National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 9 Place-Based Recovery Strategies for Healthy Communities
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

10

Healthy Housing

The connection between health and the dwelling of the population
is one of the most important that exists.

—Florence Nightingale (Lowry, 1991)

As discussed in Chapter 2, housing is a fundamental element of a healthy community. A healthy community ensures the availability of safe, decent, and affordable housing that supports the health of its occupants. Homes are intended to provide shelter from the elements, especially during and after disasters; to provide privacy; and to ensure safety from the outside world (APHA and NCHH, 2014). In many communities, however, housing guidelines and codes have failed to advance and to reflect the way individuals interact with their homes (Krieger and Higgins, 2002). Furthermore, housing regulations often do not adequately take into account modern health issues, including chronic diseases such as asthma, depression, and injuries. Retrofitting housing to meet healthy housing standards can be expensive; however, costs are significantly decreased if these elements can be incorporated during the building of new residences or during substantial rehabilitation of damaged homes and apartment buildings. Therefore, the rebuilding effort that follows a disaster offers an important opportunity to improve community health by providing access to and creating healthy housing.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recognized this opportunity after Hurricane Sandy by requiring that federally funded rebuilding comply with green healthy housing standards (discussed in further detail below). However, the housing sector also must overcome a number of disaster-related challenges. Following a disaster, health hazards within homes must be mitigated, and those displaced or made homeless require immediate access to temporary housing that provides safe shelter and a place of belonging while homes are being rebuilt. As community recovery proceeds, individuals need permanent, affordable replacement housing. Both the temporary and the permanent housing stock needs to be built with health in mind: “A healthy home is sited, designed, built, renovated, and maintained in ways that support the health of residents” (HHS, 2009).

This chapter addresses the role of housing in advancing health; the impacts of disasters on the housing sector; and actions that housing sector leaders at the federal, state, and local levels can undertake across

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

the disaster continuum to strengthen communities by providing access to healthy housing. In developing its guidance on healthy housing, the committee identified key recovery strategies that appear as crosscutting themes throughout this chapter and apply to multiple pre- and post-disaster activities. Application of these strategies will facilitate the protection and promotion of health as a community works to meet housing needs after a disaster:

  • Protect survivors and recovery workers from health hazards associated with unhealthy or unsafe housing.
  • Preserve and promote social connectedness in plans for immediate response, short-term housing, and long-term rebuilding.
  • Consider needs for access to health and social services during all phases of housing recovery.
  • Incentivize the use of healthy and/or green criteria for the rebuilding of homes, buildings, and neighborhoods.
  • Engage community members, including representatives of and advocates for vulnerable populations, in the development of post-disaster housing plans to ensure that the needs of all community members are met.

The chapter concludes with a checklist of key activities that the housing sector needs to perform during each of the phases of recovery.

HOUSING IN THE CONTEXT OF A HEALTHY COMMUNITY

Housing is a well-documented determinant of health, and the burden of disease associated with inadequate housing is large (WHO, 2011). Substandard housing impacts multiple dimensions of health, including chronic disease and mental health. For example, asthma is associated with improper mold abatement (Zock et al., 2002), pest infestations, and dampness (Krieger and Higgins, 2002), while exposure to toxins such as asbestos (Landrigan, 1998) and radon (Lubin and Boice, 1997) can cause cancer. Exposure to lead in older housing continues to be a major concern, particularly with regard to the health of children (Jacobs, 1995), because of its known effects on brain development (NTP, 2012; Rodier, 1995). Mental health also is affected by housing. Housing of better structural quality has been shown to increase self-efficacy, optimism, and life satisfaction and to decrease anxiety and depression (WHO, 2011), while housing issues such as pest infestation, dampness, and cold have been correlated with poorer mental health (Duvall and Booth, 1978; Elton and Packer, 1986; Evans et al., 2000, 2003; Gifford and Lacombe, 2006; Halpern, 1995; Weich and Lewis, 1998; Wilner et al., 1962).

In addition to direct impacts of poor housing conditions on health, deterioration of individual, family, and community well-being results from secondary impacts such as the burden of medical expenses associated with resultant health conditions. The magnitude of the impacts of housing conditions on health is illustrated by the following examples:

  • Radon in homes causes 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year (EPA, 2012).
  • More than 24 million homes have significant lead-based paint hazards that put children at risk of the irreversible effects of lead poisoning, including brain damage, seizures, and death (Jacobs et al., 2002).
  • Home injuries are the leading cause of death for young children (Nagaraja et al., 2005).
  • In 2013, nonfatal falls sent 2.5 million adults over age 65 to the emergency room (CDC, 2014).

Unfortunately, most communities in the United States face challenges in their housing sector that result in some individuals and families living in housing environments that are not optimally supportive of health. For example, many residences fail to meet key principles of healthy housing, including proper ventilation (both adequate fresh air and its distribution), moisture and mold control, proper maintenance, integrated

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

pest management, avoidance of toxic chemicals and agents, safety (free of injury hazards), accessibility, cleanliness, and adequate lighting (HHS and HUD, 2006). These challenges are especially common among the poor and other vulnerable populations, but they may impact anyone in a community. Many residences have more than one health hazard, and some risk factors are directly linked (Jacobs, 2011). For example, energy-inefficient housing is more prone to dampness and thus mold. As a result, multiple risk factors may have additive effects on health (WHO, 2011).

Remediation of health hazards in homes can have substantial impacts on health and quality of life. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Center for Healthy Housing recently reported evidence that certain housing interventions improve health based on clinical, self-report, and/or environmental data (DiGuiseppi et al., 2010; Jacobs et al., 2010; Krieger et al., 2010; Sandel et al., 2010). For example, the National Inner City Asthma study showed through a randomized controlled trial that children in an intervention group that received remediation of exposure to dust mites, cockroaches, pets, rodents, and mold suffered from asthma symptoms fewer days compared with children in the control group. This result was observed during the intervention year and throughout the year afterward. In addition, the intervention group had reduced levels of allergens in the residential environment (Morgan et al., 2004). Other benefits observed in the intervention group included significant reductions in the disruption of caretakers’ plans and quality of life, caretakers’ and children’s loss of sleep, and missed school days, as well as significantly fewer unplanned trips to the emergency department or clinic due to asthma. For every 2.85 children treated, there was one less unscheduled visit at the 1-year follow-up (Morgan et al., 2004). The evidence that housing interventions improve asthma also has been systematically reviewed by the CDC (Crocker et al., 2011). This systematic review, which included 20 studies targeting children and adolescents, found that the time with symptoms was reduced by 0.8 days per 2 weeks (equivalent to 21.0 symptom-days per year); missed school days were reduced by 12.3 per year; and the number of asthma acute care visits was reduced by 0.57 per year (Crocker et al., 2011). Another review yielded similar findings (Krieger et al., 2010).

Housing Standards That Promote Health

Physical changes to the nation’s housing supply are an ongoing process. Two important recent developments are relevant to disaster-related housing recovery operations: (1) the issuance in 2014 of the National Healthy Housing Standard (APHA and NCHH, 2014), which is an update of the 1986 Housing and Health: Recommended Minimum Housing Standards from the American Public Health Association; and (2) the issuance of “green” housing standards. The National Healthy Housing Standard covers duties of owners and occupants, structural concerns, noise, crowding, injury prevention, chemical safety, smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, lighting and electrical issues, safety, ventilation and moisture, and contaminants. “The Standard constitutes minimum performance standards for a safe and healthy home” (APHA and NCHH, 2014).

Green building is “the practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building’s life-cycle from siting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation and deconstruction. . . . Green buildings are designed to reduce the overall impact of the built environment on human health and the natural environment” (EPA, 2014). In recent years, a plethora of green standards for construction practices have appeared. These include Enterprise Green Communities, the ICC-700 National Green Building Standard, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Indoor AirPlus, and Leadership for Energy & Environmental Design (LEED). Each program has different criteria, a different method for calculating whether a project meets the criteria, and different criteria for different types of housing project (e.g., multifamily or single-family). For example, LEED has four levels of certification: Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum, and certification can be for family homes, neighborhoods, existing building operations, interior design, or new building construction (USGBC, 2009). The Enterprise Green Communities standard has mandatory health requirements. Table 10-1 shows some examples of criteria used by Enterprise Green Community and LEED.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

TABLE 10-1 Examples of Green Building Criteria

  Enterprise Green Communitiesa Leadership for Energy & Environmental Design (LEED)b (new construction and major renovations)
Location Open spaces Access to fresh food Walkability Public transportation access Environmental remediation Bicycle storage Protection or restoration of habitat Brownfield redevelopment Fuel-efficient vehicles Reduction of light pollution
Materials Construction waste management Low/no volatile organic compounds (VOCs)/formaldehyde Local or salvaged materials Recycling for residents Percentage of existing structures maintained Reused or recycled materials
Interior environment Mold prevention Radon mitigation Integrated pest management Smoke-free building Minimizing or eliminating tobacco smoke Controllability of thermal system
Water Water-conserving fixtures Reuse of rain- or greywater Stormwater management Water-efficient landscape Innovative wastewater technologies
Energy and Ventilation ENERGY STAR certification or American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standards ASHRAE standards Renewable energy Refrigerant management
  Efficient lighting  
Other Fully accessible units Views of outdoors and daylight

a The criteria listed are a representative sample of technical requirements included in the Enterprise Green Communities criteria. To achieve Enterprise Green Communities certification, projects must implement certain mandatory measures, as well as achieve a set number of optional points. New construction projects must achieve 35 optional points, substantial rehab projects 30 optional points, and moderate rehab projects 30 optional points (Enterprise, 2011).

b The LEED Green Building Rating System for New Construction helps professionals improve building quality and reduce impact on the environment. The criteria listed are a representative sample of prerequisites and additional green standards that project teams can implement to gain points toward obtaining LEED certification. There are 69 possible points, with a range of certification levels (Certified: 40-49 points, Silver: 50-59 points, Gold: 60-79 points, and Platinum: 80 points and above) (USGBC, 2009).

SOURCE: Enterprise, 2011; USGBC, 2009.

Another housing program employing standards relevant to post-disaster reconstruction is the Resilience STAR™ program. This pilot project by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is modeled after the EPA’s ENERGY STAR certification program. The designation will be given to structures that are built to withstand damage from disasters, using criteria from the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety’s FORTIFIED program. The FORTIFIED criteria cover building or retrofitting roofs, soffit vents, entry and garage doors, chimneys, and foundations (Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, 2012). The committee found no studies showing improved health outcomes associated with the FORTIFIED criteria, indicating a need for further evaluation.

Green Housing Standards and Health

Energy conservation often is the driving force behind the adoption of “green” building standards in residential structures, but it also has been bolstered by the promise of ancillary environmental health benefits for the building occupants. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), for example,

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

the annual burden of mortality due to cold homes can be estimated conservatively at 30 percent of excess winter deaths in Europe (Rudge, 2011). Beyond the straightforward impact of thermal improvements, energy conservation can plausibly be related to health because it often includes the following: repair or replacement of heating and cooling equipment to increase efficiency and reduce the generation of pollutants such as carbon monoxide; improvement of ventilation to remove contaminants; air sealing and improvement of building envelopes, which often can reduce moisture leaks from the exterior; and reduced moisture incursion (WHO, 2011). Further, increased energy efficiency and resultant reductions in household energy costs leave individuals with more income to spend on other essentials, such as food and medicine. The “Heat or Eat” study found that families whose energy costs were lowered as a result of receiving fuel assistance had a reduced odds ratio both of being at aggregate nutritional risk for growth problems and of hospitalization (Frank et al., 2006). Results of one recent study suggest that more than 30 housing elements typically included in green standards could plausibly be associated with health outcomes (Jacobs et al., 2014a). These elements include high-efficiency furnaces, programmable thermostats, absence of carpeting in kitchens and bathrooms, foundation waterproofing, radon and lead testing and mitigation, and doors and windows that reduce air infiltration and water penetration.

Evidence of positive health outcomes associated with rebuilding housing in compliance with green standards is robust. Improvements in general self-reported health, respiratory health (notably asthma), mental health, and other health outcomes following both new construction and housing rehabilitation that comply with green building standards have been found in numerous studies (see Table 10-2). Most of these studies relied primarily on self-reported health, using structured interview data collection instruments. Substantial evidence, however, indicates that self-reported health is correlated with other, more objective measures, such as clinical outcomes (Burstrom and Fredlund, 2001; Halford et al., 2012; Idler et al., 2000; Krokstad et al., 2002; Li et al., 2011; Mansson and Rastam, 2001; Marmot et al., 1995; Miilunpalo et al., 1997; Pietilainen et al., 2011; Singh-Manoux et al., 2007).

There appear to be no studies to date showing that use of green building standards in the context of post-disaster rebuilding also promotes better health, but there is little reason to expect different results. Further research is needed to assess the link between health outcomes and housing reconstruction that complies with green building standards in the post-disaster context.

DISASTER-RELATED HOUSING CHALLENGES

Depending on their nature and the pattern of damage, disasters can create significant challenges for the housing sector, including residential health hazards that need to be mitigated, strain on capacity, and displacement. A significant long-term issue that can impact both individual and community recovery and well-being is the loss of affordable housing (sometimes referred to as disaster gentrification).

Disaster-Related Health Hazards

Disasters can cause significant damage to homes, resulting in increased exposure to new threats and exacerbation of existing threats. Common examples include safety hazards from debris and health hazards such as high levels of mold and microbial products associated with allergies, asthma, and other respiratory conditions (IOM, 2004; Krieger, 2010; Wilson et al., 2010). High concentrations of microbial toxins and allergens result from microbial growth under conditions of dampness and inadequate ventilation, both of which can be prevalent in the indoor environment after a disaster. There have been reports of very high levels of exposure to mold and bacterial toxins among both occupants and recovery workers who repair moisture and mold problems in housing (Chew et al., 2006). Additionally, post-disaster use of temporary housing that has chemical contaminants such as high levels of formaldehyde has been associated with respiratory problems, sensitization, and other adverse health outcomes (Murphy et al., 2013). Moisture control, ventilation, and chemical source control are therefore essential elements for healthy housing in the context of disaster recovery (HHS, 2009).

