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
Comment
. 2020 Nov;128(11):115001.
doi: 10.1289/EHP6745. Epub 2020 Nov 10.

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

Jeremy J Hess  1 Nikhil Ranadive  2 Chris Boyer  1 Lukasz Aleksandrowicz  3 Susan C Anenberg  4 Kristin Aunan  5 Kristine Belesova  6   7 Michelle L Bell  8 Sam Bickersteth  9 Kathryn Bowen  10 Marci Burden  1 Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum  11 Elizabeth Carlton  12 Guéladio Cissé  13   14 Francois Cohen  15 Hancheng Dai  16   17 Alan David Dangour  7 Purnamita Dasgupta  18 Howard Frumkin  3 Peng Gong  19 Robert J Gould  20 Andy Haines  7 Simon Hales  21 Ian Hamilton  22 Tomoko Hasegawa  23 Masahiro Hashizume  24   25 Yasushi Honda  26 Daniel E Horton  27 Alexandra Karambelas  28 Ho Kim  29 Satbyul Estella Kim  30 Patrick L Kinney  31 Inza Kone  32   33 Kim Knowlton  34 Jos Lelieveld  35 Vijay S Limaye  34 Qiyong Liu  36 Lina Madaniyazi  25   37 Micaela Elvira Martinez  38   39 Denise L Mauzerall  40 James Milner  6 Tara Neville  41 Mark Nieuwenhuijsen  42   43   44 Shonali Pachauri  45 Frederica Perera  38 Helen Pineo  46 Justin V Remais  47 Rebecca K Saari  48 Jon Sampedro  49 Pauline Scheelbeek  7   50 Joel Schwartz  51 Drew Shindell  52 Priya Shyamsundar  53 Timothy J Taylor  54 Cathryn Tonne  42   43   44 Detlef Van Vuuren  55 Can Wang  56 Nicholas Watts  57 J Jason West  58 Paul Wilkinson  6 Stephen A Wood  8   59 James Woodcock  60 Alistair Woodward  61 Yang Xie  62   63 Ying Zhang  64 Kristie L Ebi  1
Affiliations
Comment

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

Jeremy J Hess et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2020 Nov.

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. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1 is a flow chart, having three steps, namely, sector of mitigation policy scenario, health exposures, and health effects. Sector of mitigation policy scenario includes the following steps: Step 1: Energy production (for example transition to renewable sources). Step 2: Transportation (for example transition from cars to biking). Step 3: Food Systems (for example regenerative soil management, reduced meat consumption and livestock production). Step 4: Built environment (for example energy efficient or green buildings, urban green spaces). Health exposures includes the following steps: Energy production (for example transition to renewable sources) leads to Air co-pollutants (for example particulate matter begin subscript 2.5 end subscript, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, Ozone. Transportation (for example transition from cars to biking) leads to Air co-pollutants (for example particulate matter begin subscript 2.5 end subscript, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, and ozone which leads to Transportation accidents (for example motor vehicle accidents), and Increased physical activity (for example increased Metabolic Equivalent of Task hours per week). Food Systems (for example regenerative soil management, reduced meat consumption and livestock production) leads to Air co-pollutants (for example particulate matter begin subscript 2.5 end subscript, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, and Ozone) and Healthier diets and improved nutrition (for example decreased meat consumption). Built environment (for example energy efficient or green buildings, urban green spaces) leads to Air co-pollutants (for example particulate matter begin subscript 2.5 end subscript, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, and ozone) Transportation accidents (for example motor vehicle accidents), and Increased physical activity (for example increased Metabolic Equivalent of Task hours per week). Health effects includes the following steps: Air co-pollutants (for example, particulate matter begin subscript 2.5 end subscript, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, and ozone) leads to Effects on pulmonary disease (lung cancer; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and asthma exacerbation) and Effects on cardiovascular disease. Transportation accidents (for example motor vehicle accidents) leads to Effects on unintentional injury. Healthier diets and improved nutrition (for example decreased meat consumption) leads to Effects on cardiovascular Disease and Effects on metabolic syndrome. Increased physical activity (for example increased Metabolic Equivalent of Task hours per week) leads to Effects on cardiovascular Disease and Effects on metabolic syndrome.
Figure 1.
A conceptual framework that provides sector-specific examples of the multiple mechanisms and pathways through which climate change mitigation policies can affect human health. This figure is not intended to be comprehensive.
Figure 2 is a flow chart, having four steps. Step 1: Literature review between November 2014 and March 2019. Step 2: Literature review leads to Delphi R1, Delphi R2, Delphi R3 between December 2018 and March 2019. Step 3: Delphi R1, Delphi R2, Delphi R3 leads to Climate change mitigation health co-benefits workshop in March 2019. Step 4: Climate change mitigation health co-benefits workshop leads to Literature review between November 2014 and March 2019 and Post workshop processing between March 2019 and August 2019.
Figure 2.
Timeline and process for developing guidance document. R1, R2, and R3 were successive rounds.
Figure 3 is a flow chart, having four steps. Step 1: Scoping or baseline: Identify mitigation strategies and quantify associations with drivers of health impacts, Determine population of interest and time scale of analysis, and Obtain or estimate future trends in demographics, health status and exposures or levels of health drivers (often “business as usual” case). Step 2: Impact assessment: Estimate changes in health drivers associated with mitigation strategies and Estimate changes in health status resulting from changes in health drivers. Step 3: Valuation: Estimate economic value of changes in health status and as appropriate, estimate costs of mitigation strategies for comparison Purposes. Step 4: Sensitivity or uncertainty analyses: Conduct appropriate sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, refining valuation and impact assessment parameters through further, targeted research leads to Impact assessment: Estimate changes in health drivers associated with mitigation strategies and Estimate changes in health status resulting from changes in health drivers and Valuation: Estimate economic value of changes in health status and As appropriate, estimate costs of mitigation strategies for comparison Purposes.
Figure 3.
Engagement, modeling, parameterization, reporting, and synthesis considerations for health effects of mitigation policies (HEM) studies, building on figures originally published by Remais et al. (2014) and Gao et al. (2018).

Comment in

Comment on

References

    1. Academy of Science of South Africa, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, U.S. National Academy of Medicine, U.S. National Academy of Sciences. 2019. Air Pollution and Health – A Science-Policy Initiative. Ann Glob Health 85(1):140, PMID: 31871903, 10.5334/aogh.2656. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Allwood JM, Bosetti V, Dubash NK, Gómez-Echeverri L, von Stechow C. 2014. Glossary. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga, R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner, S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum, I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen, J, Schlömer, S, von Stechow, C, Zwickel T, Minx JC, eds. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    1. Bain PG, Milfont TL, Kashima Y, Bilewicz M, Doron G, Garðarsdóttir RB, et al. 2016. Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nature Clim Change 6(2):154–157, 10.1038/nclimate2814. - DOI
    1. Bennett C, Manuel DG. 2012. Reporting guidelines for modelling studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 12:168, PMID: 23134698, 10.1186/1471-2288-12-168. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bhatia R, Farhang L, Heller J, Lee M, Orenstein M, Richardson M, et al. 2014. Minimum elements and practice standards for health impact assessment, Version 3. Oakland, CA: HIA Practice Standards Working Group; https://www.co.cowlitz.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/13420/Minimum-Elements-... [accessed 2 November 2020].