Search

Summary: In 2023, a series of climatological and political events unfolded, partly driving forward the global climate and health agenda while simultaneously exposing important disparities and vulnerabilities to climate-related events. On the policy front, a significant step forward was marked by the inaugural Health Day at COP28, acknowledging the profound impacts of climate change on health. However, the first-ever Global Stocktake showed an important gap between the current progress and the targets outlined in the Paris Agreement, underscoring the urgent need for further and decisive action. From a Latin American perspective, some questions arise: How do we achieve the change that is needed? How to address the vulnerabilities to climate change in a region with long-standing social inequities? How do we promote intersectoral collaboration to face a complex problem such as climate change? The debate is still ongoing, and in many instances, it is just starting.The renamed regional centre Lancet Countdown Latin America (previously named Lancet Countdown South America) expanded its geographical scope adding Mexico and five Central American countries: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama, as a response to the need for stronger collaboration in a region with significant social disparities, including research capacities and funding. The centre is an independent and multidisciplinary collaboration that tracks the links between health and climate change in Latin America, following the global Lancet Countdown's methodologies and five domains. The Lancet Countdown Latin America work hinges on the commitment of 23 regional academic institutions, United Nations agencies, and 34 researchers who generously contribute their time and expertise.Building from the first report, the 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown Latin America, presents 34 indicators that track the relationship between health and climate change up to 2022, aiming at providing evidence to public decision-making with the purpose of improving the health and wellbeing of Latin American populations and reducing social inequities through climate actions focusing on health.This report shows that Latin American populations continue to observe a growing exposure to changing climatic conditions. A warming trend has been observed across all countries in Latin America, with severe direct impacts. In 2022, people were exposed to ambient temperatures, on average, 0.38 °C higher than in 1986–2005, with Paraguay experiencing the highest anomaly (+1.9 °C), followed by Argentina (+1.2 °C) and Uruguay (+0.9 °C) (indicator 1.1.1). In 2013–2022, infants were exposed to 248% more heatwave days and people over 65 years old were exposed to 271% more heatwave days than in 1986–2005 (indicator 1.1.2). Also, compared to 1991–2000, in 2013–2022, there were 256 and 189 additional annual hours per person, during which ambient heat posed at least moderate and high risk of heat stress during light outdoor physical activity in Latin America, respectively (indicator 1.1.3). Finally, the region had a 140% increase in heat-related mortality from 2000–2009 to 2013–2022 (indicator 1.1.4).Changes in ecosystems have led to an increased risk of wildfires, exposing individuals to very or extremely high fire danger for more extended periods (indicator 1.2.1). Additionally, the transmission potential for dengue by Aedes aegypti mosquitoes has risen by 54% from 1951–1960 to 2013–2022 (indicator 1.3), which aligns with the recent outbreaks and increasing dengue cases observed across Latin America in recent months.Based on the 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown Latin America, there are three key messages that Latin America needs to further explore and advance for a health-centred climate-resilient development.Latin American countries require intersectoral public policies that simultaneously increase climate resilience, reduce social inequities, improve population health, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.The findings show that adaptation policies in Latin America remain weak, with a pressing need for robust vulnerability and adaptation (V&A) assessments to address climate risks effectively. Unfortunately, such assessments are scarce. Up to 2021, Brazil is the only country that has completed and officially reported a V&A to the 2021 Global Survey conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO). Argentina, Guatemala, and Panama have also conducted them, but they have not been reported (indicator 2.1.1). Similarly, efforts in developing and implementing Health National Adaptation Plans (HNAPs) are varied and limited in scope. Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay are the only countries that have an HNAP (indicator 2.1.2). Moreover, self-reported city-level climate change risk assessments are very limited in the region (indicator 2.1.3).The collaboration between meteorological and health sectors remains insufficient, with only Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala self-reporting some level of integration (indicator 2.2.1), hindering comprehensive responses to climate-related health risks in the region. Additionally, despite the urgent need for action, there has been minimal progress in increasing urban greenspaces across the region since 2015, with only Colombia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela showing slight improvements (indicator 2.2.2). Compounding these challenges is the decrease in funding for climate change adaptation projects in Latin America, as evidenced by the 16% drop in funds allocated by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) in 2022 compared to 2021. Alarmingly, none of the funds approved in 2022 were directed toward climate change and health projects, highlighting a critical gap in addressing health-related climate risks (indicator 2.2.3).From a vulnerability perspective, the Mosquito Risk Index (MoRI) indicates an overall decrease in severe mosquito-borne disease risk in the region due to improvements in water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) (indicator 2.3.1). Brazil and Paraguay were the only countries that showed an increase in this indicator. It is worth noting that significant temporal variation within and between countries still persists, suggesting inadequate preparedness for climate-related changes.Overall, population health is not solely determined by the health sector, nor are climate policies a sole responsibility of the environmental sector. More and stronger intersectoral collaboration is needed to pave development pathways that consider solid adaptation to climate change, greater reductions of GHG emissions, and that increase social equity and population health. These policies involve sectors such as finance, transport, energy, housing, health, and agriculture, requiring institutional structures and policy instruments that allow long-term intersectoral collaboration.Latin American countries need to accelerate an energy transition that prioritises people's health and wellbeing, reduces energy poverty and air pollution, and maximises health and economic gains.In Latin America, there is a notable disparity in energy transition, with electricity generation from coal increasing by an average of 2.6% from 1991–2000 to 2011–2020, posing a challenge to efforts aimed at phasing out coal (indicator 3.1.1). However, this percentage increase is conservative as it may not include all the fossil fuels for thermoelectric electricity generation, especially during