PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Significant mitigation efforts beyond the Nationally Determined Commitments (NDCs) coming out of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement are required to avoid warming of 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures. Health co-benefits represent selected near term, positive consequences of climate policies that can offset mitigation costs in the short term before the beneficial impacts of those policies on the magnitude of climate change are evident. The diversity of approaches to modeling mitigation options and their health effects inhibits meta-analyses and syntheses of results useful in policy-making.
UNASSIGNED: We evaluated the range of methods and choices in modeling health co-benefits of climate mitigation to identify opportunities for increased consistency and collaboration that could better inform policy-making. We reviewed studies quantifying the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation related to air quality, transportation, and diet published since the 2009 Lancet Commission \'Managing the health effects of climate change\' through January 2017. We documented approaches, methods, scenarios, health-related exposures, and health outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Forty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Air quality, transportation, and diet scenarios ranged from specific policy proposals to hypothetical scenarios, and from global recommendations to stakeholder-informed local guidance. Geographic and temporal scope as well as validity of scenarios determined policy relevance. More recent studies tended to use more sophisticated methods to address complexity in the relevant policy system.
UNASSIGNED: Most studies indicated significant, nearer term, local ancillary health benefits providing impetus for policy uptake and net cost savings. However, studies were more suited to describing the interaction of climate policy and health and the magnitude of potential outcomes than to providing specific accurate estimates of health co-benefits. Modeling the health co-benefits of climate policy provides policy-relevant information when the scenarios are reasonable, relevant, and thorough, and the model adequately addresses complexity. Greater consistency in selected modeling choices across the health co-benefits of climate mitigation research would facilitate evaluation of mitigation options particularly as they apply to the NDCs and promote policy uptake.
UNASSIGNED: We evaluated the range of methods and choices in modeling health co-benefits of climate mitigation to identify opportunities for increased consistency and collaboration that could better inform policy-making. We reviewed studies quantifying the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation related to air quality, transportation, and diet published since the 2009 Lancet Commission \'Managing the health effects of climate change\' through January 2017. We documented approaches, methods, scenarios, health-related exposures, and health outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Forty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Air quality, transportation, and diet scenarios ranged from specific policy proposals to hypothetical scenarios, and from global recommendations to stakeholder-informed local guidance. Geographic and temporal scope as well as validity of scenarios determined policy relevance. More recent studies tended to use more sophisticated methods to address complexity in the relevant policy system.
UNASSIGNED: Most studies indicated significant, nearer term, local ancillary health benefits providing impetus for policy uptake and net cost savings. However, studies were more suited to describing the interaction of climate policy and health and the magnitude of potential outcomes than to providing specific accurate estimates of health co-benefits. Modeling the health co-benefits of climate policy provides policy-relevant information when the scenarios are reasonable, relevant, and thorough, and the model adequately addresses complexity. Greater consistency in selected modeling choices across the health co-benefits of climate mitigation research would facilitate evaluation of mitigation options particularly as they apply to the NDCs and promote policy uptake.
摘要：
■需要在2015年《巴黎气候协定》的国家自主承诺（NDC）之外做出重大的缓解努力，以避免比工业化前温度升高2°C。健康共同效益代表选定的近期，在这些政策对气候变化规模的有益影响显现之前，可以在短期内抵消缓解成本的气候政策的积极后果。对缓解方案及其健康影响进行建模的方法的多样性抑制了对决策有用的荟萃分析和结果综合。
我们评估了气候缓解的健康共同利益建模的方法和选择范围，以确定增加一致性和协作的机会，从而更好地为决策提供信息。我们回顾了量化气候变化缓解与空气质量相关的健康共同利益的研究，交通运输,自2009年柳叶刀委员会“管理气候变化对健康的影响”以来，饮食一直到2017年1月。我们记录了方法，方法,场景，与健康相关的暴露，和健康结果。
■42项研究符合纳入标准。空气质量,交通运输,饮食方案从具体的政策建议到假设的方案，从全球建议到利益相关者知情的地方指导。地理和时间范围以及方案的有效性决定了政策的相关性。最近的研究倾向于使用更复杂的方法来解决相关政策系统的复杂性。
■大多数研究表明，更近的期限，地方辅助健康福利为政策采纳和净成本节约提供动力。然而,研究更适合描述气候政策与健康的相互作用以及潜在结果的大小,而不是提供健康共同获益的具体准确估计.对气候政策的健康共同利益进行建模可在情景合理时提供与政策相关的信息，相关,彻底,并且该模型充分解决了复杂性。在气候缓解研究的健康共同利益中，选定的建模选择更加一致，将有助于评估缓解方案，特别是适用于国家发展中国家的缓解方案，并促进政策采纳。
我们评估了气候缓解的健康共同利益建模的方法和选择范围，以确定增加一致性和协作的机会，从而更好地为决策提供信息。我们回顾了量化气候变化缓解与空气质量相关的健康共同利益的研究，交通运输,自2009年柳叶刀委员会“管理气候变化对健康的影响”以来，饮食一直到2017年1月。我们记录了方法，方法,场景，与健康相关的暴露，和健康结果。
■42项研究符合纳入标准。空气质量,交通运输,饮食方案从具体的政策建议到假设的方案，从全球建议到利益相关者知情的地方指导。地理和时间范围以及方案的有效性决定了政策的相关性。最近的研究倾向于使用更复杂的方法来解决相关政策系统的复杂性。
■大多数研究表明，更近的期限，地方辅助健康福利为政策采纳和净成本节约提供动力。然而,研究更适合描述气候政策与健康的相互作用以及潜在结果的大小,而不是提供健康共同获益的具体准确估计.对气候政策的健康共同利益进行建模可在情景合理时提供与政策相关的信息，相关,彻底,并且该模型充分解决了复杂性。在气候缓解研究的健康共同利益中，选定的建模选择更加一致，将有助于评估缓解方案，特别是适用于国家发展中国家的缓解方案，并促进政策采纳。
