An umbrella review of health co-benefits from actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

BACKGROUND: There have been many modelled studies of potential health co-benefits from actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but so far there have been no large-scale attempts to compare the magnitude of health and climate effects across sectors, countries, and study designs. METHODS: As part of the Pathfinder Initiative project an umbrella review of studies was done, and 26 previous reviews were identified with 57 primary studies included. Studies included in the review were required to have quantified changes in greenhouse gas emissions and health effects (or risk factors) from defined actions to reduce climate effects. Study data were extracted and harmonised by standardising impact measures per 100 000 of the national population (or urban population for city-level actions), averaging effects over a 1-year period and aggregating actions into their respective sectors by use of a predefined framework. FINDINGS: From 200 mitigation actions, the majority were in the agriculture, forestry, and land use sector (103 actions [52%]), followed by the transport sector (43 actions [22%]). The largest effects on greenhouse gas emissions were seen from actions in the energy sector, and these actions also had substantial health co-benefits in lower middle-income countries, although benefits were smaller in high-income settings. The greatest health benefits were seen from actions to change diets and introduce clean cookstoves. The major pathways to health were through reduced air pollution, healthier diets, and increased physical activity from switching to active travel modes. Effect sizes tended to be larger from national modelling studies and smaller from localised or implemented actions. INTERPRETATION: The potential co-benefits to health from actions to reduce climate change are large, but most evidence still comes from modelling studies and from high-income and middle-income countries. There are also major context-dependent differences in the magnitude of effects found, so actions need to be tailored to the local context and careful attention needs to be paid to potential trade-offs and spillover effects. FUNDING: The Wellcome Trust and the Oak Foundation.

Effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation intervention for health-care systems: a systematic review.

Objective: To identify evidence-based interventions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in health-care systems in low- and middle-income countries and explore potential synergies from these interventions that aid climate change adaptation while mitigating emissions. Methods: We systematically searched 11 electronic databases for articles published between 1990 and March 2023. We assessed risk of bias in each article and graded the quality of evidence across interventions in health-care operations, energy and supply chains. Findings: After screening 25 570 unique records, we included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022 from 11 countries across six World Health Organization regions. Identified articles reported on interventions spanning six different sources of emissions, namely energy, waste, heating and cooling, operations and logistics, building design and anaesthetic gases; all of which demonstrated potential for significant greenhouse gas emission reductions, cost savings and positive health impacts. The overall quality of evidence is low because of wide variation in greenhouse gas emissions measuring and reporting. Conclusion: There are opportunities to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from health-care systems in low- and middle-income countries, but gaps in evidence were identified across sources of emissions, such as the supply chain, as well as a lack of consideration of interactions with adaptation goals. As efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas intensify, rigorous monitoring, evaluation and reporting of these efforts are needed. Such actions will contribute to a strong evidence base that can inform policy-makers across contexts.

Quantifying the effectiveness and health co-benefits of climate change mitigation actions across sectors: a protocol for an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Effective and rapid actions are required to achieve global goals for climate change mitigation, and there is an opportunity to ensure that the actions taken are also positive for human health. However, little is known about the relative magnitude of the health co-benefits that can be achieved from mitigation actions, so robust and comprehensive syntheses of the evidence on the nature and effects of relevant actions are required. This paper presents a protocol for an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral umbrella review of systematic reviews, synthesising modelled and empirical evidence on such actions. METHODS: Nine bibliographic databases will be searched, capturing literature across a wide range of disciplines and sectors. Unique records retrieved by the searches will be screened by two independent reviewers. The quality of all the included systematic reviews will be assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 critical appraisal tool. Data will be extracted on methodological and thematic characteristics of the reviews, nature of the actions, and their effects on greenhouse gas emission reduction, health, and its determinants, as well as any other reported effects and interactions across different actions. RESULTS: Narrative and quantitative synthesis methods will be used to create a typology of relevant actions, map pathways to their impacts on health, compare the magnitude of health and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction impacts by selected characteristics of the actions and the nature of the evidence, as well as to identify gaps in evidence syntheses. CONCLUSION: This review will identify the most effective actions for global climate change mitigation and health based on the best available scientific evidence.   This protocol has been registered in PROSPERO, Reg No.: CRD42021239292.

A systematic review protocol for identifying the effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation interventions for health care systems in low- and middle-income countries.

