Back to Search Start Over

Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions

Authors :
Hess, Jeremy J.
Ranadive, Nikhil
Boyer, Chris
Aleksandrowicz, Lukasz
Anenberg, Susan C.
Aunan, Kristin
Belesova, Kristine
Bell, Michelle L.
Bickersteth, Sam
Bowen, Kathryn
Burden, Marci
Campbell-Lendrum, Diarmid
Carlton, Elizabeth
Cisse, Gueladio
Cohen, Francois
Dai, Hancheng
Dangour, Alan David
Dasgupta, Purnamita
Frumkin, Howard
Gong, Peng
Gould, Robert J.
Haines, Andy
Hales, Simon
Hamilton, Ian
Hasegawa, Tomoko
Hashizume, Masahiro
Honda, Yasushi
Horton, Daniel E.
Karambelas, Alexandra
Kim, Ho
Kim, Satbyul Estella
Kinney, Patrick L.
Kone, Inza
Knowlton, Kim
Lelieveld, Jos
Limaye, Vijay S.
Liu, Qiyong
Madaniyazi, Lina
Martinez, Micaela Elvira
Mauzerall, Denise L.
Milner, James
Neville, Tara
Nieuwenhuijsen, Mark
Pachauri, Shonali
Perera, Frederica
Pineo, Helen
Remais, Justin V.
Saari, Rebecca K.
Sampedro, Jon
Scheelbeek, Pauline
Schwartz, Joel
Shindell, Drew
Shyamsundar, Priya
Taylor, Timothy J.
Tonne, Cathryn
Van Vuuren, Detlef
Wang, Can
Watts, Nicholas
West, J. Jason
Wilkinson, Paul
Wood, Stephen A.
Woodcock, James
Woodward, Alistair
Xie, Yang
Zhang, Ying
Ebi, Kristie L.
Source :
Environmental Health Perspectives. November, 2020, Vol. 128 Issue 11, p115001, -114999 p.
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

Background: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. Objective: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. Methods: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. Results: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. Discussion: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice.<br />Introduction In 2015, 196 countries outlined their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as part of the 2015 Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), with the [...]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
00916765
Volume :
128
Issue :
11
Database :
Gale General OneFile
Journal :
Environmental Health Perspectives
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsgcl.643541287
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745