et al., 2019; Kong, 2022; Mbazima et al., 2021; Whiley et al., 2019). Environmental health frequently is confused with environ- mental science or other professions, and its invisibility results in low numbers of people entering the profession. Eorts, in various formats and across numerous platforms, have been made to address this invisibility (e.g., an advertisement produced by the National Environmental Health Association [NEHA; Strahle, 2021]). Yet the profile of EHPs remains consistently low despite the exten- sive work undertaken during the pandemic (Dyjack et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al., 2021). Skills and Knowledge of Environmental Health Practitioners Environmental health is defined as those aspects of human health (including qual- ity of life) that are determined by physical, chemical, biological, social, and psychoso- cial factors in the environment. The term environment broadly includes everything external to ourselves, including a person’s physical, natural, social, and behavioral environments (Environmental Health Intel- ligence New Zealand, n.d.). EHPs regulate these components to protect public health by using regulatory tools that allow them to oversee the safety of sites such as food prem- ises, wastewater treatment centers, cooling towers, public swimming pools and spas, and body piercing businesses. They conduct risk assessments, health impact assessments, and public health planning; manage pub- lic health in disaster events such as flood- ing and wildfires; and take responsibility for public health protection in many other areas. We seek to demonstrate that the skills and knowledge underlying these responsi- bilities—mainly conducted with authoriza- tion under public health legislation or regu- lations—are transferable between countries. Demonstrating this transferability is the first step to facilitating recognition to practice environmental health in countries beyond an EHP’s home country. We started this proj- ect by examining the skills and knowledge required to practice as an EHP in the U.S., UK, and Australia. Methods The method we used to collate information was based on methods described in earlier papers (Dyjack et al., 2021; Rodrigues et
FIGURE 1
Theoretical Process for the Development of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) Between Countries
1
2
3
Two accrediting bodies from two different countries agree to develop MOUs
Map competencies
I dentify gaps and assess their significance as options 1, 2, or 3 (see below)
and accreditation criteria both ways between the two different countries
Option 1
No important differences. EHPs can practice with approval of accrediting body.
Important differences but short courses and portfolio development criteria exist that the applicant can do. EHPs can practice after submitting evidence to accrediting body.
Option 2
Important differences but no short courses and portfolio development criteria exist. Short courses and portfolio development criteria need to be developed that the applicant can do. EHPs can practice after submitting evidence to accrediting body.
Option 3
Note. EHP = environmental health practitioner.
ferral of authorization by a professional body, or a combination of both. The ability to read- ily acquire authorization to practice in another country creates a barrier to the movement of EHPs internationally. Notably, even when an individual EHP role might include few or no regulatory responsibilities, the barrier to across-country practice remains significant. The possible implications of this lack of movement include impacts on professionals learning from one another, the visibility of the profession, and the capacity to recognize the global nature of environmental health. Addi- tionally, the ability to practice in a dierent country is likely to enhance the desirability of the environmental health profession, espe- cially among young people seeking adventure and people interested in making a dierence
beyond their home country, which would begin to address the global shortage of EHPs. The current significant shortage of EHPs in many parts of the world has been described in the scientific literature (Day, 2021; Huong et al., 2020; Ryan & Hall, 2022; Whiley et al., 2019) and gray literature. The extent of the problem of the EHP shortage has become clear through discussions within our interna- tional community of practice (CoP), which consists of a group of environmental health academics and professionals who meet regu- larly to discuss environmental health (Dyjack et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al., 2021). This shortage is possibly a result of the lack of rec- ognition of environmental health as a profes- sion, which has been described in the litera- ture by authors from many countries (Brooks
21
September 2024 • Journal of Environmental Health
Powered by FlippingBook