高所得国における気候緩和・適応介入のメンタルヘルス影響：スコーピングレビュー
Mental health impacts of climate mitigation and adaptation interventions in high income countries: A scoping review✰,✰✰ (原題)
L Anderson, Frank de Vocht, Sarah Whitmee, Patricia Nicole Albers
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
高所得国における気候緩和・適応介入がメンタルヘルスに与える影響を2015〜2025年の一次研究17件で整理したスコーピングレビュー。住宅改修9件を含む82%でメンタルヘルス改善が報告された一方、都市緑化は結果が混在し、風力タービンは負の影響も示された。エビデンスは限定的で質の高い研究は2件のみ。設計・評価にメンタルヘルス指標を組み込むことで公平性と受容性が高まると論じる。
English
Scoping review of 17 primary studies (2015-2025) on mental health impacts of climate mitigation and adaptation interventions in high-income countries. 82% reported at least one mental health or wellbeing improvement, including all home retrofit studies; urban greening was mixed and wind turbines showed some negative effects. Evidence quality is limited (only two high-quality studies), and the authors urge integrating mental health outcomes into intervention design and evaluation.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本では省エネ改修や再エネ立地をめぐる地域合意形成が課題であり、健康コベネフィットを根拠に住民説明や政策評価へ組み込む視点は参考になる。SSBJ・有報の開示論点ではないが、人的資本・健康経営の文脈で企業の気候対策評価に接続しうる。
In the global GX context
Adds a social/health co-benefit dimension to the global climate-intervention evidence base, relevant to just-transition and adaptation finance debates under ISSB/CSRD social disclosures. It highlights that co-benefit claims need rigorous, comparable outcome measures before being used in disclosure or policy justification.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:気候介入の健康コベネフィット研究は質・指標の標準化が未成熟で、評価設計のギャップを示す好例となる。
🏢実務担当者:省エネ改修や再エネ導入の社内評価に、健康・ウェルビーイング指標を加える根拠として参照できる。
🏛政策担当者:気候政策の便益評価にメンタルヘルス指標を組み込む際のエビデンス限界と地域差を認識すべき。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Introduction: Interventions to mitigate and adapt to climate change are increasingly recognised for their potential co-benefits to mental health, although evidence is fragmented. Understanding these co-benefits is important to inform interventions that maximise mental health gains and avoid unintended harms. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed primary studies (2015-2025) to map and characterise evidence on the mental health impacts of climate mitigation and adaptation interventions on adults and children in high-income countries. MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO were searched and study quality was appraised using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Results: Seventeen studies met our inclusion criteria, with most (76%) from the UK or North America. 71% were quantitative quasi-experiments;one was a randomised controlled trial; only two studies were appraised as high quality. Interventions included home retrofits (n = 9), urban greening (n=3), renewable energy (n=2), clean air zones (n=1), diet (n=1), and behaviour change (n=1). Only one study focused on children. Fourteen (82%) reported at least one improvement in mental health or wellbeing, including all home retrofit studies. Urban greening interventions showed mixed findings, while wind turbines were associated with some negative mental health impacts. Conclusion: The review suggests climate interventions can offer mental health co-benefits although existing evidence is limited and effects vary by context. Considering mental health outcomes in the design and evaluation of climate interventions could enhance equity, effectiveness, and public acceptability. Future research should use consistent outcome measures, disaggregate results by population group, and expand to underexplored sectors and regions.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2026.100728first seen 2026-10-28 04:45:01 · last seen 2026-11-06 04:34:26
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。