Global disparity in the supply of commercial weather and climate information services

Barriers and Enablers for Integrating Public Health Cobenefits in Urban Climate Policy

Urban climate policy offers a significant opportunity to promote improved public health. The evidence around climate and health cobenefits is growing but has yet to translate into widespread integrated policies. This article presents two systematic reviews: first, looking at quantified cobenefits of urban climate policies, where transportation, land use, and buildings emerge as the most studied sectors; and second, looking at review papers exploring the barriers and enablers for integrating these health cobenefits into urban policies. The latter reveals wide agreement concerning the need to improve the evidence base for cobenefits and consensus about the need for greater political will and leadership on this issue. Systems thinking may offer a way forward to help embrace complexity and integrate health cobenefits into decision making. Knowledge coproduction to bring stakeholders together and advance policy-relevant research for urban health will also be required. Action is needed to bring these two important policy agendas together.

Framing Climate Services: Logics, Actors, and Implications for Policies and Projects

This paper explores how climate services are framed in the literature and possible implications for climate services’ policies and projects. By critically exploring the frames around climate services, the wider objective is to encourage more reflexive and responsible research in the field, particularly given the huge challenge that climate change represents. By using a framing analysis based on an extensive literature review, five dominant frames were identified. Climate services are mainly framed (1) as a technological innovation, (2) as a market, (3) as an interface between users and producers, (4) as a risk management tool, and (5) from an ethical angle. The predominant frames influence how we think about climate services, shared assumptions, and the way in which policies and projects are designed. To prevent negative effects of climate services on the ground, such as inequalities, the main recommendations include establishing interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary dialogues between different communities of practice and players, increasing empirical and social science research to improve our understanding of this new field, and finally, re-thinking climate services in terms of adaptation rather than as the mere production of new information products.

Making climate information services accessible to communities: What can we learn from environmental risk communication research?

This paper evaluates the role of socio-cultural issues in developing climate information services that are accessible and engaging to urban communities. Two public-facing city-level climate information provision initiatives in Japan are evaluated in light of theory in environmental risk communication. The first case is Fukuoka City, Kyushu, in particular increased flood and heat risk. The second case is Tomakomai City, Hokkaido, particularly municipal data provision on potential localised climate risks related to marine environmental change. Evaluation is undertaken through in-depth interviews with local-level actors (policymakers, scientists, NGOs, citizens), and field observation in each location. The paper argues that at a stage where principles and best practices on climate information service provision are still emerging, it is crucial to avoid assumptions about what communities will want to know about climate risks. The paper hence proposes principles for more appropriate climate risk communication. These include (a) identifying which institutions citizens look to for information on local weather and climate; (b) acknowledging that publics can, in appropriate contexts, be able and willing to engage with complex information on urban climate risk; and (c) considering how data-driven information services fit with the more informal ways in which people can experience environmental change.

Integrating Public Health into Climate Change Policy and Planning: State of Practice Update

Policy action in the coming decade will be crucial to achieving globally agreed upon goals to decarbonize the economy and build resilience to a warmer, more extreme climate. Public health has an essential role in climate planning and action: “Co-benefits” to health help underpin greenhouse gas reduction strategies, while safeguarding health—particularly of the most vulnerable—is a frontline local adaptation goal. Using the structure of the core functions and essential services (CFES), we reviewed the literature documenting the evolution of public health’s role in climate change action since the 2009 launch of the US CDC Climate and Health Program. We found that the public health response to climate change has been promising in the area of assessment (monitoring climate hazards, diagnosing health status, assessing vulnerability); mixed in the area of policy development (mobilizing partnerships, mitigation and adaptation activities); and relatively weak in assurance (communication, workforce development and evaluation). We suggest that the CFES model remains important, but is not aligned with three concepts—governance, implementation and adjustment—that have taken on increasing importance. Adding these concepts to the model can help ensure that public health fulfills its potential as a proactive partner fully integrated into climate policy planning and action in the coming decade.