Limits...
Climate Change and Infectious Disease Risk in Western Europe: A Survey of Dutch Expert Opinion on Adaptation Responses and Actors.

Akin SM, Martens P, Huynen MM - Int J Environ Res Public Health (2015)

Bottom Line: The call for effective adaptation to this challenge becomes increasingly stronger.The results show that the experts consider some adaptation responses as relatively more cost-effective, like fostering interagency and community partnerships, or beneficial to health, such as outbreak investigation and response.Further research is necessary to uncover prevailing expert perspectives and their roots, and compare these.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development (ICIS), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. su-mia.akin@maastrichtuniversity.nl.

ABSTRACT
There is growing evidence of climate change affecting infectious disease risk in Western Europe. The call for effective adaptation to this challenge becomes increasingly stronger. This paper presents the results of a survey exploring Dutch expert perspectives on adaptation responses to climate change impacts on infectious disease risk in Western Europe. Additionally, the survey explores the expert sample's prioritization of mitigation and adaptation, and expert views on the willingness and capacity of relevant actors to respond to climate change. An integrated view on the causation of infectious disease risk is employed, including multiple (climatic and non-climatic) factors. The results show that the experts consider some adaptation responses as relatively more cost-effective, like fostering interagency and community partnerships, or beneficial to health, such as outbreak investigation and response. Expert opinions converge and diverge for different adaptation responses. Regarding the prioritization of mitigation and adaptation responses expert perspectives converge towards a 50/50 budgetary allocation. The experts consider the national government/health authority as the most capable actor to respond to climate change-induced infectious disease risk. Divergence and consensus among expert opinions can influence adaptation policy processes. Further research is necessary to uncover prevailing expert perspectives and their roots, and compare these.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Box plots of the aggregate expert sample assessment of the responses to climate change-induced infectious disease risk in Western Europe, using the eight assessment criteria:(a)monitoring; (b) outbreak investigation and response; (c) dissemination of information, and health education; (d) fostering interagency and community partnerships; (e) enforcing laws and regulations; (f) access to health care, and prevention; (g) strengthening the capacity of public health workforce and implement emergency preparedness training; (h) research; (i) environmental management; and (j) direct control methods.Notes: Medians are given as numbers in the box plots; range = maximum value − minimum value; interquartile range (IQR) = 3rd quartile − 1st quartile = length of box. Interpretation of median values for each assessment criterion: Potential health gain: 1 = very high (high, moderate, low); 5 = very low; uncertainty of potential health gain: 1 = very high uncertainty (high, moderate, little); 5 = virtually certain; monetary costs: 1 = high costs (moderate costs, low costs, no or negligible costs);5= net benefits; non-monetary costs: 1= high costs (moderate costs, low costs, no or negligible costs);5 = net benefits; positive spill-over effects: 1 = very high (high, moderate, low); 5 = very low to none; flexibility: 1 = very high flexibility (high, moderate, low); 5 = no flexibility; urgency of implementation: 1= very high urgency (high, moderate, little); 5 = no urgency; regret if climate change does not turn out as expected: 1 = very high potential regret if climate change does not turn out as expected (high, moderate, little); 5 = no regret if climate change does not turn out as expected.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4555309&req=5

ijerph-12-09726-f001: Box plots of the aggregate expert sample assessment of the responses to climate change-induced infectious disease risk in Western Europe, using the eight assessment criteria:(a)monitoring; (b) outbreak investigation and response; (c) dissemination of information, and health education; (d) fostering interagency and community partnerships; (e) enforcing laws and regulations; (f) access to health care, and prevention; (g) strengthening the capacity of public health workforce and implement emergency preparedness training; (h) research; (i) environmental management; and (j) direct control methods.Notes: Medians are given as numbers in the box plots; range = maximum value − minimum value; interquartile range (IQR) = 3rd quartile − 1st quartile = length of box. Interpretation of median values for each assessment criterion: Potential health gain: 1 = very high (high, moderate, low); 5 = very low; uncertainty of potential health gain: 1 = very high uncertainty (high, moderate, little); 5 = virtually certain; monetary costs: 1 = high costs (moderate costs, low costs, no or negligible costs);5= net benefits; non-monetary costs: 1= high costs (moderate costs, low costs, no or negligible costs);5 = net benefits; positive spill-over effects: 1 = very high (high, moderate, low); 5 = very low to none; flexibility: 1 = very high flexibility (high, moderate, low); 5 = no flexibility; urgency of implementation: 1= very high urgency (high, moderate, little); 5 = no urgency; regret if climate change does not turn out as expected: 1 = very high potential regret if climate change does not turn out as expected (high, moderate, little); 5 = no regret if climate change does not turn out as expected.

Mentions: Through analysis of the survey data, the expert sample’s assessment of the adaptation responses to climate change-induced infectious disease risk in Western Europe(defined in Table 1), making use of the predefined eight assessment criteria (defined in Table 2), could be obtained. The results of the aggregate sample analysis are presented first in Figure 1(a)–(j), and thereafter of the two sample groups “Policy” and “Science” in Figure 2(a)–(t).


