Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Aug 1;18(1):71.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4604-1.

Household preferences for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in four European high-income countries: Does health information matter? A mixed-methods study protocol

Alina Herrmann  1 , Helen Fischer  2   3 , Dorothee Amelung  2   3 , Dorian Litvine  4 , Carlo Aall  5 , Camilla Andersson  6 , Marta Baltruszewicz  5 , Carine Barbier  7 , Sébastien Bruyère  4 , Françoise Bénévise  4 , Ghislain Dubois  4 , Valérie R Louis  2 , Maria Nilsson  6 , Karen Richardsen Moberg  5 , Bore Sköld  6 , Rainer Sauerborn  2
Affiliations

Household preferences for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in four European high-income countries: Does health information matter? A mixed-methods study protocol

Alina Herrmann et al. BMC Public Health. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: It is now universally acknowledged that climate change constitutes a major threat to human health. At the same time, some of the measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so-called climate change mitigation measures, have significant health co-benefits (e.g., walking or cycling more; eating less meat). The goal of limiting global warming to 1,5° Celsius set by the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris in 2015 can only be reached if all stakeholders, including households, take actions to mitigate climate change. Results on whether framing mitigation measures in terms of their health co-benefits increases the likelihood of their implementation are inconsistent. The present study protocol describes the transdisciplinary project HOPE (HOuseholds' Preferences for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in four European high-income countries) that investigates the role of health co-benefits in households' decision making on climate change mitigation measures in urban households in France, Germany, Norway and Sweden.

Methods: HOPE employs a mixed-methods approach combining status-quo carbon footprint assessments, simulations of the reduction of households' carbon footprints, and qualitative in-depth interviews with a subgroup of households. Furthermore, a policy analysis of current household oriented climate policies is conducted. In the simulation of the reduction of households' carbon footprints, half of the households are provided with information on health co-benefits of climate change mitigation measures, the other half is not. Households' willingness to implement the measures is assessed and compared in between-group analyses of variance.

Discussion: This is one of the first comprehensive mixed-methods approaches to investigate which mitigation measures households are most willing to implement in order to reach the 1,5° target set by the Paris Agreement, and whether health co-benefits can serve as a motivator for households to implement these measures. The comparison of the empirical data with current climate policies will provide knowledge for tailoring effective climate change mitigation and health policies.

Keywords: Climate change; Health co-benefits; Mitigation; Mixed-methods; Policy; household preferences.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All participants were given written information about the study objectives and modalities (points of assessment, length of questionnaires), data preparation and pseudonymized data storage, the expected amount of commitment, the voluntary nature of participation, and their right to withdraw at any time. Furthermore, participants were informed verbally about the study purpose and procedures and were given the chance to ask questions. All participants provided written informed consent. All countries assure that data processing and storage is done in line with European and national data protection rules. Where necessary the study procedures were approved by an ethical committee. In Norway the Norwegian Center for Research Data approved of the study (44003). In Germany the Institutional Review Board of the Medical Faculty by the University of Heidelberg approved of the study (S-611/2015). In Sweden the study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Umeå (2015/357-31Ö). In France the project needed to fullfill the obligations of the CNIL (Commission nationale informatique et libertés), no specific ethical approval was necessary.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The effects of climate change mitigation on health (health co-benefits and others). Climate change mitigation measures adopted by an individual can directly affect this individual’s health, if the health effect is accessible by personal choice (e.g. health co-benefits of reduced cardiovascular health risks by biking to work or eating less meat). Climate change mitigation measures adopted by many individuals can indirectly effect health on population level (e.g. health co-benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and therefore air pollution, reducing e.g. respiratory and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality). Moreover, successfully mitigating climate change can reduce the negative health effects of climate change itself. (Please note, that this effect on health is no health co-benefit). Households in the HOPE study are only presented with information about direct health co-benefits accessible for individuals by personal choice (upper orange arrow)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Explanatory mixed-method design of the HOPE-Study. The explanatory mixed-methods design comprises three steps (=Interaction 1–3). The first two steps use quantitative methods, the third step uses qualitative methods
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Action cards on mitigation options in Interaction 2. Examples of action cards (translated into English). Action cards are color-coded for the category the mitigation option belongs to (housing, food, mobility, or other consumption – see also symbols in the upper left corner). In the lower part of the action card two or three boxes with additional information are presented to the household, depending on the experimental group the household belongs to health (health information vs. no health information). Each household receives information on reduction of CO2 emissions and money spent or saved associated with implementing the mitigation option (left and middle box). Half of the households additionally receive information on how their health is affected when implementing the measure (right box)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Tasks in the three rounds of the on-site simulation in Interaction 2
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Overview on HOPE Study Protocol
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. IPCC. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: IPCC assessment reports. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN, MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL, editors. Assessment Report. vol. 5th. Cambridge and New York: IPCC; 2014.
    1. Franchini M, Mannucci PM. Impact on human health of climate changes. European J Internal Med. 2015;26(1):1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2014.12.008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Haines A, Ebi KL, Smith KR, Woodward A. Health risks of climate change: act now or pay later. Lancet. 2014;384(9948):1073–1075. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61659-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Woodward A, Smith KR, Campbell-Lendrum D, Chadee DD, Honda Y, Liu Q, Olwoch J, Revich B, Sauerborn R, Chafe Z, et al. Climate change and health: on the latest IPCC report. Lancet. 2014;383(9924):1185–1189. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60576-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fischer D, Thomas SM, Beierkuhnlein C. Temperature-derived potential for the establishment of phlebotomine sandflies and visceral leishmaniasis in Germany. Geospat Health. 2010;5(1):59–69. doi: 10.4081/gh.2010.187. - DOI - PubMed