Guidelines for modeling and reporting health effects of climate change mitigation actions

Jeremy J. Hess; Nikhil Ranadive; Chris Boyer; Lukasz Aleksandrowicz; Susan C. Anenberg; Kristin Aunan; Kristine Belesova; Michelle L. Bell; Sam Bickersteth; Kathryn Bowen; Marci Burden; Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum; Elizabeth Carlton; Guéladio Cissé; Francois Cohen; Hancheng Dai; Alan David Dangour; Purnamita Dasgupta; Howard Frumkin; Peng Gong; Robert J. Gould; Andy Haines; Simon Hales; Ian Hamilton; Tomoko Hasegawa; Masahiro Hashizume; Yasushi Honda; Daniel E. Horton; Alexandra Karambelas; Ho Kim; Satbyul Estella Kim; Patrick L. Kinney; Inza Kone; Kim Knowlton; Jos Lelieveld; Vijay S. Limaye; Qiyong Liu; Lina Madaniyazi; Micaela Elvira Martinez; Denise L. Mauzerall; James Milner; Tara Neville; Mark Nieuwenhuijsen; Shonali Pachauri; Frederica Perera; Helen Pineo; Justin V. Remais; Rebecca K. Saari; Jon Sampedro; Pauline Scheelbeek; Joel Schwartz; Drew Shindell; Priya Shyamsundar; Timothy J. Taylor; Cathryn Tonne; Detlef Van Vuuren; Can Wang; Nicholas Watts; J. Jason West; Paul Wilkinson; Stephen A. Wood; James Woodcock; Alistair Woodward; Yang Xie; Ying Zhang; Kristie L. Ebi

doi:10.1289/EHP6745

Guidelines for modeling and reporting health effects of climate change mitigation actions

Jeremy J. Hess, Nikhil Ranadive, Chris Boyer, Lukasz Aleksandrowicz, Susan C. Anenberg, Kristin Aunan, Kristine Belesova, Michelle L. Bell, Sam Bickersteth, Kathryn Bowen, Marci Burden, Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, Elizabeth Carlton, Guéladio Cissé, Francois Cohen, Hancheng Dai, Alan David Dangour, Purnamita Dasgupta, Howard Frumkin, Peng GongRobert J. Gould, Andy Haines, Simon Hales, Ian Hamilton, Tomoko Hasegawa, Masahiro Hashizume, Yasushi Honda, Daniel E. Horton, Alexandra Karambelas, Ho Kim, Satbyul Estella Kim, Patrick L. Kinney, Inza Kone, Kim Knowlton, Jos Lelieveld, Vijay S. Limaye, Qiyong Liu, Lina Madaniyazi, Micaela Elvira Martinez, Denise L. Mauzerall, James Milner, Tara Neville, Mark Nieuwenhuijsen, Shonali Pachauri, Frederica Perera, Helen Pineo, Justin V. Remais, Rebecca K. Saari, Jon Sampedro, Pauline Scheelbeek, Joel Schwartz, Drew Shindell, Priya Shyamsundar, Timothy J. Taylor, Cathryn Tonne, Detlef Van Vuuren, Can Wang, Nicholas Watts, J. Jason West, Paul Wilkinson, Stephen A. Wood, James Woodcock, Alistair Woodward, Yang Xie, Ying Zhang, Kristie L. Ebi

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

42 Scopus citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. METHODS: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. RESULTS: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. DISCUSSION: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745.

Original language	English (US)
Article number	115001
Pages (from-to)	1-10
Number of pages	10
Journal	Environmental Health Perspectives
Volume	128
Issue number	11
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745
State	Published - Nov 2020

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

Access to Document

10.1289/EHP6745

Cite this

Hess, J. J., Ranadive, N., Boyer, C., Aleksandrowicz, L., Anenberg, S. C., Aunan, K., Belesova, K., Bell, M. L., Bickersteth, S., Bowen, K., Burden, M., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Carlton, E., Cissé, G., Cohen, F., Dai, H., Dangour, A. D., Dasgupta, P., Frumkin, H., ... Ebi, K. L. (2020). Guidelines for modeling and reporting health effects of climate change mitigation actions. Environmental Health Perspectives, 128(11), 1-10. Article 115001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745

@article{48796b15f5fa49f5801bfb643f452134,

title = "Guidelines for modeling and reporting health effects of climate change mitigation actions",

abstract = "BACKGROUND: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. METHODS: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. RESULTS: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. DISCUSSION: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745.",

author = "Hess, {Jeremy J.} and Nikhil Ranadive and Chris Boyer and Lukasz Aleksandrowicz and Anenberg, {Susan C.} and Kristin Aunan and Kristine Belesova and Bell, {Michelle L.} and Sam Bickersteth and Kathryn Bowen and Marci Burden and Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum and Elizabeth Carlton and Gu{\'e}ladio Ciss{\'e} and Francois Cohen and Hancheng Dai and Dangour, {Alan David} and Purnamita Dasgupta and Howard Frumkin and Peng Gong and Gould, {Robert J.} and Andy Haines and Simon Hales and Ian Hamilton and Tomoko Hasegawa and Masahiro Hashizume and Yasushi Honda and Horton, {Daniel E.} and Alexandra Karambelas and Ho Kim and Kim, {Satbyul Estella} and Kinney, {Patrick L.} and Inza Kone and Kim Knowlton and Jos Lelieveld and Limaye, {Vijay S.} and Qiyong Liu and Lina Madaniyazi and Martinez, {Micaela Elvira} and Mauzerall, {Denise L.} and James Milner and Tara Neville and Mark Nieuwenhuijsen and Shonali Pachauri and Frederica Perera and Helen Pineo and Remais, {Justin V.} and Saari, {Rebecca K.} and Jon Sampedro and Pauline Scheelbeek and Joel Schwartz and Drew Shindell and Priya Shyamsundar and Taylor, {Timothy J.} and Cathryn Tonne and {Van Vuuren}, Detlef and Can Wang and Nicholas Watts and West, {J. Jason} and Paul Wilkinson and Wood, {Stephen A.} and James Woodcock and Alistair Woodward and Yang Xie and Ying Zhang and Ebi, {Kristie L.}",

year = "2020",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1289/EHP6745",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "128",

pages = "1--10",

journal = "Environmental Health Perspectives",

issn = "0091-6765",

publisher = "Public Health Services, US Dept of Health and Human Services",

number = "11",

}

Hess, JJ, Ranadive, N, Boyer, C, Aleksandrowicz, L, Anenberg, SC, Aunan, K, Belesova, K, Bell, ML, Bickersteth, S, Bowen, K, Burden, M, Campbell-Lendrum, D, Carlton, E, Cissé, G, Cohen, F, Dai, H, Dangour, AD, Dasgupta, P, Frumkin, H, Gong, P, Gould, RJ, Haines, A, Hales, S, Hamilton, I, Hasegawa, T, Hashizume, M, Honda, Y, Horton, DE, Karambelas, A, Kim, H, Kim, SE, Kinney, PL, Kone, I, Knowlton, K, Lelieveld, J, Limaye, VS, Liu, Q, Madaniyazi, L, Martinez, ME, Mauzerall, DL, Milner, J, Neville, T, Nieuwenhuijsen, M, Pachauri, S, Perera, F, Pineo, H, Remais, JV, Saari, RK, Sampedro, J, Scheelbeek, P, Schwartz, J, Shindell, D, Shyamsundar, P, Taylor, TJ, Tonne, C, Van Vuuren, D, Wang, C, Watts, N, West, JJ, Wilkinson, P, Wood, SA, Woodcock, J, Woodward, A, Xie, Y, Zhang, Y & Ebi, KL 2020, 'Guidelines for modeling and reporting health effects of climate change mitigation actions', Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 128, no. 11, 115001, pp. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745

TY - JOUR

T1 - Guidelines for modeling and reporting health effects of climate change mitigation actions

AU - Hess, Jeremy J.

AU - Ranadive, Nikhil

AU - Boyer, Chris

AU - Aleksandrowicz, Lukasz

AU - Anenberg, Susan C.

AU - Aunan, Kristin

AU - Belesova, Kristine

AU - Bell, Michelle L.

AU - Bickersteth, Sam

AU - Bowen, Kathryn

AU - Burden, Marci

AU - Campbell-Lendrum, Diarmid

AU - Carlton, Elizabeth

AU - Cissé, Guéladio

AU - Cohen, Francois

AU - Dai, Hancheng

AU - Dangour, Alan David

AU - Dasgupta, Purnamita

AU - Frumkin, Howard

AU - Gong, Peng

AU - Gould, Robert J.

AU - Haines, Andy

AU - Hales, Simon

AU - Hamilton, Ian

AU - Hasegawa, Tomoko

AU - Hashizume, Masahiro

AU - Honda, Yasushi

AU - Horton, Daniel E.

AU - Karambelas, Alexandra

AU - Kim, Ho

AU - Kim, Satbyul Estella

AU - Kinney, Patrick L.

AU - Kone, Inza

AU - Knowlton, Kim

AU - Lelieveld, Jos

AU - Limaye, Vijay S.

AU - Liu, Qiyong

AU - Madaniyazi, Lina

AU - Martinez, Micaela Elvira

AU - Mauzerall, Denise L.

AU - Milner, James

AU - Neville, Tara

AU - Nieuwenhuijsen, Mark

AU - Pachauri, Shonali

AU - Perera, Frederica

AU - Pineo, Helen

AU - Remais, Justin V.

AU - Saari, Rebecca K.

AU - Sampedro, Jon

AU - Scheelbeek, Pauline

AU - Schwartz, Joel

AU - Shindell, Drew

AU - Shyamsundar, Priya

AU - Taylor, Timothy J.

AU - Tonne, Cathryn

AU - Van Vuuren, Detlef

AU - Wang, Can

AU - Watts, Nicholas

AU - West, J. Jason

AU - Wilkinson, Paul

AU - Wood, Stephen A.

AU - Woodcock, James

AU - Woodward, Alistair

AU - Xie, Yang

AU - Zhang, Ying

AU - Ebi, Kristie L.

PY - 2020/11

Y1 - 2020/11

N2 - BACKGROUND: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. METHODS: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. RESULTS: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. DISCUSSION: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745.

AB - BACKGROUND: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. METHODS: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. RESULTS: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. DISCUSSION: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85096031108&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85096031108&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1289/EHP6745

DO - 10.1289/EHP6745

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 33170741

AN - SCOPUS:85096031108

SN - 0091-6765

VL - 128

SP - 1

EP - 10

JO - Environmental Health Perspectives

JF - Environmental Health Perspectives

IS - 11

M1 - 115001

ER -

Guidelines for modeling and reporting health effects of climate change mitigation actions

Abstract

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this