Search

Aims Not only is nature essential for human existence, but many of its functions and contributions are irreplaceable. Studying the impact of these changes on individuals and communities, researchers and public health officials have largely focused on physical health. Our aim is to better understand how climate change also exacerbates many social and environmental risk factors for mental health and psychosocial problems, and can lead to emotional distress, the development of new mental health conditions and a worsening situation for people already living with these conditions. Methods We considered all possible direct and indirect pathways by which climate change can affect mental health. We built a framework which includes climate change-related hazards, climate change-related global environmental threats, social and environmental exposure pathways, and vulnerability factors and inequalities to derive possible mental health and psychosocial outcomes. Results We identified five approaches to address the mental health and psychosocial impacts of climate change which we suggest should be implemented with urgency: (1) integrate climate change considerations into policies and programmes for mental health, to better prepare for and respond to the climate crisis; (2) integrate mental health and psychosocial support within policies and programmes dealing with climate change and health; (3) build upon global commitments including the Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction; (4) implement multisectoral and community-based approaches to reduce vulnerabilities and address the mental health and psychosocial impacts of climate change; and (5) address the large gaps that exist in funding both for mental health and for responding to the health impacts of climate change. Conclusions There is growing evidence of the various mechanisms by which climate change is affecting mental health. Given the human impacts of climate change, mental health and psychosocial well-being need to be one of the main focuses of climate action. Therefore, countries need to dramatically accelerate their responses to climate change, including efforts to address its impacts on mental health and psychosocial well-being.

Executive summary. The 2022 report of the Lancet Countdown is published as the world confronts profound and concurrent systemic shocks. Countries and health systems continue to contend with the health, social, and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, while Russia's invasion of Ukraine and a persistent fossil fuel overdependence has pushed the world into global energy and cost-of-living crises. As these crises unfold, climate change escalates unabated. Its worsening impacts are increasingly affecting the foundations of human health and wellbeing, exacerbating the vulnerability of the world's populations to concurrent health threats...

The Lancet Countdown is an international collaboration, established to provide an independent, global monitoring system dedicated to tracking the emerging health profile of the changing climate. The 2020 report presents 43 indicators across five sections: climate change impacts, exposures, and vulnerability; adaptation, planning, and resilience for health; mitigation actions and health co-benefits; economics and finance; and public and political engagement. This report represents the findings and consensus of the 35 leading academic institutions and UN agencies that make up the Lancet Countdown, and draws on the expertise of climate scientists, geographers, and engineers; of energy, food, and transport experts; and of economists, social and political scientists, data scientists, public health professionals, and doctors.

Maria Nilsson and colleagues argue that reducing the severe health risks from the climate crisis requires political commitment and funding like that mobilised to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2

The Lancet Countdown is an international collaboration that independently monitors the health consequences of a changing climate. Publishing updated, new, and improved indicators each year, the Lancet Countdown represents the consensus of leading researchers from 43 academic institutions and UN agencies. The 44 indicators of this report expose an unabated rise in the health impacts of climate change and the current health consequences of the delayed and inconsistent response of countries around the globe—providing a clear imperative for accelerated action that puts the health of people and planet above all else.\ud \ud The 2021 report coincides with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26), at which countries are facing pressure to realise the ambition of the Paris Agreement to keep the global average temperature rise to 1·5°C and to mobilise the financial resources required for all countries to have an effective climate response. These negotiations unfold in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic—a global health crisis that has claimed millions of lives, affected livelihoods and communities around the globe, and exposed deep fissures and inequities in the world's capacity to cope with, and respond to, health emergencies. Yet, in its response to both crises, the world is faced with an unprecedented opportunity to ensure a healthy future for all.

The aim of building climate resilient and environmentally sustainable health care facilities is: (a) to enhance their capacity to protect and improve the health of their target communities in an unstable and changing climate, and (b) to empower them to optimize the use of resources and minimize the release of pollutants and waste into the environment. Such health care facilities contribute to high quality of care and accessibility of services and, by helping reduce facility costs, also ensure better affordability. They are an important component of universal health coverage. Action is needed in at least four areas which are fundamental requirements for providing safe and quality care: having adequate numbers of skilled human resources, with decent working conditions, empowered and informed to respond to these environmental challenges, sustainable and safe management of water, sanitation and health care waste, sustainable energy services, and appropriate infrastructure and technologies, including all the operations that allow for the efficient functioning of a health care facility. Importantly, this work contributes to promoting actions to ensure that health care facilities are constantly and increasingly strengthened and continue to be efficient and responsive to improve health and contribute to reducing inequities and vulnerability within their local settings. To this end, we propose a framework to respond to these challenges.