climate-related events and when hydropower is affected (Panel 4). Yet, renewable energy sources have been growing, increasing by an average of 5.7% during the same period. Access to clean fuels for cooking remains a concern, with 46.3% of the rural population in Central America and 23.3% in South America lacking access to clean fuels in 2022 (indicator 3.1.2). It is crucial to highlight the concerning overreliance on fossil fuels, particularly liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), as a primary cooking fuel. A significant majority of Latin American populations, approximately 74.6%, rely on LPG for cooking. Transitioning to cleaner heating and cooking alternatives could also have a health benefit by reducing household air pollution-related mortality. Fossil fuels continue to dominate road transport energy in Latin America, accounting for 96%, although some South American countries are increasing the use of biofuels (indicator 3.1.3). Premature mortality attributable to fossil-fuel-derived PM2.5 has shown varied trends across countries, increasing by 3.9% from 2005 to 2020 across Latin America, which corresponds to 123.5 premature deaths per million people (indicator 3.2.1). The Latin American countries with the highest premature mortality rate attributable to PM2.5 in 2020 were Chile, Peru, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Paraguay. Of the total premature deaths attributable to PM2.5 in 2020, 19.1% was from transport, 12.3% from households, 11.6% from industry, and 11% from agriculture.From emission and capture of GHG perspective, commodity-driven deforestation and expansion of agricultural land remain major contributors to tree cover loss in the region, accounting for around 80% of the total loss (indicator 3.3). Additionally, animal-based food production in Latin America contributes 85% to agricultural CO2 equivalent emissions, with Argentina, Brazil, Panama, Paraguay, and Uruguay ranking highest in per capita emissions (indicator 3.4.1). From a health perspective, in 2020, approximately 870,000 deaths were associated with imbalanced diets, of which 155,000 (18%) were linked to high intake of red and processed meat and dairy products (indicator 3.4.2).Energy transition in Latin America is still in its infancy, and as a result, millions of people are currently exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution and energy poverty (i.e., lack of access to essential energy sources or services). As shown in this report, the levels of air pollution, outdoors and indoors, are a significant problem in the whole region, with marked disparities between urban and rural areas. In 2022, Peru, Chile, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, El Salvador, Brazil, Uruguay, Honduras, Panama, and Nicaragua were in the top 100 most polluted countries globally. Transitioning to cleaner sources of energy, phasing out fossil fuels, and promoting better energy efficiency in the industrial and housing sectors are not only climate mitigation measures but also huge health and economic opportunities for more prosperous and healthy societies.Latin American countries need to increase climate finance through permanent fiscal commitments and multilateral development banks to pave climate-resilient development pathways.Climate change poses significant economic costs, with investments in mitigation and adaptation measures progressing slowly. In 2022, economic losses due to weather-related extreme events in Latin America were US$15.6 billion –an amount mainly driven by floods and landslides in Brazil–representing 0.28% of Latin America's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (indicator 4.1.1). In contrast to high-income countries, most of these losses lack insurance coverage, imposing a substantial financial strain on affected families and governments. Heat-related mortality among individuals aged 65 and older in Latin America reached alarming levels, with losses exceeding the equivalent of the average income of 451,000 people annually (indicator 4.1.2). Moreover, the total potential income loss due to heat-related labour capacity reduction amounted to 1.34% of regional GDP, disproportionately affecting the agriculture and construction sectors (indicator 4.1.3). Additionally, the economic toll of premature mortality from air pollution was substantial, equivalent to a significant portion of regional GDP (0.61%) (indicator 4.1.4).On a positive note, clean energy investments in the region increased in 2022, surpassing fossil fuel investments. However, in 2020, all countries reviewed continued to offer net-negative carbon prices, revealing fossil fuel subsidies totalling US$23 billion. Venezuela had the highest net subsidies relative to current health expenditure (123%), followed by Argentina (10.5%), Bolivia (10.3%), Ecuador (8.3%), and Chile (5.6%) (indicator 4.2.1).Fossil fuel-based energy is today more expensive than renewable energy. Fossil fuel burning drives climate change and damages the environment on which people depend, and air pollution derived from the burning of fossil fuels causes seven million premature deaths each year worldwide, along with a substantial burden of disease. Transitioning to sustainable, zero-emission energy sources, fostering healthier food systems, and expediting adaptation efforts promise not only environmental benefits but also significant economic gains. However, to implement mitigation and adaptation policies that also improve social wellbeing and prosperity, stronger and solid financial systems are needed. Climate finance in Latin American countries is scarce and strongly depends on political cycles, which threatens adequate responses to the current and future challenges.Progress on the climate agenda is lagging behind the urgent pace required. While engagement with the intersection of health and climate change is increasing, government involvement remains inadequate. Newspaper coverage of health and climate change has been on the rise, peaking in 2022, yet the proportion of climate change articles discussing health has declined over time (indicator 5.1). Although there has been significant growth in the number of scientific papers focusing on Latin America, it still represents less than 4% of global publications on the subject (indicator 5.3). And, while health was mentioned by most Latin American countries at the UN General Debate in 2022, only a few addressed the intersection of health and climate change, indicating a lack of awareness at the governmental level (indicator 5.4).The 2023 Lancet Countdown Latin America report underscores the cascading and compounding health impacts of anthropogenic climate change, marked by increased exposure to heatwaves, wildfires, and vector-borne diseases. Specifically, for Latin America, the report emphasises three critical messages: the urgent action to implement intersectoral public policies that enhance climate resilience across the region; the pressing need to prioritise an energy transition that focuses on health co-benefits and wellbeing, and lastly, that need for increasing climate finance by committing to sustained fiscal efforts and engaging with multilateral development banks. By understanding the problems, addressing the gaps, and taking decisive action, Latin America can navigate the challenges of climate change, fostering a more sustainable and resilient future for its population.Spanish and Portuguese translated versions of this Summary can be found in Appendix B and C, respectively.The full translated report in Spanish is available in Appendix D.

