Search

This paper explores how housing modifies the temperature–mortality relationship in the Eastern and Western Cape provinces of South Africa. We estimate dose–response relationships for residents living in each of the five common types of South African housing by combining linear-threshold models for Cape Town with concurrent data on the city's housing composition and expert estimates of how well different types of housing protect against heat and cold. We then apply temperature data to determine provincial-level dose–response relationships, relative risks, attributable fractions and mortality burdens for heat and cold under seven housing scenarios – three past, three future and a scenario of maximum protection. We find that future mortality burdens would be lower under a policy scenario that prioritizes the replacement of informal housing compared to one that prioritizes the replacement of traditional dwellings. In a maximum protection scenario, where everyone lived in houses characteristic of the wealthy, temperature-related mortality could be reduced by over 50% (approximately 5000 deaths annually) in the two provinces combined. These results have relevance to current housing policy but also reinforce the importance of the built environment in mitigating adverse effects of future climate change. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Previous estimates of childhood lead poisoning prevention benefits have quantified the present value of some health benefits, but not the costs of lead paint hazard control or the benefits associated with housing and energy markets. Because older housing with lead paint constitutes the main exposure source today in the US, we quantify health benefits, costs, market value benefits, energy savings, and net economic benefits of lead-safe window replacement (which includes paint stabilization and other measures). The benefit per resident child from improved lifetime earnings alone is $21,195 in pre-1940 housing and $8685 in 1940–59 housing (in 2005 dollars). Annual energy savings are $130–486 per housing unit, with or without young resident children, with an associated increase in housing market value of $5900–14,300 per housing unit, depending on home size and number of windows replaced. Net benefits are $4490–5,629 for each housing unit built before 1940, and $491–1629 for each unit built from 1940–1959, depending on home size and number of windows replaced. Lead-safe window replacement in all pre-1960 US housing would yield net benefits of at least $67 billion, which does not include many other benefits. These other benefits, which are shown in this paper, include avoided Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, other medical costs of childhood lead exposure, avoided special education, and reduced crime and juvenile delinquency in later life. In addition, such a window replacement effort would reduce peak demand for electricity, carbon emissions from power plants, and associated long-term costs of climate change. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]