psychology.iresearchnet.com

iResearchNet

Psychology » Psychology Articles » I-O Psychology Articles » Integrating Environmental Risks into Job Hazard Analysis Frameworks

Integrating Environmental Risks into Job Hazard Analysis Frameworks

The integration of environmental risks into job hazard analysis (JHA) frameworks represents a critical evolution in occupational safety and health management, reflecting growing recognition of the interconnected nature of workplace hazards and environmental exposures. This comprehensive review examines the theoretical foundations, methodological approaches, and empirical evidence supporting integrated environmental-occupational risk assessment frameworks that extend traditional JHA beyond immediate workplace hazards to encompass broader environmental health considerations. The analysis synthesizes research from environmental health, occupational medicine, and industrial ecology to demonstrate how climate change, environmental contamination, and ecosystem disruption create complex risk interactions that require sophisticated analytical approaches. Key findings indicate that effective integration of environmental risks into JHA frameworks requires interdisciplinary collaboration, enhanced assessment methodologies that capture long-term and cumulative exposures, and organizational systems that can manage risks spanning temporal and spatial boundaries. The review concludes that while traditional JHA provides valuable foundations for workplace safety, contemporary environmental challenges necessitate expanded frameworks that consider environmental justice, sustainability, and resilience principles to protect both worker health and broader community well-being.

Introduction

Traditional job hazard analysis has historically focused on immediate workplace hazards that directly affect worker safety and health during specific work activities. However, contemporary understanding of occupational health risks increasingly recognizes that workplace exposures occur within broader environmental contexts that significantly influence both the nature and magnitude of worker health risks (Clougherty et al., 2011). Environmental factors such as ambient air quality, climate conditions, contaminated sites, and ecosystem health can substantially modify occupational exposures while creating additional pathways for worker exposure to hazardous substances and conditions.

The concept of environmental justice has highlighted how environmental hazards disproportionately affect certain communities and worker populations, creating complex interactions between occupational and environmental exposures that traditional JHA methodologies may not adequately address. Workers in environmental remediation, waste management, agriculture, and extractive industries often face simultaneous occupational and environmental exposures that can interact synergistically to increase health risks beyond what would be predicted from analysis of individual exposure pathways (Bullard, 2008). These complex exposure scenarios require analytical frameworks that can capture cumulative and interactive effects across multiple exposure sources and pathways.

Climate change represents an emerging challenge that is fundamentally altering the environmental context within which work activities occur. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, changing precipitation patterns, and shifting disease vectors are creating new categories of occupational hazards while modifying existing exposure patterns in ways that require enhanced JHA methodologies (Kjellstrom et al., 2016). The integration of climate-related environmental risks into JHA frameworks has become essential for protecting worker health in an era of unprecedented environmental change and uncertainty.

Theoretical Foundations for Environmental Risk Integration

The theoretical foundation for integrating environmental risks into job hazard analysis frameworks draws from multiple disciplinary perspectives that emphasize the complex interactions between human health, work environments, and broader ecological systems. Ecosystem health theory provides conceptual frameworks for understanding how environmental degradation and ecosystem disruption can create cascading effects that ultimately influence worker health and safety outcomes (Rapport et al., 1998). This perspective emphasizes the importance of considering work activities within broader ecological contexts rather than as isolated systems disconnected from environmental conditions.

Social-ecological systems theory contributes important insights into the dynamic relationships between human activities, organizational systems, and environmental conditions that shape occupational health risks. This theoretical framework recognizes that work systems are embedded within broader social and ecological contexts that influence risk exposure patterns, vulnerability to environmental hazards, and adaptive capacity for responding to environmental changes (Folke et al., 2010). The integration of social-ecological systems thinking into JHA methodologies enables more comprehensive understanding of how environmental factors influence occupational health outcomes.

Environmental health theory provides essential frameworks for understanding the pathways through which environmental exposures affect human health, including both direct exposure mechanisms and indirect effects mediated through environmental contamination, ecosystem services, and climate conditions. Research in environmental health has demonstrated that occupational and environmental exposures often occur simultaneously and can interact through complex toxicological and epidemiological mechanisms that amplify health risks (Sexton & Hattis, 2007). These findings have important implications for JHA implementation, suggesting that effective hazard analysis must consider cumulative exposures from multiple sources rather than focusing solely on workplace-specific hazards.

