Search

Global environmental changes, driven by the consequences of human activities and population growth, are altering our planet in ways that pose current threats to human health, with the magnitude of these threats projected to increase over coming decades if additional, proactive actions are not taken. Global changes, unprecedented in their geospatial and temporal scales, include climate change, marine pollution, ozone layer depletion, soil degradation, and urbanization. Climate change is the best studied. The health risks of a changing climate will become increasingly urgent as climate change affects the quantity and quality of food and water, increases air pollution, alters the distribution of vectors/pathogens and disease transmission dynamics, and reduces eco-physical buffering against extreme weather and climate events. Health systems urgently need to be improved to effectively address these emerging challenges. This paper provides an overview of the health consequences of climate change, and discusses how health risks can be minimized and avoided via mitigation and adaptation pathways. • The global mean surface temperature is now approximately1.0°C above preindustrial levels, with detrimental consequences for human and natural systems. • Each additional unit of warming is projected to increase climate-related health risks. • The increasing risks of a changing climate are regarded as a health emergency. • Emerging health risks can be minimized and avoided via effective mitigation and adaptation pathways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change increases risks to natural and human systems. Green infrastructure (GI) has been increasingly recognized as a promising nature-based solution for climate change adaptation, mitigation, and other societal objectives for sustainable development. Although the climate contribution of GI has been extensively addressed in the literature, the linkages between the climate benefits and associated co-benefits and trade-offs remain unclear. We systematically reviewed the evidence from 141 papers, focusing on their climate benefits, relevant co-benefits and trade-offs, and the GI types that provide such climate (co-)benefits. This study presents a comprehensive overview of the links between climate benefits, co-benefits and types of GI, categorized along a green-grey continuum so that researchers/practitioners can find information according to their topic of interest. We further provide an analysis of trade-offs between various GI benefits. 'Bundles' of major co-benefits and trade-offs for each climate benefit can be identified with recommendations for strategies to maximize benefits and minimize trade-offs. To promote climate-resilient pathways through GI, it is crucial for decision-makers to identify opportunities to deliver multiple ecosystem services and benefits while recognizing disservices and trade-offs that need to be avoided or managed. • Studies are strongly focused on climate adaptation benefits dominated by countries from Europe and North America. • Multiple climate benefits and associated co-benefits or trade-offs are often overlooked or implictly stated in the literature. • Results reveal that a wide range of positive links exists between climate co-benefits. • A comprehensive analysis of disservices and potential trade-offs of GI is highlighted. • The paper suggests recommendations with planning and design implications to maximize multiple benefits and minimize trade-offs in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globally, efforts are underway to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to climate change impacts at the local level. However, there is a poor understanding of the relationship between city strategies on climate change mitigation and adaptation and the relevant policies at national and European level. This paper describes a comparative study and evaluation of cross-national policy. It reports the findings of studying the climate change strategies or plans from 200 European cities from Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. The study highlights the shared responsibility of global, European, national, regional and city policies. An interpretation and illustration of the influences from international and national networks and policy makers in stimulating the development of local strategies and actions is proposed. It was found that there is no archetypical way of planning for climate change, and multiple interests and motivations are inevitable. Our research warrants the need for a multi-scale approach to climate policy in the future, mainly ensuring sufficient capacity and resource to enable local authorities to plan and respond to their specific climate change agenda for maximising the management potentials for translating environmental challenges into opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]