Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2018 | Study protocol | Ausgabe 1/2018 Open Access

BMC Public Health 1/2018

Household preferences for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in four European high-income countries: Does health information matter? A mixed-methods study protocol

Zeitschrift:
BMC Public Health > Ausgabe 1/2018
Autoren:
Alina Herrmann, Helen Fischer, Dorothee Amelung, Dorian Litvine, Carlo Aall, Camilla Andersson, Marta Baltruszewicz, Carine Barbier, Sébastien Bruyère, Françoise Bénévise, Ghislain Dubois, Valérie R. Louis, Maria Nilsson, Karen Richardsen Moberg, Bore Sköld, Rainer Sauerborn
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​s12889-017-4604-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The original version of this article has been revised to correct the figure captions.
A correction to this article is available online at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12889-017-4861-z.
An erratum to this article is available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12889-017-4709-6.
An erratum to this article is available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12889-017-4676-y.

Abstract

Background

It is now universally acknowledged that climate change constitutes a major threat to human health. At the same time, some of the measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so-called climate change mitigation measures, have significant health co-benefits (e.g., walking or cycling more; eating less meat). The goal of limiting global warming to 1,5° Celsius set by the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris in 2015 can only be reached if all stakeholders, including households, take actions to mitigate climate change. Results on whether framing mitigation measures in terms of their health co-benefits increases the likelihood of their implementation are inconsistent. The present study protocol describes the transdisciplinary project HOPE (HOuseholds’ Preferences for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in four European high-income countries) that investigates the role of health co-benefits in households’ decision making on climate change mitigation measures in urban households in France, Germany, Norway and Sweden.

Methods

HOPE employs a mixed-methods approach combining status-quo carbon footprint assessments, simulations of the reduction of households’ carbon footprints, and qualitative in-depth interviews with a subgroup of households. Furthermore, a policy analysis of current household oriented climate policies is conducted. In the simulation of the reduction of households’ carbon footprints, half of the households are provided with information on health co-benefits of climate change mitigation measures, the other half is not. Households’ willingness to implement the measures is assessed and compared in between-group analyses of variance.

Discussion

This is one of the first comprehensive mixed-methods approaches to investigate which mitigation measures households are most willing to implement in order to reach the 1,5° target set by the Paris Agreement, and whether health co-benefits can serve as a motivator for households to implement these measures. The comparison of the empirical data with current climate policies will provide knowledge for tailoring effective climate change mitigation and health policies.
Zusatzmaterial
Additional file 1: List of variables collected in HOPE. (PDF 191 kb)
12889_2017_4604_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

BMC Public Health 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe