Abstract
Background The World Health Organisation has declared climate change the biggest menace to global health in the 21st century. The health consequences of climate change are well documented. It is also established that vulnerable groups disproportionately bear the effects of climate change. Climate inaction or inequitable climate action can worsen the prevailing health inequalities. Thus, there is an urgent need to implement effective and equitable strategies to minimise the adverse effects and maximise the co-benefits of climate action. The United Kingdom envisions becoming a net-zero carbon country by 2050. The Mayor of London declared a climate emergency in 2018 and aims to make London a carbon-neutral city by 2030. As a result, the London boroughs have published their climate action plans (CAPs) outlining their adaptation and mitigation strategies. But due to a lack of proper guidelines and framework, the plans vary considerably and how health equity is embedded into these documents is currently unknown. This project aims to explore the extent to which health issues are addressed through the CAPs of the London boroughs and if health inequities would be reduced through the greenhouse gas mitigation strategies in the transport sector.
Methods A narrative review of publicly available CAPs of all the London boroughs was conducted to identify if the following 5 health impacts were addressed: food insecurity, vector-borne diseases, respiratory diseases, heat-related, and extreme weather events-related health outcomes. Due to time and resource constraints, health equity implications in vulnerable groups (like the elderly, children, the disabled, and low socioeconomic status) were analysed only in the transport strategies outlined in the CAPs of 10 boroughs. The 3 transport-related strategies – active travel, public transport use, and healthy land use-were selected for major co-benefits. To understand the role of health and equity through climate action, 8 key officials (public health consultants and climate officers) from 7 different local authorities were interviewed. These semi-structured interviews were recorded and thematically analysed using a framework method.
Findings In the 28 CAPs analysed, the health issues were variably addressed. Of the 28 boroughs, 2 mentioned all the health issues listed above, 9 CAPs did not mention any, and the rest noted a few. Most boroughs have focused on equitable transport strategies with maximum health benefits like active travel and other less beneficial options like the electrification of vehicles. But they do not make the best use of communicating the co-benefits. The implications of these transport strategies on vulnerable groups were also variably assessed. The interviews revealed that some councils aimed to improve health and equity through the climate agenda. Still, current practices do not prioritise the role of health in climate action, nor is climate change a public health priority.
Recommendations The recommendations made to the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the local councils are to increase the public health capacity in local climate action, produce climate change related public health evidence, creation of climate change dashboard for public health practitioners, communicate the co-benefits of climate action to the stakeholders, immediate formulation & implementation adaptation strategies, and evaluate the process & impacts of the current CAPs. Further, when developing the CAPs, incorporating ‘Win-Win’ strategies that capitalise on the health and other co-benefits and communicate the economic and wider social gains of the strategies to the public and other stakeholders.
Limitations The main limitation of this report is that only the publicly available CAPs were reviewed; however, there may be the existence of other specific documents (such as air quality or heatwave action plans) which have extensively addressed the health and equity issues. The findings and recommendations are based on the review of the CAPs and interviews conducted. But the evaluation of the implementation of the CAPs was beyond the scope of this report. Further, there is the potential for single researcher bias as the interviews were conducted and analysed by one person.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine MSc Ethics Committee - Approved
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