Climate Change and Infectious Disease Risk in Western Europe: A Survey of Dutch Expert Opinion on Adaptation Responses and Actors.

Akin SM, Martens P, Huynen MM - Int J Environ Res Public Health (2015)

Box plots of the aggregate expert sample assessment of the responses to climate change-induced infectious disease risk in Western Europe, using the eight assessment criteria:(a)monitoring; (b) outbreak investigation and response; (c) dissemination of information, and health education; (d) fostering interagency and community partnerships; (e) enforcing laws and regulations; (f) access to health care, and prevention; (g) strengthening the capacity of public health workforce and implement emergency preparedness training; (h) research; (i) environmental management; and (j) direct control methods.Notes: Medians are given as numbers in the box plots; range = maximum value − minimum value; interquartile range (IQR) = 3rd quartile − 1st quartile = length of box. Interpretation of median values for each assessment criterion: Potential health gain: 1 = very high (high, moderate, low); 5 = very low; uncertainty of potential health gain: 1 = very high uncertainty (high, moderate, little); 5 = virtually certain; monetary costs: 1 = high costs (moderate costs, low costs, no or negligible costs);5= net benefits; non-monetary costs: 1= high costs (moderate costs, low costs, no or negligible costs);5 = net benefits; positive spill-over effects: 1 = very high (high, moderate, low); 5 = very low to none; flexibility: 1 = very high flexibility (high, moderate, low); 5 = no flexibility; urgency of implementation: 1= very high urgency (high, moderate, little); 5 = no urgency; regret if climate change does not turn out as expected: 1 = very high potential regret if climate change does not turn out as expected (high, moderate, little); 5 = no regret if climate change does not turn out as expected.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4555309&req=5

ijerph-12-09726-f001: Box plots of the aggregate expert sample assessment of the responses to climate change-induced infectious disease risk in Western Europe, using the eight assessment criteria:(a)monitoring; (b) outbreak investigation and response; (c) dissemination of information, and health education; (d) fostering interagency and community partnerships; (e) enforcing laws and regulations; (f) access to health care, and prevention; (g) strengthening the capacity of public health workforce and implement emergency preparedness training; (h) research; (i) environmental management; and (j) direct control methods.Notes: Medians are given as numbers in the box plots; range = maximum value − minimum value; interquartile range (IQR) = 3rd quartile − 1st quartile = length of box. Interpretation of median values for each assessment criterion: Potential health gain: 1 = very high (high, moderate, low); 5 = very low; uncertainty of potential health gain: 1 = very high uncertainty (high, moderate, little); 5 = virtually certain; monetary costs: 1 = high costs (moderate costs, low costs, no or negligible costs);5= net benefits; non-monetary costs: 1= high costs (moderate costs, low costs, no or negligible costs);5 = net benefits; positive spill-over effects: 1 = very high (high, moderate, low); 5 = very low to none; flexibility: 1 = very high flexibility (high, moderate, low); 5 = no flexibility; urgency of implementation: 1= very high urgency (high, moderate, little); 5 = no urgency; regret if climate change does not turn out as expected: 1 = very high potential regret if climate change does not turn out as expected (high, moderate, little); 5 = no regret if climate change does not turn out as expected.
Mentions: Through analysis of the survey data, the expert sample’s assessment of the adaptation responses to climate change-induced infectious disease risk in Western Europe(defined in Table 1), making use of the predefined eight assessment criteria (defined in Table 2), could be obtained. The results of the aggregate sample analysis are presented first in Figure 1(a)–(j), and thereafter of the two sample groups “Policy” and “Science” in Figure 2(a)–(t).

Bottom Line: The call for effective adaptation to this challenge becomes increasingly stronger.The results show that the experts consider some adaptation responses as relatively more cost-effective, like fostering interagency and community partnerships, or beneficial to health, such as outbreak investigation and response.Further research is necessary to uncover prevailing expert perspectives and their roots, and compare these.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development (ICIS), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. su-mia.akin@maastrichtuniversity.nl.

ABSTRACT
There is growing evidence of climate change affecting infectious disease risk in Western Europe. The call for effective adaptation to this challenge becomes increasingly stronger. This paper presents the results of a survey exploring Dutch expert perspectives on adaptation responses to climate change impacts on infectious disease risk in Western Europe. Additionally, the survey explores the expert sample's prioritization of mitigation and adaptation, and expert views on the willingness and capacity of relevant actors to respond to climate change. An integrated view on the causation of infectious disease risk is employed, including multiple (climatic and non-climatic) factors. The results show that the experts consider some adaptation responses as relatively more cost-effective, like fostering interagency and community partnerships, or beneficial to health, such as outbreak investigation and response. Expert opinions converge and diverge for different adaptation responses. Regarding the prioritization of mitigation and adaptation responses expert perspectives converge towards a 50/50 budgetary allocation. The experts consider the national government/health authority as the most capable actor to respond to climate change-induced infectious disease risk. Divergence and consensus among expert opinions can influence adaptation policy processes. Further research is necessary to uncover prevailing expert perspectives and their roots, and compare these.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus