Mental health impacts of climate mitigation and adaptation interventions in high income countries: A scoping review✰,✰✰
- 1Centre for Public Health, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- 2Centre on Climate Change and Planetary Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Abstract
Introduction: Interventions to mitigate and adapt to climate change are increasingly recognized for their potential co-benefits to mental health, although evidence is fragmented. Understanding these co-benefits is important to inform interventions that maximize mental health gains and avoid unintended harms.
Methods: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed primary studies (2015–2025) to map and characterize 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 randomized 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 behavior 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.
Related
- Climate change communication, adaptation, and mitigation through the arts: a rapid scoping review.
- Interventions for falls among older adults in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review
- The GHEMMS checklist: design, conduct, and reporting guidance for studies modelling climate mitigation actions and their health cobenefits
- Health systems and climate change mitigation through an applied health informatics and sustainability perspective.
- Adolescent Voices on Global Racisms: Lived Experiences, Health Impacts and Demands Across Six Countries
BibTeX
@article{anderson2026mental,
title = {{Mental health impacts of climate mitigation and adaptation interventions in high income countries: A scoping review✰,✰✰}},
author = {Lucy G. Anderson and Frank de Vocht and Sarah Whitmee and Patricia N. Albers},
journal = {The Journal of Climate Change and Health},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1016/j.joclim.2026.100728},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2026.100728},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Mental health impacts of climate mitigation and adaptation interventions in high income countries: A scoping review✰,✰✰
AU - Lucy G. Anderson
AU - Frank de Vocht
AU - Sarah Whitmee
AU - Patricia N. Albers
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/26
JO - The Journal of Climate Change and Health
DO - 10.1016/j.joclim.2026.100728
UR - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joclim.2026.100728
AB - Introduction: Interventions to mitigate and adapt to climate change are increasingly recognized for their potential co-benefits to mental health, although evidence is fragmented. Understanding these co-benefits is important to inform interventions that maximize mental health gains and avoid unintended harms. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed primary studies (2015–2025) to map and characterize 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 randomized 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 behavior 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.
SN - 2667-2782
ER -