Planning and Environmental Health

This module is part of a pilot project. Please select the evaluation link at the end of this StoryMap to provide your feedback on these materials.

This is part one of a four-part educational module, Planning for Early Care and Education, focused on the connection between early care and education, environmental health, and planning. Select the links at the bottom of the Story for links to other sections.

In this section, participants will learn about:

• The relationship between planning and environmental health
• The information about ECE programs that is necessary for safe siting
• The local, state, and federal regulations influencing ECE siting

Creating healthy communities requires collaboration among a wide range of affiliated practices. Of these practices, planning and public health are two professions with significant overlap, originating from a shared history and inherent ethical standards that encourage healthy places for all people. Environmental health, a branch of public health that focuses on the connection between the natural environment and human health, has a direct connection with planning. For instance, planners can plan for environmental health by making sure that people have access to clean air, water, and soil. Community decisions related to the built environment have significant impacts on environmental health and vice versa; therefore, planners need to learn more about how these aspects are interconnected.

Children are one of the most vulnerable population groups in our society, and since they are easily affected by environmental contaminants, it is important to protect them from these chemicals. One way in which planners can do this is by siting Early Care and Education programs, where children spend a large portion of their day, in safe locations. Moreover, they can also use plans and policies, including zoning regulations, long-range plans, functional plans, or subarea plans, to plan for environmental health. Beyond planning, communities can also adopt a variety of regulatory and funding strategies to ensure that plans for ECE programs include considerations about environmental exposure.

"Environmental health is the science and practice of preventing human injury and illness and promoting well-being by identifying and evaluating environmental sources and hazardous agents and limiting exposures to hazardous physical, chemical, and biological agents in air, water, soil, food, and other environmental media or settings that may adversely affect human health" (National Environmental Health Association 2013).

The historic intersection of planning and environmental health begins with urbanization. During the Industrial Revolution, shifts from agrarian land use to denser settlements led to public health issues, including outbreaks of disease, greater exposure to contaminants from factory work, and a lack of sanitation infrastructure (Atlanta Regional Health Forum, Atlanta Regional Commission 2006). At the beginning of the 20th century, planning strategies such as demolition of tenement housing and creation of Euclidian zoning to separate residences from industries were used to address these public health problems. Later in the 20th century and since the beginning of the 21st century, planners and health officials have started working together because it has become clear that the built environment has direct implications on community health (Rosenthal and Brandt-Rauf 2006). Recently, the integration of environmental health in planning has expanded to include other health-related considerations, including access to services and public utilities, walkable communities, nonmotorized transportation, and climate resiliency.

Land use has a direct impact on environmental health. Environmental health is threatened when contaminants from the previous land use, proximal anthropogenic hazardous waste, or naturally occurring sources affect locations where people live or spend most of their time.

Some areas may contain legacy contaminants that adversely impact residents. Legacy contaminants are those that persist in the environment long after the specific polluting land use has ceased. To address legacy contamination, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress in 1980. The purpose of this act is to collect federal dollars, through taxation of chemical industries, that can be used to remediate land that has been previously contaminated (also called Superfund sites), “when no responsible party could be identified” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) n.d.). 

The Love Canal, located in Niagara Falls, New York, originally was intended to be a canal used for hydroelectric power in the 1800s and early 1900s. The developer decided to cease operations and the canal was filled with water. Between 1942 and 1953, the nearby Hooker Electrochemical Company dumped 21,000 tons of hazardous waste into the canal, which contaminated surrounding soil and groundwater. The canal was filled with soil in 1953 and the land was leased to the Niagara Falls Board of Education. The site was developed into an elementary school and residential properties.

Complaints of odors and residues were reported throughout the 1960s and increased through the 1970s. Studies conducted by New York State and the U.S. EPA indicated various contaminants, including dioxin, arsenic, and benzene, were present. In both 1978 and 1980, President Jimmy Carter issued emergency declarations, which resulted in remediation work to begin and families to be evacuated from their homes. In 1980, CERCLA was enacted because of the Love Canal disaster. Since then, the site has been removed from the Superfund site list due to remedial activities and residences are now permitted. 

