Julia Fine , Joshua Ettinger , John Kotcher , Matto Mildenberger , Anthony Leiserowitz , Edward Maibach
{"title":"推进和整合美国的气候和卫生政策:来自国家政策利益相关者的见解","authors":"Julia Fine , Joshua Ettinger , John Kotcher , Matto Mildenberger , Anthony Leiserowitz , Edward Maibach","doi":"10.1016/j.joclim.2025.100485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Many experts have called for integrating climate policy with health policy. We investigated U.S. federal policy stakeholders’ views on these goals and strategies for achieving them.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>We conducted 65 semi-structured interviews from January 2024 to April 2024 with stakeholders working on climate policy, health policy, the climate-health intersection, and related areas. We performed a qualitative content analysis of these interviews.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Most stakeholders perceived that federal climate policy and health policy were mostly separate, but were becoming more integrated. They believed further integration could increase support for climate policy and maximize its health benefits. Barriers included lack of funding; competing priorities; conservative opposition; low public awareness; lack of data; and silos in federal agencies and professional communities. Opportunities included growing awareness and policy support; new funding sources, data, and technologies; the president’s ability to take executive actions; policy windows in diverse sectors, including agriculture, transportation, and housing; and potential healthcare cost savings. Proposed strategies included enhancing communication, education, and research; strengthening intra- and interagency initiatives; participatory policymaking; mobilizing existing funding; focusing first on politically feasible policies; and persistent advocacy.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>These results extend previous observations of separations between climate policy and health policy and suggest ways to address these separations.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>There is potential to integrate U.S. federal climate policy and health policy, and doing so is perceived as advantageous by most. While there are barriers to climate-health policy integration and advancement, there are also promising opportunities, which may be more relevant under future presidential administrations or at the sub-federal level.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":75054,"journal":{"name":"The journal of climate change and health","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100485"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advancing and integrating climate and health policy in the United States: Insights from national policy stakeholders\",\"authors\":\"Julia Fine , Joshua Ettinger , John Kotcher , Matto Mildenberger , Anthony Leiserowitz , Edward Maibach\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.joclim.2025.100485\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Many experts have called for integrating climate policy with health policy. We investigated U.S. federal policy stakeholders’ views on these goals and strategies for achieving them.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>We conducted 65 semi-structured interviews from January 2024 to April 2024 with stakeholders working on climate policy, health policy, the climate-health intersection, and related areas. We performed a qualitative content analysis of these interviews.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Most stakeholders perceived that federal climate policy and health policy were mostly separate, but were becoming more integrated. They believed further integration could increase support for climate policy and maximize its health benefits. Barriers included lack of funding; competing priorities; conservative opposition; low public awareness; lack of data; and silos in federal agencies and professional communities. Opportunities included growing awareness and policy support; new funding sources, data, and technologies; the president’s ability to take executive actions; policy windows in diverse sectors, including agriculture, transportation, and housing; and potential healthcare cost savings. Proposed strategies included enhancing communication, education, and research; strengthening intra- and interagency initiatives; participatory policymaking; mobilizing existing funding; focusing first on politically feasible policies; and persistent advocacy.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>These results extend previous observations of separations between climate policy and health policy and suggest ways to address these separations.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>There is potential to integrate U.S. federal climate policy and health policy, and doing so is perceived as advantageous by most. While there are barriers to climate-health policy integration and advancement, there are also promising opportunities, which may be more relevant under future presidential administrations or at the sub-federal level.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75054,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The journal of climate change and health\",\"volume\":\"25 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100485\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The journal of climate change and health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667278225000616\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of climate change and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667278225000616","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Advancing and integrating climate and health policy in the United States: Insights from national policy stakeholders
Introduction
Many experts have called for integrating climate policy with health policy. We investigated U.S. federal policy stakeholders’ views on these goals and strategies for achieving them.
Materials and methods
We conducted 65 semi-structured interviews from January 2024 to April 2024 with stakeholders working on climate policy, health policy, the climate-health intersection, and related areas. We performed a qualitative content analysis of these interviews.
Results
Most stakeholders perceived that federal climate policy and health policy were mostly separate, but were becoming more integrated. They believed further integration could increase support for climate policy and maximize its health benefits. Barriers included lack of funding; competing priorities; conservative opposition; low public awareness; lack of data; and silos in federal agencies and professional communities. Opportunities included growing awareness and policy support; new funding sources, data, and technologies; the president’s ability to take executive actions; policy windows in diverse sectors, including agriculture, transportation, and housing; and potential healthcare cost savings. Proposed strategies included enhancing communication, education, and research; strengthening intra- and interagency initiatives; participatory policymaking; mobilizing existing funding; focusing first on politically feasible policies; and persistent advocacy.
Discussion
These results extend previous observations of separations between climate policy and health policy and suggest ways to address these separations.
Conclusion
There is potential to integrate U.S. federal climate policy and health policy, and doing so is perceived as advantageous by most. While there are barriers to climate-health policy integration and advancement, there are also promising opportunities, which may be more relevant under future presidential administrations or at the sub-federal level.