The built environment significantly affects the public's health. This was most obvious when infectious disease was the primary public health threat during the industrial revolution; unsanitary conditions and overcrowded urban areas facilitated the spread of infection. However, even today in the age of chronic diseases there remains an important connection between population health and the built environment. Physical spaces can expose people to toxins or pollutants and influence lifestyles that contribute to diabetes, coronary vascular disease, and asthma. Public health advocates can help shape the design of cities and suburbs in ways that improve public health, but to do so effectively they need to understand the legal framework. This article reviews the connection between public health and the built environment and then describes the legal pathways for improving the design of our built environment.

In 2000, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Environmental Health issued a report that explored some of the ways in which “sprawl” impacts public health. The report has generated great interest, and state health officials are beginning to discuss the relationship between land use and public health. The CDC report has also produced a backlash. For example, the Southern California Building Industry Association labeled the report “a ludicrous sham” and argued that the CDC should stick to “fighting physical diseases, not defending political ones.”In retrospect, it is probably unfortunate that this report was funded by an organization called “Sprawl Watch.” “Spraw” is a word that has no clear meaning but is applied to a huge range of issues involving suburban development.

No abstract

Public Health Science and practice expanded during the course of the 20th century. Initially focused on controlling infectious disease through basic public health programs regulating water, sanitation and food, by 1988 the Institute of Medicine broadly declared that “public health is what we, as a society, do collectively to. assure the conditions for people to be healthy.” Commensurate with this definition, public health practitioners and policymakers today work on ;in enormous range of issues. The 2002 policy agenda of the American Public Health Association reflects positions on genomics’ role in public health; national health and safety standards for child care programs; sodium in Americans’ diets; the health and safety of emergency rescue workers; and war in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf.

“Public health practice” consists of activities and Programs managed by public health agencies to promote health and prevent disease, injury, and disability. Some of these activities might be deemed to fit within the broad definition of “research” under federal regulations, known as the Common Rule, designed to protect human research subjects. The Common Rule defines research as “a systeniatic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” Public health activities that might under some circumstances be considered research include disease reporting, review of medical records, surveys, interviews, focus groups, specimen collection (blood, urine, etc.), and laboratory testing (both identifiable and anonymous).There are questions about the extent to which the Common Rule applies or was intended to apply to public health practice: and it has been suggested in any case that Common Rule regulation of public health practice may not be socially optimal for both practical and principled reasons.