The Lancet Countdown: tracking progress on health and climate change was established to provide an independent, global monitoring system dedicated to tracking the health dimensions of the impacts of, and the response to, climate change. The Lancet Countdown tracks 41 indicators across five domains: climate change impacts, exposures, and vulnerability; adaptation, planning, and resilience for health; mitigation actions and health co-benefits; finance and economics; and public and political engagement. This report is the product of a collaboration of 27 leading academic institutions, the UN, and intergovernmental agencies from every continent. The report draws on world-class expertise from climate scientists, ecologists, mathematicians, geographers, engineers, energy, food, livestock, and transport experts, economists, social and political scientists, public health professionals, and. doctors. The Lancet Countdown’s work builds on decades of research in this field, and was first proposed in the 2015 Lancet Commission on health and climate change,1 which documented the human impacts of climate change and provided ten global recommendations to respond to this public health emergency and secure the public health benefits available (panel 1).

The critically important role of health for development was underlined in the 16th World Development Report entitled “Investing in health”, published in 1993 [1]. Put forth by the World Bank and enhanced with input from the World Health Organization (WHO), the report examined the interplay between human health, health policy, and economic development. In the period 2000-2015, health for development was strongly emphasized in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Indeed, three of the eight MDGs explicitly featured health [2]. Meanwhile, major achievements have been made in population health. For instance, average global life expectancy has increased by more than 20 years between 1950 and 2010 [3]. Yet, there are areas of unfinished business, such as reducing child mortality and improving maternal health [4]. Key vulnerable groups, such as the poorest and most isolated populations, have been left excluded and marginalized [4,5]. In addition, there are new challenges, as for instance non-communicable diseases have surpassed infectious diseases in terms of global burden [6], novel infectious threats from zoonoses [7] and anti-microbial resistance [8] have emerged, there are toxic mixtures of chemicals compromising human, animal, and ecosystem health, while climate change, urbanization, and migration have amplified health problems and vulnerabilities [9]. Taken together, there are multifactorial stresses that ask for innovative, multi-partner, integrated approaches. ISSN:2047-2986

The Lancet Countdown is an international, multidisciplinary collaboration, dedicated to monitoring the evolving health profile of climate change, and providing an independent assessment of the delivery of commitments made by governments worldwide under the Paris Agreement.\ud The 2019 report presents an annual update of 41 indicators across five key domains: climate change impacts, exposures, and vulnerability; adaptation, planning, and resilience for health; mitigation actions and health co-benefits; economics and finance; and public and political engagement. The report represents the findings and consensus of 35 leading academic institutions and UN agencies from every continent. Each year, the methods and data that underpin the Lancet Countdown's indicators are further developed and improved, with updates described at each stage of this report. The collaboration draws on the world-class expertise of climate scientists; ecologists; mathematicians; engineers; energy, food, and transport experts; economists; social and political scientists; public health professionals; and doctors, to generate the quality and diversity of data required.\ud The science of climate change describes a range of possible futures, which are largely dependent on the degree of action or inaction in the face of a warming world. The policies implemented will have far-reaching effects in determining these eventualities, with the indicators tracked here monitoring both the present-day effects of climate change, as well as the worldwide response. Understanding these decisions as a choice between one of two pathways—one that continues with the business as usual response and one that redirects to a future that remains “well below 2°C”—helps to bring the importance of recognising the effects of climate change and the necessary response to the forefront.\ud Evidence provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, and the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration clarifies the degree and magnitude of climate change experienced today and contextualises these two pathways.

