Climate change can directly affect human health by varying exposure to non-optimal outdoor temperature. However, evidence on this direct impact at a global scale is limited, mainly due to issues in modelling and projecting complex and highly heterogeneous epidemiological relationships across different populations and climates. We collected observed daily time series of mean temperature and mortality counts for all causes or non-external causes only, in periods ranging from Jan 1, 1984, to Dec 31, 2015, from various locations across the globe through the Multi-Country Multi-City Collaborative Research Network. We estimated temperature–mortality relationships through a two-stage time series design. We generated current and future daily mean temperature series under four scenarios of climate change, determined by varying trajectories of greenhouse gas emissions, using five general circulation models. We projected excess mortality for cold and heat and their net change in 1990–2099 under each scenario of climate change, assuming no adaptation or population changes. Our dataset comprised 451 locations in 23 countries across nine regions of the world, including 85 879 895 deaths. Results indicate, on average, a net increase in temperature-related excess mortality under high-emission scenarios, although with important geographical differences. In temperate areas such as northern Europe, east Asia, and Australia, the less intense warming and large decrease in cold-related excess would induce a null or marginally negative net effect, with the net change in 2090–99 compared with 2010–19 ranging from −1·2% (empirical 95% CI −3·6 to 1·4) in Australia to −0·1% (−2·1 to 1·6) in east Asia under the highest emission scenario, although the decreasing trends would reverse during the course of the century. Conversely, warmer regions, such as the central and southern parts of America or Europe, and especially southeast Asia, would experience a sharp surge in heat-related impacts and extremely large net increases, with the net change at the end of the century ranging from 3·0% (−3·0 to 9·3) in Central America to 12·7% (−4·7 to 28·1) in southeast Asia under the highest emission scenario. Most of the health effects directly due to temperature increase could be avoided under scenarios involving mitigation strategies to limit emissions and further warming of the planet. This study shows the negative health impacts of climate change that, under high-emission scenarios, would disproportionately affect warmer and poorer regions of the world. Comparison with lower emission scenarios emphasises the importance of mitigation policies for limiting global warming and reducing the associated health risks. UK Medical Research Council.

(1) Background: There is increasing awareness that the quality of the indoor environment affects our health and well-being. Indoor air quality (IAQ) in particular has an impact on multiple health outcomes, including respiratory and cardiovascular illness, allergic symptoms, cancers, and premature mortality. (2) Methods: We carried out a global systematic literature review on indoor exposure to selected air pollutants associated with adverse health effects, and related household characteristics, seasonal influences and occupancy patterns. We screened records from six bibliographic databases: ABI/INFORM, Environment Abstracts, Pollution Abstracts, PubMed, ProQuest Biological and Health Professional, and Scopus. (3) Results: Information on indoor exposure levels and determinants, emission sources, and associated health effects was extracted from 141 studies from 29 countries. The most-studied pollutants were particulate matter (PM_2.5 and PM₁₀); nitrogen dioxide (NO₂); volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene, toluene, xylenes and formaldehyde; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) including naphthalene. Identified indoor PM_2.5 sources include smoking, cooking, heating, use of incense, candles, and insecticides, while cleaning, housework, presence of pets and movement of people were the main sources of coarse particles. Outdoor air is a major PM_2.5 source in rooms with natural ventilation in roadside households. Major sources of NO₂ indoors are unvented gas heaters and cookers. Predictors of indoor NO₂ are ventilation, season, and outdoor NO₂ levels. VOCs are emitted from a wide range of indoor and outdoor sources, including smoking, solvent use, renovations, and household products. Formaldehyde levels are higher in newer houses and in the presence of new furniture, while PAH levels are higher in smoking households. High indoor particulate matter, NO₂ and VOC levels were typically associated with respiratory symptoms, particularly asthma symptoms in children. (4) Conclusions: Household characteristics and occupant activities play a large role in indoor exposure, particularly cigarette smoking for PM_2.5, gas appliances for NO₂, and household products for VOCs and PAHs. Home location near high-traffic-density roads, redecoration, and small house size contribute to high indoor air pollution. In most studies, air exchange rates are negatively associated with indoor air pollution. These findings can inform interventions aiming to improve IAQ in residential properties in a variety of settings.

Urban tree planting initiatives are being actively promoted as a planning tool to enable urban areas to adapt to and mitigate against climate change, enhance urban sustainability and improve human health and well-being. However, opportunities for creating new areas of green space within cities are often limited and tree planting initiatives may be constrained to kerbside locations. At this scale, the net impact of trees on human health and the local environment is less clear, and generalised approaches for evaluating their impact are not well developed. In this review, we use an urban ecosystems services framework to evaluate the direct, and locally-generated, ecosystems services and disservices provided by street trees. We focus our review on the services of major importance to human health and well-being which include ‘climate regulation’, ‘air quality regulation’ and ‘aesthetics and cultural services’. These are themes that are commonly used to justify new street tree or street tree retention initiatives. We argue that current scientific understanding of the impact of street trees on human health and the urban environment has been limited by predominantly regional-scale reductionist approaches which consider vegetation generally and/or single out individual services or impacts without considering the wider synergistic impacts of street trees on urban ecosystems. This can lead planners and policymakers towards decision making based on single parameter optimisation strategies which may be problematic when a single intervention offers different outcomes and has multiple effects and potential trade-offs in different places. We suggest that a holistic approach is required to evaluate the services and disservices provided by street trees at different scales. We provide information to guide decision makers and planners in their attempts to evaluate the value of vegetation in their local setting. We show that by ensuring that the specific aim of the intervention, the scale of the desired biophysical effect and an awareness of a range of impacts guide the choice of i) tree species, ii) location and iii) density of tree placement, street trees can be an important tool for urban planners and designers in developing resilient and resourceful cities in an era of climatic change.

Background The most direct way in which climate change is expected to affect public health relates to changes in mortality rates associated with exposure to ambient temperature. Many countries worldwide experience annual heat-related and cold-related deaths associated with current weather patterns. Future changes in climate may alter such risks. Estimates of the likely future health impacts of such changes are needed to inform public health policy on climate change in the UK and elsewhere. Methods Time-series regression analysis was used to characterise current temperature-mortality relationships by region and age group. These were then applied to the local climate and population projections to estimate temperature-related deaths for the UK by the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s. Greater variability in future temperatures as well as changes in mean levels was modelled. Results A significantly raised risk of heat-related and cold-related mortality was observed in all regions. The elderly were most at risk. In the absence of any adaptation of the population, heat-related deaths would be expected to rise by around 257% by the 2050s from a current annual baseline of around 2000 deaths, and cold-related mortality would decline by 2% from a baseline of around 41 000 deaths. The cold burden remained higher than the heat burden in all periods. The increased number of future temperature-related deaths was partly driven by projected population growth and ageing. Conclusions Health protection from hot weather will become increasingly necessary, and measures to reduce cold impacts will also remain important in the UK. The demographic changes expected this century mean that the health protection of the elderly will be vital.