Do Climate Change Policies Promote or Conflict with Subjective Wellbeing: A Case Study of Suzhou, China

Miaomiao Liu, Yining Huang, Rosemary Hiscock, Qin Li, Jun Bi, Patrick L. Kinney and Clive E. Sabel
Additional contact information
Miaomiao Liu: State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University, 163 Xianlin Avenue, Nanjing 210023, China
Yining Huang: State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University, 163 Xianlin Avenue, Nanjing 210023, China
Rosemary Hiscock: School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1SS, UK
Qin Li: Suzhou Environmental Science Research Institute, Suzhou 215007, China
Jun Bi: State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University, 163 Xianlin Avenue, Nanjing 210023, China
Patrick L. Kinney: Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY 10023, USA
Clive E. Sabel: School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1SS, UK

IJERPH, 2016, vol. 13, issue 3, 1-16

Abstract: As public expectations for health rise, health measurements broaden from a focus on death, disease, and disability to wellbeing. However, wellbeing hasn’t been incorporated into the framework of climate change policy decision-making in Chinese cities. Based on survey data ( n = 763) from Suzhou, this study used Generalized Estimation Equation approach to model external conditions associated with wellbeing. Then, semi-quantitative analyses were conducted to provide a first indication to whether local climate change policies promote or conflict with wellbeing through altering these conditions. Our findings suggested: ( i ) Socio-demographic (age, job satisfaction, health), psychosocial (satisfaction with social life, ontological security/resilience) and environmental conditions (distance to busy road, noise annoyance and range hoods in the kitchen) were significantly associated with wellbeing; ( ii ) None of existing climate change strategies in Suzhou conflict with wellbeing. Three mitigation policies (promotion of tertiary and high–tech industry, increased renewable energy in buildings, and restrictions on car use) and one adaption policy (increasing resilience) brought positive co–benefits for wellbeing, through the availability of high-satisfied jobs, reduced dependence on range hoods, noise reduction, and valuing citizens, respectively. This study also provided implications for other similar Chinese cities that potential consequences of climate change interventions for wellbeing should be considered.

Keywords: wellbeing; climate change; co-benefits; policy implications; Chinese city (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/3/344/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/3/344/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:13:y:2016:i:3:p:344-:d:66185

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().