Sabel Clive E, Hiscock Rosemary, Asikainen Arja, Bi Jun, Depledge Mike, van den Elshout Sef, Friedrich Rainer, Huang Ganlin, Hurley Fintan, Jantunen Matti, Karakitsios Spyros P, Keuken Menno, Kingham Simon, Kontoroupis Periklis, Kuenzli Nino, Liu Miaomiao, Martuzzi Marco, Morton Katie, Mudu Pierpaolo, Niittynen Marjo, Perez Laura, Sarigiannis Denis, Stahl-Timmins Will, Tobollik Myriam, Tuomisto Jouni, Willers Saskia
School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1SS, UK.
National Institute for Health and Welfare, FI-70701, Kuopio, Finland.
Environ Health. 2016 Mar 8;15 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):25. doi: 10.1186/s12940-016-0097-0.
Climate 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.
Five 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.
There 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.
The 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.
气候变化是对健康和福祉的全球性威胁。在此，我们呈现一项国际研究项目的结果，该项目调查了城市环境中减少温室气体排放政策对健康和福祉的影响。
五个欧洲和两个中国城市当局以及合作学术组织组成了项目联盟。该方法包括对通常为2020年所采用的城市气候变化减缓交通、建筑和能源政策情景的影响进行建模，并将其与照常营业（BAU）情景（未采用政策的情景）进行比较。对二氧化碳排放、影响健康的暴露因素（空气污染、噪音和身体活动）、健康（心血管疾病、呼吸系统疾病、癌症和白血病）以及福祉（包括与噪音相关的福祉、总体福祉、经济福祉和不平等）进行了建模。这些情景是根据2010年的相应已知水平和预先存在的暴露反应函数制定的。此外，还进行了文献综述、三项纵向观察性研究和两项横断面调查。
有四个关键发现。首先，引入电动汽车可能会带来一些微小的健康益处，但对于一个城市来说，投资电动汽车是不明智的，除非其发电燃料组合产生比汽油和柴油更少的排放。其次，采取政策减少私家车使用可能有利于减少二氧化碳排放，并通过减少噪音和增加身体活动对健康产生积极影响。第三，提高住房效率减少二氧化碳排放的益处可能较小，对健康和福祉的协同效益取决于良好的空气交换。第四，尽管通过家庭生物质燃烧供暖可能会减少二氧化碳排放，但在所研究城市中使用的该技术对健康和福祉产生了负面影响。
气候变化减排政策减少了城市的二氧化碳排放（最常见的温室气体），但由于一些排放的转移，对全球二氧化碳排放的影响将更为有限。对健康和福祉的影响各不相同，且往往有限，这反映了大多数参与城市现有的相对较高的生活质量和环境标准；未来健康受益的最大潜力出现在欠发达或发展中国家。
