Pro-equity Effects of Ancillary Benefits of Climate Change Policies: A Case Study of Human Health Impacts of Outdoor Air Pollution in New Delhi

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 1002-1025 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amit Garg
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Air Pollution ◽  
Health Impacts ◽  
New Delhi ◽  
Outdoor Air ◽  
Ancillary Benefits ◽  
Climate Change Policies ◽  
Human Health Impacts ◽  
Equity Effects

scholarly journals Air pollution, human health and climate change: Newspaper coverage of Australian bushfires

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Linnenluecke ◽  
Mauricio Marrone
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Air Pollution ◽  
Human Health ◽  
Newspaper Coverage ◽  
Smoke Inhalation ◽  
Health Impacts ◽  
Respiratory Problems ◽  
Human Health Impacts ◽  
Smoke Pollution ◽  
Publishing Groups

Abstract We examine 512 Australian newspaper articles published over a 5-year period (2016 to 2021) that report on air pollution due to bushfire smoke and resulting human health impacts. We analyze to what extent these articles provide information on the possible range of negative health impacts due to bushfire smoke pollution, and to what extent they report on climate change as a driver behind increased bushfire risk. A temporary surge in articles in our sample occurs during the unusually severe 2019/2020 Black Summer bushfires. However, most articles are limited to general statements about the health impacts of bushfire smoke, with only 50 articles in the sample (9%) mentioning an explicit link between bushfire smoke inhalation and cardiovascular and respiratory problems or increases in mortality risk. 148 of the 512 articles in the sample (29%) established a connection between bushfire risk and climate change. We carry out a further keyword analysis to identify differences in reporting by Australia’s two main publishing groups (News Corp Australia and Nine Entertainment), which shows that articles in News Corp Australia outlets offered the lowest climate change coverage. We suggest that more detailed communication strategies are needed to strengthen public preparedness for future impacts.

Comparing respondents who passed versus failed an Instructional Manipulation Check: A case study about support for climate change policies

2021 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 408-415
Author(s):  
Maria Rubio Juan ◽  
Melanie Revilla
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
External Validity ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Equation Modeling ◽  
Manipulation Check ◽  
Climate Change Policies ◽  
Instructional Manipulation ◽  
Using Data

The presence of satisficers among survey respondents threatens survey data quality. To identify such respondents, Oppenheimer et al. developed the Instructional Manipulation Check (IMC), which has been used as a tool to exclude observations from the analyses. However, this practice has raised concerns regarding its effects on the external validity and the substantive conclusions of studies excluding respondents who fail an IMC. Thus, more research on the differences between respondents who pass versus fail an IMC regarding sociodemographic and attitudinal variables is needed. This study compares respondents who passed versus failed an IMC both for descriptive and causal analyses based on structural equation modeling (SEM) using data from an online survey implemented in Spain in 2019. These data were analyzed by Rubio Juan and Revilla without taking into account the results of the IMC. We find that those who passed the IMC do differ significantly from those who failed for two sociodemographic and five attitudinal variables, out of 18 variables compared. Moreover, in terms of substantive conclusions, differences between those who passed and failed the IMC vary depending on the specific variables under study.

scholarly journals Catastrophic Health Impacts of Spiraling Climate Change: How Certain Can We Be About Their Magnitudes?

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zaid Chalabi ◽  
Anna M. Foss
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Health ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Environmental Exposures ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Health Impacts ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Total Uncertainty ◽  
Human Health Impacts

Recently, there has been a strong interest in the climate emergency and the human health impacts of climate change. Although estimates have been quoted, the modeling methods used have either been simplistic or opaque, making it difficult for policy makers to have confidence in these estimates. Providing central estimates of health impacts, without any quantification of their uncertainty, is deficient because such an approach does not acknowledge the inherent uncertainty in extreme environmental exposures associated with spiraling climate change and related health impacts. Furthermore, presenting only the uncertainty bounds around central estimates, without information on how the uncertainty in each of the model parameters and assumptions contribute to the total uncertainty, is insufficient because this approach hides those parameters and assumptions which contribute most to the total uncertainty. We propose a framework for calculating the catastrophic human health impacts of spiraling climate change and the associated uncertainties. Our framework comprises three building blocks: (A) a climate model to simulate the environmental exposure extremes of spiraling climate change; (B) a health impact model which estimates the health burdens of the extremes of environmental exposures; and (C) an analytical mathematical method which characterizes the uncertainty in (A) and (B), propagates the uncertainty in-between and through these models, and attributes the proportion of uncertainty in the health outcomes to model assumptions and parameter values. Once applied, our framework can be of significant value to policy makers because it handles uncertainty transparently while taking into account the complex interactions between climate and human health.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document