Back

Estimating the health impacts of climate change for policy decision-support: a systematic review of spatial microsimulation methods

Brunn, A. A.; Picetti, R.; Ferguson, L.; Ruiz, F.; Meier, P.; Green, R.; Milner, J.

2025-10-07 public and global health
10.1101/2025.10.03.25337089 medRxiv
Show abstract

Spatial microsimulation models have recently emerged as a new method to quantify health impacts associated with climate change for policy decision-support. These individual-based methods, previously used in tax and health policy planning, have been adapted by combining climate data with exposure-response associations to estimate the distributional health impacts attributable to climate hazards using synthetic populations. To evaluate their methodological characteristics, we conducted a systematic review of the literature. We searched five electronic databases, Google Scholar and the International Journal of Microsimulation, and screened 762 articles to reach a final study set of seven articles. Most models simulated populations based in high income countries (n=5) and applied dynamic methods to forecast future health outcomes (n=5). Multiple diverse climate-health pathways of impact were investigated, ranging from heatwave mortality to air pollution-induced cardiovascular outcomes, to climate-sensitive infectious disease occurrence. Baseline and projected spatial climate data was mapped to individuals in city, state, or regional-level synthetic populations to allocate personal hazard exposure. Most models included socio-economic and demographic attributes (n=6) to integrate vulnerabilities for burden assessments in marginalised groups such as children, women, and the elderly. Climate policies mainly focused on mitigation and simulated future emissions scenarios (n=5), or policy mixes (n=1); one study tested an incremental adaptation intervention. Methods to enhance decision-support among alternative policy options such as economic evaluation (n=2) or stakeholder engagement (n=3) were under-represented. All models acknowledged uncertainty of parameters, and most reported uncertainty analyses (n=5). High data needs may limit accessibility of these methods in some contexts, however options to build on existing models and improve data and computing power access could overcome these challenges. This systematic review documents this evolving, state of the art application of microsimulation and finds a promising and versatile quantitative tool for health impact assessments and climate policy decision-support.

Published in Environmental Research: Climate · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
GeoHealth
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.1%
2
Environmental Research Letters
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.9%
3
Environmental Research
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
4
Science of The Total Environment
186 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
7.3%
5
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 2%
6.7%
6
Environment International
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Environmental Health Perspectives
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.2%
8
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.0%
9
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 37%
2.8%
10
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.7%
12
Environmental Science & Technology
64 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
13
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
14
BMC Medical Research Methodology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
15
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.3%
16
American Journal of Epidemiology
67 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
17
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
18
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
19
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
20
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
21
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 71%
1.0%
22
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
19 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
23
Health & Place
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
24
BMC Infectious Diseases
133 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
25
International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
26
Sustainability
10 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
27
The Innovation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%