Proximity to nearby sources of pollution (including hazardous waste sites), as well as naturally occurring contaminants in the site, should also be considered. Hazardous sites have the potential to release chemicals and biological agents into the air, water, and soil, which can be transported to surrounding sites. Thus, incompatible land uses should be avoided. Contaminants can also be present naturally in water or soil, and appropriate tests should be conducted to identify them and remediate their impact on health.

There are various mechanisms available to local planners for regulating the built environment and land use. These tools include enforcing existing zoning policies and ensuring that proposed developments align with community plans. To successfully create, update, and enforce such rules and regulations, planners must also collaborate with environmental health professionals. Environmental health professionals who work in local governments possess the knowledge, data, and working relationships necessary to advise safe siting. They can also be an essential source of information and can assist planners in ensuring that the development aligns with the community plan.

Around 8.3 million children are enrolled in ECE programs where they may spend up to 50 hours a week, a majority of awake hours for most children (ATSDR 2017). ECE programs that provide a healthy environment can support children in reaching major developmental milestones and provide them with a foundation for educational achievement. A healthy environment includes access to clean water, air, and soil; protection from physical hazards; and easy access to community systems and services that support healthy living. 

ECE programs can be in privately owned buildings, leased buildings, or government-owned buildings. Some ECEs operate as single land use in residential areas. They may also operate in residential spaces, or in conjunction with institutional land uses, such as churches or universities. This document addresses considerations for siting child care centers, which can be in stand-alone buildings, in shopping centers, or as part of other businesses and organizations.

Not only do children require a safe environment for child care due to the long hours they spend in ECE programs, but they are also an especially vulnerable population. There are various factors that make children vulnerable. Children’s biological systems, including their nervous, immune, reproductive, and digestive systems, are still developing, and it is important to prevent exposure during these critical developmental stages. Smaller concentrations of contaminants can produce significantly more damage to a child’s developing system than it would an adult, and this damage is often irreversible. Additionally, children are small in stature and many in ECE programs still crawl, making them inevitably closer to the ground. Being closer to the ground, children can have higher exposure to agents on the ground. Children also tend to put objects in their mouths, including objects that may not be sanitized (World Health Organization n.d.).

ECE programs need sites that support environmental health—that is, ECE sites should minimize environmental hazards and maximize environmental health benefits. Planning interventions, such as plans, standards and policies, and development work, can support this goal.

The demand for ECE programs is increasing with time. Between 1995 and 2016, the number of children who attended a child care center rose from 55 percent to 58 percent (Rathbun and Zhang 2016). Additionally, suburban and small metropolitan areas have grown more quickly than cities and rural areas (Parker et al. 2018). These trends indicate that there may be areas where child care demand exceeds the current supply (Dobbins et al. 2016). For communities experiencing population growth, a lack of ECE programs can impact community well-being. Also, increased demand for childcare facilities can mean locations are chosen without considering environmental health. By incorporating ECE and environmental health considerations into the planning process, planners can proactively work toward identifying safe sites for ECE development.

It is clear from the above discussion that it is important that ECE programs are sited in safe areas that will prevent exposure. The American Planning Association (APA) has long promoted inclusion of child care policies as part of local planning policies. In 1997, APA adopted a policy guide on the  Provision of Child Care . As the policy guide states, APA “[…] supports national and state legislation which moves toward the goal of providing adequate funding for safe, convenient and affordable child care opportunities for all children.” Additionally, “procedures to locate child care facilities should not be overly burdensome and should be related to size and land use impacts of the facility.” 

Planners are in a unique position to integrate environmental health considerations when making ECE permitting and siting decisions. Moreover, they can use plans (comprehensive, subarea, functional), community visioning and goal-setting processes, zoning regulations, building codes, and public investments to integrate environmental health considerations in ECE planning. Section 2.3, Planning Strategies to Site ECE Programs, offers more information about planning interventions that can shape ECE facility siting. However, ECEs have historically been not considered in planning processes. 