Summary: Climate change is one of several drivers of recurrent outbreaks and geographical range expansion of infectious diseases in Europe. We propose a framework for the co-production of policy-relevant indicators and decision-support tools that track past, present, and future climate-induced disease risks across hazard, exposure, and vulnerability domains at the animal, human, and environmental interface. This entails the co-development of early warning and response systems and tools to assess the costs and benefits of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures across sectors, to increase health system resilience at regional and local levels and reveal novel policy entry points and opportunities. Our approach involves multi-level engagement, innovative methodologies, and novel data streams. We take advantage of intelligence generated locally and empirically to quantify effects in areas experiencing rapid urban transformation and heterogeneous climate-induced disease threats. Our goal is to reduce the knowledge-to-action gap by developing an integrated One Health—Climate Risk framework.

Climate change affects human health negatively in a number of complex ways, and children are particularly vulnerable. Quantifying the negative impacts of climate change on health, and identifying locations where children are at greater risk, can aid evidence-based policy making. We combine high-resolution climatic data with a dataset on infant and child mortality, wasting, and stunting, from more than a hundred countries, to estimate the effects of both gradual and acute climate change, focusing on drought and heatwaves, to plausibly attribute changing child health outcomes to historical climate change. Our results suggest a non-linear relationship between temperature and children’s health, adverse effects of increases in acute events, and a strong regional heterogeneity in these impacts. Our findings also highlight the importance of poverty reduction. Greater wealth is associated with better child health outcomes, and partially mitigates the negative impacts of climate change on child health. Finally, using updated warming scenarios, our projections show that there are substantial health co-benefits from achieving low emissions scenarios.

