Umeå University's logo

Climate change can have detrimental effects on child health and wellbeing. Despite the imperative for a fuller understanding of how climate change affects child health and wellbeing, a systematic approach and focus solely on children (aged <18 years) has been lacking. In this Scoping Review, we did a literature search on the impacts of climate change on child health from January, 2000, to June, 2019. The included studies explicitly linked an alteration of an exposure to a risk factor for child health to climate change or climate variability. In total, 2970 original articles, reviews, and other documents were identified, of which 371 were analysed. Employing an expanded framework, our analysis showed that the effects of climate change on child health act through direct and indirect pathways, with implications for determinants of child health as well as morbidity and mortality from a range of diseases. This understanding can be further enhanced by using a broader range of research methods, studying overlooked populations and geographical regions, investigating the costs and benefits of mitigation and adaptation for child health, and considering the position of climate change and child health within the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Present and future generations of children bear and will continue to bear an unacceptably high disease burden from climate change.

Effort to control dengue transmission requires community participation to ensure its sustainability. We carried out a knowledge attitude and practice (KAP) survey of dengue prevention to inform the design of a vector control intervention. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in June⁻August 2014 among 521 households in two villages of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Demographic characteristics and KAP questions were asked using a self-managed questionnaire. Knowledge, attitudes and practice scores were summarized for the population according to sex, age, occupation and education. The average knowledge score was rather poor-3.7 out of 8-although both attitude and practice scores were good: 25.5 out of 32 and 9.2 out of 11 respectively. The best knowledge within the different groups were found among women, the age group 30⁻44 years, people with a university degree and government employees. Best practice scores were found among retired people and housewives. There were several significant gaps in knowledge with respect to basic dengue symptoms, preventive practices and biting and breeding habits of the Aedes mosquito. In contrast, people's practices were considered good, although many respondents failed to recognize outdoor containers as mosquito breeding sites. Accordingly, we developed a vector control card to support people's container cleaning practices. The card was assessed for eight consecutive weeks in 2015, with pre-post larvae positive houses and containers as primary outcome measures. The use of control cards reached a low engagement of the community. Despite ongoing campaigns aiming to engage the community in dengue prevention, knowledge levels were meagre and adherence to taught routines poor in many societal groups. To increase motivation levels, bottom-up strategies are needed to involve all community members in dengue control, not only those that already comply with best practices.

Through their consumption behavior, households are responsible for 72% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, they are key actors in reaching the 1.5°C goal under the Paris Agreement. However, the possible contribution and position of households in climate policies is neither well understood, nor do households receive sufficiently high priority in current climate policy strategies. This paper investigates how behavioral change can achieve a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in European high-income countries. It uses theoretical thinking and some core results from the HOPE research project, which investigated household preferences for reducing emissions in four European cities in France, Germany, Norway and Sweden. The paper makes five major points: First, car and plane mobility, meat and dairy consumption, as well as heating are the most dominant components of household footprints. Second, household living situations (demographics, size of home) greatly influence the household potential to reduce their footprint, even more than country or city location. Third, household decisions can be sequential and temporally dynamic, shifting through different phases such as childhood, adulthood, and illness. Fourth, short term voluntary efforts will not be sufficient by themselves to achieve the drastic reductions needed to achieve the 1.5°C goal; instead, households need a regulatory framework supporting their behavioral changes. Fifth, there is a mismatch between the roles and responsibilities conveyed by current climate policies and household perceptions of responsibility. We then conclude with further recommendations for research and policy.

This paper investigates households’ preferences to reduce their carbon footprint (CF) measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). It assumes that a substantial CF reduction of households is essential to reach the 1.5 ◦C goal under the Paris Agreement. Data was collected in four mid-size cities in France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. Quantitative data was obtained from 308 households using a CF calculator based on a questionnaire, and a simulation game. The latter investigated households’ preferences when being confronted with the objective to reduce their CF by 50 percent by 2030 in a voluntary and forced scenario. Our results show that the greater the CO2e-reduction potential of a mitigation action, the less willing a household was to implement that action. Households preferred actions with moderate lifestyle changes foremost in the food sector. Voluntarily, households reached a 25% footprint reduction by 2030. To reach a substantial reduction of 50 percent, households needed to choose actions that meant considerable lifestyle changes, mainly related to mobility. Given our results, the 1.5 ◦C goal is unlikely to be realizable currently, unless households receive major policy support. Lastly, the strikingly similar preferences of households in the four European cities investigated seem to justify strong EU and international policies.

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Discussion: 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.