• Energy Research

In resource-constrained settings, the recovery of nutrients and the production of energy from liquid and solid waste are important. We determined the range and magnitude of potential community health impacts of six solid and liquid waste recovery and reuse business models in Hanoi, Vietnam.We employed a health impact assessment (HIA) approach using secondary data obtained from various sources supplemented with primary data collection. For determining the direction (positive or negative) and magnitude of potential health impacts in the population, a semiquantitative impact assessment was pursued.From a public health perspective, wastewater reuse for inland fish farming, coupled with on-site water treatment has considerable potential for individual and community-level health benefits. One of the business models investigated (i.e. dry fuel manufacturing with agro-waste) resulted in net negative health impacts.In Hanoi, the reuse of liquid and solid waste-as a mean to recover water and nutrients and to produce energy-has considerable potential for health benefits if appropriately managed and tailored to local contexts. Our HIA methodology provides an evidence-based decision-support tool for identification and promotion of business models for implementation in Hanoi.

In the last decade, sub-Saharan African countries have taken various measures to plan for and adapt to floods in order to reduce exposure and its impacts on human health, livelihoods, and infrastructure. Measuring the effects of such initiatives on social resilience is challenging as it requires to combine multiple variables and indicators that embrace thematic, spatial, and temporal dimensions inherent to the resilience thinking and concept. In this research, we apply a subjective resilience indicator framework and a before-after-control-intervention (BACI) evaluation to empirically measure the impacts of the “Live with Water” (LWW) project on suburban households in Dakar, Senegal. Our framework is based on an empirically measurable resilience index that combines anticipatory, adaptive, and absorptive capacity—considered as structural dimensions—with the concept of transformative capacity—considered as a temporal reconfiguration of the first three dimensions. Our finding let us estimate that the project increased the absorptive and the anticipatory capacities by 10.6% and 4.6%, respectively. However, adaptive capacity remained unchanged. This may be explained by the fact that the project was more successful in building drainage and physical infrastructures, rather than improving multi-level organizations and strategies to cope with existing flood events. Decoupling implementation time between physical infrastructures and longer term institutional and livelihood based support could both improve projects’ results and their evaluations.

Large private sector investments in low- and middle-income countries are often critically evaluated with regards to their environmental, social, human rights, and health impacts. A health impact assessment, including a baseline health survey, was commissioned by the Addax Bioenergy Sierra Leone project in 2010. As part of the monitoring, a follow-up survey was conducted three years later. A set of health indicators was assessed at six impacted and two control sites. Most of these indices improved, particularly at the impacted sites. The prevalences of stunting, wasting, and Plasmodium falciparum in children under five years of age decreased significantly at impacted sites (all p < 0.05) and non-significantly at control sites. Anemia in children and in women of reproductive age (15–49 years) decreased significantly at impacted and control sites (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively). Health facility-based deliveries increased significantly at the impacted sites (p < 0.05). The prevalences of helminth infections in children aged 10–15 years remained approximately at the same levels, although focal increases at the impacted sites were noted. Access to improved sanitation decreased significantly (p < 0.05) at control and non-significantly at impacted sites. Water quality remained poor without significant changes. The epidemiologic monitoring of a bioenergy project provides a useful contribution for evidence-based decision-making.

In December 2015, representatives of 196 countries will meet in Paris for the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Conference (UNFCC) to sign a new climate change treaty that will come into force in 2020. It perhaps represents the last opportunity to shape the zerocarbon society by 2050 that might limit global warming to below 2 C, which is considered the tipping point for irreversible changes (http://earthstatement.org). Experts in the public, international and global health arena have been instrumental in changing the paradigm on the impacts of climate change. From an initial threat that focussed exclusively on the environment, climate change is now understood to also have diverse and interconnected consequences for health (McMichael 2013). As epidemiologists and public health professionals, can we stop here? Can we pass to other pressing issues and let others decide on the course of actions? Public health professionals can and must continue to play a crucial role in the climate change debates. Here is why. Climate change is real (Gleick et al. 2010). Although direct health impacts of climate change are, on average, expected to be only modest in countries of the Northern hemisphere, specific population groups might be affected disproportionally (OcCC/ProClim 2007). We know that people with pre-existing disease and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to extreme heat waves, which will occur more often in the future (Grize et al. 2005; Pascal et al. 2012). People who suffer from allergies are at elevated risks with prolonged pollen seasons. The invasion and reproduction of the Asian tiger mosquitos (Aedes albopictus) across Europe that carry dengue and chikungunya represents a new risk for disease outbreaks, likely to have more serious consequences for those with poorest health and access to care. Hence, mapping and prediction of health vulnerabilities is urgently needed to design adaptation strategies for the foreseeable future. The strategies adopted after the 2003 heat wave that hit parts of Europe have been remarkable in preventing subsequent health impacts, and thus demonstrate the resilience of developed countries on that matter (Fouillet et al. 2008). Nonetheless, new research is needed to ensure that adaptation strategies do not counteract with long-term mitigation actions. For example, reliance in air conditioning—as some governments have proposed—to avoid public health impacts during heat waves could increase energy demand and potential toxic emissions with consequences for health and also for the climate in the long run. Public health considerations should be part of all climate change strategies because there is a large synergy between those and health promotion. In fact, most of the mitigation measures are beneficial for both climate and human health (Cheng and Berry 2013; Yip et al. 2013). For instance, changes in the transport infrastructure aimed at reducing CO2 emissions result in a reduction of short-lived pollutants such as black carbon (soot) or increased physical activity eventually beneficial for health. To date, these synergies are still largely unknown, even among health professionals. We applaud the initiative of the Swiss Public Health Conference for selecting climate change and health the main theme for this year’s annual conference, to take M. S. Winkler M. Roosli M. S. Ragettli G. Cisse P. Muller J. Utzinger L. Perez (&) Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, P.O. Box, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland e-mail: l.perez@unibas.ch URL: http://www.swisstph.ch

