efforts to encourage a wide scope of participation, Roundtable members sought input from individuals from a broad range of diverse fields-urban planners, transportation engineers, landscape architects, developers, clergy, local elected officials, heads of industry, and others. This workshop summary captures the discussions that occurred during the two-day meeting. During this workshop, four main themes were explored: (1) environmental and individual health are intrinsically intertwined; (2) traditional methods of ensuring environmental health protection, such as regulations, should be balanced by more cooperative approaches to problem solving; (3) environmental health efforts should be holistic and interdisciplinary; and (4) technological advances, along with coordinated action across educational, business, social, and political spheres, offer great hope for protecting environmental health. This workshop report is an informational document that provides a summary of the regional meeting.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!