Background: Climate change is predicted to be our century's most significant health threat. In 2021, 46 countries committed to environmentally sustainable low carbon health care systems. Of those, 34 were from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Currently, health systems are responsible for 4.4% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with health systems in high-income countries (HICs) contributing the largest proportion to the sector's GHG emissions. However, future increases are predicted in LMICs in the absence of robust GHG mitigation. This systematic review aims to identify evidence-based GHG mitigation interventions to guide the transformation of health care systems towards net zero, specifically in LMICs. Additionally, potential synergies between interventions that aid adaption to climate change and mitigate GHG emissions will be investigated. Methods: This protocol will follow the 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist of recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol'. A comprehensive search will be conducted on electronic databases identified as relevant. Search terms were identified to capture all relevant peer-reviewed, primary research published between 1990 and 2022. The risk of bias will be assessed, and the quality of evidence graded. The eventual narrative synthesis will feed into a theory of change framework on GHG mitigation of health care systems in LMICs. Discussion: This systematic review will synthesise the existing evidence around GHG mitigation interventions across all scopes of emissions, including scope 1 (health care operations), scope 2 (energy), and scope 3 (supply chains). It can be used to inform recommendations on how health care systems in LMICs can reduce emissions while prioritising which actions to take to gain the most significant reductions in GHG emissions, considering ease of implementation, scope and cost. Finally, this can catalyse further research in this area which is urgently needed.

A protocol for analysing the effects on health and greenhouse gas emissions of implemented climate change mitigation actions.

Background: It is crucial to understand the benefits to human health from decarbonisation to galvanise action among decision makers. Most of our existing evidence comes from modelling studies and little is known about the extent to which the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation actions are realised upon implementation. We aim to analyse evidence from mitigation actions that have been implemented across a range of sectors and scales, to identify those that can improve and sustain health, while accelerating progress towards a zero-carbon economy. Objectives: To understand the implementation process of actions and the role of key actors; explain the contextual elements influencing these actions; summarise what effects, both positive and negative, planned and unplanned they may have on emissions of greenhouse gases and health; and to summarise environmental, social, or economic co-benefits. Data: We will review evidence collected through partnership with existing data holders and an open call for evidence. We will also conduct a hand search of reference lists from systematic reviews and websites of organisations relevant to climate change mitigation. Screening: Screening will be done by two reviewers according to a pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Analysis: We will identify gaps where implementation or evaluation of implementation of mitigation actions is lacking. We will synthesise the findings to describe how actions were implemented and how they achieved results in different contexts, identifying potential barriers and facilitators to their design, implementation, and uptake. We will also synthesise their effect on health outcomes and other co-benefits. Quantitative synthesis will depend on the heterogeneity of outcomes and metrics. Conclusions: Findings will be used to identify lessons that can be learned from successful and unsuccessful mitigation actions, to make inferences on replicability, scalability, and transferability and will contribute to the development of frameworks that can be used by policy makers.

Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly being used globally to conserve marine resources. However, whether many MPAs are being effectively and equitably managed, and how MPA management influences substantive outcomes remain unknown. We developed a global database of management and fish population data (433 and 218 MPAs, respectively) to assess: MPA management processes; the effects of MPAs on fish populations; and relationships between management processes and ecological effects. Here we report that many MPAs failed to meet thresholds for effective and equitable management processes, with widespread shortfalls in staff and financial resources. Although 71% of MPAs positively influenced fish populations, these conservation impacts were highly variable. Staff and budget capacity were the strongest predictors of conservation impact: MPAs with adequate staff capacity had ecological effects 2.9 times greater than MPAs with inadequate capacity. Thus, continued global expansion of MPAs without adequate investment in human and financial capacity is likely to lead to sub-optimal conservation outcomes.

Wildlife population trends in protected areas predicted by national socio-economic metrics and body size.

Ensuring that protected areas (PAs) maintain the biodiversity within their boundaries is fundamental in achieving global conservation goals. Despite this objective, wildlife abundance changes in PAs are patchily documented and poorly understood. Here, we use linear mixed effect models to explore correlates of population change in 1,902 populations of birds and mammals from 447 PAs globally. On an average, we find PAs are maintaining populations of monitored birds and mammals within their boundaries. Wildlife population trends are more positive in PAs located in countries with higher development scores, and for larger-bodied species. These results suggest that active management can consistently overcome disadvantages of lower reproductive rates and more severe threats experienced by larger species of birds and mammals. The link between wildlife trends and national development shows that the social and economic conditions supporting PAs are critical for the successful maintenance of their wildlife populations.

Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment.

Land use and related pressures have reduced local terrestrial biodiversity, but it is unclear how the magnitude of change relates to the recently proposed planetary boundary ("safe limit"). We estimate that land use and related pressures have already reduced local biodiversity intactness--the average proportion of natural biodiversity remaining in local ecosystems--beyond its recently proposed planetary boundary across 58.1% of the world's land surface, where 71.4% of the human population live. Biodiversity intactness within most biomes (especially grassland biomes), most biodiversity hotspots, and even some wilderness areas is inferred to be beyond the boundary. Such widespread transgression of safe limits suggests that biodiversity loss, if unchecked, will undermine efforts toward long-term sustainable development.