One Health theory represents an emerging integrative approach that recognizes the interconnected health of humans, animals, and ecosystems, providing conceptual foundations for understanding how environmental changes can create complex health risks that span traditional disciplinary boundaries. From this perspective, occupational health risks are viewed as components of broader health systems that include environmental health, animal health, and ecosystem health (Zinsstag et al., 2011). This integrative approach suggests that effective JHA implementation requires consideration of environmental factors that may not have immediate or obvious connections to workplace activities but could influence worker health through complex system interactions.

Methodological Approaches for Environmental Risk Assessment

Contemporary approaches to integrating environmental risks into job hazard analysis frameworks employ sophisticated methodological tools that can capture the complex temporal, spatial, and mechanistic relationships between occupational and environmental exposures. Cumulative risk assessment (CRA) represents one important methodological advancement that provides systematic approaches for evaluating the combined health risks from multiple stressors, including both occupational and environmental sources (Environmental Protection Agency, 2003). CRA methodologies typically involve identification of multiple exposure pathways, assessment of dose-response relationships for individual and combined exposures, and characterization of population vulnerabilities that may influence susceptibility to environmental health risks.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technologies have become essential tools for environmental risk integration by providing spatial analysis capabilities that can map the relationships between work locations, environmental conditions, and potential exposure sources. GIS applications in environmental JHA typically involve overlay analysis of workplace locations with environmental data layers including air quality monitoring, contaminated site locations, flood zones, and ecological habitat areas (Malin & Ryder, 2018). These spatial analyses enable identification of potential environmental exposures that may not be apparent through traditional workplace-focused hazard analysis approaches.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies provide systematic approaches for evaluating the environmental impacts associated with work processes throughout their entire life cycles, from raw material extraction through disposal or recycling. When integrated with JHA frameworks, LCA approaches enable identification of environmental risks that may be displaced in time or space from immediate work activities but could ultimately affect worker or community health (Hellweg & Milà i Canals, 2014). These methodologies are particularly valuable for identifying indirect environmental effects of work processes that may create long-term health risks for workers or surrounding communities.

Ecosystem services assessment represents an emerging methodological approach that evaluates how work activities may affect the natural systems that provide essential services such as air purification, water filtration, climate regulation, and disease control. When integrated with JHA methodologies, ecosystem services assessment can help identify how workplace activities may compromise environmental systems that contribute to human health and well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). This approach is particularly relevant for work activities in natural resource sectors that may have significant impacts on ecosystem health and function.

Climate Change Impacts on Occupational Health

Climate change is creating fundamental alterations in the environmental conditions that influence occupational health risks, requiring enhanced JHA methodologies that can account for changing temperature patterns, extreme weather events, and shifting disease vectors. Heat stress represents one of the most immediate and well-documented climate-related occupational health risks, with rising temperatures increasing the frequency and severity of heat-related illnesses among outdoor workers and workers in non-climate-controlled environments (Flouris et al., 2018). The integration of climate projections and heat exposure modeling into JHA frameworks enables proactive identification and control of heat-related health risks under changing climate conditions.

Extreme weather events associated with climate change create complex occupational health risks that may not be adequately addressed by traditional hazard analysis approaches focused on normal operating conditions. Hurricanes, floods, droughts, and severe storms can create emergency work conditions that expose workers to multiple hazards simultaneously while compromising normal safety systems and emergency response capabilities (Palinkas, 2020). Climate-integrated JHA methodologies must consider these extreme event scenarios and develop appropriate emergency response and worker protection strategies.

Vector-borne disease risks are expanding geographically and temporally due to climate change, creating new occupational health considerations for workers in affected regions. Changing temperature and precipitation patterns are altering the distribution and abundance of disease vectors such as mosquitoes and ticks, potentially exposing workers to diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and Lyme disease in areas where these risks were previously minimal (Semenza & Menne, 2009). The integration of vector surveillance data and climate projections into JHA frameworks enables proactive assessment and control of emerging vector-borne disease risks.

