A Review of Domestic Research and Response Trends Regarding the Environmental and Health Impacts of Climate Change

Background: Despite the recent emphasis on promoting integrated resilience in South Korea, the existing literature remains skewed toward specific hazards or technical components, providing only limited evidence for integrated comparison across major hazards and response actors.This study consolidates the fragmented evidence to identify operational gaps in and improvement priorities for the current system.Objectives: This study comparatively synthesizes responses by government, academia, and industry to six major environmental health hazards in South Korea (Heat wave, Cold wave, Flood, Air pollution, Water pollution, and Infectious diseases) and derives shared limitations and priority actions.Methods: A qualitative review was performed.Academic literature published between 2021 and 2025 (extended to 2016 where necessary) was searched in major databases (KISS, DBpia, RISS, NTIS, PubMed, and Scopus).After screening and supplementary searches, 18 journal articles directly relevant to climate and health impacts in South Korea were retained.Government documents and industry and technology materials were collected separately from official documents and publicly accessible sources.Non-domestic studies and primarily promotional materials were excluded.Evidence was synthesized using a predefined twodimensional framework classifying measures by hazard type and actor group.Results: Legal and institutional foundations have shown signs of strengthening across the six hazards, yet responses still tend to prioritize post-event damage minimization over proactive prevention.This pattern was most notably evident in flood and infectious disease responses.Mitigation achievements have been reported for air pollution, but systems to evaluate and verify whether these improvements translate into health benefits remain limited.Fragmentation across meteorological, environmental, water, and health data systems also hinders consistent policy implementation and performance feedback, including for the protection of vulnerable groups. Conclusions:To ensure effective adaptation, governance should shift from hazard-specific arrangements toward a prevention-oriented integrated system.Priorities include integrated data governance, institutionalized health-effect evaluation and feedback, community-scale compound hazard scenarios, budgeting/prioritization based on multidimensional vulnerability indices, and cyclical linkages among prediction, implementation, and evaluation.