4.7 Review

A systematic review of the health co-benefits of urban climate change adaptation

期刊

SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY
卷 74, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103190

关键词

Climate change adaptation; Health; Urban design; Urban planning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reviews the health co-benefits of urban climate change adaptation measures and finds that existing evidence is mainly related to some categories while other categories are relatively underexplored. It also recognizes the potential health trade-offs of some adaptation measures which need further study.
The recent and projected upward trends in the frequency and intensity of climate-induced events in cities have enhanced the focus on adaptation. In addition to enhancing the capacity of cities to prepare for and absorb risks, adaptation measures provide multiple co-benefits. However, health co-benefits are among the least explored. These are now seen as increasingly important with the renewed focus on public health since the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reviews literature focused on the health co-benefits of urban climate change adaptation measures. Health co-benefits of seven different categories of adaptation measures are discussed. Results showed that existing evidence is mainly related to some categories such as critical infrastructure, nature-based solutions, and urban planning and design measures. Other adaptation categories like early warning systems; policy, management & governance, including local adaptation policies; and measures and strategies related to 'knowledge, perceptions & behavior' that mainly involve people's understanding and individual responses to climate change, are relatively underexplored. Moreover, it was discussed that some adaptation measures may result in health trade-offs and these needs to be further studied. Overall, through identifying health co-benefits, results of this review can make a strong case for further promotion of climate change adaptation in cities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据