@article {22,
	title = {The Impact of COVID-19 on Public Space: A Review of the Emerging Questions},
	volume = {2020},
	year = {2020},
	note = {Preprint},
	abstract = {Restrictions on the use of public space and social distancing have been key policy measures to reduce the transmission of SAR-CoV-2 and protect public health. At the time of writing, one half of the world{\textquoteright}s population has been asked to stay home and avoid many public places. What will be the long term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on public space once the restrictions have been lifted? The depth and extent of transformation is unclear, especially as it relates to the future design, use and perceptions of public space. This article aims to highlight emerging questions at the interface of COVID-19 and city design. It is possible that the COVID-19 crisis may fundamentally change our relationship with public space. In the ensuing months and years, it will be critical to study and measure these changes in order to inform urban planning and design in a post-COVID-19 world.},
	keywords = {Built Environment, COVID-19, Design, Health, Planning, Public Space, Urban},
	doi = {10.31219/osf.io/rf7xa},
	author = {Jordi Honey-Roses and Isabelle Anguelovski and Josep Bohigas and Vincent Chireh and Carolyn Daher and Cecil Konijnendijk and Jill Litt and Vrushti Mawani and Mike McCall and Arturo Orellana and Emilia Oscilowicz and Ulises S{\'a}nchez and Maged Senbel and Xueqi Tan and Erick Villagomez and Oscar Zapata and Mark Nieuwenhuijsen}
}
@article {162,
	title = {Energy, Poverty, and Health in Climate Change: A Comprehensive Review of an Emerging Literature},
	journal = {Frontiers in public health},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2019},
	month = {2019/12/12},
	pages = {357 - 357},
	publisher = {Frontiers Media S.A.},
	abstract = {Household energy is increasingly vital for maintaining good health. Unaffordable and inadequate household energy presents adverse consequences that are amplified by poverty and a changing climate. To date, the connections between energy, socioeconomic disadvantage, and well-being are generally underappreciated, and household energy connection with climate change is under-researched. Building on the energy insecurity framework, this review explores literature related to household energy, poverty, and health in order to highlight the disproportionate burdens borne by vulnerable populations in adequately meeting household energy needs. This paper is based on a comprehensive review of books, peer-reviewed articles, and reports published between 1990 and 2019, identified via databases including JSTOR and PubMed. A total of 406 publications were selected as having potential for full review, 203 received full review, and 162 were included in this paper on the basis of set inclusion criteria. From the literature review, we created an original heuristic model that describes energy insecurity as either acute or chronic, and we further explore the mediators and pathways that link energy insecurity to health. In the discussion, we posit that the extant literature does not sufficiently consider that vulnerable communities often experience energy insecurity bundled with other hardships. We also discuss energy, poverty, and health through the lens of climate change, making the criticism that most research on household energy does not consider climate change. This evidence is important for enhancing research in this field and developing programmatic and policy interventions as they pertain to energy access, affordability, and health, with special emphasis on vulnerable populations, climate change, and social inequality.},
	keywords = {Climate change, Energy insecurity, Health, Housing, Vulnerable populations},
	isbn = {2296-25652296-2565},
	doi = {10.3389/fpubh.2019.00357},
	url = {https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31921733},
	author = {Jessel, Sonal and Sawyer, Samantha and Diana Hern{\'a}ndez}
}
@article {129,
	title = {Building evidence for health: green buildings, current science, and future challenges},
	journal = {Annual Review of Public Health},
	volume = {39},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {291{\textendash}308},
	publisher = {Annual Reviews},
	abstract = {Civilizational challenges have questioned the status quo of energy and material consumption by humans. From the built environment perspective, a response to these challenges was the creation of green buildings. Although the revolutionary capacity of the green building movement has elevated the expectations of new commercial construction, its rate of implementation has secluded the majority of the population from its benefits. Beyond reductions in energy usage and increases in market value, the main strength of green buildings may be the procurement of healthier building environments. Further pursuing the right to healthy indoor environments could help the green building movement to attain its full potential as a transformational public health tool. On the basis of 40 years of research on indoor environmental quality, we present a summary of nine environment elements that are foundational to human health. We posit the role of green buildings as a critical research platform within a novel sustainability framework based on social-environmental capital assets.

},
	keywords = {Built Environment, Green buildings, Health, human rights, Indoor environmental quality, Sustainability},
	doi = {10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044420},
	author = {J. G. Cedeno-Laurent and A Williams and P MacNaughton and Xiaodong Cao and Erika Sita Eitland and John D. Spengler and Joseph G. Allen}
}
@article {128,
	title = {Green buildings and health},
	journal = {Current Environmental Health Reports},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2015},
	pages = {250{\textendash}258},
	publisher = {Springer},
	abstract = {Green building design is becoming broadly adopted, with one green building standard reporting over 3.5 billion square feet certified to date. By definition, green buildings focus on minimizing impacts to the environment through reductions in energy usage, water usage, and minimizing environmental disturbances from the building site. Also by definition, but perhaps less widely recognized, green buildings aim to improve human health through design of healthy indoor environments. The benefits related to reduced energy and water consumption are well-documented, but the potential human health benefits of green buildings are only recently being investigated. The objective of our review was to examine the state of evidence on green building design as it specifically relates to indoor environmental quality and human health. Overall, the initial scientific evidence indicates better indoor environmental quality in green buildings versus non-green buildings, with direct benefits to human health for occupants of those buildings. A limitation of much of the research to date is the reliance on indirect, lagging and subjective measures of health. To address this, we propose a framework for identifying direct, objective and leading {\textquotedblleft}Health Performance Indicators{\textquotedblright} for use in future studies of buildings and health.},
	keywords = {Green buildings, Health, Indoor environmental quality, Systematic review},
	doi = {10.1007/s40572-015-0063-y},
	author = {Joseph G. Allen and Piers MacNaughton and Jose Guillermo Laurent and Skye S. Flanigan and Erika Sita Eitland and John D. Spengler}
}
@article {114,
	title = {The impact of household energy efficiency measures on health: A meta-analysis},
	journal = {Energy Policy},
	volume = {65},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {583{\textendash}593},
	publisher = {Elsevier},
	abstract = {It is widely accepted that interventions designed to promote household energy efficiency, like insulation, central heating and double glazing, can help to reduce cold-related illnesses and associated stress by making it easier for residents to keep their homes warm. However, these interventions may also have a detrimental effect on health. For example, the materials used or lower ventilation rates could result in poorer indoor air quality. The present research sought to systematically quantify the impact of household energy efficiency measures on health and wellbeing. Thirty-six studies, involving more than 33,000 participants were meta-analysed. Effect sizes (d) ranged from -0.43 (a negative impact on health) to 1.41 (a substantial positive impact on health), with an overall sample-weighted average effect size (d+) of 0.08. On average, therefore, household energy efficiency interventions led to a small but significant improvement in the health of residents. The findings are discussed in the context of the health improvements experienced by different groups of participants and the study design factors that influence health outcomes. The need for future studies to investigate the long term health benefits of interventions designed to promote household energy efficiency is identified.

},
	keywords = {Energy efficiency, Health, Housing improvements, Meta-analysis, Wellbeing},
	doi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.054},
	author = {Christopher D. Maidment and Christopher R. Jones and Thomas L. Webb and Abigail Hathway and Jan M. Gilbertson}
}