AbstractCalls for supporting sustainability through more and better research rest on an incomplete understanding of scientific evidence use. We argue that a variety of barriers to a transformative impact of evidence arises from diverse actor motivations within different stages of evidence use. We abductively specify this variety in policy and practice arenas for three actor motivations (truth-seeking, sense-making, and utility-maximizing) and five stages (evidence production, uptake, influence on decisions, effects on sustainability outcomes, and feedback from outcome evaluations). Our interdisciplinary synthesis focuses on the sustainability challenge of reducing environmental and human health risks of agricultural pesticides. It identifies barriers resulting from (1) truth-seekers’ desire to reduce uncertainty that is complicated by evidence gaps, (2) sense-makers’ evidence needs that differ from the type of evidence available, and (3) utility-maximizers’ interests that guide strategic evidence use. We outline context-specific research–policy–practice measures to increase evidence use for sustainable transformation in pesticides and beyond.

Climate change has various adverse impacts on public health, ranging from heat-related illness to an increased risk of undernutrition in low-income countries. Health impact assessment (HIA) has been advocated as a valuable tool to systematically identify and quantify the effects of climate change on public health and to inform and evaluate the impact of disease-specific adaptation measures as well as health co-benefits of mitigation measures.We conducted a scoping review to map out peer-reviewed literature on HIA in the context of climate change. Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed were searched without language or time restriction. Publications were included in the full text screening that presented or discussed the application of HIA for investigating health impacts of climate change, or associated adaptation and mitigation measures.In total, 76 peer-reviewed publications from 26 countries were included and characterized. There was a paucity of studies on HIA in the context of climate change from low- and middle-income countries. The most investigated climate change effects were related to temperature and air-pollution. Consequently, associated health impacts, such as respiratory or cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, were examined most frequently. Research-driven HIAs with a quantitative methodological approach were the predominant choice to assess health impacts of climate change. Only one in five publications applied a classical step-by-step HIA approach.While quantitative assessment of health impacts associated with climate change seems to be a well established field of research, the few publications applying a step-by-step HIA approach to systematically anticipate potential health impacts of climate change in a given context point at a missed opportunity for strengthening intersectoral collaboration to maximize health (co-) benefits of climate mitigation and adaptation measures. To promote the use of step-by-step HIA in regions that are most affected by climate change, HIA teaching and training efforts are urgently needed.

Climate change affects both mental and physical health. Besides limiting the extent and consequences of climate change, mitigation and adaptation measures can have additional and potentially unintended health impacts. This scoping review outlines how health effects of climate mitigation and adaptation measures have been studied in the scientific literature. We conducted a systematic literature search in the databases PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science without time restriction. All peer-reviewed articles reporting quantified health impacts linked to specific climate change adaptation and mitigation measures were included. Overall, the 89 included articles considered only a narrow range of health determinants and health outcomes. Adaptation- and mitigation-related articles most frequently investigated the environmental health determinants air temperature and air pollution, respectively. Non-communicable diseases were predominantly studied while other relevant health outcome categories, such as mental health, food- and nutrition-related issues, and communicable diseases were rarely reported. The scarcity of studies focusing on the social health determinants and providing stratified health impacts among vulnerable population groups in assessments points to an inadequate consideration of health equity aspects. Increased efforts to quantify health impacts more comprehensively and to identify underlying vulnerability factors among specific population groups seem needed. This information could provide policymakers with more accurate evidence to address health equity aspects, limit adverse health impacts and promote health co-benefits of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures. Journal of Climate Change and Health, 9