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

TABLE 10-2 Summary of Literature Showing Improvements in Health Due to Green Housing Interventions

Intervention Results Source

Special ventilation systems in new homes

Significant improvements in throat irritation, cough, fatigue, and irritation Leech et al., 2004
Insulation of existing homes Significant improvements in self-rated health and self-reported wheezing; fewer sick days from school and work; fewer visits to doctors and fewer hospital admissions for respiratory conditions Howden-Chapman et al., 2007
Weatherization Improvement of adult general health score and self-reported sinusitis, hypertension, use of asthma rescue medication, and overweight Wilson et al., 2014
Green public housing Adults: Lower prevalence of angina, hay fever, sinusitis; significantly better mental health measures for sadness, nervousness, restlessness, hopelessness, and “everything being an effort” Jacobs et al., 2014a
  Children: Lower prevalence of hayfever, headaches, and respiratory allergies; more reporting excellent, very good, or good health  
  Asthmatic children: Lower frequency of symptoms, less difficulty staying asleep, less use of prescription inhaler  
Green housing rehabilitation Reduced cockroach, mouse, and dust mite allergens; more adults reporting excellent, very good, or good health Jacobs et al., 2014b
“Breathe easy home” (BEH) More asthma-symptom-free days after 1 year in a BEH; decrease in proportion of residents with urgent asthma-related clinical visits in a 3-month period; significant improvements in (FEV1) and percent with well-controlled asthma, rescue medication use, days with limited physical activity due to asthma, nights with asthma symptoms, and number of asthma attacks Takaro et al., 2011

Strain on Capacity

The sudden destruction of large proportions of a community’s housing stock as the result of a disaster places a considerable burden on the housing sector during recovery. Repair, rehabilitation, and new construction of housing stock that would otherwise take years must be accomplished at a greatly accelerated pace to meet needs for both human and economic recovery. Governmental housing agencies can be overwhelmed by such tasks as inspection, permitting, and oversight; there may also be insufficient labor and materials within a community to meet reconstruction needs. Construction contractors and subcontractors from outside the community may come in to assist, but this creates an additional need to check that they hold the proper licenses and certifications to ensure that they can perform the work properly and safely, as well as to help prevent fraudulent, incorrect, and unhealthy building practices and noncompliance with codes.

Displacement and the Need for Healthy Temporary Housing

After a disaster, individuals frequently require short- and sometimes long-term temporary housing. Following Hurricane Katrina, for example, more than 400,000 individuals were displaced from their homes (Geaghan, 2011), while more than 12,000 were displaced following the Loma Prieta earthquake

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

in 1989 (CA Department of Conservation, 2013; Lew, 1990). Although many displaced survivors seek short-term shelter with relatives and friends, others may go to emergency congregate shelters established in the immediate aftermath of an event by local governments, the American Red Cross, or others. Such emergency shelters often close within a few weeks following a disaster, but repair and replacement of lost housing stock can take several years (Marin County Sheriff, 2003). Evidence shows that longer-term temporary housing needs to be established as soon as possible to enable rapid community recovery, mitigate the potential spread of disease, prevent avoidable injuries, and avoid potential adverse behavioral health outcomes that occur when large numbers of individuals are housed in shelters for extended periods of time. Displaced children who lived in a shelter after Hurricane Katrina, for example, experienced increased trauma symptoms and were more likely to be referred for mental health services as compared with displaced children who lived elsewhere (Osofsky et al., 2009). These findings are consistent with previous research on the mental health effects of living in shelters after Hurricane Andrew (Sattler et al., 1995).

Following a disaster, survivors in most cases prefer to stay in their original communities—next to their schools, jobs, and neighbors. If adequate housing is not made available, however, residents will leave the community, temporarily or permanently, further disrupting social networks and degrading the community and its economy. Communities with limited housing stock are at particular risk (Association of Bay Area Governments, 2014). Moreover, secondary impacts of long-term displacement include increases in psychological distress (Freedy and Simpson, 2007), posttraumatic stress symptoms in children (Lonigan et al., 1994), and violence (Marin County Sheriff, 2003; Rezaeian, 2013). Therefore, communities need to establish plans ahead of disasters to guide how temporary housing will be provided for survivors for the months to years following a disaster and how needs for permanent housing will be met. Even if temporary housing is provided for a timely manner, it is important to recognize that (1) displacement disrupts people’s social networks, (2) survivors are likely to be more vulnerable than they were prior to the disaster, and (3) the availability of community resources will be limited.

Loss of Affordable Housing

Low-cost housing, including rental properties, tends to be concentrated in older buildings and more vulnerable locations. For these reasons, it is often affected disproportionately by disasters (Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2010). Not only are these homes more likely to be destroyed, they are also less likely to be rebuilt. After Hurricane Katrina, housing recovery varied significantly by housing type—single-family dwellings were rebuilt or repaired more quickly than multifamily units, and many rental housing investors chose simply not to rebuild and to “take their investment money elsewhere” (McIntosh, 2013). This loss of affordable housing—coupled with an increase in demand for such housing—created a dearth of housing options for lower-income residents, and many simply did not return to New Orleans (AlJazeera America, 2013). Consequently, failure to plan adequately for replacement of low-income housing will further widen the affordability gap and may result in the permanent loss of residents, with attendant workforce and tax base losses.

HOUSING SECTOR ORGANIZATION AND RESOURCES

Government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and private businesses all play key roles in ensuring that safe and affordable housing is available to support the health of all members of a community. Through their specific responsibilities, each has a function that may be utilized to ensure the availability of resilient healthy housing after a disaster. However, given the myriad functions of each of these components in the housing sector, strong pre- and post-disaster coordination is required to ensure that housing is rebuilt in a healthy, resilient, and sustainable manner.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

Federal Level1

At the federal level, multiple agencies—including HUD, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Rural Housing Service)—provide funding for housing (primarily for low-income housing) and perform oversight functions. Many of the federal programs may, with the infusion of additional resources, help meet post-disaster housing needs. For example, the U.S. Department of the Treasury administers low-income housing tax credit programs and related mortgage bond programs with the states. These funds are important sources of capital for reconstructing low-income housing after a disaster, and they also often specify housing standards and codes that must be complied with, including fair housing regulations. HUD’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) also is designed to create affordable housing for low-income people. HOME offers grants to states and localities with which to construct, buy, or rebuild affordable housing or to provide direct rental assistance. In the event of a disaster, a grantee may request that HOME funds be expedited or that program requirements be modified to facilitate recovery (HUD, 2014e). HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing provides financial assistance for low-income housing across the country, which encompasses both conventional public housing and vouchers for privately owned low-income housing, and these programs can sometimes be used to provide temporary housing assistance in the disaster recovery context.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and HUD are the primary players in disaster-specific preparedness and recovery, as relates to shelters and housing. Immediately after a disaster, FEMA and its partners (including the American Red Cross) coordinate sheltering assistance through Emergency Support Function (ESF) #6—Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing, and Human Services—under the National Response Framework. FEMA and HUD partner to provide interim housing assistance, which generally falls in the period of transition from ESF #6 to the Housing Recovery Support Function (RSF) under the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF, described in more detail in Chapter 3). For issues related to permanent housing, HUD has lead responsibility as the coordinating agency for the Housing RSF.

Disaster-specific funding provided by FEMA and HUD is an important resource for post-disaster recovery. FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program provides funding to state governments for the implementation of long-term hazard mitigation measures, including property acquisition, structure elevation, floodproofing, and retrofitting of existing structures (FEMA, 2013a). FEMA’s Individual Assistance program provides financial assistance for temporary housing, as well as for repairs or replacements not covered by insurance (FEMA, 2015). FEMA’s Public Assistance program provides money to states and communities for rebuilding infrastructure, such as roads, utilities, and public transportation facilities. Although the Public Assistance funds cannot be used specifically for housing, the repair and reconstruction of infrastructure are vital to the success of housing efforts. In the event of a supplemental congressional appropriation, HUD’s Community Development Block Grant for Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) (discussed in more detail in Chapter 4) is a significant source of funds for assisting homeowners with repairs and new construction after a disaster. At least half of CDBG-DR funds, which are distributed through the state or local government, must be used to benefit low- or moderate-income people (unless a waiver is granted), and may be used for a range of efforts, including

  • purchasing damaged properties within a flood plain and relocating those residents;
  • rehabilitating homes and buildings damaged by a disaster; and
  • assisting homeowners with down payments, interest rate subsidies, and loan guarantees (FEMA, 2013a).

In past disasters such as Hurricane Sandy, FEMA and HUD have jointly implemented the Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP). This program provides such assistance as rent subsidies, security deposit assistance, and utility deposit assistance for displaced residents (HUD, 2014c).

________________

1 A broader synopsis of legislation and federal policy related to disaster recovery and health security can be found in Appendix A.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

In 2009, FEMA released the National Disaster Housing Strategy, which outlines the nation’s current approach to post-disaster housing and describes a new direction for meeting disaster housing needs (FEMA, 2009a). It lays out roles and responsibilities at all levels and includes a detailed description of disaster housing programs. The strategy emphasizes the importance of collaboration among government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. At the federal level, interagency collaboration on the strategy’s implementation is facilitated by the FEMA-led National Disaster Housing Task Force, and an implementation plan for the strategy was released in 2010. The strategy identifies the challenges to the current system and establishes six goals for a new framework for disaster housing:

  1. Help affected residents and communities meet their own housing needs and return to self-sufficiency as quickly as possible.
  2. Organizations must understand and fulfill their fundamental responsibilities and roles, and coordinate their efforts across sectors.
  3. Housing assistance must be responsive to the complex needs of disaster victims, including those with special needs (e.g., those with disabilities, children, pets), and be culturally and linguistically appropriate and accessible.
  4. Organizations must build their own capabilities, and know how to request assistance if it is needed, in order to provide a broad range of housing options.
  5. Disaster housing assistance must be integrated with related community support services (e.g., case management or support for the elderly) and long-term recovery efforts.
  6. Organizations must jointly plan for housing needs following the full range of potential disasters that may occur, from small-scale to catastrophic events (FEMA, 2009a).

One of the areas for improvement addressed by the National Disaster Housing Strategy is interim disaster housing. The strategy notes the importance of identifying alternatives to traditional interim housing, such as travel trailers, manufactured homes, or existing vacant units. FEMA launched the Joint Housing Solutions Group in 2006 to research, evaluate, and identify these potential alternatives. The Joint Housing Solutions Group developed a Housing Assessment Tool that analyzes alternative housing according to four criteria: range of use, livability, timeliness, and cost. The Joint Housing Solutions Group, which includes experts from HUD, the National Institute of Building Sciences, and multiple FEMA divisions, provides expertise and ground support to FEMA’s disaster housing operations (FEMA, 2009a).

State and Local Levels

Several types of state and local housing agencies are involved in providing housing services and regulating housing construction. They include the following:

  • Housing authority—The local housing authority typically is an independent local organization, with commissioners appointed by the local elected public official or tribal leader. The housing authority often owns housing, such as public housing, and also provides vouchers and other subsidies to low-income tenants and homeowners and low-income housing providers. There are wide differences in how housing authorities are organized across the country, but all receive funding through HUD’s Public and Indian Housing program.
  • Homeless services—These are local housing agencies that provide services for those who are unable to acquire housing, with support from HUD’s Emergency Solutions Grant program and others.
  • Zoning/permitting—These local departments regulate the types and locations of housing, as well as how modifications to that housing are made, through permitting, inspections, codes, and other means.
  • State housing department and state housing finance agencies—Most housing is regulated by local jurisdictions, not at the state level, with important exceptions, such as the provision of low-income
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

housing tax credits. The state housing department typically is the entity that oversees housing in rural areas, while city housing agencies oversee housing in urban and suburban areas, although there are exceptions.

Nongovernmental and Philanthropic Organizations

Nongovernmental and philanthropic organizations have a critical role to play by representing community voices, particularly those of vulnerable residents, and by filling gaps not addressed by government programs or private investments. National-level philanthropies such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation have been important funders of post-disaster revitalization efforts, particularly for underserved areas. Further, community-based organizations such as tenants’ associations and tenants’ unions ensure that community members have a voice in how housing is rehabilitated and built, and they can help facilitate interactions with private and public housing providers. The multifamily building community has many organizations that advocate on behalf of its members and can be a powerful force throughout the recovery process. Examples of such organizations include the National Multifamily Housing Council, National Leased Housing Association, Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, and National Apartment Association, all of which could play a significant role in rebuilding and promoting successful recovery. Community development corporations are local nonprofit organizations or quasi-governmental entities that provide and develop low-income housing, often with the support of subsidies such as low-income housing tax credits. Organizations such as Habitat for Humanity and Rebuilding Together use volunteers to build or rehabilitate low-income housing, while Architecture for Humanity provides pro bono design services after disasters. These nongovernmental organizations need to be actively engaged in post-disaster recovery efforts to ensure optimal functioning as part of a coordinated effort instead of a series of disconnected projects.

Private Businesses

Private businesses play a key role in recovery and can sometimes be more nimble than government agencies, but, as described below, neighborhood redevelopment will require close coordination between private and public sector stakeholders. Insurance companies have a large role in providing financing for recovery when homes have been damaged or destroyed by a disaster. However, certain kinds of damage (e.g., damage due to flooding) may not be covered, leaving homeowners to fend for themselves. Coordination between insurance companies and local and state government insurance commissions is essential because insurance companies may provide settlements or funds for reconstruction of housing before determinations have been made about whether (and where) rebuilding should occur and which standards and codes should apply. Once these determinations have been made, replacement costs may be impacted, and insurance settlements may no longer be adequate. Likewise, private developers may undertake acquisition and other preconstruction activities before the parameters of reconstruction have been set, making early coordination with local government essential. Builders and contractors bring essential skills to the rebuilding context, and special efforts may be needed to ensure that a reliable, trained workforce is available to carry out rebuilding efforts. Finally, lending and finance organizations, such as banks, mortgage institutions, underwriters, and others, play an essential role in providing needed capital as well as in specifying how private funds can be used for which activities. Public–private partnerships ensure that key decisions in the recovery process are made out by all responsible parties in a coordinated manner.

Partnering Organizations and Cross-Sector Collaboration

As stated in the National Disaster Housing Strategy, success in disaster housing requires “genuine collaboration and cooperation among the various local, State, tribal, and Federal partners, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to meet the needs of all disaster victims” (FEMA, 2009a). One

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

potential mechanism for this type of collaboration between housing and non-housing sectors is a disaster housing task force (discussed in more detail below) that brings together the various players with key roles in disaster housing response and recovery.

Emergency Management

Non-housing organizations can provide important support and advice on housing provision and reconstruction. Emergency management personnel typically are involved in determining which housing solution for a given disaster is most appropriate, such as sheltering in place or evacuation, and providing security for temporary and short-term shelters. They also need to be involved in efforts to transition displaced individuals from shelters to alternative housing options.

Health and Social Services Sectors

The involvement of state or local public health and environmental health professionals is critical to meeting the housing-related needs of disaster victims. First, health and environmental health departments can provide surveillance to identify potential health issues related to housing, such as mold, carbon monoxide poisoning, or disaster-related health hazards (e.g., toxic chemicals). Second, public health can provide or coordinate health care in interim housing, such as medical need shelters. Finally, representatives of public health must be at the table to assess the health risks and benefits of various housing recovery strategies. For example, they may suggest healthy housing criteria for rebuilding, or propose innovative ways of incorporating health into community rebuilding, such as including bike paths or recreational facilities. The social services sector also is a key partner in housing recovery because displaced people need essential services, and social services professionals can help integrate service provision with interim housing.

Planning and Community Development

Urban and regional planning agencies are involved in determining the advisability of rebuilding (or not rebuilding) in certain areas affected by a disaster, as well as adapting housing and building codes to promote resilient and sustainable housing. Community development organizations can help create a long-term vision for a community that encompasses the voices and perspectives of all community residents, including low-income and vulnerable populations, and can help ensure that the building of affordable housing has priority in recovery efforts. Plans and relationships necessary to engage these sectors in housing recovery should be developed in advance of a disaster.