Annette Pruss-Ustun and colleagues consider the role of air pollution and other environmental risks in non-communicable diseases and actions to reduce them

Climate change is increasing risks to human health and to the health systems that seek to protect the safety and well-being of populations. Health authorities require information about current associations between health outcomes and weather or climate, vulnerable populations, projections of future risks and adaptation opportunities in order to reduce exposures, empower individuals to take needed protective actions and build climate-resilient health systems. An increasing number of health authorities from local to national levels seek this information by conducting climate change and health vulnerability and adaptation assessments. While assessments can provide valuable information to plan for climate change impacts, the results of many studies are not helping to build the global evidence-base of knowledge in this area. They are also often not integrated into adaptation decision making, sometimes because the health sector is not involved in climate change policy making processes at the national level. Significant barriers related to data accessibility, a limited number of climate and health models, uncertainty in climate projections, and a lack of funding and expertise, particularly in developing countries, challenge health authority efforts to conduct rigorous assessments and apply the findings. This paper examines the evolution of climate change and health vulnerability and adaptation assessments, including guidance developed for such projects, the number of assessments that have been conducted globally and implementation of the findings to support health adaptation action. Greater capacity building that facilitates assessments from local to national scales will support collaborative efforts to protect health from current climate hazards and future climate change. Health sector officials will benefit from additional resources and partnership opportunities to ensure that evidence about climate change impacts on health is effectively translated into needed actions to build health resilience.

The Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change is an international, multi-disciplinary research collaboration between academic institutions and practitioners across the world. It follows on from the work of the 2015 Lancet Commission, which concluded that the response to climate change could be “the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century”. The Lancet Countdown aims to track the health effects of climate change; health resilience and adaptation; health co-benefits of mitigation; climate economics and finance; and political and broader engagement. These focus areas form the five thematic working groups of the Lancet Countdown and represent different aspects of the complex relationships between health and climate change. These thematic groups will provide indicators for a global overview of health and climate change; national case studies highlighting countries leading the way or going against the trend; and engagement with a range of stakeholders. The Lancet Countdown ultimately aims to report annually on a series of indicators across these five working groups. This paper outlines these potential indicators and indicator domains to be tracked by the collaboration, with suggestions on the methodologies, and data sets available to achieve this end. The proposed indicator domains require further refinement, and mark the beginning of an ongoing consultation process – from November 2016 to early 2017 – to develop these domains, identify key areas not currently covered, and change indicators where necessary. It will actively seek to engage with existing monitoring processes, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and the World Health Organization’s Climate and Health Country Profiles. Additionally, the indicators will evolve throughout their lifetime through ongoing collaboration with experts and a range of stakeholders, and dependent on the emergence of new evidence and knowledge. During the course of its work, the Lancet Countdown will adopt a collaborative and iterative process, which aims to complement existing initiatives, welcome engagement with new partners, and be open to developing new research projects on health and climate change.

The Lancet Countdown: tracking progress on health and climate change is an international, multidisciplinary research collaboration between academic institutions and practitioners across the world. It follows on from the work of the 2015 Lancet Commission, which concluded that the response to climate change could be "the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century". The Lancet Countdown aims to track the health impacts of climate hazards; health resilience and adaptation; health co-benefits of climate change mitigation; economics and finance; and political and broader engagement. These focus areas form the five thematic working groups of the Lancet Countdown and represent different aspects of the complex association between health and climate change. These thematic groups will provide indicators for a global overview of health and climate change; national case studies highlighting countries leading the way or going against the trend; and engagement with a range of stakeholders. The Lancet Countdown ultimately aims to report annually on a series of indicators across these five working groups. This paper outlines the potential indicators and indicator domains to be tracked by the collaboration, with suggestions on the methodologies and datasets available to achieve this end. The proposed indicator domains require further refinement, and mark the beginning of an ongoing consultation process-from November, 2016 to early 2017-to develop these domains, identify key areas not currently covered, and change indicators where necessary. This collaboration will actively seek to engage with existing monitoring processes, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and WHO's climate and health country profiles. The indicators will also evolve over time through ongoing collaboration with experts and a range of stakeholders, and be dependent on the emergence of new evidence and knowledge. During the course of its work, the Lancet Countdown will adopt a collaborative and iterative process, which aims to complement existing initiatives, welcome engagement with new partners, and be open to developing new research projects on health and climate change.

