Schematic overview of the relationship between papers categorized in the ‘air pollution impacts’ co-benefit and papers in the ‘health impacts’ co-benefit11.

Schematic overview of the relationship between papers categorized in the ‘air pollution impacts’ co-benefit and papers in the ‘health impacts’ co-benefit11.

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
The perceived inability of climate change mitigation goals alone to mobilize sufficient climate change mitigation efforts has, among other factors, led to growing research on the co-benefits of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This study conducts a systematic review (SR) of the literature on the co-benefits of mitigating GHG emissions resul...

Similar publications

Article
Full-text available
Sustainability agendas increasingly recognize that attaining conservation and development outcomes demands greater integration across sectors. Integrated landscape initiatives (ILIs) are a leading approach to reconciling multiple objectives. However, a characterization of the diversity of approaches under the ILI umbrella and the comparative perfor...

Citations

... From a spatial perspective, incorporating the co-benefits of climate change mitigation into abatement costs contributes to developing countries accurately grasping their abatement costs to better participate in global climate negotiations. From a temporal perspective, the benefits of climate change mitigation are usually a long-term process, air quality and health co-benefits can be seen in the near-term, and it has definite, immediate and effective characteristics (Deng et al., 2017;IEA, 2021;West et al., 2013). Therefore, it is of great significance to investigate the co-benefits of climate change mitigation for promoting the process of international negotiations on climate change and changing the traditional perception of the costs and benefits of GHG emission reduction (Liu, 2020). ...
Article
Incorporating co-benefits of carbon abatement policies can offset costs and inspire greater and faster reductions in emissions in many cases. Most studies on co-benefits are carried out within a partial equilibrium framework and ignore the general equilibrium effects. Therefore, using a computable general equilibrium model, this study incorporated the co-benefits of carbon abatement policies into the carbon marginal abatement cost curves (MACCs), and evaluated the total abatement costs and cost-saving effects for China and India to achieve their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) target. The results indicate that the original carbon MACCs of India in any given year are generally higher than those of China; however, after considering the air pollution-related co-benefits, the overall level of the revised MACCs in China is slightly higher than that of India from 2020 to 2030. In the composition of total co-benefits in China and India, the co-benefits of SO2 reductions account for more than 80% of national total co-benefits, followed by the co-benefits of NOx and PM2.5 reductions. Furthermore, if co-benefits are considered, whether it is China or India, the marginal abatement costs and total abatement costs to achieve NDC targets can be effectively offset; but in comparison, India has more significant cost-saving effects, while for China it will be more difficult to reduce emissions in the latter half of the process of achieving NDC targets. These findings are helpful for developing countries in coordinating and strengthening their ability to tackle climate change and environmental protection.
... For example, the need for adaptation based on projected food supply and climate impacts for the 2050s (and future food security) may change based on demographic changes and actual emissions reduction achieved, respectively. The trajectories countries chose for socio-economic development and adaptation will likely affect their mitigation results and vice-versa (Deng et al., 2017). Dietary changes in future may drive feed expansion at the expense of food production (The Eat-Lancet Commission, 2019), and the current indicator for scope (yield gaps) can only measure one dimension of food production, while leaving out other important issues like nutritional security and sustainable diets Springmann et al., 2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
Following the UNFCCC Paris Agreement, most nations made commitments within their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to adaptation and mitigation in agriculture. However, these commitments need to be assessed in relation with ground truth, including bio-physical and socio-economic limits to climate action. We propose a new framework for monitoring climate action by countries/regions, based on four dimensions—intent, need, scope and readiness for implementing adaptation and mitigation in agriculture. While “intent” reflects intended climate action by countries such as those mentioned in NDCs or NAPs (National Adaptation Plans) and NAMAs (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions), “need” highlights vulnerability of a country's agriculture to climate change and historical GHG emissions. The third dimension, “scope”, is related to the biophysical opportunities and limits to adapt or to mitigate. Finally, the “readiness” dimension considers a country's current ability to implement various adaptation/mitigation actions and policies. The framework is illustrated with a global analysis, using selected indicators for each of these dimensions. Results indicate that 61 countries globally (including key food producers) should consider corrective action in their adaptation priorities. The framework presented in this paper can serve as a monitoring and evaluation mechanism for NDC implementation and tracking progress.
