Search

Copyright of Environment & Urbanization is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Using policy cycle model as a heuristic, this article studies Indian, Brazilian, and South African engagement with Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) by (a) comparing NAMA policy process and (b) identifying factors driving or limiting the framework’s domestic application. India largely remained uninterested in NAMAs, Brazil aligned its domestic climate policy and NAMAs, while South Africa had a more nuanced engagement when formulating NAMAs. Four factors influenced these countries’ NAMA engagements: the level and necessity of international support, the availability of domestic policy provisions to tackle climate change, the domestic institutional capacity to coordinate interministerial functioning, and the role of individuals in the institutional apparatus. As an international climate policy framework, studying NAMA engagement provides learnings for nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement for designing the instrument, ensuring clarity on support provisions for ratcheting up ambitions, and enhancing institutional capacity, to expedite transition from policy formulation to implementation and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multimorbidity is rising in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the evidence on its epidemiology from LMICs settings is limited and the available literature has not been synthesized as yet. Objectives: To review the available evidence on the epidemiology of multimorbidity in LMICs. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO and Grey literature databases were searched. We followed the PRISMA-ScR reporting guideline. Results: Of 33, 110 articles retrieved, 76 studies were eligible for the epidemiology of multimorbidity. Of these 76 studies, 66 (86.8%) were individual country studies. Fifty-two (78.8%) of which were confined to only six middle-income countries: Brazil, China, South Africa, India, Mexico and Iran. The majority (n = 68, 89.5%) of the studies were crosssectional in nature. The sample size varied from 103 to 242, 952. The largest proportion (n = 33, 43.4%) of the studies enrolled adults. Marked variations existed in defining and measuring multimorbidity. The prevalence of multimorbidity in LMICs ranged from 3.2% to 90.5%. Conclusion and Recommendations: Studies on the epidemiology of multimorbidity in LMICs are limited and the available ones are concentrated in few countries. Despite variations in measurement and definition, studies consistently reported high prevalence of multimorbidity. Further research is urgently required to better understand the epidemiology of multimorbidity and define the best possible interventions to improve outcomes of patients with multimorbidity in LMICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multimorbidity is rising in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the evidence on its epidemiology from LMICs settings is limited and the available literature has not been synthesized as yet. Objectives: To review the available evidence on the epidemiology of multimorbidity in LMICs. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO and Grey literature databases were searched. We followed the PRISMA-ScR reporting guideline. Results: Of 33, 110 articles retrieved, 76 studies were eligible for the epidemiology of multimorbidity. Of these 76 studies, 66 (86.8%) were individual country studies. Fifty-two (78.8%) of which were confined to only six middle-income countries: Brazil, China, South Africa, India, Mexico and Iran. The majority (n = 68, 89.5%) of the studies were crosssectional in nature. The sample size varied from 103 to 242, 952. The largest proportion (n = 33, 43.4%) of the studies enrolled adults. Marked variations existed in defining and measuring multimorbidity. The prevalence of multimorbidity in LMICs ranged from 3.2% to 90.5%. Conclusion and Recommendations: Studies on the epidemiology of multimorbidity in LMICs are limited and the available ones are concentrated in few countries. Despite variations in measurement and definition, studies consistently reported high prevalence of multimorbidity. Further research is urgently required to better understand the epidemiology of multimorbidity and define the best possible interventions to improve outcomes of patients with multimorbidity in LMICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently established carbon governance systems are quite different in Brazil, China, and India. Such divergence is surprising as emerging economies are primarily involved in carbon governance through the clean development mechanism (CDM). One would expect similar institutional and policy outcomes in the major host countries in response to the CDM, as this market instrument is initiated primarily by Western companies and regulated hierarchically by the internationally governed CDM Executive Board. However, from a closer look at the developing features of the CDM markets in Brazil, China, or India and an analysis of dominant actors and their interactions, institutional responses, and the effectiveness of the CDM within each market, there is evidence of a high variance, combined with a strong ownership by the respective governments. Such a variety of carbon governance is interesting from a theoretical point of view as it shows that a good understanding of environmental governance patterns is still lacking in developing and emerging economies. It is also of political importance as the findings may help to diffuse some of the criticism leveled at the CDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]