introduction of research paper about climate change

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
• v.375(1794); 2020 Mar 16

Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions

Yadvinder malhi.

1 Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK

Janet Franklin

2 Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA

Nathalie Seddon

3 Nature-based Solutions Initiative, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, 11a Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3SZ, UK

Martin Solan

4 School of Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre Southampton, University of Southampton, Waterfront Campus, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK

Monica G. Turner

5 Department of Integrative Biology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA

Christopher B. Field

6 Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

Nancy Knowlton

7 National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian, MRC 163, PO Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA

Associated Data

This article has no additional data.

The rapid anthropogenic climate change that is being experienced in the early twenty-first century is intimately entwined with the health and functioning of the biosphere. Climate change is impacting ecosystems through changes in mean conditions and in climate variability, coupled with other associated changes such as increased ocean acidification and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. It also interacts with other pressures on ecosystems, including degradation, defaunation and fragmentation. There is a need to understand the ecological dynamics of these climate impacts, to identify hotspots of vulnerability and resilience and to identify management interventions that may assist biosphere resilience to climate change. At the same time, ecosystems can also assist in the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. The mechanisms, potential and limits of such nature-based solutions to climate change need to be explored and quantified. This paper introduces a thematic issue dedicated to the interaction between climate change and the biosphere. It explores novel perspectives on how ecosystems respond to climate change, how ecosystem resilience can be enhanced and how ecosystems can assist in addressing the challenge of a changing climate. It draws on a Royal Society-National Academy of Sciences Forum held in Washington DC in November 2018, where these themes and issues were discussed. We conclude by identifying some priorities for academic research and practical implementation, in order to maximize the potential for maintaining a diverse, resilient and well-functioning biosphere under the challenging conditions of the twenty-first century.

This article is part of the theme issue ‘Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions’.

1. Introduction

Changes in the atmosphere and oceans can profoundly change the biosphere, the thin living film of life on Earth that is intrinsically coupled to the atmosphere and hydrosphere and provides the nourishing fabric within which human societies exist. Hence, degradation or restoration of parts of the biosphere are likely to have regional or planetary consequences. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, which drive both climate change and ocean acidification, increasingly threaten the viability and resilience of natural ecosystems, and the human societies that depend upon them. The effects of these threats can be profound and, in recent years, have become increasingly observable. Already, Earth is committed to a substantially warmed climate, with expectations of further warming into the future, unless carbon emissions trajectories change dramatically ( https:// www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/ ) [ 1 ].

Scientific research continues to refine the understanding of Earth's climate system and its interdependence on the biosphere. For the most part, projections indicate an increased likelihood of negative consequences of climate change for ecosystems and people. Indeed, climate-related impacts are already being witnessed and seem to be increasing in severity and frequency. A number of potential climate tipping points in the Earth system are already showing early signs of activation [ 2 ]. Consequently, the 2018 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on 1.5°C ( https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ ) warns that allowing the planet to warm beyond 1.5°C will result in climate change impacts, including drought, floods, heat waves and sea-level rise, that are deleterious for humanity and for biodiversity. While the previous internationally agreed target was 2°C, this half-degree difference could reduce the risk of extensive degradation of Arctic and coral reef ecosystems. A 1.5°C maximum warming ambition implies that the world has about 12 years to reduce global net carbon emissions by half to avoid the most significant impacts, but even if this target is achieved, potential impacts of warming are likely to continue for decades or even centuries [ 3 ].

In this thematic issue, we present contributions that culminate from discussions held at the 2018 Royal Society-National Academy of Sciences Forum on Climate Change and Ecosystems. The aims of the Forum, jointly organized by the two societies, were to build new opportunities for international collaboration, highlight the latest research findings on the focal topic, identify research gaps and future research priorities and discuss how research in this field may inform international policy [ 4 ]. The Forum examined the latest science on how climate change can affect terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems, often in interaction with other factors. In particular, it addressed research frontiers such as the effects of changes in climate variability and extremes; interactions among multiple stressors; thresholds and the potential for abrupt change; and multi-trophic interactions, across a range of terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems. The Forum also considered opportunities to assist and manage ecosystems to enhance both their resilience and societal resilience to climate change by exploring a range of science and policy dimensions. This included how ecosystems can best be managed to enhance their resilience to climate change, their ability to transform under climate change and how ecosystem management can be a strategy for more general adaptation to change. Hence, a central focus was to consider how ecosystem management and restoration have the potential to contribute ‘nature-based solutions’ (NbS) to tackle both the causes and consequences of climate change. However, the effectiveness, scalability and magnitude of different nature-based strategies need to be explored, better understood and evaluated [ 5 ].