... Most health co-benefits studies have been done at a global level, with relatively few studies providing local (e.g. city) level analysis (Deng et al., 2017). Relative to other world regions, very few health co-benefits studies have specifically focused on African contexts (Deng et al., 2017). ...
... city) level analysis (Deng et al., 2017). Relative to other world regions, very few health co-benefits studies have specifically focused on African contexts (Deng et al., 2017). Translating insights from one location to another is challenging unless all underlying mechanisms are well understood. ...
... Translating insights from one location to another is challenging unless all underlying mechanisms are well understood. Information on the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation at the local-level can help support policy decisions for local communities as well as provide rationales for taking mitigation action that are more persuasive to particular sets of decision makers (Deng et al., 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
The health impacts of global climate change mitigation will affect local populations differently. However, most co-benefits analyses have been done at a global level, with relatively few studies providing local level results. We aimed to quantify the local health impacts due to fine particles (PM2.5) under the governance arrangements embedded in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs1–5) under two greenhouse gas concentration scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) 2.6 and 8.5) in local populations of Mozambique, India, and Spain. We simulated the SSP-RCP scenarios using the Global Change Analysis Model, which was linked to the TM5-FASST model to estimate PM2.5 levels. PM2.5 levels were calibrated with local measurements. We used comparative risk assessment methods to estimate attributable premature deaths due to PM2.5 linking local population and mortality data with PM2.5–mortality relationships from the literature, and incorporating population projections under the SSPs. PM2.5 attributable burdens in 2050 differed across SSP-RCP scenarios, and sensitivity of results across scenarios varied across populations. Future attributable mortality burden of PM2.5 was highly sensitive to assumptions about how populations will change according to SSP. SSPs reflecting high challenges for adaptation (SSPs 3 and 4) consistently resulted in the highest PM2.5 attributable burdens mid-century. Our analysis of local PM2.5 attributable premature deaths under SSP-RCP scenarios in three local populations highlights the importance of both socioeconomic development and climate policy in reducing the health burden from air pollution. Sensitivity of future PM2.5 mortality burden to SSPs was particularly evident in low- and middle- income country settings due either to high air pollution levels or dynamic populations.
... Most cobenefits publications focus on highly developed countries, the United States and Europe in particular (24,41). Cities in the Global South are particularly underrepresented (78), even though further rapid urbanization in the mega cities of the Global South is expected to have significant environmental and health impacts. ...
Article
Urban climate policy offers a significant opportunity to promote improved public health. The evidence around climate and health cobenefits is growing but has yet to translate into widespread integrated policies. This article presents two systematic reviews: first, looking at quantified cobenefits of urban climate policies, where transportation, land use, and buildings emerge as the most studied sectors; and second, looking at review papers exploring the barriers and enablers to integrating these health cobenefits into urban policies. The latter reveals wide agreement concerning the need to improve the evidence base for cobenefits and consensus about the need for greater political will and leadership on this issue. Systems thinking may offer a way forward to help embrace complexity and integrate health cobenefits into decision making. Knowledge coproduction to bring stakeholders together and advance policy-relevant research for urban health will also be required. Action is needed to bring these two important policy agendas together. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Public Health, Volume 43 is April 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
... Solutions to the climate crisis can provide "win-win" opportunities for public health, but it is crucial that such efforts center equity and social justice. Past work has identified and reviewed key health benefits in the realms of air quality, physical activity, and diets, among others [8][9][10][11][12][13]. Climate adaptation efforts aimed at reducing vulnerability to climate change impacts represent a vast and important topic area, but they are beyond the scope of this perspective, which focuses on health benefits of climate mitigation strategies. ...
Article
Full-text available
The climate crisis threatens to exacerbate numerous climate-sensitive health risks, including heatwave mortality, malnutrition from reduced crop yields, water- and vector-borne infectious diseases, and respiratory illness from smog, ozone, allergenic pollen, and wildfires. Recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stress the urgent need for action to mitigate climate change, underscoring the need for more scientific assessment of the benefits of climate action for health and wellbeing. Project Drawdown has analyzed more than 80 solutions to address climate change, building on existing technologies and practices, that could be scaled to collectively limit warming to between 1.5° and 2 °C above preindustrial levels. The solutions span nine major sectors and are aggregated into three groups: reducing the sources of emissions, maintaining and enhancing carbon sinks, and addressing social inequities. Here we present an overview of how climate solutions in these three areas can benefit human health through improved air quality, increased physical activity, healthier diets, reduced risk of infectious disease, and improved sexual and reproductive health, and universal education. We find that the health benefits of a low-carbon society are more substantial and more numerous than previously realized and should be central to policies addressing climate change. Much of the existing literature focuses on health effects in high-income countries, however, and more research is needed on health and equity implications of climate solutions, especially in the Global South. We conclude that adding the myriad health benefits across multiple climate change solutions can likely add impetus to move climate policies faster and further.
... The most recent perspective highlights that policy measures usually have multiple positive and negative effects or co-impacts for climate change, air pollution, and many other development objectives [24][25][26][27][28]. An example illustrating these multiple effects is the closure of coal-fired power plants. ...
Article
Full-text available
Few challenges pose a greater threat to a healthy planet and people than air pollution and climate change. Over the past three decades, research has demonstrated that integrated solutions to air pollution and climate change can yield co-benefits that support cost-effective, coherent policies. However, research on co-benefits has yet to generate policy responses consistent with this promise. This paper argues that realizing this potential requires more rigorous research on how governance affects the opportunities and incentives to align the interests of government agencies, scientists, and other stakeholders at multiple levels. The article proposes a “One Atmosphere approach” consisting of three building blocks to strengthen that alignment: (1) continually incorporating and strategically timing the introduction of integrated visions; (2) reforming governance arrangements to encourage interagency collaboration and multi-stakeholder cooperation; and (3) supporting integrated visions and institutional cooperation with standardized metrics and assessment methods. This article is also the introduction to the Special Issue ‘One Atmosphere: Integrating Air Pollution and Climate Policy and Governance’, aimed at fostering the multidisciplinary dialogue needed for more integrated air pollution and climate change policies.
... It has also been widely employed by the IPCC. We therefore examined the extent to which the articles focused on the co-benefits of mitigation, such as improved air quality, health, and economic benefits (Table 6; see Deng et al., 2017;Hamilton et al., 2021). Just under a third of the articles (28%) referred to co-benefits. ...
Article
Full-text available
Deep, broad, and rapid society‐wide changes are urgently required to limit global temperature rise in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Since 2005, academics and policy makers have increasingly referred to such changes as transformations. This recent uptake and rapid diffusion of transformation‐related concepts in research on climate change mitigation calls for a systematic and up‐to‐date analysis. In this article, we address this gap by undertaking a systematic review of articles that use transformation‐related terms in the social science literature on climate change mitigation. Drawing on a corpus of 198 articles identified from Scopus, we find a diverse, fragmented research field that strongly focuses on the national, city, and international levels, the energy sector, and high‐income countries. Although the use of transformation terminology has increased rapidly, there are few shared definitions, which arguably constitutes a serious challenge to scholarship and evidence‐based policy making. To facilitate a more cumulative and impactful approach to research, we propose transformational climate change mitigation as a new umbrella term for the varied mitigation‐related societal transformations required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. We conclude by identifying priorities for future research. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Benefits of Mitigation
... This knowledge can be critical for informing the integration of climate actions into spatial planning and for the coordination of related policies and investments toward climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development. The co-benefits of climate action for health and the economy can be more immediate and visible than the climate benefits, providing a stronger rationale and motivation for its adoption and implementation (Smith, 2013;Deng et al., 2018). In order to facilitate GI research and practice that can deliver climate benefits and co-benefits while minimizing trade-offs, we need to know: i. ...