Abstract As the linkages between extreme weather events, changes in climatic conditions and health impacts in exposed populations become clearer, so does the need for climate‐smart decisions aimed at making the public health sector more responsive and resilient. By integrating climate and health information, climate services for health provide robust decision‐support tools. The Lancet Countdown monitoring system uses global climate reanalyses products to track annual changes in a set of health‐related outcomes. In the monitoring system, multiple variables from reanalysis datasets such as ERA5 and ERA5‐Land are retrieved and processed to capture heatwaves, precipitation extremes, wildfires, droughts, warming and ecosystem changes across the globe and over multiple decades. This reanalysis‐derived information is then input into a hazard–exposure–vulnerability framework that delivers, as outcomes, indicators tracking the year‐by‐year impacts of climate‐related hazards on human mortality, labour capacity, physical activity, sentiment, infectious disease transmission, and food security and undernutrition. Building on the reanalysis gridded format, the indicators create worldwide ‘maps without gaps’ of climate–health linkages. Our experience shows that reanalysis datasets allow standardization across the climate information used in the framework, making the system potentially adaptable to multiple geographical scales. An ongoing challenge is to quantify how the inherent bias of global reanalyses influences indicator outcomes. We foresee the health sector as a key user of reanalysis products. Therefore, public health professionals and health impact modellers should be involved in the co‐development of future iterations of reanalysis datasets, to reach finer spatial resolutions and provide a wider set of health‐relevant climate variables.

Abstract Background In the past decades, climate change has been impacting human lives and health via extreme weather and climate events and alterations in labour capacity, food security, and the prevalence and geographical distribution of infectious diseases across the globe. Climate change and health indicators (CCHIs) are workable tools designed to capture the complex set of interdependent interactions through which climate change is affecting human health. Since 2015, a novel sub-set of CCHIs, focusing on climate change impacts, exposures, and vulnerability indicators (CCIEVIs) has been developed, refined, and integrated by Working Group 1 of the “Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change”, an international collaboration across disciplines that include climate, geography, epidemiology, occupation health, and economics. Discussion This research in practice article is a reflective narrative documenting how we have developed CCIEVIs as a discrete set of quantifiable indicators that are updated annually to provide the most recent picture of climate change’s impacts on human health. In our experience, the main challenge was to define globally relevant indicators that also have local relevance and as such can support decision making across multiple spatial scales. We found a hazard, exposure, and vulnerability framework to be effective in this regard. We here describe how we used such a framework to define CCIEVIs based on both data availability and the indicators’ relevance to climate change and human health. We also report on how CCIEVIs have been improved and added to, detailing the underlying data and methods, and in doing so provide the defining quality criteria for Lancet Countdown CCIEVIs. Conclusions Our experience shows that CCIEVIs can effectively contribute to a world-wide monitoring system that aims to track, communicate, and harness evidence on climate-induced health impacts towards effective intervention strategies. An ongoing challenge is how to improve CCIEVIs so that the description of the linkages between climate change and human health can become more and more comprehensive.

Abstract It is generally accepted that climate change is having a negative impact on food security. However, most of the literature variously focuses on the complex and many mechanisms linking climate stressors; the links with food production or productivity rather than food security; and future rather than current effects. In contrast, we investigate the extent to which current changes in food insecurity can be plausibly attributed to climate change. We combine food insecurity data for 83 countries from the FAO food insecurity experience scale (FIES) with reanalysed climate data from ERA5-Land, and use a panel data regression with time-varying coefficients. This framework allows us to estimate whether the relationship between food insecurity and temperature anomaly is changing over time. We also control for Human Development Index, and drought measured by six-month Standardized Precipitation Index. Our empirical findings suggest that for every 1 $$^{\circ }\hbox {C}$$ ∘ C of temperature anomaly, severe global food insecurity has increased by 1.4% (95% CI 1.3–1.47) in 2014 but by 1.64% (95% CI 1.6–1.65) in 2019. This impact is higher in the case of moderate to severe food insecurity, with a 1 $$^{\circ }\hbox {C}$$ ∘ C increase in temperature anomaly resulting in a 1.58% (95% CI 1.48–1.68) increase in 2014 but a 2.14% (95% CI 2.08–2.20) increase in 2019. Thus, the results show that the temperature anomaly has not only increased the probability of food insecurity, but the magnitude of this impact has increased over time. Our counterfactual analysis suggests that climate change has been responsible for reversing some of the improvements in food security that would otherwise have been realised, with the highest impact in Africa. Our analysis both provides more evidence of the costs of climate change, and as such the benefits of mitigation, and also highlights the importance of targeted and efficient policies to reduce food insecurity. These policies are likely to need to take into account local contexts, and might include efforts to increase crop yields, targeted safety nets, and behavioural programs to promote household resilience.