The resulting thematic issue, and our introduction to it, are organized around (i) the threats that climate change poses to ecosystems, (ii) the opportunities to enhance ecosystem resilience to climate change, and (iii) the consideration of how ecosystems and ecosystem restoration can assist climate change mitigation and adaptation. In our introduction we outline the themes, introduce the papers in the thematic issue, and conclude with a synthesis of the main findings of the Forum. In doing so, we emphasize the research needed to better understand threats, opportunities and solutions regarding climate change and ecosystems.

2. Theme 1: climate change threats and challenges to ecosystems

The Forum examined several aspects of the latest science on how climate change affects terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems, often in interaction with other factors. In particular, it explored current research frontiers including the effects of change in climate variability and extremes; interactions of climate change with other human-induced stressors; thresholds and the potential for abrupt and irreversible change; and multi-trophic interactions. Ecosystems are rapidly changing in response to climate change and other global change drivers, not only in response to temperature changes but also associated changes in precipitation, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, water balance, ocean chemistry, and the frequency and magnitude of extreme events. Ecosystems vary in their sensitivity and response to climate change because of complex interactions among organisms, disturbance and other stressors.

Changes in natural ecosystems threaten biodiversity worldwide, and have implications for global food production. The papers in this section advance our thinking about the effects of climate change on ecosystem properties (biological diversity, trophic webs or energy flux, nutrient cycling or material flux) in different ecological communities (terrestrial plants, invertebrates in marine sediments, terrestrial soil microbes).

In the opening paper of this section, Turner et al . [ 6 ] link climate variability and extremes to the potential for sudden and irreversible changes in ecosystems. Abrupt changes in ecological systems (ACES) are difficult to observe empirically because extreme events are, by their nature, stochastic and seldom predictable. Nonetheless, the authors urge scientists to make detecting, explaining and anticipating ACES in response to climate change a high priority. There is no ‘new normal’ (equilibrium), rather we are beginning to witness accelerating rates of change in the intensity and frequency of specific drivers. The study identifies important generalities that lead to questions and hypotheses for future research. These are: some dimensions of ecological systems are more prone to abrupt change than others; climate extremes may be more likely than mean trends to trigger abrupt change (e.g. coral bleaching is driven by extreme heatwaves rather than gradual ocean warming); multiple drivers often interact to produce ACES (e.g. climate change-driven drought and extreme fire can lead to abrupt changes of terrestrial ecosystems from forest to non-forest, introduced pathogens in combination with climate can cause populations of sensitive species to crash); historical contingencies (ecological legacies, frequency and order of disturbance, spatial context) are important drivers of ACES owing to ecosystem memory; and strong positive feedbacks in an ecosystem can sometimes lead to persistent state changes at critical transitions (tipping points).

Climate extremes and historical contingencies are also considered by Bardgett and Caruso [ 7 ], who synthesize current understanding of the attributes of belowground ecological communities that make them resistant, resilient or vulnerable to climate extremes. Soil microbial communities play a critical role in mediating biogeochemical cycling. Key intrinsic attributes of these communities that confer resilience include life-history strategy (growth rate, resource use efficiency) and microbial food web diversity (fast and slow energy channels found in bacterial versus fungal food webs). Fast energy channels (e.g. bacteria in a soil context) rapidly recycle nutrients and recover quickly from disturbances, hence providing resilience to change, whereas slow energy channels (e.g. fungi) cycle nutrients slowly, dampen responses to perturbations and hence confer resistance to change. The complementary functions of these two energy channels can facilitate rapid yet stable recovery from perturbations, and, conversely, alteration of the relative influence of these channels can destabilize an ecosystem. Extrinsic attributes include environmental variability, and the contributions that the plant community make to soil carbon, moisture and nutrients. While the response of belowground communities under chronic stress is fairly well understood, the authors identify response to climate extremes, and potential for abrupt ecological change, as critical knowledge gaps that should be addressed experimentally.

