Emission reduction strategies and health: a systematic review on the tools and methods to assess co-benefits

• Published in: BMJ open 2024-12, Vol.14 (12), p.e083214
• Main Authors: Abdala, Sammila Andrade, Khomsi, Kenza, Houdou, Anass, El Marouani, Ihssane, El Badisy, Imad, Najmi, Houda, Obtel, Majdouline, Belyamani, Lahcen, Ibrahimi, Azeddine, Khalis, Mohamed
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Air Pollutants - adverse effects; Air Pollutants - analysis; Air pollution; Air Pollution - prevention & control; Climate Change; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Emissions; Greenhouse Gases; Health Impact Assessment - methods; Humans; Mortality; Original Research; Outdoor air quality; Public Health; Risk Assessment - methods; Risk Factors; Systematic Review
• ISSN: 2044-6055; 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083214

ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to review the current literature on the health co-benefits of emission reduction strategies and the methods and tools available to assess them.DesignSystematic review conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and GreenFILE were searched from January of 2017 to March of 2023.Eligibility criteriaWe included original, peer-reviewed journal articles that described emission (ambient air pollutant and greenhouse gases) reduction strategies and assessed their health co-benefits.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers employed standardised methods to search, screen and code the included studies, documenting their findings in an Excel spreadsheet.ResultsFrom 6687 articles, 82 were included. Most studies show that emissions reduction strategies improve air quality, reducing mortality and morbidity. Health risk assessment and health impact assessment are common, though procedures may cause confusion. About 33% used established models like the integrated exposure-response and global exposure mortality model. Out of all studies, 16% of them used Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program—Community Edition. Only 17.8% carried out cost–benefit analyses, but these show economic worth in investing in emission reduction strategies.ConclusionsEmission reduction strategies significantly enhance human health, with potential co-benefits offsetting intervention costs, which can be an incentive for action in low and middle-income countries. This review emphasises investing in cost–benefit analyses and research, particularly in regions with limited studies on emission reduction and health co-benefits. It provides decision-makers insights into selecting assessment methods and underscores the ongoing need for model and tool evaluation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022332480.