Engaging the Community in Housing Recovery

The community is an integral partner in housing recovery. In addition to housing agencies and housing providers, community-based organizations need to be involved in housing decisions. This can be achieved by involving such organizations as tenant unions, building associations, neighborhood associations, and advocates for low-income housing in the recovery planning process. Working through these community-based groups can help reach vulnerable populations by leveraging the existing connections between community groups and these populations. Low-income populations in particular are at risk of exclusion from decisions that impact them. In Galvestson, Texas, for example, residents who were displaced by Hurricane Ike’s destruction of the community’s public housing units were excluded from the recovery process because input was sought only from those still living in Galveston (Nolen, 2014). As a result, the public housing on the island was very nearly not rebuilt. Involving community-based organizations and seeking input from all sectors of the population can make housing recovery plans more fair, equitable, and sustainable.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

PRE-DISASTER HOUSING SECTOR PRIORITIES

The ability of a community to recover quickly from a disaster depends in part on pre-disaster preparation. Before a disaster strikes, a community can work to identify how a disaster might affect its housing needs and what resources and policies will be needed for recovery. Having a post-disaster recovery plan in place enables a community to respond more quickly and to leverage the resources it already has more efficiently.

Establishing a Disaster Housing Task Force

Because timelines are compressed and resources are often scarce following a disaster, a community needs to establish a disaster housing task force2 before a disaster strikes to begin establishing plans and identifying potential resources to guide recovery. Prior to a disaster, this task force is responsible for

  • performing vulnerability assessments;
  • developing an understanding of existing resources of the salient organizations; and
  • developing plans, programs, and procedures to enable rapid rebuilding of healthy housing.

Representation on this task force should include a broad range of agencies and community organizations. In Marin County, California, for example, the task force included representatives from 16 different local government agencies, each with a specific set of responsibilities (see Box 10-1). However, the committee believes that the local health department should not only serve on the task force and assist in the delivery of medical and behavioral health care but also should ensure that all actions taken by the task force are based on information about what will best serve the community’s immediate- and long-term health needs. Further, displaced individuals often require an array of human services with which health department personnel may not be familiar, so it is important that both health and human services expertise be represented on the task force. In addition to local government agencies, the task force should coordinate with relevant federal agencies, such as HUD, FEMA, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure optimal vertical integration.

Conducting Vulnerability and Capacity Assessments

A primary pre-disaster function of a disaster housing task force is to acquire knowledge about the community’s current housing stock. This knowledge greatly improves the ability of a community to plan for and recover from a disaster (HUD, 2007). Knowing current housing conditions enables a community to plan for temporary housing needs, prepare to assist residents with post-disaster repairs and rebuilding, and make policy decisions that will result in the redevelopment of a more resilient and sustainable community. Before a disaster, data should be gathered on the housing stock in the community, the vulnerabilities of the housing, vacancy rates, the proportions of rental and owner-occupied residences, and the suitability of various properties for temporary or long-term housing after a disaster. Many different strategies can be used to perform housing vulnerability assessments, depending on the risks the community faces. Hillsborough County, Florida, for example, which is most likely to experience hurricanes, uses a methodology that categorizes residential parcels by wind and flood vulnerability (Hillsborough County Government, 2010). This analysis provided Hillsborough County planners with data showing that about 22 percent of the county’s housing stock was located in the 100-year flood plain. Knowing where clusters of vulnerable houses are located helps county planners determine where temporary shelters are more likely to be required, for example. This information also may assist a community in identifying priority redevel-

________________

2 This task force can go by many names, including housing recovery technical advisory committee and housing solutions task force.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

BOX 10-1
Example of Agency-Specific Responsibilities in a Post-
Disaster Housing Task Force: Marin County, California

  • Marin County Community Development Agency: Lead the Post-Disaster Housing Task Force (Task Force). Coordinate local, state, and federal disaster housing programs including the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Individuals and Households Program and those managed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Estimate the need for temporary housing. Develop and recommend temporary housing sites to governing boards.
  • Building and Safety Division of the Community Development Agency: Serve on the Task Force. Coordinate the inspection of damaged buildings—develop detailed reports. Establish criteria for reoccupying damaged buildings. Provide technical support to building owners; coordinate access to licensed contractors; review and permit permanent repairs. Establish criteria for plan checks and permitting of temporary structures. Advise on temporary housing site selection. Review the need for temporary exemptions from building codes.
  • Marin Housing Authority: Serve on the Task Force. Coordinate local, state, and federal individual and public assistance disaster housing programs. Establish criteria for determining eligibility for post-disaster housing. Develop resources to assist victims in relocating from emergency shelters to temporary housing. Coordinate for the appointment of caseworkers as necessary.
  • Marin County Health and Human Services: Serve on the Task Force. Coordinate the delivery of social, mental health, public health services and emergency medical services to interim and temporary housing tenants.
  • Marin County Public Works: Serve on the Task Force. Advise on temporary housing site selection. Coordinate the development and delivery of services to temporary housing sites.
  • Marin County Sheriff, Office of Emergency Services: Serve on the Task Force as available. Facilitate coordination with state and federal disaster relief agencies and community-based organizations. Coordinate the development and adoption of emergency proclamations and ordinances as necessary.
  • Marin County Sheriff: Serve on the Task Force. Advise on site selection and law enforcement/crime prevention issues. Coordinate the delivery of law enforcement and crime prevention services.
  • Marin County Fire: Serve on the Task Force. Advise on site selection and fire suppression/safety issues. Coordinate the delivery of fire suppression and emergency medical services.
  • Marin County Counsel: Advise on site selection and legal issues including eminent domain and the State Redevelopment Law. Expedite review of loans and contracts.
  • Marin County Parks: Advise on site selection.
  • Marin County Office of Education: Advise on site selection.
  • Marin County Economic Commission: Advise on site selection involving property of private companies and represent the needs of employers.
  • Marin County Auditor: Serve on Task Force. Review financial budget and track expenditures. Coordinate with state and federal disaster relief programs.
  • Marin County Community Relations Manager: Serve on Task Force. Conduct outreach to media, victims, and general public.
  • Incorporated Cities and Towns: Serve on the Task Force as necessary. Internal departments have the same responsibilities as the corresponding County departments listed above.
  • American Red Cross (ARC): Serve on the Task Force. Assist in the transition from emergency shelters to interim and temporary housing. Assist in coordinating the establishment and use of a Rental Housing Replacement Revolving Fund.
  • Marin Operational Area Recovery Committee: Develop and coordinate overall recovery effort. Define the mission and direct the efforts of the Task Force as necessary.

SOURCE: Excerpted from Marin County Sheriff, 2003, pp. 4-5.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

opment areas. For example, areas with houses that have lead-based paint or asbestos might be slated for major renovation after a disaster to mitigate those hazards.

Not only is it important to conduct an assessment of housing vulnerabilities; communities such as Hillsborough County also perform institutional capacity assessments to determine what capabilities exist within the community to promote rebuilding and guide the development of policies that may promote the effectiveness of these capabilities during recovery (Hillsborough County Government, 2010). This assessment includes an inventory of different organizations and the roles and expertise of each. This assessment needs to include a determination of which manufactured housing vendors would be capable of providing the type of temporary units that would be needed for on-site and group temporary housing sites in the event of a disaster. Based on this determination, formal relationships may be established with different vendors, but as highlighted by the case of Hillsborough County, these relationships should be flexible so that if a particular vendor does not have the necessary stock in a timely manner, the community can move on to another vendor.

Identifying Pre-Disaster Plans, Programs, and Procedures

Prior to a disaster, the disaster housing task force should establish an inventory of existing local plans, ordinances, programs, and procedures relevant to housing during long-term recovery (Hillsborough County Government, 2010). After a disaster, the task force will be able to use this inventory to locate resources and identify opportunities for rebuilding. An example of an inventory, developed by Hillsborough County, is shown in Table 10-3. Opportunities to leverage existing programs to rebuild housing should be examined.

Planning for Siting of Temporary Housing

Emigration of residents from communities that have been struck by a disaster (and have experienced the resultant social and economic impacts, such as revenue loss, blight, and disruption of social networks) may be reduced by facilitating the timely and efficient transition of displaced individuals from shelters to temporary housing. Communities vulnerable to disasters should work with state and federal partners and use existing guidance (APA, 1998; ARC, 1998) in developing plans to guide where and how temporary housing is to be established. Potential sites can be designated in advance, or communities can develop criteria for temporary housing sites and apply those criteria to the post-disaster selection of sites after considering the extent and location of damage. To protect health and promote well-being, sites should

  • be free of health hazards (e.g., contamination) and not subject to further safety and health risks (e.g., flooding); and
  • adequately support those without access to private vehicles (near public transportation and/or in walkable distance from essential community amenities and employment centers).

In selecting group sites for long-term temporary housing, possibilities for conversion to permanent affordable housing units should be considered. Long-term temporary housing requires a significant investment in infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities) that can be capitalized on during the construction of permanent housing (Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2010). Collaboration with urban and regional planning agencies and the community is essential to identifying appropriate locations for siting of temporary housing.

EARLY POST-DISASTER HOUSING RECOVERY PRIORITIES

When a disaster has resulted in damage to the physical infrastructure of a community, meeting survivors’ short- and long-term housing needs is one of the most fundamental aspects of recovery. Immediately following a disaster, the impacted community should convene its disaster housing task force. The task force

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

TABLE 10-3 Hillsborough County, Florida, Pre-Disaster Housing Recovery: Primary Plans, Programs, and Procedures

Plan/Program/Procedure Purpose Lead Entity
Affordable Housing Density Bonuses Encourages developers to build at higher density, promoting efficient use of land and preservation of open space Hillsborough County Planning and Growth Management; Hillsborough County Affordable Housing Department
Community Development Block Grant Provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs Hillsborough County Affordable Housing Department; City of Tampa Growth Management and Development Department
Density Bonuses/Transfer of Development Rights Program Promote development in specific areas Hillsborough County Planning and Growth Management; Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission
Disaster Temporary Housing Plan Formation, membership, and tasks of the Disaster Temporary Housing Committee; temporary housing criteria, and siting criteria Disaster Temporary Housing Committee
Hillsborough County Land Development Code, Section 6 Temporary housing regulations Hillsborough County Planning and Growth Management
HOME Investment Partnership Program Develops affordable housing for low- and moderate-income citizens Hillsborough County Affordable Housing Department
Homeowner Rehabilitation Program Provides assistance to homeowners to meet minimum housing standards Hillsborough County Affordable Housing Department; City of Tampa Growth Management and Development Department
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Stabilizes communities that have suffered from foreclosures and abandonment through the purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed and abandoned homes and residential properties Hillsborough County Affordable Housing Department
Post-Disaster Redevelopment Ordinance 93-20 Section 5 Procedures Determination of damage, build-back policy, moratoria, and emergency repairs Hillsborough County Redevelopment Task Force
Community Land Trust Provides access to affordable housing in high cost, service-industry dependent areas while keeping housing affordable for future residents Florida Community Land Trust Institute
Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program Provides financial assistance and services to prevent individuals and families from becoming homeless Homeless Coalition of Hillsborough County; City of Tampa Growth Management and Development Department
State Housing Initiatives Partnership Incentive to produce and preserve affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families Hillsborough County Affordable Housing Department; City of Tampa Growth Management and Development Department

SOURCE: Hillsborough County Government, 2010.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

will be responsible, in part, for determining the need for interim and long-term housing and identifying the necessary resources. As the response phase abates, the early recovery priorities are

  • assessing housing needs;
  • preventing unnecessary displacement;
  • protecting homeowners and recovery workers against health risks; and
  • providing short- and long-term temporary housing that meets health and human service needs.

The sections below review the health considerations that should be incorporated into decision making during recovery to prevent unintended negative health consequences and to promote health and well-being as communities work to meet post-disaster housing needs for survivors.

Assessing Housing Needs

Assessment (including quantification) of housing needs is an important first step in promoting housing recovery after a disaster. It includes data collection and analysis from sources that include the Census Bureau, preliminary damage assessments, shelters, and the community directly (e.g., evaluation of the extent of damage to housing stock) (FEMA, 2009b). Online databases, such as the National Shelter System (NSS) and FEMA’s Housing Portal, can be used to help identify available housing.

An early decision that must be made in the immediate aftermath of a disaster is whether the existing housing or building stock will be adequate to house the displaced, new temporary units will be needed, or displaced populations should be transferred to nearby cities with adequate housing. This determination depends in part on pre-disaster vacancy rates and the suitability of vacant properties. To increase efficiency, these data should be gathered during pre-disaster assessments. Immediately after a disaster, HUD or a local entity should survey the entire HUD-assisted and HUD-owned housing inventory in and near the jurisdiction to determine the vacant units and vouchers available for providing temporary housing for displaced families (FEMA, 2009b).

If housing resources within an affected region cannot meet all of the community’s housing needs, alternatives may include relocation outside of the community, although this solution may impede the community’s recovery since it will further disrupt social support systems and may have long-term consequences for the community’s viability. Furthermore, tensions can arise in host communities where large numbers of survivors relocate. Other solutions include the use of rental housing beyond the affected area, which can be facilitated through HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8); immediate repair assistance so that damaged homes and rental housing can be made habitable; and the use of transitional shelters and temporary housing units (FEMA, 2009b).

Preventing Unnecessary Displacement

Displacement of people from their homes after a disaster—whether they go to a shelter, a relative’s house, or temporary housing—has effects on health, and it also disrupts social connections that are integral to community functioning (Spokane et al., 2012). Evidence on the health effects of displacement is scarce because of a lack of pre-disaster data, an emphasis on short-term recovery, and the ambiguity of an appropriate follow-up period (Uscher-Pines, 2009). It is clear, however, that displacement is associated with psychological morbidity (including anxiety and depression), and there are indications that displaced individuals may experience a decrease in general health status and an increase in health care utilization (Uscher-Pines, 2009). Therefore, preventing unnecessary displacement after a disaster may prevent some negative health outcomes.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

Rapid Repairs Programs

The need for temporary housing may decrease greatly if communities quickly assess and properly repair moderately damaged buildings to avoid unnecessary displacement of people from their homes (Marin County Sheriff, 2003). The community itself often is in the best position to make quick repairs. After Hurricane Sandy, for example, New York City implemented a program that provided free repairs so that residents could remain in or quickly return to their homes. The Rapid Repairs Program deployed thousands of contractors, electricians, plumbers, and construction workers around the city to restore heat, power, and water to more than 20,000 residences (NYC, 2013). This first-of-its kind program helped New Yorkers return quickly to a sense of normalcy while reducing the demand for large-scale temporary sheltering. New York State and FEMA built on the success of Rapid Repairs by developing the Sheltering and Temporary Essential Power (STEP) pilot program, which provided similar services for areas outside of New York City. Once Rapid Repairs had wound down, the state released federal funds to reimburse the city for the costs incurred by the program (New York State Governor, 2013).

The role of the government in facilitating repairs to housing will depend on the nature of the disaster and the demographics of the impacted area. As noted earlier, for example, damage from a tornado that strikes a residential neighborhood may be covered largely by private insurance, whereas floods and earthquakes often are not covered unless a separate policy (e.g., a National Flood Insurance Program policy) was purchased. Experience from past disasters has shown that many homeowners (and often the most vulnerable, such as the elderly and low-income individuals) do not have adequate housing insurance, limiting rapid rebuilding capacity.