Resilience in ecological communities requires longer-term perspectives to improve our understanding of community responses to change. Iglesias and Whitlock [ 8 ] use palaeoenvironmental records of pollen and charcoal from temperate forests in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres to consider the role of fire in changing forest tree species composition. They find that the resilience or vulnerability of forest species composition to changing fire regimes depends on a variety of local factors, including climate, soil conditions and historical legacies; in some cases, extreme events, combined with biophysical feedbacks, can cause ecosystems made up of long-lived species to completely shift in ecosystem composition in response to a single fire event. Temperate forests have undergone both long periods of stability and abrupt change in response to climate change and human activities (burning for land clearing) during the Late Quaternary, and a site-specific understanding of stability versus disequilibrium is needed to anticipate future ecological scenarios under rates of warming that are unprecedented in the Holocene and beyond.

Climate change ultimately drives terrestrial biodiversity loss and affects ecosystem carbon storage both directly and indirectly via land use change, i.e. climate change-driven cropland expansion. Molotoks et al . [ 9 ] use a modelling approach to explore uncertainties in projections of biodiversity and carbon loss and find that, in spite of large uncertainties associated with land use projections, future cropland expansion is likely to have negative impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage in many biodiversity hotspots, including Mexico, Amazonia and the Congo Basin. This work highlights the importance of including indirect effects via changes in land use when assessing the total biodiversity and carbon impacts of climate change.

We close this section of the thematic issue with a thought-provoking essay by Harrison [ 10 ], which predicts that terrestrial plant community diversity will be eroded more than it is enhanced by climate warming, and calls for experimental work to test this prediction. She warns that current evidence suggesting climate warming might generally enhance diversity in temperate latitudes may not be generalizable because a preponderance of studies has occurred in the particular and unusual context of north-temperate alpine ecosystems. She predicts that net loss of diversity will predominate in water-limited ecosystems; losses will also occur in temperature-limited systems without steep topographical gradients where pools of potential replacement species are not found nearby.

3. Theme 2: opportunities to improve resilience to climate change

The scientific understanding of the opportunities to assist and manage ecosystems in order to enhance ecological and/or societal resilience to climate change and ocean acidification, including novel conservation and restoration approaches, was a key consideration of the forum.

First, Thomas [ 11 ] provides a novel view of biodiversity conservation in a world where the biosphere is profoundly transformed by human action. Fundamental biological processes, unchanged by human action, form a framework for understanding the ecosystem response to global change where human actions rapidly remove, add and move around species, populations and genes. These evolutionary and ecological processes continue to operate in a human-altered world where novel ecological communities consist of species, populations and genes that are well matched to the human-altered environment. He argues, provocatively, that facilitating, rather than repelling the arrival of new species and genes that provide benefits is a legitimate conservation strategy in the Anthropocene. He advocates greater emphasis on connectivity or ‘ trans situ ’ conservation, enabling species and genes to reach locations where they might thrive despite the challenges of a rapidly changing world.

The effects of climate change are often most damaging through changes in the intensity and frequency of extreme events rather than through changes in mean conditions (as argued by Turner et al . [ 6 ]). Franca et al . [ 12 ] review the effects of climate extreme events (storms, floods, heatwaves, droughts) on post-disturbance ecosystem recovery in high-biodiversity tropical ecosystems, providing a novel synthesis across coral reef and tropical forest ecosystems. They demonstrate that climate extremes interact synergistically with local anthropogenic disturbances and mean climate trends, and conclude that all three of these drivers of biodiversity loss must be addressed for effective conservation management. Local actions to protect or restore ecosystem complexity and structure can increase resilience to extreme events: they highlight examples of key multi-trophic animal-mediated processes (seed dispersal by dung beetles, grazing by parrotfish) that assist ecosystem recovery in tropical forests and coral reefs.