Abstract In response to the rapid spread of COVID-19, governments across the globe have implemented local lockdowns that have led to increased unemployment and have disrupted local and international transport routes and supply chains. Whilst such efforts aim to slow or stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, they have also resulted in increased food insecurity, whether due to reduced incomes or increased food prices. This is the first paper to track food insecurity and its determinants during the pandemic using multi-country and multi-wave evidence. Using data from 11 countries and up to 6 waves of High-Frequency Phone Survey data (household-level surveys) on COVID-19 and its impacts, we use a fixed-effects linear probability model to investigate the socioeconomic determinants of food insecurity during the pandemic for each country using household-level data over multiple waves. We control for socioeconomic characteristics including gender and education of the household head; income and poverty status of the households during the pandemic; safety nets in the form of cash and food assistance; coping strategies adopted by households; and price effects of major food items. Our findings suggest that cash safety nets appear to have been more effective than food in terms of reducing food insecurity during the pandemic; and that those particularly hard hit are female headed-households (highest in Malawi: 0.541, 95% CI 0.516, 0.569; lowest in Cambodia: 0.023, 95% CI 0.022, 0.024), the less educated (highest in Djibouti: − 0.232, 95% CI − 0.221, − 0.244; lowest in Nigeria: 0.006, 95% CI − 0.005, − 0.007), and poorer households (highest in Mali: 0.382, 95% CI 0.364, 0.402; lowest in Chad: 0.135, 95% CI 0.129, 0.142). In line with the existing literature, our results show that, even controlling for income loss and poverty status, those households who had to borrow rather than rely on savings had a higher probability of suffering from food insecurity. Distinct differences in the efficacy of safety nets across the 11 countries, and the differential impact of the pandemic on different groups within societies, suggest in-depth country-specific studies are needed to understand why some countries have coped better than others. Our paper highlights the importance of improving household resilience to future systemic crises, and using evidence-based best practice in the design of relevant policy instruments.

ObjectivesTo propose a novel framework for COVID-19 vaccine allocation based on three components of Vulnerability, Vaccination, and Values (3Vs).MethodsA combination of geospatial data analysis and artificial intelligence methods for evaluating vulnerability factors at the local level and allocate vaccines according to a dynamic mechanism for updating vulnerability and vaccine uptake.ResultsA novel approach is introduced including (I) Vulnerability data collection (including country-specific data on demographic, socioeconomic, epidemiological, healthcare, and environmental factors), (II) Vaccination prioritization through estimation of a unique Vulnerability Index composed of a range of factors selected and weighed through an Artificial Intelligence (AI-enabled) expert elicitation survey and scientific literature screening, and (III) Values consideration by identification of the most effective GIS-assisted allocation of vaccines at the local level, considering context-specific constraints and objectives.ConclusionsWe showcase the performance of the 3Vs strategy by comparing it to the actual vaccination rollout in Kenya. We show that under the current strategy, socially vulnerable individuals comprise only 45% of all vaccinated people in Kenya while if the 3Vs strategy was implemented, this group would be the first to receive vaccines.

The impact of climate change on economic growth has been the subject of numerous studies in recent years, with macro-econometric analyses estimating the effect of rising temperatures on gross domestic product (GDP) growth rates at the country-level. However, the distributional impact of warming on inequality and poverty at the micro-level remains relatively unexplored. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between temperature and inequality in South Africa at the national and sub-national level. Our analysis reveals a significant $\cup$ -shaped relationship between temperature and inequality indices, with inequality lowest at moderate temperatures (11 ^∘ C–18 ^∘ C) and increasing sharply as temperatures increase. We find that the optimal temperatures are lower for inequality measures than for income levels. This indicates that substantial increases in inequality are expected at higher temperatures compared to growth impacts. This effect is particularly noticeable for the poorer segments of the population, whose productivity and wages decline as temperatures increase, while the impact on the richer segments is less significant due to their greater adaptive capacity. In terms of mechanisms, we find that agricultural households are more likely to experience an increase in inequality due to warming. Our findings suggest that global warming has two adverse effects on hot countries: reducing average growth and increasing inequality. We compare the outcomes of the moderate RCP6.0 scenario to a reference scenario without warming and find that by the end of the century, the Gini coefficient in South Africa is expected to increase by 3–6 points, resulting in a potential welfare loss of approximately 50% when combined with the impact of warming on GDP (which alone can reach up to 43% by 2100 in South Africa). Our findings highlight the importance of investigating the distributional effects of climate change at the micro-level, particularly in low- or middle-income countries where vulnerable populations are more susceptible to its impacts.