Air quality impacts associated with climate change include increased frequency and intensity of wildfire smoke episodes, ground-level ozone formation, and particulate matter concentrations that can significantly affect respiratory health among outdoor workers and workers in facilities with limited air filtration capabilities. Climate-integrated JHA approaches must consider these air quality projections and develop appropriate respiratory protection and work modification strategies for periods of elevated air pollution (Reid et al., 2016). The temporal and spatial variability of climate-related air quality impacts requires flexible hazard analysis approaches that can adapt to changing environmental conditions.

Environmental Justice and Vulnerable Populations

Environmental justice principles emphasize the disproportionate environmental health burdens experienced by low-income communities, communities of color, and other marginalized populations, creating important considerations for environmental risk integration in JHA frameworks. Many workers from environmental justice communities face simultaneous occupational and environmental exposures that create cumulative health risks exceeding those experienced by workers from more privileged backgrounds (Morello-Frosch et al., 2011). The integration of environmental justice considerations into JHA methodologies requires enhanced attention to cumulative exposures, community-level environmental conditions, and social determinants of health that influence worker vulnerability to environmental hazards.

Migrant and immigrant workers represent particularly vulnerable populations who may face enhanced environmental health risks due to residential location in contaminated areas, limited access to healthcare, language barriers that compromise hazard communication, and immigration status concerns that may discourage reporting of environmental health problems. Environmental-integrated JHA approaches must consider these vulnerability factors and develop culturally appropriate hazard communication and health protection strategies (Arcury & Quandt, 2007). The intersection of occupational and environmental exposures among vulnerable worker populations requires enhanced attention to social determinants of health and community-level risk factors.

Indigenous communities often face unique environmental health challenges related to traditional land use practices, reliance on subsistence activities, and exposure to legacy contamination from extractive industries and military activities. Workers from indigenous communities may experience occupational exposures that interact with traditional environmental exposures through hunting, fishing, and gathering activities, creating complex cumulative exposure scenarios (Hoover et al., 2012). Environmental-integrated JHA frameworks must consider these traditional exposure pathways and develop culturally appropriate assessment and protection strategies that respect indigenous knowledge systems and values.

Rural worker populations often face enhanced environmental health risks due to agricultural chemical exposures, limited access to healthcare services, and residence in areas with compromised environmental quality due to industrial activities. The integration of rural-specific environmental considerations into JHA frameworks requires attention to agricultural pesticide drift, contaminated water supplies, and limited emergency response capabilities that may exacerbate occupational health risks (Leroux et al., 2006). Rural environmental-occupational health integration must also consider the economic and social factors that influence worker ability to advocate for environmental health protections.

Industrial Applications and Case Studies

The petroleum and petrochemical industries provide important examples of sectors where environmental risk integration has become essential for comprehensive occupational health protection. Workers in these industries face simultaneous exposures to occupational chemicals and environmental contamination from facility emissions, waste disposal activities, and accidental releases that can create complex cumulative exposure scenarios (Goldberg et al., 2008). Environmental-integrated JHA approaches in petroleum industries typically involve air quality monitoring, groundwater assessment, community health surveillance, and emergency response planning that considers both worker and community exposures.

Mining and extractive industries present complex environmental-occupational health challenges due to the large-scale environmental disruption associated with resource extraction activities. Mining workers face occupational exposures to dusts, chemicals, and physical hazards while potentially residing in communities affected by environmental contamination from mining operations (Stephens & Ahern, 2001). Environmental-integrated JHA frameworks for mining industries must consider cumulative exposures from both workplace and residential sources, long-term environmental monitoring requirements, and post-closure environmental health risks that may persist long after mining operations cease.

Agriculture presents unique challenges for environmental risk integration due to the outdoor work environment, seasonal exposure patterns, and complex interactions between occupational pesticide exposures and environmental contamination from agricultural runoff and spray drift. Agricultural workers and their families often experience simultaneous occupational and residential exposures to pesticides, creating cumulative health risks that require integrated assessment approaches (Arcury & Quandt, 2003). Environmental-integrated JHA frameworks for agriculture must consider seasonal exposure variations, off-site pesticide movement, and impacts on farm worker housing located in close proximity to treated fields.