The linkages between human health, biodiversity, ecosystems, and the life-supporting services that they provide are varied and complex. The traditional neglect of this nexus by policy-makers perpetuates threats posed to ecosystems with potentially critical impacts on global health. The Convention on Biological Diversity and the World Health Organization recently co-convened two regional workshops on these intricate but vital linkages. From discussions held with policy-makers and experts in the biodiversity and health sectors, spanning some 50 countries in Africa and the Americas, we derive a broad framework for the development of national and regional public health and biodiversity strategies relevant to strategic planning processes in the emerging post-2015 development context.

Background: In 2008, the World Health Organization (WHO) Member States passed a World Health Assembly resolution that identified the following five priority areas for research and pilot projects on climate change and human health: health vulnerability, health protection, health impacts of mitigation and adaptation policies, decision-support and other tools, and costs of health protection from climate change. Objectives: To assess the extent to which recently published research corresponds to these priorities, we undertook a scoping review of original research on climate change and human health. Scoping reviews address topics that are too broad for a systematic review and commonly aim to identify research gaps in existing literature. We also assessed recent publication trends for climate change and health research. Methods: We searched for original quantitative research published from 2008 onward. We included disease burden studies that were specific to climate change and health and included intervention studies that focused on climate change and measured health outcomes. We used MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases and extracted data on research priority areas, geographic regions, health fields, and equity (systematic differences between advantaged and disadvantaged social groups). Discussion: We identified 40 eligible studies. Compared with other health topics, the number of climate change publications has grown rapidly, with a larger proportion of reviews or editorials. Recent original research addressed four of the five priority areas identified by the WHO Member States, but we found no eligible studies of health adaptation interventions, and most of the studies focused on high-income countries. Conclusions: Climate change and health is a rapidly growing area of research, but quantitative studies remain rare. Among recently published studies, we found gaps in adaptation research and a deficit of studies in most developing regions. Funders and researchers should monitor and respond to research gaps to help ensure that the needs of policymakers are met.

Background: The growing health risks associated with greenhouse gas emissions highlight the need for new energy policies that emphasize efficiency and low-carbon energy intensity. Objectives: We assessed the relationships among electricity use, coal consumption, and health outcomes. Methods: Using time-series data sets from 41 countries with varying development trajectories between 1965 and 2005, we developed an autoregressive model of life expectancy (LE) and infant mortality (IM) based on electricity consumption, coal consumption, and previous year’s LE or IM. Prediction of health impacts from the Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies (GAINS) integrated air pollution emissions health impact model for coal-fired power plants was compared with the time-series model results. Results: The time-series model predicted that increased electricity consumption was associated with reduced IM for countries that started with relatively high IM (> 100/1,000 live births) and low LE (< 57 years) in 1965, whereas LE was not significantly associated with electricity consumption regardless of IM and LE in 1965. Increasing coal consumption was associated with increased IM and reduced LE after accounting for electricity consumption. These results are consistent with results based on the GAINS model and previously published estimates of disease burdens attributable to energy-related environmental factors, including indoor and outdoor air pollution and water and sanitation. Conclusions: Increased electricity consumption in countries with IM < 100/1,000 live births does not lead to greater health benefits, whereas coal consumption has significant detrimental health impacts.

This Series has examined the health implications of policies aimed at tackling climate change. Assessments of mitigation strategies in four domains-household energy, transport, food and agriculture, and electricity generation-suggest an important message: that actions to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions often, although not always, entail net benefits for health. In some cases, the potential benefits seem to be substantial. This evidence provides an additional and immediate rationale for reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions beyond that of climate change mitigation alone. Climate change is an increasing and evolving threat to the health of populations worldwide. At the same time, major public health burdens remain in many regions. Climate change therefore adds further urgency to the task of addressing international health priorities, such as the UN Millennium Development Goals. Recognition that mitigation strategies can have substantial benefits for both health and climate protection offers the possibility of policy choices that are potentially both more cost effective and socially attractive than are those that address these priorities independently.