Foreclosure Relief

Another approach to preventing unnecessary displacement is to provide foreclosure relief to homeowners suffering short-term financial difficulties as a result of the disaster (Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, 2013). The Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy recognizes the need to prevent responsible homeowners from being displaced and experiencing foreclosure while recovering from a disaster. Upon instruction from HUD or other regulatory bodies, mortgage servicers can temporarily halt foreclosure on homes with Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and other government-insured mortgages (HUD, 1994, 2000, 2002, 2009b, 2014a).3 Similarly, mortgage service providers can provide relief to those without government-insured mortgages. Foreclosure relief gives servicers extra time to confirm the intent and ability of the mortgagee to repair the home, resume regular mortgage payments, and retain ownership (FEMA, 2009b). However, different mortgage companies have differing policies and guidelines, sometimes causing confusion within impacted communities. Therefore, pre-disaster coordination between the financial and housing sectors and the government can enable more consistent application of waivers. Further, mortgage relief is a key mechanism for providing incentives to rebuild in a way that enhances housing resiliency and compliance with healthy housing standards. Financial institutions, developers, and contractors also have key roles to play in enforcing decisions on which areas should not contain rebuilt housing, as well as on the quality of rebuilt housing and its compliance with green and healthy housing standards.

Protecting Homeowners and Recovery Workers Against Health Risks

In any effort to conduct repairs, the health and safety of recovery workers must be protected. A training system will be needed to ensure that workers, including volunteers wishing to aid in recovery operations, have the knowledge, skills, and equipment to do their work safely. All workers involved in housing and other building recovery and immediate repair/stabilization should be trained in how to identify potential mold, asbestos, lead-based paint, and injury hazards in homes they are seeking to repair and in how to

________________

3 61 F.R. 35020 § 203.614 Special forbearance. Vol. 61, No. 120, Jul. 3, 1996.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

control those hazards for both themselves and future occupants (e.g., mitigation practices). Measures to protect recovery workers also include provision of personal protective equipment, such as protective clothing, goggles, and fit-tested respirators, as well as plans for handling any work-related injuries expeditiously, including on-site first aid capacity. A wealth of information resources on worker protection during disasters is available through the National Clearinghouse for Worker Safety and Health Training, which is maintained by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).4 NIEHS also offers training for response and recovery workers through its worker education and training program. After Hurricane Sandy, for example, NIEHS mobilized its worker education and training resources to support cleanup efforts (NIEHS, 2013). Guidance on mold mitigation in the context of disasters is available from many sources, including the National Center for Healthy Housing (2008) and the EPA (2010).

While multifamily housing often has property management personnel responsible for repairs and maintenance, owners of single-family housing are more likely to adopt a “do it yourself” attitude. Such homeowners, especially those whose houses have sustained minimal damage, may attempt to repair and remediate damages themselves. Therefore, homeowners need ready access to information on how to protect themselves from injury or illness as they repair their homes. For example, homeowners need information about identifying and mitigating lead-based paint, mold, and asbestos hazards, as well as injury prevention practices such as turning off the electricity when there is standing water or avoiding carbon monoxide poisoning from the indoor use of gas-powered tools or generators. This type of information can be provided to homeowners in pamphlets available at disaster recovery centers, home repair stores, and other places where homeowners may seek information. Homeowners also can utilize the resources of HUD’s Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, which has developed a disaster recovery portal providing information about how housing-related hazards can be exacerbated by a disaster and how to identify and address them5 (HUD, 2014d).

Providing Short- and Long-Term Temporary Housing That Meets Health and Human Service Needs

When displacement cannot be avoided, temporary housing must be found for residents affected by a disaster. This short- and long-term temporary housing must be adequate to support the health of its occupants. Tent cities, vacation trailers, special event and conference centers, hotels and motels, railroad cars, shipping containers, covered stadiums, and cruise ships are all examples of temporary short-term solutions that should not be used to meet intermediate- and long-term housing needs during recovery because of potential health impacts associated with both physical and social environments (FEMA, 2009b).

Following the sheltering operations of the initial response phase, decisions must be made about options for interim housing for displaced individuals. Generally, there are three options:

  • leveraging the appropriate existing buildings in either impacted or host communities;
  • setting up temporary housing units (not vacation trailers) that FEMA may purchase and deploy (these may be placed on a homeowner’s property if feasible); and
  • using community sites to provide temporary housing—usually a last resort because it is dependent on the location, design, and infrastructure of the site selected and on whether the community finds it acceptable to use the site for more permanent housing (FEMA, 2009b).

The first option can involve FEMA’s Multi-Family Lease and Repair Program (MLRP), which works to make better use of existing vacant multifamily property units in impacted or host communities. The MLRP

________________

4 The National Clearinghouse for Worker Safety and Health Training is available online at http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/wetp/index.cfm (accessed June 15, 2015).

5 HUD’s disaster recovery portal can be found at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/healthy_homes/disasterrecovery (accessed June 15, 2015).

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

provides funding to property owners for repairs to existing properties in exchange for the owners’ making units available to individuals and households eligible for FEMA assistance (FEMA, 2013b). This program provides an “opportunity to minimize cost and reduce recovery time when the temporary housing needs are expected to be extensive and where local, affordable and accessible rental resources are insufficient to meet the permanent housing need” (FEMA, 2009b, p. 68). Many jurisdictions already have inadequate affordable healthy housing options, and repairing existing residential or commercial buildings can increase housing availability and affordability in many urban areas. The repairs should ensure that the units comply with the National Healthy Housing Standard developed by the American Public Health Association and the National Center for Healthy Housing. Applicable housing and energy codes also should be observed.

The second option entails the use of housing units that can lend themselves to becoming permanent residences, either in whole or in part. This option can involve the use of private sites where nearby housing will be restored.

The third option involves the use of community sites for temporary housing. As noted, this is usually a last resort because it is dependent on the location, design, and infrastructure of the site selected.

The degree to which any of these three options proves feasible will depend largely on the extent to which the affected or host communities are willing to allow “temporary housing” to become “permanent housing” (FEMA, 2009b). If commercial and private facilities fail to meet the community’s housing needs, factory-built housing may be an alternative. Such housing should be placed in community site configurations, and the layout should include communal common areas to promote social interaction and to provide play areas for children. Factory-built housing typically is used to meet temporary housing needs. These manufactured homes, therefore, generally are located on commercial pads or sites developed specifically for such a purpose, although they also can be placed in existing commercial temporary sites. Alternatively, factory-built units may be placed on private sites so that homeowners can remain on their personal property as they repair or rebuild their permanent home (FEMA, 2009b).

HUD (through local housing authorities and others) can sell or lease housing it owns to displaced individuals at a discounted price. To minimize rebuilding time and reduce costs, federal-, state-, and local government-owned housing should be considered a primary option following a disaster. Additionally, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) can be used to acquire leases from private landowners. At the state and local levels, governments are responsible for identifying vacant land they own (FEMA, 2009b). These strategies help ensure that the short- and long-term housing needs of affected communities can be met adequately and quickly following a disaster.

Ensuring Safety and Health in Temporary Housing

Although emergency situations in which large numbers of individuals and families are displaced may require creative solutions to ensure that basic sheltering needs are met in the immediate aftermath, requirements for temporary housing that will be used to meet longer-term needs (months to years) should be significantly more stringent. If mobile vacation trailers are used for temporary housing (although this is not recommended), residents should be transferred from them as quickly as possible because they are not manufactured for long-term occupancy, and there is evidence that their use compromises occupants’ health as a result of inadequate indoor air quality (e.g., formaldehyde) and inadequate space (CDC, 2010). Manufactured housing should comply with the National Healthy Housing Standard and should not include components that off-gas hazardous substances. Such housing also may require special siting and construction considerations, such as tie-downs in tornado areas and seismic designs in earthquake zones. The adequacy of housing with regard to health can be assessed using various tools, including the Housing Habitability checklist in Box 10-2 and the CDC/HUD Healthy Housing Inspection Manual, which also is available in a computerized ACCESS database suitable for laptops and tablets.

Key principles of healthy housing that should be applied to temporary post-disaster housing include proper ventilation (both adequate fresh air and its distribution), moisture and mold control, maintenance,

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

BOX 10-2
Health and Safety Checklist for Temporary Housing

All short- and long-term temporary housing should comply with the following checklist:

  1. Structure and materials: The structures must be structurally sound so as to pose no threat to the health and safety of the occupants and to protect the residents from hazards.
  2. Access: Structures must provide alternative means of egress in case of fire or other emergency.
  3. Space and security: All residents must be afforded adequate space and security for themselves and their belongings. All residents must be provided with an acceptable place to sleep.
  4. Interior air and environmental quality: Every room or space must be provided with natural or mechanical ventilation. Structures must be free of pollutants in the air and on surfaces at levels that threaten the health of residents. Particular attention should be paid to the location of generators to ensure that combustion products, such as carbon monoxide, do not enter the air in the living area.
  5. Water supply: The water supply must be free from contamination.
  6. Sanitary facilities: Residents must have access to sufficient sanitary facilities that are in proper operating condition, can be used in privacy, and are adequate for personal cleanliness and the disposal of human waste.
  7. Thermal environment: The housing must have adequate heating and/or cooling facilities in proper operating condition.
  8. Illumination and electricity: The housing must have adequate natural or artificial illumination to permit normal indoor activities and to support the health and safety of residents. Sufficient electrical sources must be provided to permit the use of essential electrical appliances while ensuring safety from fire.
  9. Food preparation and refuse disposal: All food preparation areas must contain suitable space and equipment to store, prepare, and serve food in a sanitary manner.
  10. Sanitary condition: The housing and any equipment must be maintained in a sanitary condition.
  11. Fire/carbon monoxide safety: Both conditions below must be met to meet this standard.
    1. Each unit must include at least one battery-operated or hard-wired smoke detector/alarm and carbon monoxide detector/alarm, in proper working condition, on each occupied level of the unit. Smoke detectors must be located, to the extent practicable, in a hallway adjacent to a bedroom. If the unit is occupied by hearing-impaired persons, each bedroom occupied by such a person must have a detector with an alarm system designed for the hearing-impaired.
    2. The public areas of all housing must be equipped with a sufficient number of detectors, but at least one for each area. Public areas include, but are not limited to, laundry rooms, day care centers, hallways, stairwells, and other common areas.
  12. Lead exposure: In units built before 1978, when lead-based paint was banned, and in which a household with a child or pregnant woman intends to reside, a visual assessment and/or lead-based paint risk assessment/inspection should be conducted. Visual assessment means looking for, as applicable (1) deteriorated paint (chipping, loose, crumbling); (2) visible surface paint dust, debris, and residue; and (3) the completion or failure of a hazard reduction measure as part of a risk assessment or clearance examination.
  13. New or temporary housing should not be located on newly or previously contaminated sites, such as brownfield or Superfund sites, unless those sites have been remediated.

SOURCE: Adapted from HUD, 2009a.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

integrated pest management, avoidance of toxic chemicals and agents, safety (free of injury hazards), accessibility, cleanliness, and adequate lighting (HHS and HUD, 2006).

Supporting Social Connectedness

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the selection of sites for long-term temporary housing will have a significant impact on the experiences of those who are living there, and thus on its success. For example, temporary housing should be located near places of employment or transportation routes that can provide access to places of employment. Location, access, and mitigation of vulnerabilities are critical, but communities also need to consider other variables that can improve health outcomes, including how best to maintain social networks and ensure access to health care and social services.

One option for minimizing the negative impacts of relocation is to locate temporary housing on a person’s original property—for example, to place a trailer next to a house that is being repaired. If residents remain on their own property, their lives are minimally disrupted, and existing social networks and neighborhood cohesiveness are maintained. When it is necessary to establish temporary housing such as a trailer park, a common choice for transitional housing, the park can be designed in a way that supports social connectedness. In Figure 10-1, for example, the park on the left shows a typical arrangement: trailers are aligned in rows, with the door of one facing the side of another, and there are no communal spaces or walking paths. The park on the right shows an alternative design: trailers are arranged in groups of four around common courtyards, and paths are placed around the park to encourage social interaction and casual contact (Spokane et al., 2012).

image

FIGURE 10-1 Alternative arrangements of post-disaster temporary housing.

NOTE: The figure on the left shows the typical arrangement of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) trailers after Hurricane Katrina, which provided little space and opportunity for social interaction among residents, in contrast to the proposed arrangement on the right, where a quad-style layout is designed to promote social connectedness.

SOURCE: Spokane et al., 2012. Reprinted with permission from SAGE Publications.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

Ensuring Access to Needed Health and Human Services

As individuals are displaced from their homes for increasing periods of time, the need for community and social services tends to rise (FEMA, 2009a). Consequently, human services need to be integrated into disaster housing recovery efforts, and they may need to be offered on-site or nearby. These services—sometimes called “wraparound services”—include health care, schools, daycare, social services, public transportation, and employment counseling. The provision of these services can help expedite recovery and speed the transition to a permanent housing solution. After the tornado in Joplin, Missouri, for example, the Red Cross opened a multi-agency resource center that served as a one-stop shop for survivor assistance, offering myriad resources under one roof: financial assistance, legal services, hot meals, health care, counseling, and help with government assistance programs (Meeds, 2013). When wraparound services are offered within or near temporary housing sites, displaced individuals and families can better access the resources they need to recover, and community recovery is expedited.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

When transitioning disaster survivors from emergency shelters to short- and long-term temporary housing, special care must be taken for vulnerable populations. As emphasized throughout this report, disasters affect vulnerable populations disproportionately—damages rarely are evenly distributed, and the families that are hardest hit are often socially, culturally, or economically vulnerable before the disaster (Spokane et al., 2012). Furthermore, vulnerable populations without resources such as insurance or assistance are less able than others with these resources to repair or rebuild properly, and they are more likely to be placed in long-term group trailer housing. After Hurricane Katrina, for example, 80 percent of owners had a trailer placed on their own home site, whereas around 80 percent of renters were moved to group sites (Spokane et al., 2012). The renters who were low-income, unemployed, elderly, or disabled were more likely to stay in the group sites longer. As stated in Chapter 3, a recovery plan that addresses the special needs of vulnerable populations—and preferably includes these residents in the planning process—is critical to the recovery of the entire community. Meeting the needs of vulnerable populations may require pre- and post-disaster coordination among emergency management, social services, health care, the housing sector, and others.

Survivors with Disabilities and Special Medical Needs

People with disabilities and medical issues have unique needs in sheltering operations. Special-needs and medical shelters may be established to provide care that is normally provided in nursing homes or hospitals, but advance planning is essential to ensure that medical personnel and volunteers can adequately meet the medical needs of the shelter residents (ADA, 2007). Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing homes are required to have emergency plans and to train staff in providing emergency services; however, a recent study found that these plans have major gaps, and nursing home administrators (more than 70 percent of those surveyed) report significant challenges in preparing for a disaster (HHS, 2012). Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, emergency shelter programs must not exclude or deny benefits to those with disabilities—shelter must be available that is physically accessible to people with disabilities, including those in wheelchairs (ADA, 2007). Such needs will also need to be accommodated in temporary housing arrangements.

