| 1. |
- Béguin, Andreas, et al.
(författare)
-
The opposing effects of climate change and socio-economic development on the global distribution of malaria
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Global Environmental Change. - : Elsevier. - 0959-3780 .- 1872-9495. ; 21:4, s. 1209-1214
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The current global geographic distribution of malaria results from a complex interaction between climatic and non-climatic factors. Over the past century, socio-economic development and public health measures have contributed to a marked contraction in the distribution of malaria. Previous assessments of the potential impact of global changes on malaria have not quantified the effects of non-climate factors. In this paper, we describe an empirical model of the past, present and future-potential geographic distribution of malaria which incorporates both the effects of climate change and of socio-economic development. A logistic regression model using temperature, precipitation and gross domestic product per capita (GDPpc) identifies the recent global geographic distribution of malaria with high accuracy (sensitivity 85% and specificity 95%). Empirically, climate factors have a substantial effect on malaria transmission in countries where GDPpc is currently less than US$20,000. Using projections of future climate, GDPpc and population consistent with the IPCC A1B scenario, we estimate the potential future population living in areas where malaria can be transmitted in 2030 and 2050. In 2050, the projected population at risk is approximately 5.2 billion when considering climatic effects only, 1.95 billion when considering the combined effects of GDP and climate, and 1.74 billion when considering GDP effects only. Under the A1B scenario, we project that climate change has much weaker effects on malaria than GDPpc increase. This outcome is, however, dependent on optimistic estimates of continued socioeconomic development. Even then, climate change has important effects on the projected distribution of malaria, leading to an increase of over 200 million in the projected population at risk.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Dubouis, Ghislain, et al.
(författare)
-
It starts at home? Climate policies targeting household consumption and behavioral decisions are key to low-carbon futures
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Energy Research & Social Science. - : Elsevier. - 2214-6296 .- 2214-6326. ; 52, s. 144-158
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Herrmann, Alina, et al.
(författare)
-
Household preferences for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in four European high-income countries : Does health information matter? A mixed-methods study protocol
- 2017
-
Ingår i: BMC Public Health. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2458. ; 18
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