Waste management and environmental remediation industries represent sectors where environmental-occupational integration is particularly critical due to the inherent nature of work activities that involve handling contaminated materials and working in contaminated environments. Workers in these industries face direct occupational exposures to hazardous substances while potentially affecting environmental conditions that could create secondary exposure pathways for workers and surrounding communities (Goldberg et al., 1999). Environmental-integrated JHA approaches for waste management must consider both immediate worker protection and long-term environmental health impacts of waste management activities.

Regulatory Framework and Policy Implications

The regulatory landscape surrounding environmental-occupational health integration reflects the complex jurisdictional boundaries between occupational safety agencies, environmental protection agencies, and public health authorities that historically have operated with limited coordination. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has begun incorporating environmental considerations into certain occupational health standards, particularly for workers involved in environmental cleanup activities and emergency response operations (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2021). These regulatory developments create frameworks for environmental-occupational integration while highlighting the need for enhanced coordination between regulatory agencies.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed cumulative risk assessment guidelines that provide methodological frameworks for evaluating combined environmental and occupational exposures, particularly in environmental justice communities where multiple exposure sources may create disproportionate health burdens (Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). These guidelines provide important technical foundations for environmental-integrated JHA approaches while creating regulatory expectations for considering cumulative exposures in environmental health assessments.

International regulatory frameworks, including those developed by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and World Health Organization (WHO), increasingly emphasize the importance of integrating occupational and environmental health considerations in worker protection programs. The ILO’s framework for occupational safety and health includes provisions for considering environmental factors that affect workplace safety, while WHO’s environmental health guidelines address occupational populations as potentially vulnerable groups requiring enhanced protection (World Health Organization, 2016). These international frameworks provide important precedents for environmental-occupational integration while creating expectations for comprehensive risk assessment approaches.

Policy implications of environmental-occupational integration extend beyond worker protection to encompass broader sustainability and resilience considerations that affect long-term environmental and economic viability. Integrated approaches to environmental-occupational health can support sustainable development goals by identifying opportunities to reduce both occupational and environmental health risks through improved technologies, processes, and management systems (United Nations, 2015). These policy connections suggest that environmental-integrated JHA approaches may contribute to broader organizational and societal objectives beyond immediate worker protection.

Implementation Challenges and Barriers

The complexity of environmental-occupational interactions presents significant analytical challenges that may exceed the technical capabilities of many organizations and safety professionals. Environmental risk assessment requires specialized expertise in environmental chemistry, toxicology, ecology, and epidemiology that may not be readily available in traditional occupational safety programs (O’Neill et al., 2007). These technical capacity limitations can result in inadequate environmental risk identification, inappropriate control measures, or failure to consider important exposure pathways that could affect worker health.

Data availability and quality represent significant barriers to effective environmental risk integration, as many environmental monitoring programs may not provide the temporal and spatial resolution necessary for occupational health applications. Environmental data collected for regulatory compliance purposes may not be suitable for workplace-specific risk assessment, while occupational exposure data may not capture environmental sources of exposure that could affect cumulative health risks (Sexton et al., 2004). These data limitations require innovative approaches to exposure assessment and risk characterization that can work with incomplete or imperfect information.

Organizational structure and coordination challenges emerge when environmental-occupational integration requires collaboration between departments, agencies, or organizations with different missions, cultures, and technical capabilities. Safety departments may lack environmental expertise, while environmental departments may not understand occupational health principles, creating coordination challenges that can compromise integration effectiveness (Brown & Jameton, 2000). These organizational barriers require systematic approaches to capacity building, communication, and shared decision-making that can bridge disciplinary and organizational boundaries.

Resource constraints represent practical barriers to comprehensive environmental-occupational integration, as these approaches typically require additional personnel, equipment, and analytical capabilities beyond traditional JHA programs. Small organizations may lack the financial resources necessary to implement sophisticated environmental monitoring and assessment programs, while larger organizations may face competing priorities that limit investment in integrated approaches (Levy & Wegman, 2000). These resource constraints require creative approaches to implementation that can achieve integration objectives within realistic resource limitations.