The Homeless

The homeless are especially vulnerable to the impacts of disasters. They are among the most difficult to reach with any pre-disaster information-gathering systems, and the lack of baseline information is cited as one of the primary problems encountered in disasters (Runkle et al., 2012). In addition, homeless persons

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

are four times more likely than the general population to suffer from severe mental illness—20-25 percent of the U.S. homeless population suffers from severe mental illness, whereas only 6 percent of Americans are severely mentally ill (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2009). Compounding these problems are higher addiction rates, social isolation, lack of income, lack of transportation, and limited means of communication for people who lack a permanent residence.

The same issues that create difficulties in helping the homeless prepare for disasters persist during recovery. Without addresses, homeless people cannot be contacted by relief organizations or file for benefits. If homeless populations are disconnected before disasters, the impact of the disaster often puts them farther out of reach of disaster recovery safety nets. Disasters also create newly homeless populations as a result of a multitude of factors, including lost employment, destruction of affordable housing, and associated rent increases. The city of New Orleans serves as an example of such issues and the challenges they pose to successful disaster recovery. According to a 2010 report on homelessness in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, the rate of homelessness in the city had nearly doubled 5 years after the flood, with thousands of homeless people living in the city’s abandoned buildings. Fully 75 percent of these individuals were Katrina survivors, and alarmingly, most had been stably housed prior to the storm (UNITY, 2010).

Special efforts are needed to address the particular challenges facing homeless populations during disasters and to combat systemic issues that cause the most vulnerable victims of a disaster to fall into homelessness. Strategies proposed on the basis of experience with past disasters include

  • a communication plan to relay timely and accurate information to health and human service agencies, and a platform for reporting operational status and needs;
  • a homeless-specific sheltering and evacuation plan (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2014);
  • the conversion of abandoned buildings into permanent supportive housing, where on-site case management services are available to help homeless individuals with disabilities remain stably housed after a disaster;
  • the formation of outreach and housing search teams to identify homeless individuals and families and connect them with temporary and permanent housing; and
  • continued investment in addressing affordable housing shortages to help low-income homeowners and renters finds new homes (UNITY, 2010).

These strategies require concerted collaboration among governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders from the social services and housing sectors.

INTERMEDIATE- TO LONG-TERM RECOVERY: OPPORTUNITIES TO ADVANCE HEALTHIER AND MORE RESILIENT AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

A central theme of this report, cutting across all sectors involved in disaster recovery, is that rebuilding homes, buildings, and neighborhoods after a disaster creates an opportunity to rebuild in a way that supports residents’ health, is more resilient to the next disaster, and is more sustainable. The Urban Land Institute (2014) suggests five elements that should be considered when creating such communities (see Box 10-3 for details on how Greensburg, Kansas, incorporated these elements after a tornado):

  • Compact, walkable, and mixed-use—Communities that are pedestrian friendly and provide easy access to services are more resilient to extreme weather, contribute to the health of their residents, reduce environmental impacts, and encourage social networks.
  • Equity—Encouraging equity and the participation of vulnerable groups in community planning, housing and land use decisions, and disaster preparedness can reduce disproportionate health impacts in both steady-state and disaster times and improve the resilience of the entire community.
  • Social capital—A strong and interconnected community—including partnerships among residents, organizations, and government—is a “prerequisite for recovery following catastrophic events” (ULI, 2014, p. 9) and it also has a positive impact on health generally.
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
  • Efficient and durable housing—Housing that is designed to reduce the use of resources and to withstand extreme weather events can improve residents’ health and minimize damage during a disaster.
  • Continuous adaptation—Community resilience is an iterative process, in which plans and designs must continually be reassessed after disasters and in the face of a changing climate (ULI, 2014).

It is important that multifamily residences be rebuilt in accordance with principles of resiliency and healthy living since the design of such a building can affect the health and well-being of a large number of individuals. In other words, economies of scale may be realized. With multifamily housing, steps to promote recovery and improve overall health can impact all building residents. Greater efficiencies of operation are possible in multifamily buildings, as well as different kinds of educational programs and training compared with those possible with single-family housing.

Efforts to reduce the vulnerability of residents of multifamily buildings to the effects of disasters are an important consideration. After Hurricane Sandy, tens of thousands of residents of such buildings, including those in public housing, were left without heat or power because of flooding in the basements where heating and electrical systems were located (Furman Center, 2013). Hazard mitigation measures, including the presence of generators, emergency boilers, and pumps, could have prevented widespread hardship (Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, 2013), and such measures need to be incorporated into more resilient multifamily unit designs. In contrast to past recovery efforts, recovery from Hurricane

BOX 10-3
Rebuilding in Greensburg, Kansas

In 2007, the small town of Greensburg, Kansas, was struck by the strongest class of tornado. The rural town, with a population of only 1,500, was nearly wiped out. The tornado destroyed or severely damaged 90 percent of the structures in the town, including 600 homes. Despite the scope of the damage and the crippling costs to the community of more than $500 million, Greensburg residents used the disaster as an opportunity to build back in a healthier and more resilient and sustainable way, demonstrating that such approaches are not applicable only to metropolitan areas.

The town set out to craft a new standard for resiliency and energy efficiency in rural communities, an approach rooted in Kansan values, such as respect for the earth and a commitment to future generations. Under Greensburg’s Long-Term Community Recovery Plan, the town built on the preexisting compact size of the rural community to create its new downtown, a mixed-use area with walkable streets, and added green space and recreational facilities. Affordable housing was built within walking distance of stores, parks, the school, the hospital, and the city hall. Many of the homes that were destroyed were rebuilt using green building standards, as well as hazard mitigation features such as storm shelters and bolting of the structure to concrete. Some homes incorporated a wall system capable of withstanding winds up to 195 miles per hour. Publically funded buildings of more than 4,000 square feet were required to be built to Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum Certification standards, and the town is now home to the most LEED-certified buildings per capita in the world.

The Greensburg Sustainable Comprehensive Plan, designed and adopted by the community, provides a vision for the town and will continue to guide the rebuilding and redevelopment efforts. For rural communities such as Greensburg, collective community action is crucial to the overall healing process. Furthermore, the social cohesion common to rural communities drives efforts to rebuild in a more resilient and sustainable manner, addressing preexisting challenges and working to ensure that the community is not only more prepared for future disasters but stronger and healthier overall.

SOURCE: ULI, 2014.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

Sandy has included focusing recovery funds on public and multifamily housing. The CDBG-DR notice discussed earlier included a provision designed to encourage grantees to emphasize public and multifamily housing. HUD required grantees to specify how they would meet the rehabilitation, mitigation, and new construction needs of all affected public housing agencies and the multifamily assisted housing within these agencies’ jurisdictions.6

In addition to taking steps to better shield residents from the effects of disasters, there may be special opportunities in a multifamily residence to incorporate features that contribute to residents’ health on a daily basis. For example, buildings can include health centers. An example is the Brandywine Center in Pennsylvania, which has affordable housing for seniors on the upper floors and a federally qualified health center on the first floor that offers health care, mental health, and dental services (Brandywine Center, 2009).

Incentivizing the Use of Green and Healthy Housing Standards

HUD recently required compliance with an industry-recognized “green” standard for construction and rehabilitation of housing damaged by Hurricane Sandy that is supported by CDBG-DR funds7 (see Box 10-4). This important development shows that using green healthy housing standards in the context of disaster recovery is feasible and can be accomplished at the programmatic level. Although there may be some increased upfront costs associated with building in accordance with these standards, testimony provided to the committee suggested there was little resistance to complying with such standards (Smith Parker, 2014). Based on the demonstrated positive impacts of green building standards to health (discussed earlier in this chapter), the committee believes that HUD’s requirement should be extended to all recovery efforts.

Housing regulations and standards typically are triggered during the course of specific building stages (e.g., obtaining permits for new construction projects) and housing transactions (e.g., sales, rentals, subsidies, financing), as well as in response to public health concerns (e.g., noise complaints, vermin, surveillance of lead poisoning in children due to lead-based paint). Little clarity exists, however, as to how housing—either temporary or rebuilt after a disaster—should comply with such standards. HUD’s requirement to rebuild housing in the wake of Hurricane Sandy in compliance with green healthy housing standards is commendable (HUD, 2013). Given the proliferation of such green standards, however, additional guidance is needed to help communities understand the specific standards that should be applied.

Establishing Permitting and Code Enforcement Policies That Promote and Protect Health

Following a disaster, a community may wish to establish temporary permitting processes to speed rebuilding. There may be pressure to waive existing land use, zoning, and building codes in the interest of facilitating rapid reconstruction. However, it is important that such temporary measures be carefully considered and only taken when truly necessary. Such waivers may in fact compromise public safety and a community’s resilience to withstand future disasters and thus are generally not recommended.

Single-family and multifamily housing can pose different health issues in the context of disaster recovery. Multifamily units, for example, can have more complex heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems that require different levels of expertise and standards. Electrical and fire protection systems also differ between the two types of housing. These distinctions, however, offer an opportunity to incorporate health into long-term recovery. If, for instance, a multifamily building does not comply with safety and building standards, such as the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standard, before a disaster, the rebuilding effort can be used to promote compliance with healthier standards overall.

________________

6 78 F.R. 69104-69113.

7 78 F.R. 14329-14349.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

BOX 10-4
Post-Hurricane Sandy Requirements for “Green” Rebuilding

In specifying how Community Development Block Grant for Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds can be used in Hurricane Sandy rebuilding efforts, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a notice stating that such funds may be used only for housing that complies with green standards. (A notice is for all practical purposes legally enforceable.) That notice requires (in part) that local jurisdictions receiving HUD CDBG-DR funds provide:

“(5) A description of how the grantee’s programs or activities will attempt to protect people and property from harm, and how the grantee will encourage construction methods that emphasize high quality, durability, energy efficiency, a healthy indoor environment, sustainability, and water or mold resistance, including how it will support adoption and enforcement of modern building codes and mitigation of hazard risk, including possible sea level rise, storm surge, and flooding, where appropriate. All rehabilitation, reconstruction, and new construction should be designed to incorporate principles of sustainability, including water and energy efficiency, resilience and mitigating the impact of future disasters. Whenever feasible, grantees should follow best practices such as those provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Home Energy Professionals: Professional Certifications and Standard Work Specifications.

“To foster the rebuilding of more resilient neighborhoods and communities, HUD strongly encourages grantees to consider sustainable rebuilding scenarios such as the use of different development patterns, infill development and its reuse, alternative neighborhood designs, and the use of green infrastructure. The Partnership for Sustainable Communities is an interagency partnership between HUD, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Partnership for Sustainable Communities’ six Livability Principles should serve as a guide to grantees working in areas that were substantially destroyed. When grantees seek to rebuild such areas, grantees should describe how they will consider sustainable urban design and construction in their redevelopment planning process. The Livability Principles can be found at the Partnership for Sustainable Communities’ Web site www.sustainablecommunities.gov.

At a minimum, HUD is requiring the following construction standards [emphasis added]:

“(a) Green Building Standard for Replacement and New Construction of Residential Housing. Grantees must meet the Green Building Standard in this subparagraph for: (i) all new construction of residential buildings; and (ii) all replacement of substantially-damaged residential buildings. Replacement of residential buildings may include reconstruction (i.e., demolishing and re-building a housing unit on the same lot in substantially the same manner) and may include changes to structural elements such as flooring systems, columns or load bearing interior or exterior walls.

“(b) For purposes of this Notice, the Green Building Standard means the grantee will require that all construction covered by subparagraph (a), above, meet an industry-recognized standard that has achieved certification under at least one of the following programs: (i) ENERGY STAR (Certified Homes or Multi-family High Rise); (ii) Enterprise Green Communities; (iii) LEED (NC, Homes, Midrise, Existing Buildings O&M, or Neighborhood Development); (iv) ICC-700 National Green Building Standard; (v) EPA Indoor AirPlus (ENERGY STAR a prerequisite); or (vi) any other equivalent comprehensive green building program, including regional programs such as those operated by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority or the New Jersey Clean Energy Program.”

SOURCE: 78 F.R. 14329-14349.

A community also may need to be strategic in the way permits are provided so that rebuilding is not piecemeal but synchronized with the availability of other services. For example, permits may not be issued for areas where commercial power has not yet been restored. In some cases, a moratorium on issuing permits may provide needed time to consider mitigation measures prior to reconstruction. Permitting processes can also be used as incentives to encourage green building by giving priority to developers that use green and healthy housing standards (Hillsborough County Government, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

Strengthening the Resiliency of Housing

Rebuilding in a way that mitigates against future disasters helps “break the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage” (FEMA, 2014). Mitigation protects against damage and loss of life, enables a community to recover more quickly, and reduces the financial impact of a disaster. Mitigation can be performed on individual homes, neighborhoods, or entire communities. Mitigation methods include floodproofing; elevating structures; reinforcing roofs, windows, walls, and doors; using fire-resistant materials (excluding those containing asbestos); planting vegetation to control stormwater; building levees and dams; and moving homes away from disaster-prone areas.

Funds are available to both individuals and communities for mitigation activities. Individuals may apply for home disaster loans through the SBA, and additional funding is available specifically for mitigation activities—up to 20 percent of the total amount of disaster damage. The SBA’s low-interest disaster loans are available to businesses, nonprofits, homeowners, and those with rental properties for purposes of repairing or replacing real estate, personal property, and business assets (SBA, 2014). In addition, CDBG-DR and FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds can be used by states and communities for such purposes as purchase of hazard-prone homes and conversion of the land to green spaces, recreational areas, or wetlands; stormwater management; structure elevation; floodproofing; and retrofitting of existing buildings. Special considerations related to buyouts are discussed in Chapter 9.

Ensuring Adequate Affordable Healthy Housing

Affordability is a key component of healthy housing and healthy neighborhoods. If housing improvements following a disaster are not affordable, families may be forced to leave the area or to choose between paying rent and taking care of their health (as described in the “Heat or Eat” study reviewed above). According to the Homeless Coalition of Hillsborough County, “the biggest contributing factor to the rising number of homeless people is the shortage of affordable housing for people with limited incomes,” a shortage that is only likely to increase following a disaster (Hillsborough County, 2010).

Beyond the disaster recovery context, housing affordability is related to health outcomes generally. For example, renters who receive financial assistance for housing under HUD’s Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) are less likely to suffer housing-related health issues than non-voucher holders (Lindberg et al., 2010). Voucher holders are less likely to experience

  • overcrowding,
  • malnutrition due to food insecurity,
  • concentrated neighborhood poverty (Lindberg et al., 2010),
  • higher rent burdens (Van Ryzin and Kamber, 2002), and
  • low age-standardized weight for children (Meyers et al., 2005).

At the neighborhood level, those with high poverty rates also have many poor health outcomes, including mortality, poor child and adult physical and mental health, and negative health behaviors (Diez-Roux et al., 1997; Ellen and Turner, 2003; Ellen et al., 2001; Kawachi and Berkman, 2003; Macintyre and Ellaway, 2000, 2003; Macintyre et al., 2002; Pickett and Pearl, 2001; Waitzman and Smith, 1998). Living in such neighborhoods can limit residents’ access to education and employment, which in turn can contribute to housing instability or homelessness (Lindberg et al., 2010), both of which are exacerbated by disasters.