Background Chagas disease, transmitted domestically by triatomine bugs, is the most important vector-borne disease in Latin America. The association between triatomine infestation and housing characteristics was investigated based on a standardized survey in 41 971 houses in 15 Departments in Colombia. Methods Multivariate logistic regression was used to test for associations of two highly correlated infestation measures of infestation (householders reporting having seen triatomines inside the house, and sending triatomines to the survey team), with 15 household-level risk factors. Risks were measured relative to a reference category of houses with up to three inhabitants, area up to 50 m(2), unplastered adobe walls, thatch roof and no outbuildings or domestic animals. Results The probability of seeing triatomines was highest for households with over seven inhabitants (OR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.11-1.39), overhead storage space (OR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.32), grain shed (OR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.52), cats (OR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.14-1.42) and pigs (OR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.30). Lowest risks were in houses with wooden walls (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.34-0.61), fully plastered walls (OR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.88), roofs made of tiles (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.33-0.78) and flagstone floors (OR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.42-0.76). Results for householders returning triatomines support this set of risk factors, but with wider confidence intervals. Conclusions Surveillance of a few easily assessed household characteristics provides an accurate, rapid assessment of house-level variation in risk. Measured effect sizes for specific structural characteristics could be used to maximize the cost-effectiveness of programmes to reduce vector infestation and interrupt Chagas disease transmission by improving house quality.

This paper outlines briefly how the living environment can affect health. It explains the links between social and environmental determinants of health in urban settings. Interventions to improve health equity through the environment include actions and policies that deal with proximal risk factors in deprived urban areas, such as safe drinking water supply, reduced air pollution from household cooking and heating as well as from vehicles and industry, reduced traffic injury hazards and noise, improved working environment, and reduced heat stress because of global climate change. The urban environment involves health hazards with an inequitable distribution of exposures and vulnerabilities, but it also involves opportunities for implementing interventions for health equity. The high population density in many poor urban areas means that interventions at a small scale level can assist many people, and existing infrastructure can sometimes be upgraded to meet health demands. Interventions at higher policy levels that will create more sustainable and equitable living conditions and environments include improved city planning and policies that take health aspects into account in every sector. Health equity also implies policies and actions that improve the global living environment, for instance, limiting greenhouse gas emissions. In a global equity perspective, improving the living environment and health of the poor in developing country cities requires actions to be taken in the most affluent urban areas of the world. This includes making financial and technical resources available from high-income countries to be applied in low-income countries for urgent interventions for health equity. This is an abbreviated version of a paper on "Improving the living environment" prepared for the World Health Organization Commission on Social Determinants of Health, Knowledge Network on Urban Settings.

Vector-borne diseases continue to contribute significantly to the global burden of disease, and cause epidemics that disrupt health security and cause wider socioeconomic impacts around the world. All are sensitive in different ways to weather and climate conditions, so that the ongoing trends of increasing temperature and more variable weather threaten to undermine recent global progress against these diseases. Here, we review the current state of the global public health effort to address this challenge, and outline related initiatives by the World Health Organization (WHO) and its partners. Much of the debate to date has centred on attribution of past changes in disease rates to climate change, and the use of scenario-based models to project future changes in risk for specific diseases. While these can give useful indications, the unavoidable uncertainty in such analyses, and contingency on other socioeconomic and public health determinants in the past or future, limit their utility as decision-support tools. For operational health agencies, the most pressing need is the strengthening of current disease control efforts to bring down current disease rates and manage short-term climate risks, which will, in turn, increase resilience to long-term climate change. The WHO and partner agencies are working through a range of programmes to (i) ensure political support and financial investment in preventive and curative interventions to bring down current disease burdens; (ii) promote a comprehensive approach to climate risk management; (iii) support applied research, through definition of global and regional research agendas, and targeted research initiatives on priority diseases and population groups.

