Addressing risks to mental health from climate change: a policy capacity analysis of England

Climate change and mental health are inextricably linked crises that demand urgent responses within the health sector and beyond. Mental health challenges associated with climate change are wide-ranging. They include depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress resulting from increased exposure to extreme weather events, generalized climate anxiety and indirect impacts. However, there is a significant adaptation gap when it comes to addressing the mental health risks posed by climate change. Lack of capacity is frequently cited as a barrier to adaptation, yet ‘capacity’ covers many facets. This article examines the capacities of policy systems to design and implement adaptation initiatives for addressing the increasing risks to mental health posed by climate change. Focusing on England (UK) as an illustrative case study, this article deploys a policy capacity framework and draws on semi-structured interviews and policy document analysis. It identifies the ways that analytical, operational and political policy (in)capacities manifest across relevant policy areas, which include health, flood and coastal erosion risk management, spatial planning, natural environment and emergency management. Our analysis reveals that despite some strengths in analytical and political capacity, strained operational capacity is exacerbating and reinforcing adaptation gaps. We also demonstrate some of the complex interactions between different types of capacities that both enable and hamper adaptation. This article demonstrates the value of analysing policy capacity, and its potential in identifying and designing the necessary interventions to help circumvent a growing mental health crisis under climate change.Key policy insights In England, efforts to adapt to risks to mental health under climate change are supported through strong analytical capacity, involving research and knowledge generation, education and training, particularly in the mental health sector and Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM). There is, however, room for improvement.Relatively strong political capacity, including advocacy and the role of policy champions, have led to increasing legitimation of the issue and fostered a growing policy landscape. However, some discernible gaps remain.There are significant weaknesses in operational capacity, restricting coordinated, preventative adaptation. This is partly due to significant resource constraints, and historic and current fragmentation within and between the health sector and others.