Most of the literature on nature-based approaches to climate mitigation and adaptation has tended to focus on purely terrestrial ecosystems (e.g. forests and peatlands) or terrestrial-coastal systems (e.g. mangroves and salt marshes). By contrast, Solan et al . [ 13 ] examine the climate mitigation and adaptation potential of marine benthic soft-sediment ecosystems. These are the most extensive habitat on Earth, can host high levels of biodiversity, and benthic fauna and flora can play key roles in regulating biogeochemical cycling, climate-active gases, ocean chemistry and the long-term removal of carbon from the ocean-atmosphere system. The particle reworking and ventilatory behaviour of sediment-dwelling invertebrates can significantly exacerbate, buffer or alleviate the effects of warming, acidification, deoxygenation and sea-level rise. Interest in climate change adaptation is driving interest in benthic habitat restoration, but the science is in its infancy. As with coral reefs [ 12 ], direct disturbance of such systems (e.g. through bottom-trawling) can interact with responses to climate extreme events. Conversely, strategic protection of key areas in a network can enhance wider, seascape scale resilience and ecosystem function. Network connectivity of benthic protected areas is a key factor in conferring wider-scale climate change resilience, but questions remain about how to achieve scalable benthic-based mitigation measures.

Similarly, Roberts et al . [ 14 ] highlight the potential synergies between marine biodiversity protection and the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. Protection often strengthens the capacity of ecosystems to retain carbon, and in some cases continue to sequester additional carbon, as well as enhances ecological resilience to climate change. However, much of what we know about the links between ecosystem intactness and carbon sequestration emanates from terrestrial ecosystems. Marine ecosystems, where conserved fish and marine mammal populations may enhance the ocean nutrient cycle and associated sequestration rates, are less appreciated. Recent work, for example, has highlighted the role of marine megafauna in enhancing vertical nutrient transfer (cetacean deep-feeding, surface defecation and physical mixing), thereby modifying ocean fertility and carbon sequestration at large scales. The authors call for an expansion of marine protected areas from the current 10% of sea area in the Aichi targets, to 30% of sea area to accommodate such phenomena.

Lawler et al . [ 15 ] also consider optimal protected area network connectivity in the face of climate change, estimating the cost of the configuration of a terrestrial conservation network for the conterminous United States (US) that considers both current and projected distributions of biodiversity under climate change scenarios. They discover that the configuration of the protected area network changes substantially under consideration of climate change, and that the additional cost of planning for climate change may be relatively modest compared to the cost of expanding the reserve network without considering climate change. In particular, protecting some kinds of climate refugia may be an inexpensive conservation strategy. They also note that the higher elevation bias of protected areas in the US, that has been seen as problematic for conservation, may provide benefits in the face of climate change by protecting climate refugia.

4. Theme 3: solutions and practical applications

Our final focus is on the opportunities and challenges associated with the practical management, restoration and protection of ecosystems to support climate change mitigation and adaptation interventions. The potential to protect, restore and use ecosystems as tools to tackle climate change has gained increasing traction under the broad/overarching framework of NbS, or ‘natural climate solutions’ (NCS) where the context is mitigation of climate change [ 16 ]. NbS can make a partial contribution to slowing and limiting global warming, while also potentially supporting biodiversity and ecosystem services, if ‘maladaptive’ NbS, such as non-native monoculture plantations, are avoided. Seddon et al . [ 17 ] present an overview of the concept of NbS and its increasing prominence in international policy. They present a new conceptual framework clarifying the role of NbS in integrating the ecosystem with the socioeconomic system, and illustrate how, with careful and equitable implementation, NbS can reduce the vulnerability of the social–ecological system as a whole. They highlight key evidence for nature's role in reducing social–ecological vulnerability and sensitivity to climate change impacts, as well as cases where NbS enhance the adaptive capacity of both ecosystems and societies. Seddon et al . [ 17 ] also discuss some of the major challenges in evaluating the effectiveness of NbS, as well as the financial and governance obstacles to implementation at scale.

As ecosystems transform under climate change, so does their capacity to support human adaptation (i.e. to provide so-called ‘adaptation services’). In their article, Lavorel et al . [ 18 ] set out to operationalize the concept that humans and ecosystems ‘co-produce’ these services. They take the novel approach of analysing the co-benefits, trade-offs and synergies among different adaptation services along an ecosystem cascade involving ecosystem management, mobilization, appropriation, social access and appreciation. Using five case studies across a range of socio-ecological systems they demonstrate how broad mechanisms can enhance co-benefits and minimize trade-offs between adaptation services. They conclude by arguing that awareness of such co-production mechanisms will enable proactive management and governance for collective adaptation to ecosystem transformation.