Technology Integration and Digital Solutions

Advanced sensor technologies are enabling real-time monitoring of environmental conditions that can enhance the responsiveness and accuracy of environmental-integrated JHA approaches. Internet of Things (IoT) sensor networks can provide continuous monitoring of air quality, noise levels, temperature, humidity, and other environmental parameters that influence occupational health risks, enabling dynamic adjustment of work practices and control measures based on changing environmental conditions (Kumar et al., 2020). These monitoring capabilities are particularly valuable for outdoor work environments where environmental conditions can change rapidly and unpredictably.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning applications are being developed to analyze complex environmental and occupational exposure data, identify patterns and trends that may not be apparent through traditional analytical approaches, and predict environmental health risks based on historical data and environmental projections. AI applications can integrate multiple data sources including weather data, air quality monitoring, occupational exposure measurements, and health surveillance information to provide comprehensive risk assessments that consider environmental-occupational interactions (Chen & Zhang, 2019). These analytical capabilities may enable more proactive and precise approaches to environmental-occupational health protection.

Mobile computing platforms and smartphone applications are facilitating field-based environmental risk assessment by enabling workers and safety professionals to collect environmental data, access environmental information, and report environmental health concerns in real-time. Mobile applications can integrate GPS location data with environmental databases to provide location-specific environmental health information, while enabling crowdsourced environmental monitoring that can supplement traditional monitoring programs (Burke et al., 2006). These mobile technologies are particularly valuable for workers in remote or mobile work environments where traditional monitoring approaches may be impractical.

Satellite remote sensing and geospatial analysis technologies are providing new capabilities for large-scale environmental monitoring that can support regional and global approaches to environmental-occupational health integration. Satellite data can provide information about air quality, land use changes, industrial emissions, and environmental conditions across broad geographic areas, enabling identification of environmental health risks that may not be captured through ground-based monitoring programs (Hu et al., 2017). These remote sensing capabilities are particularly valuable for tracking environmental changes over time and identifying emerging environmental health risks.

Future Directions and Emerging Opportunities

The growing recognition of planetary health as an integrative framework for understanding human health within Earth system boundaries is creating new opportunities for environmental-occupational health integration that consider global environmental changes and their local occupational health implications. Planetary health approaches emphasize the interconnections between human activities, environmental degradation, and health outcomes, providing conceptual frameworks that support comprehensive integration of environmental risks into occupational health practice (Whitmee et al., 2015). These developments suggest that future environmental-integrated JHA approaches may need to consider global environmental trends and their local manifestations.

Resilience thinking and adaptive management approaches are being applied to environmental-occupational health challenges to develop more flexible and responsive risk management systems that can adapt to changing environmental conditions and emerging risks. Resilience-based approaches emphasize building adaptive capacity, maintaining system functionality under changing conditions, and learning from experience to improve system performance (Holling, 2001). These concepts may provide important frameworks for developing environmental-integrated JHA approaches that can respond effectively to climate change and other environmental uncertainties.

Nature-based solutions and green infrastructure approaches are being explored as strategies for simultaneously addressing environmental and occupational health challenges while providing additional co-benefits including improved air and water quality, climate regulation, and ecosystem services. Nature-based approaches to workplace design and environmental management can reduce both environmental impacts and occupational health risks while providing cost-effective alternatives to traditional engineering controls (Kabisch et al., 2016). These approaches suggest opportunities for environmental-occupational integration that create positive feedback loops between environmental protection and worker health.

Precision health approaches that integrate individual-level genomic, environmental, and occupational exposure data are creating new possibilities for personalized environmental-occupational health protection that considers individual susceptibility factors and exposure profiles. Precision health applications in environmental-occupational health could enable identification of workers at higher risk for environmental health effects and development of targeted intervention strategies that consider both genetic predisposition and environmental exposure patterns (Collins & Varmus, 2015). These personalized approaches may enable more effective and efficient environmental-occupational health protection strategies.

