Herrmann Alina, Fischer Helen, Amelung Dorothee, Litvine Dorian, Aall Carlo, Andersson Camilla, Baltruszewicz Marta, Barbier Carine, Bruyère Sébastien, Bénévise Françoise, Dubois Ghislain, Louis Valérie R, Nilsson Maria, Richardsen Moberg Karen, Sköld Bore, Sauerborn Rainer
Institute of Public Health, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Institute of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
BMC Public Health. 2017 Aug 1;18(1):71. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4604-1.
It is now universally acknowledged that climate change constitutes a major threat to human health. At the same time, some of the measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so-called climate change mitigation measures, have significant health co-benefits (e.g., walking or cycling more; eating less meat). The goal of limiting global warming to 1,5° Celsius set by the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris in 2015 can only be reached if all stakeholders, including households, take actions to mitigate climate change. Results on whether framing mitigation measures in terms of their health co-benefits increases the likelihood of their implementation are inconsistent. The present study protocol describes the transdisciplinary project HOPE (HOuseholds' Preferences for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in four European high-income countries) that investigates the role of health co-benefits in households' decision making on climate change mitigation measures in urban households in France, Germany, Norway and Sweden.
HOPE employs a mixed-methods approach combining status-quo carbon footprint assessments, simulations of the reduction of households' carbon footprints, and qualitative in-depth interviews with a subgroup of households. Furthermore, a policy analysis of current household oriented climate policies is conducted. In the simulation of the reduction of households' carbon footprints, half of the households are provided with information on health co-benefits of climate change mitigation measures, the other half is not. Households' willingness to implement the measures is assessed and compared in between-group analyses of variance.
This is one of the first comprehensive mixed-methods approaches to investigate which mitigation measures households are most willing to implement in order to reach the 1,5° target set by the Paris Agreement, and whether health co-benefits can serve as a motivator for households to implement these measures. The comparison of the empirical data with current climate policies will provide knowledge for tailoring effective climate change mitigation and health policies.
现在人们普遍认识到气候变化对人类健康构成重大威胁。与此同时,一些减少温室气体排放的措施,即所谓的气候变化缓解措施,具有显著的健康协同效益(例如,多走路或骑自行车;少吃肉)。只有包括家庭在内的所有利益相关者采取行动缓解气候变化,才能实现2015年联合国气候变化框架公约缔约方会议在巴黎设定的将全球变暖限制在1.5摄氏度的目标。关于将缓解措施按照其健康协同效益进行框架设定是否会增加其实施可能性的研究结果并不一致。本研究方案描述了跨学科项目HOPE(欧洲四个高收入国家家庭减少温室气体排放的偏好),该项目调查健康协同效益在法国、德国、挪威和瑞典城市家庭关于气候变化缓解措施的决策中的作用。
HOPE采用混合方法,结合现状碳足迹评估、家庭碳足迹减少模拟以及对一部分家庭进行定性深入访谈。此外,还对当前以家庭为导向的气候政策进行政策分析。在家庭碳足迹减少模拟中,一半家庭会获得关于气候变化缓解措施健康协同效益的信息,另一半则不会。通过组间方差分析评估并比较家庭实施这些措施的意愿。
这是首批全面的混合方法之一,用于调查家庭最愿意实施哪些缓解措施以实现《巴黎协定》设定的1.5度目标,以及健康协同效益是否可以作为激励家庭实施这些措施的因素。将实证数据与当前气候政策进行比较,将为制定有效的气候变化缓解和健康政策提供知识。