Does climate adaptation policy deliver a health dividend? Exposure, modeled health burden, and defensive capacity in China's climate-adaptive city pilots.

IF 4.1 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Frontiers in Public Health Pub Date : 2026-10-14 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1987084
Cun Wang, Hantao Gong
{"title":"Does climate adaptation policy deliver a health dividend? Exposure, modeled health burden, and defensive capacity in China's climate-adaptive city pilots.","authors":"Cun Wang, Hantao Gong","doi":"10.3389/fpubh.2026.1987084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Climate policy is widely expected to yield a health dividend: cleaner air can improve health without a simultaneous expansion of defensive capacity. We distinguish exposure reduction from defensive adaptation in China's 2017 climate-adaptive city pilot, using a 2011-2022 panel of 264 cities, including 21 treated units. A difference-in-differences design examines fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure, while the Global Exposure Mortality Model translates exposure into modeled pollution-related health burden. Physicians, hospital beds, and employee-insurance enrolment measure selected defensive inputs. The pilot is associated with a 3.87 μg/m<sup>3</sup> lower PM2.5 (95% confidence interval -6.49 to -1.25; wild-bootstrap <i>P</i> = 0.0067). The estimate remains negative after pollution-convergence adjustments but is smaller and imprecise in the matched sample. The central accounting model implies an approximately 8.10% lower burden (conditional 95% confidence interval -11.32 to -4.76%), not an observed mortality reduction. Average capacity estimates are imprecise and cannot establish the absence of defensive adaptation. A physician-based coupling calibration admits positive and negative contributions and cannot bound the total defensive response. Among nine pre-policy capacity interactions, telecommunications intensity is positively associated with bed expansion (+4.40 per 10,000 residents; pointwise 95% confidence interval 2.47-6.32; adjusted <i>P</i> = 0.021), although pre-trend concerns limit causal interpretation. Other interactions remain uncertain. The main estimate is close to an illustrative detection threshold, warranting caution with non-significant findings. The results support an exposure-related health co-benefit under explicit accounting assumptions. Assessment incentives, coordination, and financing are possible explanations for uneven responses, but their roles are not identified by these estimates.</p>","PeriodicalId":12548,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Public Health","volume":"14 ","pages":"1987084"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13717398/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1987084","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Climate policy is widely expected to yield a health dividend: cleaner air can improve health without a simultaneous expansion of defensive capacity. We distinguish exposure reduction from defensive adaptation in China's 2017 climate-adaptive city pilot, using a 2011-2022 panel of 264 cities, including 21 treated units. A difference-in-differences design examines fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure, while the Global Exposure Mortality Model translates exposure into modeled pollution-related health burden. Physicians, hospital beds, and employee-insurance enrolment measure selected defensive inputs. The pilot is associated with a 3.87 μg/m3 lower PM2.5 (95% confidence interval -6.49 to -1.25; wild-bootstrap P = 0.0067). The estimate remains negative after pollution-convergence adjustments but is smaller and imprecise in the matched sample. The central accounting model implies an approximately 8.10% lower burden (conditional 95% confidence interval -11.32 to -4.76%), not an observed mortality reduction. Average capacity estimates are imprecise and cannot establish the absence of defensive adaptation. A physician-based coupling calibration admits positive and negative contributions and cannot bound the total defensive response. Among nine pre-policy capacity interactions, telecommunications intensity is positively associated with bed expansion (+4.40 per 10,000 residents; pointwise 95% confidence interval 2.47-6.32; adjusted P = 0.021), although pre-trend concerns limit causal interpretation. Other interactions remain uncertain. The main estimate is close to an illustrative detection threshold, warranting caution with non-significant findings. The results support an exposure-related health co-benefit under explicit accounting assumptions. Assessment incentives, coordination, and financing are possible explanations for uneven responses, but their roles are not identified by these estimates.

气候适应政策能带来健康红利吗?中国气候适应城市试点的暴露、模拟健康负担和防御能力。
人们普遍预计气候政策将带来健康红利:更清洁的空气可以在不同时扩大防御能力的情况下改善健康。我们在中国2017年气候适应性城市试点中区分了暴露减少和防御性适应,使用2011-2022年264个城市的面板,包括21个处理单位。差异中的差异设计检查细颗粒物(PM2.5)暴露,而全球暴露死亡率模型将暴露转化为模拟的污染相关健康负担。医生、医院床位和雇员保险登记措施选择了防御性投入。飞行员与PM2.5降低3.87 μg/m3相关(95%置信区间为-6.49至-1.25;野生引导P = 0.0067)。在污染收敛调整后,估计值仍然为负,但在匹配样本中较小且不精确。中心核算模型表明负担降低了大约8.10%(有条件的95%置信区间为-11.32至-4.76%),而不是观察到的死亡率降低。平均能力估计是不精确的,不能确定缺乏防御性适应。基于医师的耦合校准承认正、负贡献,不能约束总防御反应。在9个政策前的容量相互作用中,电信强度与床位扩张呈正相关(每10,000居民+4.40;点95%置信区间2.47-6.32;调整后的P = 0.021),尽管趋势前的担忧限制了因果解释。其他相互作用仍不确定。主要估计值接近说明性检测阈值,因此对非显著性发现持谨慎态度。在明确的会计假设下,结果支持暴露相关的健康共同效益。评估、激励、协调和融资是造成反应不均衡的可能原因,但这些估计没有确定它们的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Public Health
Frontiers in Public Health Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
4469
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Public Health is a multidisciplinary open-access journal which publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research and is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians, policy makers and the public worldwide. The journal aims at overcoming current fragmentation in research and publication, promoting consistency in pursuing relevant scientific themes, and supporting finding dissemination and translation into practice. Frontiers in Public Health is organized into Specialty Sections that cover different areas of research in the field. Please refer to the author guidelines for details on article types and the submission process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书