Skip to main content
. 2014 Feb 28;122(5):447–455. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1306744

Table 3.

The types of downstream uncertainties in recent health effects of mitigation modeling studies.a

Sector Parametric uncertainties Structural uncertainties
Household energy
Specification of mitigation scenarios Average value of reduction in GHG emissions due to insulation improvements Feasible transitions from household fossil fuel combustion to electricity
Estimating exposures Values of the parameters of building physics model Occupant behavior and increased consumption of resources given higher end-user efficiency
Estimating health impacts Values of the pollutants’ relative risk coefficients Pollutants to consider in the assessment
Urban land transport
Specification of mitigation scenarios Percentage increase in the level of active travel (walking and cycling) Nonlinear “safety in numbers” effect of increase in proportion of cyclists on rates of cyclist injuries; different future “active travel visions”
Estimating exposures The values of the parameters of the emission–dispersion air pollution model Reduction of emissions from transport in London are representative for other European cities; reduction in transport emissions results in proportional reduction in particulate matter
Estimating health impacts The values of the physical activity–disease relative risk coefficients Diseases affected by physical activity; linear versus nonlinear relationships between physical activity and health outcomes
Food and agriculture
Specification of mitigation scenarios Percentage reduction in livestock production by 2030 Contribution of different livestock to greenhouse emissions and different assumptions about feedstocks
Estimating exposures Percentage reduction in intake of saturated fat Full replacement of saturated fats with unsaturated fats
Estimating health impacts Saturated fat-ischemic heart disease mortality relative risk coefficient Exposure–health outcome pathways
aFriel et al. (2009); Maizlish et al. (2013); Wilkinson et al. (2009); Woodcock et al. (2013); these uncertainties are naturally not unique to co-benefits modeling.