Child care is an area where cross-sector collaboration is needed to develop strategies that would support environmental health. Multiple programs, including ATSDR and the Early Childhood Systems Working Group, have developed models for collaboration among stakeholders (ATSDR 2017; Early Childhood Systems Working Group 2013).  ATSDR  recommends bringing together multiple disciplines and sectors, including members of the public health sector, inspectors, housing experts, economic developers, permitting professionals, and planners to protect children from adverse impacts of contaminants near ECEs (ATSDR 2017). The  Early Childhood Systems Working Group model  focuses on planning and managing an ECE system that supports thriving children and families through six strategies, including building partnerships between programs related to health, early learning and development, family support, and leadership (Early Childhood Systems Working Group 2013). These programs illustrate opportunities to improve ECE options through cross-sector collaboration.

 ECE programs are funded in a wide variety of ways. Some ECE programs, such as Head Start and Early Head Start, are federally funded. Others, like child care centers and family child care homes, may be privately funded. Every state has different licensing rules and regulations governing the provision of early child care.

Funding sources and location influence ECE program requirements. In general, ECE providers select locations for programs; however, federal, state, and local mechanisms provide incentives, funding, and rules. ECEs can also adopt certain standards voluntarily, such as accreditation programs. 

State, tribal, or local agencies can adopt policies that influence school site selection. It is important to have those in place for ECE programs as well. ECEs could build on guidance developed for school siting, but before using those considerations, planners must be mindful that ECEs and schools differ in how they operate, receive funding, and are regulated.

Schools and ECE programs serve different age groups—ECE facilities serve younger children before kindergarten, while schools generally serve children age five and up. Younger children who are in ECE facilities can be more vulnerable to the impacts of contaminants. ECE programs may also require specialized equipment and have different programming requirements. Moreover, funding mechanisms for schools and ECE programs vary, resulting in different criteria for community engagement, facility development, programming, and service requirements. In many land-use plans, schools are classified as institutional land use, while ECE programs may open in retail or commercial land uses. Since ECEs often do not have a designated land use, planning for ECEs is difficult and requires special attention. ECE programs can also have different operating hours than schools; some ECE programs offer extended services in evenings and over the weekend.

Schools and ECE programs share some similarities. They may have similar impacts on the community, including trips generated during drop-off and pickup hours, parking requirements, noise generation, and utility needs. Like schools, these factors may limit where ECE programs can be opened, particularly larger facilities that may impact the surrounding community character. In some municipalities, these impacts to the built environment may be restricted through zoning regulations. Because of these impacts, ECE programs may need to apply for conditional use permits when developing new ECE programs in residential areas. Like schools, they may have to take additional precautions, such as providing noise control buffers, to negate the impacts on the surrounding built environment.

In Summary

Environmental health and planning can work together to ensure child care programs are healthy and safe for children to occupy. Children’s health and safety in child care programs are important because many children spend most of their awake hours in these programs. Children are a vulnerable population; they are more susceptible to exposure to harmful agents and the negative health impacts of those agents.

Understanding how environmental health can be applied to planning practices is critical in attaining a healthy child care environment. The first section of this module provided foundational information about the nexus between environmental health and planning. There is an opportunity for collaboration among planners and environmental health professionals through the engagement of the concept of the built environment. It also provides the necessary background of ECE programs that planners should know to site them in safe places. Moreover, it explains with case examples, the rules, regulations, and programs that are used at federal, state, and local level to influence ECE siting. While there are states that regulate siting of ECE programs, planners should go beyond those regulations to protect children from harmful chemicals. 

Your feedback is important to us. Please complete the evaluation below to help improve this tool.

•  Part 1: Planning and Environmental Health With A Focus on Early Care and Education 
•  Part 2: Environmental Health Considerations for Siting ECE Programs 
•  Part 3: Land Suitability Analysis 
•  Part 4: Safe Siting in Hurricane-Affected Areas