Many communities already lack adequate affordable housing before a disaster, so a disaster can present an opportunity to increase the supply of such housing. Funding for disaster recovery far outpaces funding for community development generally—the funding request for traditional CDBGs in 2013 was about $3 billion, while $16 billion was allocated in CDBG-DR funds for post–Hurricane Sandy recovery (Gilmore and Standaert, 2013). In addition to the use of federal funding, a community can increase affordable housing by requiring or incentivizing developers to build certain types of housing. A program

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for example, allows developers to build homes on city-owned lots provided that the homes’ final sale price does not exceed $150,000 (Cedar Rapids, 2014a).

Some communities have sought to develop mixed-income housing, which includes housing for low-, middle-, and high-income individuals within a defined area, usually a building or neighborhood (Levy et al., 2010). Yet while the evidence that segregated neighborhoods and housing are associated with poor health outcomes is clear (Jacobs, 2011), the evidence that mixed-income neighborhoods are associated with positive health outcomes is mixed. Because no studies qualified for review, the Community Preventive Services Task Force was unable to find sufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of creating mixed-income housing developments as an approach to reversing neighborhood deterioration, improving physical or mental health status, or increasing community cohesion and civic engagement (TFCPS, 2003). There is some evidence that moving into mixed-income communities leads to improvements in obesity in adults and mental health improvements in girls aged 12-19 (Orr et al., 2003), but the evidence for potential mental health improvements is mixed. One recent study, for example, found an increased prevalence of mental health disorders in boys aged 10-15 who had moved into a mixed-income community compared with those who had not moved into such a community (Kessler et al., 2014). While a disaster may present the opportunity to develop mixed-income housing, further research is needed on the associated health outcomes. In addition, turning formerly low-income areas into mixed-income housing may decrease the concentration of poverty, but it also may decrease the supply of affordable housing and leave some residents without realistic housing options (Ross, 2013).

Providing Financial Incentives

Financial incentives can be used to encourage rebuilding in a healthier and more resilient and sustainable way, including the use of green or healthy standards, the building of affordable housing, or rebuilding on land that is not disaster-prone. In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for example, the city used a combination of incentives and disincentives for rebuilding after a flood. The city purchased approximately 1,400 properties that were in flood-prone areas or had been severely damaged, which helped homeowners move on financially. CDBG-DR funds were used to create mixed-income housing, and state and local tax credits were offered to developers for building in a downtown core area, which improved the availability of dense, multifamily, affordable housing in mixed-use neighborhoods. The city council distributed public funding for rebuilding only in areas that were not in the 100-year flood plain or in the path of the city’s new flood control system. Moreover, a city program designed to “fill in” vacant properties provides free lots to builders when they agree to use build affordable homes using green standards, among other requirements (Cedar Rapids, 2014a,b). Other methods can include

  • expedited building permits or reduced fees for homeowners that include mitigation and sustainability measures in their repairs;
  • expedited permitting for rebuilding in an area that has been designated as a priority for redevelopment (Hillsborough County Government, 2010); and
  • using green or healthy building standards as additional “points” in a competitive bidding program for developers seeking to build.

One consideration, however, is that there must be a need for the type of housing that is incentivized; otherwise, there will be an imbalance in housing stock supply and demand. In Hancock County, Mississippi, for example, the supply of multifamily rental units was increased because of post-hurricane incentives; however, there is little demand for this type of housing in the community (Hillsborough County Government, 2010).

Federal requirements tied to grants are also important drivers of forward-looking approaches to redevelopment and consideration of vulnerable populations. Communities using CDBG-DR funds after a disaster, for example, are required by HUD to use at least 50 percent of the funds to benefit low- or

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

moderate-income people (HUD, 2014b), and post-Sandy rebuilding using CDBG was required to conform to green building standards (see Box 10-4).

RESEARCH NEEDS

Although there is a fair amount of evidence on the link between health and housing, more research is needed in the post-disaster context, particularly to produce

  • evidence of improved outcomes resulting from a collaborative approach to housing recovery that integrates design, social/behavioral, and health perspectives;
  • temporary housing strategies that improve social connectedness and associated impacts on health;
  • evidence of the link between health outcomes and post-disaster housing reconstruction that complies with green healthy housing building standards; and
  • knowledge of the key barriers to adoption of green building standards for post-disaster housing reconstruction.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Housing meets some of people’s most basic needs (shelter from the elements, privacy, a place of respite and socialization), and healthy, affordable housing is fundamental to healthy communities. After a disaster, providing housing rapidly and appropriately is essential to health and well-being. However, it is also critical to ensure that the urgency of post-disaster housing reconstruction does not result in practices that compromise health and preclude opportunities to promote long-term the affordability, resiliency, and sustainability of housing. Experience with past disasters has shown that the ways in which housing can either support or compromise health during and after recovery often are not adequately understood, resulting in unintended health impacts. Adoption of housing standards that are known to support and promote health, such as those for green and healthy housing, provides a mechanism for ensuring that health considerations are integrated into housing recovery efforts.

Recommendation 12: Ensure Healthy and Affordable Post-Disaster Housing.

To reduce housing-related health risks, federal, state, and local governmental housing agencies should require that new residential construction and substantial rehabilitation of existing residences financed with public funds after disasters comply fully with Enterprise Green Communities standards or their equivalent and with the minimum requirements set forth in the National Healthy Housing Standard. Federal and state funding agencies should tie these requirements to recovery funds, and private funders should consider incentivizing compliance with these standards. Additionally, multiple affordable housing options should be considered during redevelopment to ensure that people of all income levels can remain in the community.

HOUSING SECTOR RECOVERY CHECKLIST

The committee has identified three pre-event and seven post-disaster critical recovery priorities for the housing sector that are inextricably linked to strengthening the health, resilience, and sustainability of a community. Action steps for each of these priorities are provided in the following checklist. Although housing sector leaders will need to adapt these actions to the local context, this guidance provides an indicative set of concerns to be considered during recovery. The checklist illustrates how the following five key recovery strategies, identified as recurring themes at the beginning of this chapter, apply to individual priority areas:

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
  • Protect survivors and recovery workers from health hazards associated with unhealthy or unsafe housing.
  • Preserve and promote social connectedness in plans for immediate response, short-term housing, and long-term rebuilding.
  • Consider needs for access to health and social services during all phases of housing recovery.
  • Incentivize the use of healthy and/or green criteria for the rebuilding of homes, buildings, and neighborhoods.
  • Engage community members, including representatives of and advocates for vulnerable populations, in the development of post-disaster housing plans to ensure that the needs of all community members are met.
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

Pre-Event

Priority: Establish a Disaster Housing Task Force and Integrate It into Community Recovery Organizational Structures under the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF)

Primary Actors1: Housing Agencies

Key Partners: State/Local Health Departments,2 Social Services Agencies, Emergency Management Agencies, Environmental Health Agencies, Health and Medical System Partners (including Nursing Homes and Other Long-Term Care Institutions), Community Development Organizations, Public Works and Utilities, Disaster Relief Organizations (including the American Red Cross and Long-Term Recovery Committees), Federal Agencies (including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] and Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]), Private Sector (including Housing Finance Entities and Developers)

Key Recovery Strategy:

  • Engage community members, including representatives of and advocates for vulnerable populations, in the development of post-disaster housing plans to ensure that the needs of all community members are met.

Activities include but are not limited to:

img Bring together a wide variety of governmental and nongovernmental organizations under the umbrella of a disaster housing task force to establish plans and identify resources for recovery.

img Ensure that key health and social services organizations are represented on the disaster housing task force.

--------------------------

Priority: Conduct Vulnerability and Capacity Assessments, Including an Inventory of Existing Plans and Housing Stock

Primary Actor: Disaster Housing Task Force

Key Partners: Housing Agencies, Urban and Regional Planning Agencies, Community Development Organizations, Emergency Management Agencies, State/Local Health Departments, Social Services Agencies, Private Sector (including Housing Manufacturers, Providers, and Developers)

Key Recovery Strategy:

  • Engage community members, including representatives of and advocates for vulnerable populations, in the development of post-disaster housing plans to ensure that the needs of all community members are met.

________________

1 See Appendix F for further description of terms used to describe Primary Actors and Key Partners in this checklist.

2 Throughout this checklist, “State/Local” is used for the purposes of brevity but should be inferred to include tribal and territorial as well.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

Pre-Event

Activities include but are not limited to:

img Assess the current housing stock, including vacancy rates and the suitability of vacant properties for post-disaster housing.

img Assess the vulnerabilities of the local housing stock according to the risks that the community faces.

img Consider current community health and social welfare problems during the identification of priority redevelopment areas (e.g., locations already suffering from blight and associated with significant health disparities).

img Assess institutional capacity for housing recovery: What organizations exist, what are their roles and expertise, and how can they collaborate during recovery?

img Identify manufactured housing vendors and determine which are capable of providing temporary housing units. Establish preliminary but flexible relationships with vendors.

img Inventory the local plans, programs, or procedures that are relevant to housing during long-term recovery to identify opportunities to leverage existing programs, including those already serving vulnerable populations.

--------------------------

Priority: Plan for Siting of Temporary Housing

Primary Actor: Disaster Housing Task Force

Key Partners: Urban and Regional Planning Agencies, Community Development Organizations, State/Local Health Departments, Transportation Agencies, Social Services Agencies, Public Works and Utilities, Private Sector, Federal Agencies (including FEMA), Community Members

Key Recovery Strategies:

  • Protect survivors and recovery workers from health hazards associated with unhealthy or unsafe housing.
  • Preserve and promote social connectedness in plans for immediate response, short-term housing, and long-term rebuilding.
  • Consider needs for access to health and social services during all phases of housing recovery.
  • Engage community members, including representatives of and advocates for vulnerable populations, in the development of post-disaster housing plans to ensure that the needs of all community members are met.

Activities include but are not limited to:

img Identify potential sites for temporary housing and develop criteria for housing sites to be applied after a disaster.

img Ensure that sites are free of health hazards and not subject to further damage or disaster-related risks.

img If possible, locate temporary housing sites near essential community services and public transportation to facilitate access to goods, services, and employment.

img For long-term temporary housing, consider a site that could be converted to permanent housing units, thus capitalizing on necessary investments in infrastructure.

img Collaborate with the community and urban and regional planning agencies to identify appropriate locations.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

Short-Term Recovery

Priority: Assess Housing Needs

Primary Actor: Disaster Housing Task Force

Key Partners: Federal Agencies (including HUD and FEMA)

Key Recovery Strategies:

  • Protect survivors and recovery workers from health hazards associated with unhealthy or unsafe housing.
  • Consider needs for access to health and social services during all phases of housing recovery.
  • Engage community members, including representatives of and advocates for vulnerable populations, in the development of post-disaster housing plans to ensure that the needs of all community members are met.

Activities include but are not limited to:

img Quantify available housing stock in and near the community, including HUD-assisted and HUD-owned housing.

img Assess the extent of damage to the housing stock and its suitability (health/safety) for temporary housing.

img Determine the need for temporary housing and whether the existing housing stock can fulfill that need.

--------------------------

Priority: Prevent Unnecessary Displacement

Primary Actor: Disaster Housing Task Force

Key Partners: Private Sector (including Mortgage Servicers), Federal Agencies (including HUD’s Federal Housing Administration [FHA], and FEMA)

Key Recovery Strategies:

  • Protect survivors and recovery workers from health hazards associated with unhealthy or unsafe housing.
  • Preserve and promote social connectedness in plans for immediate response, short-term housing, and long-term rebuilding.
  • Consider needs for access to health and social services during all phases of housing recovery.
  • Engage community members, including representatives of and advocates for vulnerable populations, in the development of post-disaster housing plans to ensure that the needs of all community members are met.

Activities include but are not limited to:

img Consider implementing a “rapid repair” program for housing requiring relatively simple repairs so people can remain in their homes.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

Short-Term Recovery

img Coordinate with financial partners to provide foreclosure relief to homeowners suffering short-term financial difficulties due to the disaster.

img Provide assistance to homeowners, particularly the most vulnerable, who lack adequate insurance or means of repairing their own homes.

--------------------------

Priority: Protect Homeowners and Recovery Workers Against Health Risks

Primary Actors: State/Local Health Departments

Key Partners: Housing Agencies, Environmental Health Agencies, Health and Medical System Partners, Federal Agencies (including the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS])

Key Recovery Strategy:

  • Protect survivors and recovery workers from health hazards associated with unhealthy or unsafe housing.

Activities include but are not limited to:

img Train recovery and repair workers and volunteers in identifying hazards (e.g., mold, asbestos), protecting themselves, and mitigating the hazards.

img Provide information to homeowners, occupants, volunteers, and contractors regarding hazard identification, protective measures, and mitigation (e.g., by disseminating pamphlets at disaster recovery centers and home repair retail stores).

img Provide personal protective equipment (e.g., respirators, goggles, clothing) as needed.

--------------------------

Priority: Provide Short- and Long-Term Temporary Housing That Meets Health and Human Service Needs

Primary Actors: Housing Agencies, Federal Agencies (including FEMA and HUD)

Key Partners: Private Sector (including Land and Housing Owners), State/Local Health Departments, Social Services Agencies, Transportation Agencies

Key Recovery Strategies:

  • Protect survivors and recovery workers from health hazards associated with unhealthy or unsafe housing.
  • Preserve and promote social connectedness in plans for immediate response, short-term housing, and long-term rebuilding.
  • Consider needs for access to health and social services during all phases of housing recovery.
  • Engage community members, including representatives of and advocates for vulnerable
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

Short-Term Recovery

populations, in the development of post-disaster housing plans to ensure that the needs of all community members are met.

Activities include but are not limited to:

img Provide housing by leveraging existing buildings and/or purchasing temporary housing units.

img Utilize FEMA’s Rental Repair Program to repair rental housing and make it available to disaster victims.

img Make sure new or repaired units comply with the National Healthy Housing Standard and applicable housing codes.

img Conduct advance planning to ensure adequate personnel and training for special-needs and medical shelters and appropriate temporary housing for special-needs populations.

img Ensure that shelters and temporary housing are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

img Consider placing housing units on homeowners’ property to minimize disruption and maintain neighborhood cohesion, social connectedness, and access to services.

img If housing units are placed on group sites,

  • – arrange the site in a configuration that encourages social connectedness; and
  • – if possible, locate the site near or with “wraparound” services such as health care, schools, daycare, social services, public transportation, and employment counseling.
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

Intermediate- to Long-Term Recovery

Priority: Incentivize the Use of Green and Healthy Housing Standards

Primary Actors: Elected Officials and Community Leaders, Federal Agencies (including HUD)

Key Partners: Housing Agencies, Urban and Regional Planning Agencies, Community Development Organizations, State/Local Health Departments, Environmental Health Agencies, Private Sector (including Developers)

Key Recovery Strategies:

  • Protect survivors and recovery workers from health hazards associated with unhealthy or unsafe housing.
  • Consider needs for access to health and social services during all phases of housing recovery.
  • Incentivize the use of healthy and/or green criteria for the rebuilding of homes, buildings, and neighborhoods.