Summary: Background: Although effects on labour is one of the most tangible and attributable climate impact, our quantification of these effects is insufficient and based on weak methodologies. Partly, this gap is due to the inability to resolve different impact channels, such as changes in time allocation (labour supply) and slowdown of work (labour productivity). Explicitly resolving those in a multi-model inter-comparison framework can help to improve estimates of the effects of climate change on labour effectiveness. Methods: In this empirical, multi-model study, we used a large collection of micro-survey data aggregated to subnational regions across the world to estimate new, robust global and regional temperature and wet-bulb globe temperature exposure-response functions (ERFs) for labour supply. We then assessed the uncertainty in existing labour productivity response functions and derived an augmented mean function. Finally, we combined these two dimensions of labour into a single compound metric (effective labour effects). This combined measure allowed us to estimate the effect of future climate change on both the number of hours worked and on the productivity of workers during their working hours under 1·5°C, 2·0°C, and 3·0°C of global warming. We separately analysed low-exposure (indoors or outdoors in the shade) and high-exposure (outdoor in the sun) sectors. Findings: We found differentiated empirical regional and sectoral ERF's for labour supply. Current climate conditions already negatively affect labour effectiveness, particularly in tropical countries. Future climate change will reduce global total labour in the low-exposure sectors by 18 percentage points (range −48·8 to 5·3) under a scenario of 3·0°C warming (24·8 percentage points in the high-exposure sectors). The reductions will be 25·9 percentage points (–48·8 to 2·7) in Africa, 18·6 percentage points (–33·6 to 5·3) in Asia, and 10·4 percentage points (–35·0 to 2·6) in the Americas in the low-exposure sectors. These regional effects are projected to be substantially higher for labour outdoors in full sunlight compared with indoors (or outdoors in the shade) with the average reductions in total labour projected to be 32·8 percentage points (–66·3 to 1·6) in Africa, 25·0 percentage points (–66·3 to 7·0) in Asia, and 16·7 percentage points (–45·5 to 4·4) in the Americas. Interpretation: Both labour supply and productivity are projected to decrease under future climate change in most parts of the world, and particularly in tropical regions. Parts of sub-Saharan Africa, south Asia, and southeast Asia are at highest risk under future warming scenarios. The heterogeneous regional response functions suggest that it is necessary to move away from one-size-fits-all response functions to investigate the climate effect on labour. Our findings imply income and distributional consequences in terms of increased inequality and poverty, especially in low-income countries, where the labour effects are projected to be high. Funding: COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).

This review analyses global or near-global estimates of population exposure to sea-level rise (SLR) and related hazards, followed by critically examining subsequent estimates of population migration due to this exposure. Our review identified 33 publications that provide global or near-global estimates of population exposure to SLR and associated hazards. They fall into three main categories of exposure, based on definitions in the publications: (i) the population impacted by specified levels of SLR; (ii) the number of people living in floodplains that are subject to coastal flood events with a specific return period; and (iii) the population living in low-elevation coastal zones. Twenty of these 33 publications discuss connections between population migration and SLR. In our analysis of the exposure and migration data, we consider datasets, analytical methods, and the challenges of estimating exposure to SLR followed by potential human migration. We underscore the complex connections among SLR, exposure to its impacts, and migration. Human mobility to and from coastal areas is shaped by diverse socioeconomic, demographic, institutional, and political factors; there may be ‘trapped’ populations as well as those who prefer not to move for social, cultural, and political reasons; and migration can be delayed or forestalled through other adaptive measures. While global estimates of exposed and potentially migrating populations highlight the significant threats of SLR for populations living in low-lying areas at or near coastlines, further research is needed to understand the interactions among localised SLR and related hazards, social and political contexts, adaptation possibilities, and potential migration and (im)mobility decision-making.