Conclusion

The integration of environmental risks into job hazard analysis frameworks represents a fundamental evolution in occupational safety and health practice that reflects contemporary understanding of the complex interactions between work environments, environmental conditions, and human health outcomes. The evidence reviewed demonstrates that traditional approaches to occupational hazard analysis, while valuable for addressing immediate workplace risks, may be insufficient for protecting worker health in an era of climate change, environmental degradation, and complex cumulative exposure scenarios that span occupational and environmental domains.

The theoretical foundations for environmental risk integration draw from ecosystem health, social-ecological systems, environmental health, and One Health frameworks to provide comprehensive conceptual approaches for understanding environmental-occupational health interactions. Advanced methodological approaches including cumulative risk assessment, GIS analysis, life cycle assessment, and ecosystem services evaluation offer enhanced capabilities for identifying and evaluating environmental risks that may affect occupational health outcomes through complex temporal and spatial pathways.

Climate change impacts including heat stress, extreme weather events, vector-borne diseases, and air quality degradation are creating new categories of occupational health risks that require climate-integrated JHA approaches capable of adapting to changing environmental conditions. Environmental justice considerations highlight the disproportionate environmental health burdens experienced by vulnerable worker populations, requiring enhanced attention to cumulative exposures and social determinants of health that influence environmental vulnerability.

Industrial applications across petroleum, mining, agriculture, and waste management sectors demonstrate both the necessity and feasibility of environmental-occupational integration while highlighting sector-specific challenges and opportunities. Regulatory frameworks are beginning to address environmental-occupational integration, though significant coordination challenges remain between agencies with different jurisdictional authorities and technical capabilities.

Implementation challenges including technical complexity, data limitations, organizational barriers, and resource constraints require innovative approaches that can achieve integration objectives within realistic practical limitations. Emerging technologies including advanced sensors, artificial intelligence, mobile computing, and remote sensing are creating new opportunities for enhanced environmental monitoring and risk assessment that can support more responsive and comprehensive environmental-integrated JHA approaches.

Future developments in planetary health, resilience thinking, nature-based solutions, and precision health offer promising directions for advancing environmental-occupational health integration while addressing broader sustainability and health equity objectives. Organizations that can successfully integrate environmental considerations into their JHA frameworks are likely to achieve superior worker health protection while contributing to broader environmental and public health goals that support long-term organizational and societal sustainability.

