衡量和评估减缓气候变化对健康的共同惠益:范围界定审查

IF 24.1 1区 医学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Lancet Planetary Health Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00095-0
Ngan Thi Thu Dinh PhD , Judy Tran MHEcon , Prof Martin Hensher PhD
{"title":"衡量和评估减缓气候变化对健康的共同惠益:范围界定审查","authors":"Ngan Thi Thu Dinh PhD ,&nbsp;Judy Tran MHEcon ,&nbsp;Prof Martin Hensher PhD","doi":"10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00095-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Despite growing interest in the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation actions, there is little recent evidence on the appropriateness of the measurement techniques being used to estimate them. We did a scoping review to identify the different approaches that have been used to measure and value health co-benefits in the climate change mitigation literature. We searched three databases (EBSCOhost, Web of Science, and MEDLINE Ovid) to identify relevant papers published between 2010 and 2023, and identified 267 studies that met our inclusion criteria to be included in the review. We found that health co-benefit studies are more typically published in the environmental science literature than in health journals. Despite calls going back many years for greater standardisation in methods, we found a highly diverse set of health measures and valuation approaches still in use. The majority of studies (232 [87%]) measured only near-term health co-benefits from reduced air pollution, and only 13 (5%) studies incorporated the longer term health benefits from mitigating the future health harms of climate change. Just over half the studies included monetary valuation of health co-benefits, using a variety of valuation approaches. Public and planetary health researchers, epidemiologists, and health economists should seek to engage more actively with those undertaking research in health co-benefits. This would allow consideration of how best to reconcile differing perspectives and techniques, how to achieve better standardisation of measurement and valuation, and how to extend the generally narrow focus of current health co-benefit studies to become more holistic and comprehensive.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48548,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Planetary Health","volume":"8 6","pages":"Pages e402-e409"},"PeriodicalIF":24.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542519624000950/pdfft?md5=4a776cfcb3c2dd72e29d99803422bd7c&pid=1-s2.0-S2542519624000950-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring and valuing the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation: a scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Ngan Thi Thu Dinh PhD ,&nbsp;Judy Tran MHEcon ,&nbsp;Prof Martin Hensher PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00095-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Despite growing interest in the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation actions, there is little recent evidence on the appropriateness of the measurement techniques being used to estimate them. We did a scoping review to identify the different approaches that have been used to measure and value health co-benefits in the climate change mitigation literature. We searched three databases (EBSCOhost, Web of Science, and MEDLINE Ovid) to identify relevant papers published between 2010 and 2023, and identified 267 studies that met our inclusion criteria to be included in the review. We found that health co-benefit studies are more typically published in the environmental science literature than in health journals. Despite calls going back many years for greater standardisation in methods, we found a highly diverse set of health measures and valuation approaches still in use. The majority of studies (232 [87%]) measured only near-term health co-benefits from reduced air pollution, and only 13 (5%) studies incorporated the longer term health benefits from mitigating the future health harms of climate change. Just over half the studies included monetary valuation of health co-benefits, using a variety of valuation approaches. Public and planetary health researchers, epidemiologists, and health economists should seek to engage more actively with those undertaking research in health co-benefits. This would allow consideration of how best to reconcile differing perspectives and techniques, how to achieve better standardisation of measurement and valuation, and how to extend the generally narrow focus of current health co-benefit studies to become more holistic and comprehensive.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48548,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lancet Planetary Health\",\"volume\":\"8 6\",\"pages\":\"Pages e402-e409\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":24.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542519624000950/pdfft?md5=4a776cfcb3c2dd72e29d99803422bd7c&pid=1-s2.0-S2542519624000950-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lancet Planetary Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542519624000950\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Planetary Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542519624000950","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管人们对气候变化减缓行动的健康共同效益越来越感兴趣,但近期却鲜有证据表明用于估算这些效益的测量技术是否合适。我们进行了一次范围审查,以确定气候变化减缓文献中用于衡量和评估健康共同效益的不同方法。我们检索了三个数据库(EBSCOhost、Web of Science 和 MEDLINE Ovid),以确定 2010 年至 2023 年间发表的相关论文,并确定了 267 项符合纳入标准的研究,将其纳入综述。我们发现,健康共同效益研究通常发表在环境科学文献上,而不是健康期刊上。尽管多年前就有人呼吁加强方法的标准化,但我们发现目前仍在使用的健康衡量标准和评估方法非常多样化。大多数研究(232 项[87%])仅衡量了减少空气污染带来的近期共同健康效益,只有 13 项(5%)研究纳入了减轻气候变化对未来健康危害带来的长期健康效益。略多于一半的研究采用各种估值方法对健康共同效益进行了货币估值。公共与行星健康研究人员、流行病学家和健康经济学家应寻求更积极地与从事健康共同效益研究的人员合作。这将有助于考虑如何最好地协调不同的观点和技术,如何更好地实现测量和估值的标准化,以及如何将当前健康共同效益研究普遍狭窄的重点扩展到更加全面和综合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measuring and valuing the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation: a scoping review

Despite growing interest in the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation actions, there is little recent evidence on the appropriateness of the measurement techniques being used to estimate them. We did a scoping review to identify the different approaches that have been used to measure and value health co-benefits in the climate change mitigation literature. We searched three databases (EBSCOhost, Web of Science, and MEDLINE Ovid) to identify relevant papers published between 2010 and 2023, and identified 267 studies that met our inclusion criteria to be included in the review. We found that health co-benefit studies are more typically published in the environmental science literature than in health journals. Despite calls going back many years for greater standardisation in methods, we found a highly diverse set of health measures and valuation approaches still in use. The majority of studies (232 [87%]) measured only near-term health co-benefits from reduced air pollution, and only 13 (5%) studies incorporated the longer term health benefits from mitigating the future health harms of climate change. Just over half the studies included monetary valuation of health co-benefits, using a variety of valuation approaches. Public and planetary health researchers, epidemiologists, and health economists should seek to engage more actively with those undertaking research in health co-benefits. This would allow consideration of how best to reconcile differing perspectives and techniques, how to achieve better standardisation of measurement and valuation, and how to extend the generally narrow focus of current health co-benefit studies to become more holistic and comprehensive.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
28.40
自引率
2.30%
发文量
272
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Lancet Planetary Health is a gold Open Access journal dedicated to investigating and addressing the multifaceted determinants of healthy human civilizations and their impact on natural systems. Positioned as a key player in sustainable development, the journal covers a broad, interdisciplinary scope, encompassing areas such as poverty, nutrition, gender equity, water and sanitation, energy, economic growth, industrialization, inequality, urbanization, human consumption and production, climate change, ocean health, land use, peace, and justice. With a commitment to publishing high-quality research, comment, and correspondence, it aims to be the leading journal for sustainable development in the face of unprecedented dangers and threats.
期刊最新文献
Bridging the gender, climate, and health gap: the road to COP29. No silver bullets, no shortcuts: confronting the commercial determinants of the climate crisis. Correction to Lancet Planet Health 2024; published Oct 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00229-8. Climate injustice: lessons from the Philippines' jeepney modernisation programme Climate emotions, thoughts, and plans among US adolescents and young adults: a cross-sectional descriptive survey and analysis by political party identification and self-reported exposure to severe weather events
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1