How are local authorities responding to climate change and health impacts? A policy document analysis
No Thumbnail Available
Authors
Grace Turner
Louisa O'Connor
Emer O'Connell
Michael Davies
Dan Osbourn
Priyanjali Ratwatte
Shakoor Hajat
Sari Kovats
Contact
Check for full-text access
Issue Date
06-May-26
Type
Conference Abstract
Language
Keywords
Climate , Neighbourhood health & place-based working , Housing
Alternative Title
Abstract
Background:
Local authorities in England are central to delivering climate mitigation and adaptation, with significant implications for population health and local wellbeing. However, climate and health responsibilities are often distributed across multiple policy domains, raising questions about the extent of cross-sectoral alignment and the integration of health and equity into local climate action. This study examines how local authorities frame and implement climate and health interventions, and how these actions influence local policy coherence and health outcomes
Methods:
We undertook a qualitative policy document analysis of 129 strategies across 12 local authorities in four English regions (London, South East, North West, North East). Documents included climate action plans, net zero strategies, local plans, housing, transport, flooding, greenspace and health and wellbeing strategies. Using a conceptual framework linking climate hazards, sectoral policy domains, vulnerability and interventions, we assessed how health impacts were articulated, how interventions aligned across sectors, and whether inequalities and implementation mechanisms were addressed.
Results:
Over half (56%) of strategies explicitly linked climate change to population health, though health was rarely framed as a primary driver of climate policy. The strongest cross-sectoral alignment was observed in active travel, housing retrofit, air quality improvement, flooding resilience and urban greening interventions delivering clear mitigation and adaptation co-benefits. Housing strategies consistently integrated fuel poverty, indoor air quality and thermal comfort, while transport and air quality plans most systematically addressed health inequalities. In contrast, dedicated heat action planning was absent, with heat risk addressed indirectly through greening and building standards. Although vulnerable groups (older people, low-income households, children and those with chronic illness) were frequently identified, few strategies translated this into targeted, monitored interventions. Monitoring of health outcomes and distributional impacts was limited.
Discussion:
Local authorities are undertaking substantial climate-related activity with clear potential to improve health and wellbeing. However, health remains inconsistently embedded within climate governance, and cross-sectoral coordination varies. Strengthening public health leadership in climate planning, improving shared intelligence on vulnerability, and embedding equity-focused monitoring could enhance policy coherence and local impact. Aligning mitigation and adaptation objectives around measurable health outcomes offers a practical route to influence local policy, reduce inequalities, and maximise the public health benefits of local climate action.