Article
Full-text available
Climate change increases risks to natural and human systems. Green infrastructure (GI) has been increasingly recognized as a promising nature-based solution for climate change adaptation, mitigation, and other societal objectives for sustainable development. Although the climate contribution of GI has been extensively addressed in the literature, the linkages between the climate benefits and associated co-benefits and trade-offs remain unclear. We systematically reviewed the evidence from 141 papers, focusing on their climate benefits, relevant co-benefits and trade-offs, and the GI types that provide such climate (co-)benefits. This study presents a comprehensive overview of the links between climate benefits, co-benefits and types of GI, categorized along a green-grey continuum so that researchers/practitioners can find information according to their topic of interest. We further provide an analysis of trade-offs between various GI benefits. ‘Bundles’ of major co-benefits and trade-offs for each climate benefit can be identified with recommendations for strategies to maximize benefits and minimize trade-offs. To promote climate-resilient pathways through GI, it is crucial for decision-makers to identify opportunities to deliver multiple ecosystem services and benefits while recognizing disservices and trade-offs that need to be avoided or managed.
... GHGs and local pollutants largely originate in the same processes; for example, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are produced simultaneously when fossil fuels are burned; similarly agricultural biogas utilization produces methane (CH 4 ), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and ammonia nitrogen simultaneously (Ambec and Coria 2018;Chae 2010;Swart et al. 2004). Hence, there is a direct opportunity for governance to co-control both GHGs and local pollutants (Deng et al. 2017;Fullerton and Karney 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Greenhouse gas (GHG) and pollutant emissions are closely related to the economic structure. Most of the existing studies focused on single type of emissions and cannot provide guidance for co-controlling multiple emissions. Here, we provide an improved elasticity method based on input-output model that relates both supply and demand side at high resolution, evaluated for GHG emissions, local air pollution, solid waste, health, water quality, and economy-wide welfare metrics. The method allows to identify high-resolution structural adjustment intervention points that combine reduction in GHG emission and local environmental damage with stable performance in economy-wide welfare. Investigating the Chinese economy, our results show that key leverage points for simultaneously reducing GHG and local pollutants include electricity inputs of various industries, building materials inputs of housing construction, and fertilizer inputs of agriculture. Therefore, emerging political interventions include reducing the fertilizer use in agriculture, improving the electricity efficiency in raw chemical materials manufacturing and in the metal products industry, and saving inputs of steel, cement, and other building materials in construction, e.g., by transition to prefabricated or 3D printing construction. Urban households can reshape final demand by moderating electricity consumption and adjusting investments in real estate. Reduced export of low-value added steel and metal products would further improve environment and contribute to global climate change mitigation.
... Specific aspects include the health of the human body, food security, ecological service systems, sustainable development, and technology change [16]. New studies on co-benefits have consistently been published over the past 10 years [17], but most studies only identified the aspects of co-benefits and stated their importance, presented the physical type of indicators, assessed the spatial change in mortality, or classified the estimation methods for all types of physical indicators [9,16,18,19]. Karlsson et al. [20] is one exception that cited various types of health co-benefits measured in USD arising from the reduction in NH3, SOx, NOx, PM, and NMVOC in different countries due to different GHG emissions reduction and mitigation mechanisms. ...
Article
Full-text available
This is the first study to provide a systematic monetary benefit matrix, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction benefits and air pollution reduction health co-benefits, for a change in on-the-road transport to low-carbon types. The benefit transfer method is employed to estimate the social cost of carbon and the health co-benefits via impact pathway analysis in Taiwan. Specifically, the total emissions reduction benefits from changing all internal combustion vehicles to either hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or electric vehicles would generate an average of USD 760 million from GHG emissions reduction and USD 2091 million from health co-benefits based on air pollution reduction, for a total benefit of USD 2851 million annually. For a change from combustion scooters to light- or heavy-duty electric scooters, the average GHG emissions reduction benefits would be USD 96.02 million, and the health co-benefits from air pollution reduction would be USD 1008.83 million, for total benefits of USD 1104.85 million annually.