Activities include but are not limited to:

img Ensure that long-term housing is built in compliance with current housing codes (even if compliance was waived during short-term recovery).

img Use permitting processes strategically to ensure that houses are rebuilt in concert with the availability of necessary services and infrastructure.

img Give expedited permitting or financial incentives (e.g., tax credits) to builders using healthy and green housing standards.

img If the local government is allocating funding for the building or repair of properties, require the use of healthy housing and green standards.

--------------------------

Priority: Strengthen the Resiliency of Housing

Primary Actors: Elected Officials and Community Leaders, Housing Agencies

Key Partners: Federal Agencies (including HUD), Environmental Health Agencies, Emergency Management Agencies, Urban and Regional Planning Agencies, Community Development Organizations

Key Recovery Strategies:

  • Protect survivors and recovery workers from health hazards associated with unhealthy or unsafe housing.
  • Preserve and promote social connectedness in plans for immediate response, short-term housing, and long-term rebuilding.
  • Consider needs for access to health and social services during all phases of housing recovery.
  • Incentivize the use of healthy and/or green criteria for the rebuilding of homes, buildings, and neighborhoods.
  • Engage community members, including representatives of and advocates for vulnerable populations, in the development of post-disaster housing plans to ensure that the needs of all community members are met.
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

Intermediate- to Long-Term Recovery

Activities include but are not limited to:

img Rebuild homes, neighborhoods, and communities using principles of resiliency:

  • – Neighborhoods are compact, walkable, and mixed-use.
  • – All members of the community participate in planning and decisions with an eye toward making the community more equitable.
  • – Connections and partnerships in the community are preserved and strengthened.
  • – Housing is efficient and durable.
  • – Preparedness and recovery plans are continually reassessed.

img Consider disaster-resistant building strategies, such as installing elevated mechanical systems and locating living space above the ground floor.

img Consider opportunities to mitigate against future disaster damage by buying out disaster-prone properties and converting them to green or community space.

img Give financial incentives to builders or homeowners that incorporate mitigation in their repairs or rebuilding.

--------------------------

Priority: Ensure Adequate Affordable Healthy Housing

Primary Actors: Elected Officials and Community Leaders, Housing Agencies

Key Partners: Community- and Faith-Based Organizations, Federal Agencies (including HUD), Community Development Organizations, Private Sector (including Developers)

Key Recovery Strategy:

  • Engage community members, including representatives of and advocates for vulnerable populations, in the development of post-disaster housing plans to ensure that the needs of all community members are met.

Activities include but are not limited to:

img Use federally assisted housing programs, such as Housing Choice Vouchers and others, to help low-income residents afford housing that is regulated for health and safety.

img Use financial incentives or expedited permitting to encourage the building of affordable housing or mixed-income neighborhoods.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

REFERENCES

ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). 2007. The ADA and emergency shelters: Access for all in emergencies and disasters. In ADA best practices tool kit for state and local governments, Ch.7, addendum 2. Washington, DC: ADA.

AlJazeera America. 2013. Eight years after Hurricane Katrina, many evacuees yet to return. AlJazeera America, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/8/29/eight-years-afterkatrinalowincomeevacueeshaveyettoreturn.html (accessed December 4, 2014).

APA (American Planning Association). 1998. Planning for post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. PAS Report No. 484/484. Chicago, IL: APA.

APHA (American Public Health Association), and NCHH (National Center for Healthy Housing). 2014. National healthy housing standard. http://www.nchh.org/Portals/0/Contents/NHHS_Full_Doc.pdf (accessed October 31, 2014).

ARC (American Red Cross). 1998. Building community partnerships in disaster recovery: The rental housing replacement revolving fund final report. Washington, DC: ARC.

Association of Bay Area Governments. 2014. Housing and community risk key issue statements. http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/wp-content/documents/housing/8.26.14%20Handouts.pdf (accessed October 31, 2014).

Brandywine Center. 2009. About the Brandywine Center. http://www.brandywinecenter.org/about.html (accessed December 4, 2014).

Burstrom, B., and P. Fredlund. 2001. Self rated health: Is it as good a predictor of subsequent mortality among adults in lower as well as in higher social classes? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 55(11):836-840.

CA Department of Conservation. 2013. Facts about the Loma Prieta earthquake. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/News/Pages/loma_prieta.aspx (accessed December 4, 2014).

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2010. Final report on formaldehyde levels in FEMA-supplied travel trailers, park models, and mobile homes. Atlanta, GA: CDC.

CDC. 2014. Falls among older adults: An overview. http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/falls/adultfalls.html (accessed December 4, 2014).

Cedar Rapids. 2014a. Single family new construction program 4th round: Mandatory and optional green building guidelines. Cedar Rapids, IA: Cedar Rapids.

Cedar Rapids. 2014b. Roots properties. http://www.cedar-rapids.org/government/departments/communitydevelopment/housing/ROOTs/Pages/Properties.aspx (accessed December 4, 2014).

Chew, G. L., J. Wilson, F. A. Rabito, F. Grimsley, S. Iqbal, T. Reponen, M. L. Muilenberg, P. S. Thorne, D. G. Dearborn, and R. L. Morley. 2006. Mold and endotoxin levels in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: A pilot project of homes in New Orleans undergoing renovation. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(12):1883-1889.

Crocker, D. D., S. Kinyota, G. G. Dumitru, C. B. Ligon, E. J. Herman, J. M. Ferdinands, D. P. Hopkins, B. M. Lawrence, and T. A. Sipe. 2011. Effectiveness of home-based, multi-trigger, multicomponent interventions with an environmental focus for reducing asthma morbidity: A community guide systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 41(2, Suppl. 1):S5-S32.

Diez-Roux, A. V., F. J. Nieto, C. Muntaner, H. A. Tyroler, G. W. Comstock, E. Shahar, L. S. Cooper, R. L. Watson, and M. Szklo. 1997. Neighborhood environments and coronary heart disease: A multilevel analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology 146(1):48-63.

DiGuiseppi, C., D. E. Jacobs, K. J. Phelan, A. D. Mickalide, and D. Ormandy. 2010. Housing interventions and control of injury-related structural deficiencies: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 16(5 Suppl.):S34-S43.

Duvall, D., and A. Booth. 1978. The housing environment and women’s health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 19(4):410-417.

Ellen, I. G., and M. A. Turner. 2003. Do neighborhoods matter and why? In Choosing a better life? Evaluating the moving to opportunity social experiment, edited by J. Goering and J. D. Feins. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. Pp. 313-338.

Ellen, I. G., T. Mijanovich, and K.-N. Dillman. 2001. Neighborhood effects on health: Exploring the links and assessing the evidence. Journal of Urban Affairs 23(3-4):391-408.

Elton, P. J., and J. M. Packer. 1986. A prospective randomised trial of the value of rehousing on the grounds of mental ill-health. Journal of Chronic Diseases 39(3):221-227.

Enterprise. 2011. Enterprise green communities criteria checklist. http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/servlet/servlet.FileDownload?file=00P30000008rMSlEAM (accessed December 4, 2014).

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. A brief guide to mold, moisture, and your home. www.epa.gov/mold/moldguide.html (accessed December 4, 2014).

EPA. 2012. A citizen’s guide to radon: The guide to protecting yourself and your family from radon. http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html (accessed December 4, 2014).

EPA. 2014. Green building: Basic information. http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/about.htm (accessed December 4, 2014).

Evans, G. W., N. M. Wells, H.-Y. E. Chan, and H. Saltzman. 2000. Housing quality and mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 68(3):526-530.

Evans, G. W., N. M. Wells, and A. Moch. 2003. Housing and mental health: A review of the evidence and a methodological and conceptual critique. Journal of Social Issues 59(3):475-500.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009a. National disaster housing strategy. Washington, DC: FEMA. FEMA. 2009b. National disaster housing strategy: Annexes. Washington, DC: FEMA.

FEMA. 2013a. Hazard mitigation assistance unified guidance. Washington, DC: FEMA.

FEMA. 2013b. Recovery policy: Multi-family lease and repair program—direct temporary housing assistance. http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1384452357718-95f11f1ef06e063e305edd22bee70964/MLRP%20Policy.pdf (accessed February 12, 2015).

FEMA. 2014. Multi-hazard mitigation planning. https://www.fema.gov/multi-hazard-mitigation-planning (accessed November 25, 2014).

FEMA. 2015. Interim housing resources. https://www.fema.gov/interim-housing-resources (accessed March 9, 2015).

Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2010. Post-disaster redevelopment planning: A guide for Florida communities. http://www.floridadisaster.org/recovery/documents/Post%20Disaster%20Redevelopment%20Planning%20Guidebook%20Lo.pdf (accessed October 21, 2014).

Frank, D. A., N. B. Neault, A. Skalicky, J. T. Cook, J. D. Wilson, S. Levenson, A. F. Meyers, T. Heeren, D. B. Cutts, P. H. Casey, M. M. Black, and C. Berkowitz. 2006. Heat or eat: The low income home energy assistance program and nutritional and health risks among children less than 3 years of age. Pediatrics 118(5):e1293-e1302.

Freedy, J. R., and W. M. Simpson. 2007. Disaster-related physical and mental health: A role for the family physician. American Family Physician 75(6):841-846.

Furman Center. 2013. Sandy’s effects on housing in New York City. New York: Furman Center, Moelis Institute.

Geaghan, K. A. 2011. Forced to move: An analysis of Hurricane Katrina movers. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Gifford, R., and C. Lacombe. 2006. Housing quality and children’s socioemotional health. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 21(2):177-189.

Gilmore, D. R., and D. M. Standaert. 2013. Introduction and table of contents. In Building community resilience post-disaster: A guide for affordable housing and community economic development practitioners, edited by D. R. Gilmore and D. M. Standaert. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.

Halford, C., T. Wallman, L. Welin, A. Rosengren, A. Bardel, S. Johansson, H. Eriksson, E. Palmer, L. Wilhelmsen, and K. Svardsudd. 2012. Effects of self-rated health on sick leave, disability pension, hospital admissions and mortality. A population-based longitudinal study of nearly 15,000 observations among Swedish women and men. BMC Public Health 12:1103.

Halpern, D. 1995. Mental health and the built environment. London: Taylor & Francis.

HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 2009. The surgeon general’s call to action to promote healthy homes. Rockville, MD: HHS, Office of the Surgeon General.

HHS. 2012. Gaps continue to exist in nursing home emergency preparedness and response during disasters: 2007-2010. Washington, DC: HHS.

HHS and HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). 2006. Healthy housing reference manual. Washington, DC: HHS and HUD.

Hillsborough County Government. 2010. Post-disaster redevelopment plan http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/index.aspx?nid=1795 (accessed November 3, 2014).

Howden-Chapman, P., A. Matheson, J. Crane, H. Viggers, M. Cunningham, T. Blakely, C. Cunningham, A. Woodward, K. Saville-Smith, D. O’Dea, M. Kennedy, M. Baker, N. Waipara, R. Chapman, and G. Davie. 2007. Effect of insulating existing houses on health inequality: Cluster randomised study in the community. British Medical Journal 334(7591):460.

HUD. 1994. 4330.1 rev-5: Chapter 8. HUD-approved relief provisions. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=43301c8HSGH.pdf (accessed December 4, 2014).

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

HUD. 2000. Mortgagee letter 00-05: Loss mitigation program-comprehensive clarification of policy and notice of procedural changes. Washington, DC: HUD.

HUD. 2002. Mortgagee letter 2002-17: Special forbearance: Program changes and updates. Washington, DC: HUD.

HUD. 2007. 2007 metropolitan disaster planning: Analytical support of the American Housing Survey. Washington, DC: HUD.

HUD. 2009a. Housing habitability standards inspection checklist. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=dhapsandyhabitchklist.pdf (accessed December 4, 2014).

HUD. 2009b. HUD to assist homeowners facing problem drywall: Temporary relief available to make home repairs affordable for at-risk borrowers. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2009/HUDNo.09-237 (accessed December 4, 2014).

HUD. 2013. Second allocation, waivers, and alternative requirements for grantees receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Disaster Recovery funds in response to Hurricane Sandy. https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/3301/second-notice-cdbg-dr-funds-hurricane-sandy (accessed December 4, 2014).

HUD. 2014a. Administration of insured home mortgages (4330.1). http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/hudclips/handbooks/hsgh/4330.1 (accessed December 4, 2014).

HUD. 2014b. CDBG-DR eligibility requirements. https://www.hudexchange.info/cdbg-dr/cdbg-dr-eligibility-requirements (accessed December 4, 2014).

HUD. 2014c. Disaster Housing Assistance Program—Sandy (DHAP-Sandy). http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/sandy (accessed December 4, 2014).

HUD. 2014d. Disaster recovery. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/healthy_homes/disasterrecovery (accessed December 4, 2014).

HUD. 2014e. HUD disaster resources. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/info/disasterresources (accessed December 4, 2014).

Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force. 2013. Hurricane strategy rebuilding strategy: Stronger communities, a resilient region. Washington, DC: HUD.

Idler, E. L., L. B. Russell, and D. Davis. 2000. Survival, functional limitations, and self-rated health in the NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study, 1992. First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. American Journal of Epidemiology 152(9):874-883.

Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety. 2012. Fortified home: Hurricane standards. Tampa, FL: Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety.

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2004. Damp indoor spaces and health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Jacobs, D. E. 1995. Lead-based paint as a major source of childhood lead poisoning: A review of the evidence. In Lead in paint, soil and dust: Health risks, exposure studies, control measures and quality assurance, edited by M. E. Beard and S. D. Allen Iske. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Pp. 175-187.

Jacobs, D. E. 2011. Environmental health disparities in housing. American Journal of Public Health 101(Suppl. 1):S115-S122.

Jacobs, D. E., R. P. Clickner, J. Y. Zhou, S. M. Viet, D. A. Marker, J. W. Rogers, D. C. Zeldin, P. Broene, and W. Friedman. 2002. The prevalence of lead-based paint hazards in U.S. housing. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(10):A599-A606.

Jacobs, D. E., M. J. Brown, A. Baeder, M. S. Sucosky, S. Margolis, J. Hershovitz, L. Kolb, and R. L. Morley. 2010. A systematic review of housing interventions and health: Introduction, methods, and summary findings. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 16(5 Suppl.):S5-S10.

Jacobs, D. E., E. Ahonen, S. L. Dixon, S. Dorevitch, J. Breysse, J. Smith, A. Evens, D. Dobrez, M. Isaacson, C. Murphy, L. Conroy, and P. Levavi. 2014a. Moving into green healthy housing. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 21(4):345-354.

Jacobs, D. E., J. Breysse, S. L. Dixon, S. Aceti, C. Kawecki, M. James, and J. Wilson. 2014b. Health and housing outcomes from green renovation of low-income housing in Washington, DC. Journal of Environmental Health 76(7):8-16; quiz 60.

