Public health impacts of city policies to reduce climate change: findings from the URGENCHE EU-China project

Environmental Health

Research

Saskia Willers¹  Sef van den Elshout¹  Periklis Kontoroupis²  Spyros P. Karakitsios²  Simon Kingham³  Denis Sarigiannis⁴  Marco Martuzzi⁵  Pierpaolo Mudu⁵  Mike Depledge⁶  Fintan Hurley⁷  Rainer Friedrich⁸  Ganlin Huang⁸  Matti Jantunen⁹  Marjo Niittynen^1,10  Arja Asikainen^1,10  Jouni Tuomisto^1,10  Menno Keuken^1,11  Clive E. Sabel^1,12  Katie Morton^1,12  Rosemary Hiscock^1,12  Myriam Tobollik^1,13  Jun Bi^1,14  Miaomiao Liu^1,14  Nino Kuenzli^1,15  Laura Perez^1,15  Will Stahl-Timmins^1,16 

[1]Air Quality Department, DCMR Environmental Protection Agency Rijnmond, Schiedam, The Netherlands

[2]Centre for Research and Technology Hellas, Chemical Process and Energy Resources Institute, 57001, Thermi, Greece

[3]Department of Geography, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

[4]Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Department of Chemical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece

[5]European Centre for Environment and Health, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 53113, Bonn, Germany

[6]European Centre for Environment and Human health, University of Exeter Medical School, EX1 2LU, Exeter, UK

[7]IOM (Institute of Occupational Medicine), Riccarton, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

[8]Institute of Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy (IER), University of Stuttgart, 70565, Stuttgart, Germany

[9]National Institute for Health and Welfare, 70210, Kuopio, Finland

[10]National Institute for Health and Welfare, FI-70701, Kuopio, Finland

[11]Netherlands Organization for Applied Research (TNO), 3584 CB, Utrecht, The Netherlands

[12]School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, BS8 1SS, Bristol, UK

[13]School of Public Health, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany

[14]School of the Environment, Nanjing University, 210023, Nanjing, China

[15]Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

[16]The BMJ, BMA House, WC1H 9JP, London, UK

关键词: Greenhouse gas emission reduction policies;    Health;    Wellbeing;    Urban;    Europe;    China;    Air pollution;    Transport;    Buildings;    Energy;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12940-016-0097-0

 received in 2016-01-13, accepted in 2016-01-13,  发布年份 2016

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundClimate change is a global threat to health and wellbeing. Here we provide findings of an international research project investigating the health and wellbeing impacts of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in urban environments.MethodsFive European and two Chinese city authorities and partner academic organisations formed the project consortium. The methodology involved modelling the impact of adopted urban climate-change mitigation transport, buildings and energy policy scenarios, usually for the year 2020 and comparing them with business as usual (BAU) scenarios (where policies had not been adopted). Carbon dioxide emissions, health impacting exposures (air pollution, noise and physical activity), health (cardiovascular, respiratory, cancer and leukaemia) and wellbeing (including noise related wellbeing, overall wellbeing, economic wellbeing and inequalities) were modelled. The scenarios were developed from corresponding known levels in 2010 and pre-existing exposure response functions. Additionally there were literature reviews, three longitudinal observational studies and two cross sectional surveys.ResultsThere are four key findings. Firstly introduction of electric cars may confer some small health benefits but it would be unwise for a city to invest in electric vehicles unless their power generation fuel mix generates fewer emissions than petrol and diesel. Second, adopting policies to reduce private car use may have benefits for carbon dioxide reduction and positive health impacts through reduced noise and increased physical activity. Third, the benefits of carbon dioxide reduction from increasing housing efficiency are likely to be minor and co-benefits for health and wellbeing are dependent on good air exchange. Fourthly, although heating dwellings by in-home biomass burning may reduce carbon dioxide emissions, consequences for health and wellbeing were negative with the technology in use in the cities studied.ConclusionsThe climate-change reduction policies reduced CO2 emissions (the most common greenhouse gas) from cities but impact on global emissions of CO2 would be more limited due to some displacement of emissions. The health and wellbeing impacts varied and were often limited reflecting existing relatively high quality of life and environmental standards in most of the participating cities; the greatest potential for future health benefit occurs in less developed or developing countries.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Sabel et al. 2016