Health and housing outcomes from green renovation of low-income housing in Washington, DC.

Green building systems have proliferated recently, but studies are limited of associated health and housing outcomes. The authors measured self-reported resident physical and mental health, allergens, and building conditions at baseline and one-year follow-up in a low-income housing development being renovated in accordance with green healthy housing improvements (Enterprise Green Communities standards and Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design [LEED] gold certification). Self-reported general health in adults significantly improved from 59% to 67% (p = .026), with large statistically significant improvements in water/ dampness problems, cockroaches and rodents, and reduced pesticide use. Median cockroach (Bla g1) and mouse (Mus m1) allergen dust loadings showed large and statistically significant reductions from baseline to three months postintervention and were sustained at one year (both p < .05). Energy and water cost savings were 16% and 54%, respectively. Incorporating Enterprise Green Communities and LEED standards in low-income housing renovation improves health and housing conditions and can help to reduce disparities. All green housing standards should include health-related requirements.

Health outcomes and green renovation of affordable housing.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to determine whether renovating low-income housing using "green" and healthy principles improved resident health and building performance. METHODS: We investigated resident health and building performance outcomes at baseline and one year after the rehabilitation of low-income housing using Enterprise Green Communities green specifications, which improve ventilation; reduce moisture, mold, pests, and radon; and use sustainable building products and other healthy housing features. We assessed participant health via questionnaire, provided Healthy Homes training to all participants, and measured ventilation, carbon dioxide, and radon. RESULTS: Adults reported statistically significant improvements in overall health, asthma, and non-asthma respiratory problems. Adults also reported that their children's overall health improved, with significant improvements in non-asthma respiratory problems. Post-renovation building performance testing indicated that the building envelope was tightened and local exhaust fans performed well. New mechanical ventilation was installed (compared with no ventilation previously), with fresh air being supplied at 70% of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers standard. Radon was < 2 picocuries per liter of air following mitigation, and the annual average indoor carbon dioxide level was 982 parts per million. Energy use was reduced by 45% over the one-year post-renovation period. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant health improvements following low-income housing renovation that complied with green standards. All green building standards should include health requirements. Collaboration of housing, public health, and environmental health professionals through integrated design holds promise for improved health, quality of life, building operation, and energy conservation.

Selecting a lead hazard control strategy based on dust lead loading and housing condition: I. Methods and results.

A methodology was developed to classify housing conditions and interior dust lead loadings, using them to predict the relative effectiveness of different lead-based paint hazard control interventions. A companion article in this issue describes how the methodology can be applied. Data from the National Evaluation of the HUD Lead Hazard Control Grant Program, which covered more than 2800 homes in 11 U.S. states, were used. Half these homes (1417) met the study's inclusion criteria. Interior interventions ranged from professional cleaning with spot painting to lead abatement on windows, and enclosure, encapsulation, or removal of other leaded building components. Modeling was used to develop a visual Housing Assessment Tool (HAT), which was then used to predict relative intervention effectiveness for a range of intervention intensities and baseline floor and windowsill dust lead loadings in occupied dwellings. More than 117,000 potential HATs were considered. To be deemed successful, potential HATs were required to meet these criteria: (1) the effect of interior strategy had to differ for HAT ratings of good vs. poor building condition and/or baseline dust lead loadings; (2) the HAT rating had to be a predictor of one year post-intervention loadings; (3) interior intervention strategy had to be a predictor of one-year loadings; (4) higher baseline loadings could not be associated with lower one-year loadings; and (5) neither exterior work nor site/soil work could result in higher predicted one-year loadings for either HAT rating. Of the 1299 HATs that met these criteria, one was selected because it had the most significant differences between strategy intensities when floors and sills were considered together. For the selected HAT, site/soil work was a predictor of one-year loadings for floors (p = 0.009) but not for sills (p = 0.424). Hazard control work on the building exterior was a predictor of both sill and floor one-year loadings (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively). Regardless of the type of interior intervention strategy, interior work was a predictor of both floor and sill one-year loadings (each p < or = 0.001).

Selecting a lead hazard control strategy based on dust lead loading and housing condition: II. Application of Housing Assessment Tool (HAT) modeling results.

In Part I in this issue, modeling was used to identify a Housing Assessment Tool (HAT) that can be used to predict relative intervention effectiveness for a range of intervention intensities and baseline dust lead loadings in occupied dwellings. The HAT predicts one year post-intervention floor and windowsill loadings and the probability that these loadings will exceed current federal lead hazard standards. This article illustrates the field application of the HAT, helping practitioners determine the minimum intervention intensity needed to reach "acceptable" one year post-intervention levels, with acceptability defined based on specific project needs, local needs, regulations, and resource constraints. The HAT is used to classify a dwelling's baseline condition as good or poor. If the average number of interior non-intact painted surfaces per room is >/=2, then the dwelling is rated as poor. If exterior windows/doors are deteriorated and the average number of exterior non-intact painted surfaces per building side is >/=5, then the dwelling is rated as poor. If neither of these conditions is true, then the dwelling's HAT rating is good. The HAT rating is then combined with baseline average floor loading to help select the treatment intensity. For example, if the baseline floor loading is 100 mug/ft(2) (1,075 mug/m(2) and the HAT rating is poor, the probability that the one-year floor loading exceeds the federal standard of 40 mug/ft(2) (430 mug/m(2) is 27% for a high-intensity strategy (i.e., window lead abatement with other treatments) but is 54% for a lower-intensity strategy (i.e., cleaning and spot painting). If the HAT rating is good, the probability that the one-year floor loading exceeds 40 mug/ft(2) is approximately the same for low- and high-intensity strategies (18% for window lead abatement with other treatments compared with 16% for cleaning and spot painting). Lead hazard control practitioners can use this information to make empirically based judgments about the treatment intensity needed to ensure that one year post-intervention loadings remain below federal standards.