• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.42 no.5
• /
• pp.293-301
• /
• 2016

Objectives: This paper presents the current development progress of environmental health indicators (EHIs) in the Republic of Korea and discusses the utilization, limitations and prospects of EHIs. Methods: The development process and assessment criteria of EHIs were established based on the DPSEEA (Driving force-Pressure-State-Exposure-Effect-Action) framework with reference to that of the World Health Organization-Europe. In order to explore the applicability of EHIs, a case study was performed to compare the atmospheric environmental health status between the Republic of Korea and European region countries using six indicators. Results: Through the development process, 23 indicators in five areas including air quality, indoor air quality, climate change, chemicals, and water quality were developed, mostly using national statistical data. As a result of the case study comparing environmental health indicators in air quality between the Republic of Korea and Europe, it could be useful to understand the different situation of air pollution source, emission, exposure and health effects. Conclusion: In order for EHIs to compare environmental health status and be used as an environmental health policy development tool for vulnerable areas and related factors, it is necessary to develop further indicators for various issues other than air quality and conduct additional research on their interpretation and related implications, such as policy implementation effects.

• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.40 no.2
• /
• pp.71-80
• /
• 2014

Objectives: The main purpose of this review is to introduce the current status of environmental health indicators of Korea and to share our experience of the developmental process of Korean version of environmental health indicators. Methods: This paper describes 1) the background of environmental health indicators; 2) the ways how we developed environmental health indicators of Korea; 3) the current status of selected indicators; and 4) suggestions for the further policy development. Results: The 6-year long project for the development of environmental health indicator systems in Korea could provide outputs on three major distinct aspects on the indicator issues. Firstly, we have developed the rational process/manual so that the government can select and advocate the potential indicators with a relatively objective manner. Secondly, we have suggested the potential candidate indicators which can be implemented immediately. We also pooled all indicators in order to evaluate the summary index which we expect to tell the status of environmental health. Third, we provided suggestions on the further utilization of this indicator system. Conclusion: The mission of environmental health policy is to resolve the public health problems occurring because of hazardous environment. In order to identify the environmental determinants of the community health problems and to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy implemented, these environmental indicators can be used. Therefore, the government should implement this ready-prepared system of environmental health indicators.

• Journal of Food Hygiene and Safety
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.217-226
• /
• 2015

This study was conducted to establish a standardized process for developing food safety health indicators. With this aim, we proposed a standardized process, accessed the validity of the suggested process by performing simulations, and provided a method to utilize the indicators. Developing process for domestic environmental health indicators was benchmarked to propose a standardized process for developing food safety health indicators, and DPSEEA framework was applied to the development of indicators. The suggested standardized process consists of an exploitation stage and a management stage. In the exploitation stage, a total of 6 procedures (initial indicators suggestion, candidate indicators selection, data availability assessment, feasibility assessment, pilot study, and final indicator selection) are conducted, and the indicators are routinely calculated and officially announced in the management stage. The exploitation stage is operated by an interaction between a task force team who manages the overall process, and an advisory committee (minimum of 4 in academia, 2 in research, 4 in specialists of Ministry of Food and Drug Safety) who reviews and performs evaluations on the indicators. The standardized process was simulated with 45 initial indicators, and total of 4 indicators (17 detailed indicators) were selected: 'Proportion of domestic fruit/vegetable receiving 'acceptable' in the evaluation of pesticide/herbicide residues', 'Food-borne disease outbreaks', 'Food-borne legal infectious disease incidence', 'Salmonellosis incidence'. Synthetic food safety health index was derived by calculating percent difference with the data from 2010 to 2012. Results showed that when comparing the year 2010 to 2011, and 2011 to 2012, the overall food safety status improved by 10.37% and 9.87%, respectively. In addition, the contribution of indicators to the overall food safety status can be determined by looking into the individual indicators, and the synthetic index may be illustrated to enhance the ease of interpretation to the public and policy makers. In overall, food health safety indicators can be useful in many ways and therefore, attention should be drawn to conduct further studies and establish related legislations.