Kawachi, I., and L. F. Berkman, editors. 2003. Neighborhoods and health. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kessler, R. C., G. J. Duncan, L. A. Gennetian, L. F. Katz, J. R. Kling, N. A. Sampson, L. Sanbonmatsu, A. M. Zaslavsky, and J. Ludwig. 2014. Associations of housing mobility interventions for children in high-poverty neighborhoods with subsequent mental disorders during adolescence. Journal of the American Medical Association 311(9):937-948.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

Krieger, J. 2010. Home is where the triggers are: Increasing asthma control by improving the home environment. Pediatric Allergy, Immunology, and Pulmonology 23(2):139-145.

Krieger, J., and D. L. Higgins. 2002. Housing and health: Time again for public health action. American Journal of Public Health 92(5):758-768.

Krieger, J., D. E. Jacobs, P. J. Ashley, A. Baeder, G. L. Chew, D. Dearborn, H. P. Hynes, J. D. Miller, R. Morley, F. Rabito, and D. C. Zeldin. 2010. Housing interventions and control of asthma-related indoor biologic agents: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 16(5 Suppl.):S11-S20.

Krokstad, S., R. Johnsen, and S. Westin. 2002. Social determinants of disability pension: A 10-year follow-up of 62,000 people in a Norwegian county population. International Journal of Epidemiology 31(6):1183-1191.

Landrigan, P. J. 1998. Asbestos—still a carcinogen. New England Journal of Medicine 338(22):1618-1619.

Leech, J. A., M. Raizenne, and J. Gusdorf. 2004. Health in occupants of energy efficient new homes. Indoor Air 14(3):169-173.

Levy, D. K., Z. McDade, and K. Dumlao. 2010. Effects from living in mixed-income communities for low-income families: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Lew, H. S. 1990. Performance of structures during the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989. Vol. 778. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Li, C. L., H. Y. Chang, H. H. Wang, and Y. B. Bai. 2011. Diabetes, functional ability, and self-rated health independently predict hospital admission within one year among older adults: A population based cohort study. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 52(2):147-152.

Lindberg, R. A., E. D. Shenassa, D. Acevedo-Garcia, S. J. Popkin, A. Villaveces, and R. L. Morley. 2010. Housing interventions at the neighborhood level and health: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 16(5 Suppl.):S44-S52.

Lonigan, C. J., M. P. Shannon, C. M. Taylor, A. J. Finch, Jr., and F. R. Sallee. 1994. Children exposed to disaster: II. Risk factors for the development of post-traumatic symptomatology. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 33(1):94-105.

Lowry, S. 1991. Housing and health. British Medical Journal. London.

Lubin, J. H., and J. D. Boice, Jr. 1997. Lung cancer risk from residential radon: Meta-analysis of eight epidemiologic studies. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 89(1):49-57.

Macintyre, S., and A. Ellaway. 2000. Ecological approaches: Rediscovering the role of the physical and social environment. In Social epidemiology, edited by L. F. Berkman and I. Kawachi. New York: Oxford University Press.

Macintyre, S., and A. Ellaway. 2003. Neighborhoods and health: An overview. In Neighborhoods and health, edited by I. Kawachi and L. F. Berkman. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 20-42.

Macintyre, S., A. Ellaway, and S. Cummins. 2002. Place effects on health: How can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them? Social Science & Medicine 55(1):125-139.

Mansson, N. O., and L. Rastam. 2001. Self-rated health as a predictor of disability pension and death—a prospective study of middle-aged men. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 29(2):151-158.

Marin County Sheriff. 2003. Post-disaster housing annex: Marin operational area emergency operations plan. http://marinsheriff.org/uploads/documents/Post-Disaster%20Housing%20Annex.pdf (accessed October 31, 2014).

Marmot, M., A. Feeney, M. Shipley, F. North, and S. L. Syme. 1995. Sickness absence as a measure of health status and functioning: From the UK Whitehall II Study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 49(2):124-130.

McIntosh, J. 2013. The implications of post disaster recovery for affordable housing. In Approaches to disaster management—examining the implications of hazards, emergencies and disasters, edited by J. Tiefenbacher. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech. Pp. 205-217.

Meeds, D. 2013. Joplin pays it forward. http://joplincc.com/Joplin%20Pays%20It%20Forward%20-%20Community%20Leaders%20Share%20Our%20Recovery%20Lessons.pdf (accessed February 26, 2015).

Meyers, A., D. Cutts, D. A. Frank, S. Levenson, A. Skalicky, T. Heeren, J. Cook, C. Berkowitz, M. Black, P. Casey, and N. Zaldivar. 2005. Subsidized housing and children’s nutritional status: Data from a multisite surveillance study. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 159(6):551-556.

Miilunpalo, S., I. Vuori, P. Oja, M. Pasanen, and H. Urponen. 1997. Self-rated health status as a health measure: The predictive value of self-reported health status on the use of physician services and on mortality in the working-age population. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 50(5):517-528.

Morgan, W. J., E. F. Crain, R. S. Gruchalla, G. T. O’Connor, M. Kattan, R. Evans, III, J. Stout, G. Malindzak, E. Smartt, M. Plaut, M. Walter, B. Vaughn, and H. Mitchell. 2004. Results of a home-based environmental intervention among urban children with asthma. New England Journal of Medicine 351(11):1068-1080.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

Murphy, M. W., J. F. Lando, S. M. Kieszak, M. E. Sutter, G. P. Noonan, J. M. Brunkard, and M. A. McGeehin. 2013. Formaldehyde levels in FEMA-supplied travel trailers, park models, and mobile homes in Louisiana and Mississippi. Indoor Air 23(2):134-141.

Nagaraja, J., J. Menkedick, K. J. Phelan, P. Ashley, X. Zhang, and B. P. Lanphear. 2005. Deaths from residential injuries in US children and adolescents, 1985-1997. Pediatrics 116(2):454-461.

National Center for Healthy Housing. 2008. Creating a healthy home: A field guide for clean-up of flooded homes. Columbia, MD: Enterprise Community Partners, National Center for Healthy Housing.

National Coalition for the Homeless. 2009. Mental illness and homelessness. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_Illness.pdf (accessed March 10, 2015).

National Coalition for the Homeless. 2014. Integrating homeless service providers and clients in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. http://www.nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/disasterbrief092014.pdf (accessed March 10, 2015).

New York State Governor. 2013. Governor Cuomo announces federal reimbursement to New York City for Superstorm Sandy costs. http://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-federal-reimbursement-new-york-city-superstorm-sandy-costs (accessed December 4, 2014).

NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). 2013. NIEHS Hurricane Sandy response report. Washington, DC. NIEHS. http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/wetp/public/hasl_get_blob.cfm?ID=9939#sthash.GPOGbMG4.dpuf (accessed March 26, 2015).

Nolen, A. 2014. A Health in All Policies approach to disaster recovery: Lessons from Galveston. Paper presented at IOM Committee on Post-Disaster Recovery of a Community’s Public Health, Medical, and Social Services: Meeting Four, June 13, Washington, DC.

NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2012. NTP monograph: Health effects of low-level lead. Research Triangle Park, NC: HHS.

NYC (New York City). 2013. Mayor Bloomberg announces first-of-its-kind NYC rapid repairs program completes work on more than 20,000 homes damaged by Hurricane Sandy. http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/109-13/mayor-bloomberg-first-of-its-kind-nyc-rapid-repairs-program-completes-work-more-than (accessed December 4, 2014).

Orr, L., J. D. Feins, R. Jacob, and E. Beecroft. 2003. Moving to opportunity interim impacts evaluation. Final report. Washington, DC: HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Osofsky, H. J., J. D. Osofsky, M. Kronenberg, A. Brennan, and T. C. Hansel. 2009. Posttraumatic stress symptoms in children after Hurricane Katrina: Predicting the need for mental health services. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 79(2):212-220.

Pickett, K. E., and M. Pearl. 2001. Multilevel analyses of neighbourhood socioeconomic context and health outcomes: A critical review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 55(2):111-122.

Pietilainen, O., M. Laaksonen, O. Rahkonen, and E. Lahelma. 2011. Self-rated health as a predictor of disability retirement—the contribution of ill-health and working conditions. PLoS ONE 6(9):e25004.

Rezaeian, M. 2013. The association between natural disasters and violence: A systematic review of the literature and a call for more epidemiological studies. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences: The Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences 18(12):1103-1107.

Rodier, P. M. 1995. Developing brain as a target of toxicity. Environmental Health Perspectives 103(Suppl. 6):73-76. Ross, T. 2013. A disaster in the making: Addressing the vulnerability of low-income communities to extreme weather. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Rudge, J. 2011. Indoor cold and mortality. In Environmental burden of disease associated with inadequate housing: A method guide to the quantification of health impacts of selected housing risks in the WHO European Region, edited by M. Braubach, D. E. Jacobs, and D. Ormandy. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.

Runkle, J. D., A. Brock-Martin, W. Karmaus, and E. R. Svendsen. 2012. Secondary surge capacity: A framework for understanding long-term access to primary care for medically vulnerable populations in disaster recovery. American Journal of Public Health 102(12):e24-e32.

Sandel, M., A. Baeder, A. Bradman, J. Hughes, C. Mitchell, R. Shaughnessy, T. K. Takaro, and D. E. Jacobs. 2010. Housing interventions and control of health-related chemical agents: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 16(5 Suppl.):S24-S33.

Sattler, D., J. Sattler, C. Kaiser, B. Hamby, M. Adams, L. Love, J. Winkler, C. Abu-Ukkaz, B. Watts, and A. Beatty. 1995. Hurricane Andrew: Psychological distress among shelter victims. International Journal of Stress Management 2(3):133-143.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

SBA (U.S. Small Business Administration). 2014. Disaster loans. https://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/loans-grants/small-business-loans/disaster-loans (accessed November 25, 2014).

Singh-Manoux, A., A. Gueguen, P. Martikainen, J. Ferrie, M. Marmot, and M. Shipley. 2007. Self-rated health and mortality: Short- and long-term associations in the Whitehall II Study. Psychosomatic Medicine 69(2):138-143.

Smith Parker, T. 2014. CDBG Disaster Recovery overview. Paper presented at IOM Committee on Post-Disaster Recovery of a Community’s Public Health, Medical, and Social Services: Meeting Two, February 3, Washington, DC.

Spokane, A. R., Y. Mori, and F. Martinez. 2012. Housing arrays following disasters: Social vulnerability considerations in designing transitional communities. Environment and Behavior 1-25.

Takaro, T. K., J. Krieger, L. Song, D. Sharify, and N. Beaudet. 2011. The breathe-easy home: The impact of asthma-friendly home construction on clinical outcomes and trigger exposure. American Journal of Public Health 101(1):55-62.

TFCPS (Task Force on Community Preventive Services). 2003. Recommendations to promote healthy social environments. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 24(3):21-24.

ULI (Urban Land Institute). 2014. Housing in America: Integrating housing, health, and resilience in a changing environment. Washington, DC: ULI.

UNITY. 2010. Search and rescue five years later: Saving people still trapped in Katrina’s ruins. http://unitygno.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/UNITY_AB-Report_August2010.pdf (accessed March 10, 2015).

Uscher-Pines, L. 2009. Health effects of relocation following disaster: A systematic review of the literature. Disasters 33(1):1-22.

USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council). 2009. LEED for new construction & major renovations. Washington, DC: USGBC.

Van Ryzin, G. G., and T. Kamber. 2002. Subtenures and housing outcomes for low income renters in New York City. Journal of Urban Affairs 24(2):197-218.

Waitzman, N. J., and K. R. Smith. 1998. Phantom of the area: Poverty-area residence and mortality in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 88(6):973-976.

Weich, S., and G. Lewis. 1998. Material standard of living, social class, and the prevalence of the common mental disorders in Great Britain. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 52(1):8-14.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2011. Environmental burden of disease associated with inadequate housing: A method guide to the quantification of health effects of selected housing risks in the WHO European region. Edited by M. Braubach, D. E. Jacobs, and D. Ormandy. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.

Wilner, D. M., R. P. Walkley, T. C. Pinkerton, and M. Tayback. 1962. The housing environment and family life a longitudinal study of the effects of housing on morbidity and mental health. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/233806.html (accessed March 30, 2015).

Wilson, J., S. L. Dixon, P. Breysse, D. Jacobs, G. Adamkiewicz, G. L. Chew, D. Dearborn, J. Krieger, M. Sandel, and A. Spanier. 2010. Housing and allergens: A pooled analysis of nine US studies. Environmental Research 110(2):189-198.

Wilson, J., S. Dixon, D. Jacobs, J. Breysse, J. Akoto, E. Tohn, M. Isaacson, A. Evens, and Y. Hernandez. 2014. Watts-to-wellbeing: Does residential energy conservation improve health? Energy Efficiency 7(1):151-160.

Zock, J.-P., D. Jarvis, C. Luczynska, J. Sunyer, and P. Burney. 2002. Housing characteristics, reported mold exposure, and asthma in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 110(2):285-292.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 369
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 370
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 371
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 372
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 373
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 374
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 375
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 376
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 377
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 378
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 379
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 380
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 381
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 382
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 383
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 384
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 385
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 386
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 387
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 388
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 389
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 390
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 391
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 392
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 393
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 394
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 395
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 396
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 397
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 398
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 399
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 400
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 401
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 402
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 403
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 404
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 405
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 406
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 407
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 408
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 409
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 410
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 411
Suggested Citation:"10 Healthy Housing." Institute of Medicine. 2015. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18996.
×
Page 412
Next: PART III: APPENDIXES »
Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters: Strategies, Opportunities, and Planning for Recovery Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $70.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

In the devastation that follows a major disaster, there is a need for multiple sectors to unite and devote new resources to support the rebuilding of infrastructure, the provision of health and social services, the restoration of care delivery systems, and other critical recovery needs. In some cases, billions of dollars from public, private and charitable sources are invested to help communities recover. National rhetoric often characterizes these efforts as a "return to normal." But for many American communities, pre-disaster conditions are far from optimal. Large segments of the U.S. population suffer from preventable health problems, experience inequitable access to services, and rely on overburdened health systems. A return to pre-event conditions in such cases may be short-sighted given the high costs - both economic and social - of poor health. Instead, it is important to understand that the disaster recovery process offers a series of unique and valuable opportunities to improve on the status quo. Capitalizing on these opportunities can advance the long-term health, resilience, and sustainability of communities - thereby better preparing them for future challenges.

Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters identifies and recommends recovery practices and novel programs most likely to impact overall community public health and contribute to resiliency for future incidents. This book makes the case that disaster recovery should be guided by a healthy community vision, where health considerations are integrated into all aspects of recovery planning before and after a disaster, and funding streams are leveraged in a coordinated manner and applied to health improvement priorities in order to meet human recovery needs and create healthy built and natural environments. The conceptual framework presented in Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters lays the groundwork to achieve this goal and provides operational guidance for multiple sectors involved in community planning and disaster recovery.

Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters calls for actions at multiple levels to facilitate recovery strategies that optimize community health. With a shared healthy community vision, strategic planning that prioritizes health, and coordinated implementation, disaster recovery can result in a communities that are healthier, more livable places for current and future generations to grow and thrive - communities that are better prepared for future adversities.

  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. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    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!