Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34886242›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Urban Climate Policy and Action through a Health Lens-An Untapped Opportunity.

Audrey de Nazelle, Charlotte J Roscoe, Aina Roca-Barcelό, Giselle Sebag, Gudrun Weinmayr, Carlos Dora, Kristie L Ebi, Mark J Nieuwenhuijsen, Maya Negev

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Progress of Local Health Department Planning Actions for Climate Change: Perspectives from California, USA.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Audrey de NazelleCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London SW7 1NE, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1092-3971
Charlotte J RoscoeLandmark Centre, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02215, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9169-6458
Aina Roca-BarcelόMRC Centre for Environment and Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK.
Giselle SebagInternational Society for Urban Health, New York, NY 10003, USA.
Gudrun WeinmayrInstitute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, Ulm University, 89081 Ulm, Germany.
Carlos DoraInternational Society for Urban Health, New York, NY 10003, USA.
Kristie L EbiCenter for Health and the Global Environment (CHanGE), University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4746-8236
Mark J NieuwenhuijsenInstitute for Global Health (ISGlobal), 08003 Barcelona, Spain.
Maya NegevSchool of Public Health, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-5523-3210

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S019669/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motivated by a growing recognition of the climate emergency, reflected in the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26), we outline untapped opportunities to improve health through ambitious climate actions in cities. Health is a primary reason for climate action yet is rarely integrated in urban climate plans as a policy goal. This is a missed opportunity to create sustainable alliances across sectors and groups, to engage a broad set of stakeholders, and to develop structural health promotion. In this statement, we first briefly review the literature on health co-benefits of urban climate change strategies and make the case for health-promoting climate action; we then describe barriers to integrating health in climate action. We found that the evidence-base is often insufficiently policy-relevant to be impactful. Research rarely integrates the complexity of real-world systems, including multiple and dynamic impacts of strategies, and consideration of how decision-making processes contend with competing interests and short-term electoral cycles. Due to siloed-thinking and restrictive funding opportunities, research often falls short of the type of evidence that would be most useful for decision-making, and research outputs can be cryptic to decision makers. As a way forward, we urge researchers and stakeholders to engage in co-production and systems thinking approaches. Partnering across sectors and disciplines is urgently needed so pathways to climate change mitigation and adaptation fully embrace their health-promoting potential and engage society towards the huge transformations needed. This commentary is endorsed by the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology (ISEE) and the International Society for Urban Health (ISUH) and accompanies a sister statement oriented towards stakeholders (published on the societies' websites).

Indexed as

Climate ChangeUrban HealthCitiesEnvironmental HealthHealth PolicyPolicycitiesclimate changeco-benefitsco-productionsystems thinking

Identifiers

PMID34886242
PMCPMC8657069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.