Soto-Navarro et al . [ 19 ] present a detailed spatial analysis of the congruence between the carbon storage value of ecosystems and their biodiversity value. Whereas carbon value is essentially unidimensional, biodiversity value can be more challenging to map as it contains many dimensions and is geographically contingent. For instance, a tropical forest generally has much more species richness than an Arctic ecosystem, but the latter has unique biodiversity value. Using multiple indices, they assemble maps of both the proactive biodiversity conservation potential (areas of high-biodiversity intactness which are not under immediate threat but could benefit from proactive protection) and areas of reactive conservation priorities which are under immediate threat. The study highlights where biodiversity and carbon priorities converge (e.g. tropical and boreal forest regions) versus where they diverge (e.g. grasslands), where a focus on carbon and climate mitigation may not deliver biodiversity benefits and, in many cases, may be detrimental to local biodiversity (e.g. through carbon-focused afforestation of natural grasslands).

The national potential for NCS in tropical countries, where the carbon sink provided by forests is significant and there is the greatest potential to mitigate climate change through NCS, is evaluated by Griscom et al . [ 20 ]. They consider not only protection and restoration of forests but also of other native ecosystems, such as peatlands and mangroves, as well as improved management of working lands. Twelve NCS pathways are considered that could deliver significant climate change mitigation and provide biodiversity benefits and other ecosystem services, primarily by avoiding forest conversion. A small group of countries harbours the majority of tropical NCS potential, and all but one of them has above-average metrics for governance, indicating feasibility and capacity for implementation of NCS using protect-manage-restore strategies.

Hobbie and Grimm [ 21 ] focus on the potential of ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation in urban contexts. By 2050, around two-thirds of humanity will be urban dwelling, and cities will be a major nexus for climate change impacts and adaptation. Many features of cityscapes make them particularly vulnerable to climate change hazards, including low vegetated cover, high impervious cover, generation of pollutants, heat island effects, high demand for fresh water resources, and concentration of population and infrastructure in vulnerable areas such as coastal zones, river floodplains and deforested hillsides. Nature-based strategies can mitigate climate change hazards, and the amplifying effects of urban areas on those hazards. These strategies include enhanced vegetation cover and green space, construction of structures that restore natural hydrologic function such as stormwater ponds, bioswales, green roof and riparian zones; and restoring natural protective habitats along coastlines. A full assessment of these nature-based strategies does, however, need to assess the costs (including negative impacts) of these strategies compared to technical approaches.

Sandom et al . [ 22 ] examine trophic rewilding as a management strategy for restoring ecosystems that may also contribute towards mitigating climate change. Humans have dramatically changed ecological assemblages of large-bodied herbivores and predators over the past 50 000 years. In many parts of the world large, non-ruminant herbivores have been eliminated and replaced by domestic ruminant grazing livestock, resulting in dramatic changes in vegetation structure, fire regimes and biogeochemical cycling, including the carbon cycle. Scenarios in which rewilding replaces ruminant livestock with extant native herbivores would reduce methane emissions (a powerful greenhouse gas), but whether it would have a net mitigating effect on climate change would vary among regions of the globe owing to variation in effects extant native herbivores have on fire and woody vegetation dynamics among those biomes. They conclude that rewilding for the purpose of restoring ecosystem complexity and biodiversity does not aim to deliver specific benefits, and that scenarios using extant native herbivores are unlikely to maximize NCS, but can provide a broad range of ecosystem and biodiversity benefits.

Macias-Fauria et al . [ 23 ] explore the science and potential of a specific and somewhat unconventional but striking megafaunal approach to climate change mitigation: the introduction of grazing and browsing megafauna (horses, bison, cattle) to Arctic high boreal and tundra regions. Such introduction may facilitate the restoration of the ‘mammoth steppe,’ an extensive high-latitude grassland biome that it is argued was lost with the extinction of the high-latitude Pleistocene megafauna, to which the arrival of human hunting cultures is likely to have substantially contributed. Such high-latitude grassland ecosystems may delay and reduce the risk of permafrost degradation and a resulting surge in carbon and methane emissions in a warming Arctic, and thereby contribute to limiting the risk of a dangerous climate change positive feedback in the Arctic permafrost. The authors highlight that, while plausible, much of the science remains untested, but that such ‘land use’ options in the Arctic may be as influential on climate as much more studied impacts of land use on climate in mid- and low-latitudes. As with other forms of NCS, the challenge of implementation at sufficient scale to make a significant difference to global climate remains daunting.