The World Health Organization has developed standardized comparative risk assessment methods for estimating aggregate disease burdens attributable to different risk factors. These have been applied to existing and new models for a range of climate-sensitive diseases in order to estimate the effect of global climate change on current disease burdens and likely proportional changes in the future. The comparative risk assessment approach has been used to assess the health consequences of climate change worldwide, to inform decisions on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, and in a regional assessment of the Oceania region in the Pacific Ocean to provide more location-specific information relevant to local mitigation and adaptation decisions. The approach places climate change within the same criteria for epidemiologic assessment as other health risks and accounts for the size of the burden of climate-sensitive diseases rather than just proportional change, which highlights the importance of small proportional changes in diseases such as diarrhea and malnutrition that cause a large burden. These exercises help clarify important knowledge gaps such as a relatively poor understanding of the role of nonclimatic factors (socioeconomic and other) that may modify future climatic influences and a lack of empiric evidence and methods for quantifying more complex climate–health relationships, which consequently are often excluded from consideration. These exercises highlight the need for risk assessment frameworks that make the best use of traditional epidemiologic methods and that also fully consider the specific characteristics of climate change. These include the long-term and uncertain nature of the exposure and the effects on multiple physical and biotic systems that have the potential for diverse and widespread effects, including high-impact events.

Summary It is now widely accepted that climate change is occurring as a result of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere arising from the combustion of fossil fuels. Climate change may affect health through a range of pathways—eg, as a result of increased frequency and intensity of heat waves, reduction in cold-related deaths, increased floods and droughts, changes in the distribution of vector-borne diseases, and effects on the risk of disasters and malnutrition. The overall balance of effects on health is likely to be negative and populations in low-income countries are likely to be particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects. The experience of the 2003 heat wave in Europe shows that high-income countries might also be adversely affected. Adaptation to climate change requires public-health strategies and improved surveillance. Mitigation of climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels and increasing the use of a number of renewable energy technologies should improve health in the near term by reducing exposure to air pollution.

Human population health has always been central in the justification for sustainable development but nearly invisible in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations. Current scientific evidence indicates that climate change will contribute to the global burden of disease through increases in diarrhoeal disease, vector-borne disease, and malnutrition, and the health impacts of extreme weather and climate events. A few studies have estimated future potential health impacts of climate change but often generate little policy-relevant information. Robust estimates of future health impacts rely on robust projections of future disease patterns. The application of a standardized and established methodology has been developed to quantify the impact of climate change in relation to different greenhouse gas emission scenarios. All health risk assessments are necessarily biased toward conservative best-estimates of health effects that are easily measured. Global, regional, and national risk assessments can take no account of irreversibility, or plausible low-probability events with potentially very high burdens on human health. There is no "safe limit" of climate change with respect to health impacts as health systems in some regions do not adequately cope with the current climate variability. Current scientific methods cannot identify global threshold health effects in order for policymakers to regulate a "tolerable" amount of climate change. We argue for the need for more research to reduce the potential impacts of climate change on human health, including the development of improved methods for quantitative risk assessment. The large uncertainty about the future effects of climate change on human population health should be a reason to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and not a reason for inaction.

The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures. Uncertainty remains in attributing the expansion or resurgence of diseases to climate change, owing to lack of long-term, high-quality data sets as well as the large influence of socio-economic factors and changes in immunity and drug resistance. Here we review the growing evidence that climate-health relationships pose increasing health risks under future projections of climate change and that the warming trend over recent decades has already contributed to increased morbidity and mortality in many regions of the world. Potentially vulnerable regions include the temperate latitudes, which are projected to warm disproportionately, the regions around the Pacific and Indian oceans that are currently subjected to large rainfall variability due to the El Nino/Southern Oscillation sub-Saharan Africa and sprawling cities where the urban heat island effect could intensify extreme climatic events.

Predicting Geographic Variation in ACL, Colombia, Approximately 6,000 cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis are reported annually in Colombia, a greater than twofold increase since the 1980s. Such reports certainly underestimate true incidence, and their geographic distribution is likely biased by local health service effectiveness. We investigated how well freely available environmental data explain the distribution of cases among 1,079 municipalities. For each municipality, a unique predictive logistic regression model was derived from the association among remaining municipalities between elevation, land cover (preclassified maps derived from satellite images), or both, and the odds of at least one case being reported. Land cover had greater predictive power than elevation; using both datasets improved accuracy. Fitting separate models to different ecologic zones, reflecting transmission cycle diversity, enhanced the accuracy of predictions. We derived measures that can be directly related to disease control decisions and show how results can vary, depending on the threshold selected for predicting a disease-positive municipality. The results identify areas where disease is most likely to be underreported.