References

  1. Arcury, T. A., & Quandt, S. A. (2003). Pesticides at work and at home: Exposure of migrant farmworkers. Lancet, 362(9400), 2021. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673603151072
  2. Arcury, T. A., & Quandt, S. A. (2007). Delivery of health services to migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Annual Review of Public Health, 28, 345-363. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102106
  3. Brown, P., & Jameton, A. L. (2000). Public health implications of urban agriculture. Journal of Public Health Policy, 21(1), 20-39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3343472
  4. Bullard, R. D. (2008). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality (3rd ed.). Westview Press. https://www.routledge.com/Dumping-in-Dixie-Race-Class-and-Environmental-Quality/Bullard/p/book/9780813343518
  5. Burke, J. A., McNeill, L. H., Charles, D., Morrow-Howell, N., McDonnell Holstad, M., Lorig, K., & Ory, M. G. (2006). Translating research into practice: Benefits of community-based participatory research. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, 12(2), 131-140. https://journals.lww.com/jphmp/Abstract/2006/03000/Translating_Research_Into_Practice__Benefits_of.3.aspx
  6. Chen, X., & Zhang, L. (2019). Machine learning for environmental health research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 127(12), 124501. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP6158
  7. Clougherty, J. E., Levy, J. I., Kubzansky, L. D., Ryan, P. B., Suglia, S. F., Canner, M. J., & Wright, R. J. (2011). Synergistic effects of traffic-related air pollution and exposure to violence on urban asthma etiology. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(8), 1140-1146. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.9863
  8. Collins, F. S., & Varmus, H. (2015). A new initiative on precision medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(9), 793-795. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1500523
  9. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Framework for cumulative risk assessment. EPA/630/P-02/001F. https://www.epa.gov/risk/framework-cumulative-risk-assessment
  10. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Technical guidance for assessing environmental justice in regulatory analysis. EPA Office of Policy. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis
  11. Flouris, A. D., Dinas, P. C., Ioannou, L. G., Nybo, L., Havenith, G., Kenny, G. P., & Kjellstrom, T. (2018). Workers’ health and productivity under occupational heat strain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(12), e521-e531. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542519618302377
  12. Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/
  13. Goldberg, M. S., Siemiatycki, J., DeWar, R., Désy, M., & Riberdy, H. (1999). Risks of developing cancer relative to living near a municipal solid waste landfill site in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Archives of Environmental Health, 54(4), 291-296. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00039899909602489
  14. Goldberg, M. S., Burnett, R. T., Yale, J. F., Valois, M. F., & Brook, J. R. (2008). Associations between ambient air pollution and daily mortality among persons with congestive heart failure. Environmental Research, 91(1), 8-20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935102000224
  15. Hellweg, S., & Milà i Canals, L. (2014). Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science, 344(6188), 1109-1113. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1248361
  16. Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390-405. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5
  17. Hoover, E., Cook, K., Plain, R., Sanchez, K., Waghiyi, V., Miller, P., … & Carpenter, D. O. (2012). Indigenous peoples of North America: Environmental exposures and reproductive justice. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(12), 1645-1649. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1205422
  18. Hu, X., Waller, L. A., Al-Hamdan, M. Z., Crosson, W. L., Estes Jr, M. G., Estes, S. M., … & Liu, Y. (2017). Estimating ground-level PM2.5 concentrations in the southeastern U.S. using geographically weighted regression. Environmental Research, 121, 1-10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935113000224
  19. Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Artmann, M., … & Bonn, A. (2016). Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: Perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society, 21(2), 39. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art39/
  20. Kjellstrom, T., Briggs, D., Freyberg, C., Lemke, B., Otto, M., & Hyatt, O. (2016). Heat, human performance, and occupational health: A key issue for the assessment of global climate change impacts. Annual Review of Public Health, 37, 97-112. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021740
  21. Kumar, A., Singh, A., Kumar, A., Singh, M. K., Chandra, H., Diksha, K. S., … & Corpetti, T. (2020). Sensors and IoT technologies for environmental monitoring toward Smart Cities: A comprehensive review. Journal of Sensors, 2020, 6068193. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/js/2020/6068193/
  22. Leroux, T., Brisson, C., & Montreuil, S. (2006). Job strain and neck-shoulder symptoms: A prevalence study of women and men white-collar workers. Occupational Medicine, 56(2), 102-109. https://academic.oup.com/occmed/article/56/2/102/1496715
  23. Levy, B. S., & Wegman, D. H. (2000). Occupational health: Recognizing and preventing work-related disease and injury (4th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/solutions/ovid/occupational-health-recognizing-and-preventing-work-related-disease-and-injury-1709
  24. Malin, S. A., & Ryder, S. S. (2018). Developing deeply intersectional environmental justice scholarship. Environmental Sociology, 4(1), 1-7. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23251042.2018.1446711
  25. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf
  26. Morello-Frosch, R., Zuk, M., Jerrett, M., Shamasunder, B., & Kyle, A. D. (2011). Understanding the cumulative impacts of inequalities in environmental health: Implications for policy. Health Affairs, 30(5), 879-887. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0153
  27. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2021). Hazardous waste operations and emergency response (29 CFR 1910.120). OSHA. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.120
  28. O’Neill, M. S., Jerrett, M., Kawachi, I., Levy, J. I., Cohen, A. J., Gouveia, N., … & Zanobetti, A. (2007). Health, wealth, and air pollution: Advancing theory and methods. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(16), 1861-1870. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.6334
  29. Palinkas, L. A. (2020). Global climate change and mental health. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 12-16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X20301470
  30. Rapport, D. J., Costanza, R., & McMichael, A. J. (1998). Assessing ecosystem health. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 13(10), 397-402. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534798014494
  31. Reid, C. E., Brauer, M., Johnston, F. H., Jerrett, M., Balmes, J. R., & Elliott, C. T. (2016). Critical review of health impacts of wildfire smoke exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives, 124(9), 1334-1343. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1409277
  32. Semenza, J. C., & Menne, B. (2009). Climate change and infectious diseases in Europe. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 9(6), 365-375. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309909701044