The final two papers in this themed issue [ 24 , 25 ] address the challenge of scalability and societal transformation: how can changes in ecosystem management and restoration be implemented at sufficient scale to achieve meaningful climate change mitigation and adaptation, while also protecting biodiversity? Norton et al . [ 24 ] explore the potential of scaling up NbS through public social assistance schemes for employment, whereby payment is given to poor or vulnerable groups in return for employment in public works. With reference to well-established large-scale public works programmes in India, Ethiopia and Mexico, they discuss the potential of incorporating labour-intensive NbS, such as reforestation, into these schemes. They conclude that to realize the potential of employment-based social assistance for ecosystem benefits, the design and maintenance of local public works must be strengthened so as to better support biodiversity (e.g. through ecosystem restoration).

Finally, Lenton [ 25 ] argues how, in the Anthropocene, tipping points in ecological and climate systems are becoming deeply intertwined and tightly coupled with socioeconomic and technological systems. He discusses the urgent need to identify and trigger positive tipping points towards global sustainability. And he presents evidence of how our considerable knowledge of the dynamics of environmental tipping points, including identification of early warning signs and of the conditions needed to trigger cascades of change, could and should be used to inform the deliberate tipping of positive change in human societies.

(a) Understanding threats and challenges to ecosystems

To date, climate change has had a relatively modest effect on ecosystems and biodiversity, compared to direct anthropogenic actions such as overharvesting and land use change resulting in habitat loss. This relative importance is already changing, and the negative ecological impacts of climate change are becoming more apparent and very likely to intensify over the coming decades (e.g. [ 26 – 28 ]). On land, climate change is increasing precipitation variability and the probability of extreme dry and wet events, and long-term warming and increasing atmospheric water deficits are increasing physiological and hydrological stress and ecosystem flammability. In the ocean, an increased occurrence of heatwaves and long-term trends of acidification increase physiological stress on many organisms and ecosystems. Interaction of other anthropogenic stressors such as defaunation, overfishing, invasive species, fragmentation and direct habitat degradation tend to amplify the sensitivity of ecosystems to climate change. It is extremely challenging to predict the patterns and probabilities of biodiversity loss, both from the subtle effects on individual species within complex multi-trophic ecosystems and the more abrupt effects of ecosystem degradation.

In the context of the complexity of ecosystems and a vast shortfall in the understanding of how specific species, and interspecific interactions, will respond to climate change, there is a need to adopt a strategy of adaptive ecosystem research, in addition to adaptive ecosystem management. There are many aspects of ecosystem science where we will not know enough in sufficient time. Ecosystems are changing so rapidly in response to global change drivers that our research and modelling frameworks are overtaken by empirical, system-altering changes. New frameworks for modelling and monitoring highly dynamic complex systems need to be applied. We need improved ways to implement adaptive ecosystem management under uncertainty.

Long-term monitoring plays an essential role too. It can provide insights into long-term shifts that are difficult to register because of shifting baselines, and provide early warning of species-specific vulnerability or ecosystem-wide decline or tipping points. As examples, long-term forest monitoring has provided important evidence about the biosphere carbon sink which helps slow down the rate of climate change, and its potential future pathway [ 29 ]. With a few notable exceptions, long-term monitoring is extremely challenging to fund in an environment of short funding cycles, yet such ecological ‘weather stations’ are essential if we are to understand and mitigate the changes that are underway in the biosphere. Imagine where climate change science would be if routine monitoring of the weather had not been widely adopted in the twentieth century.

(b) Opportunities for improving ecosystem and societal resilience

Ecosystems play an active role in the climate system, especially through their role in the carbon cycle, the water cycle and other biogeochemical cycles. If sustainably managed in a way that draws on robust ecosystem and biodiversity science, ecosystems can be a major source of human resilience and can support the adaptation of human societies to rapid environmental change. In other words, ecosystems are not merely vulnerable to climate change, but have the potential to be significant allies in the challenges of climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Ecosystems have complex responses to climate change, which are incompletely understood and only partially incorporated into future projections of ecosystem function and dynamics. In many cases, this complexity could act as a cushion and needs to be better understood, e.g. habitat heterogeneity can provide micro-islands of resilience that can be sources of recovery following extreme events, and genetic variability can allow resilient subpopulations to adapt and expand. Multi-trophic interactions and trophic redundancy may help ecosystems recover from a disturbance in biodiversity hotspots. Strategic protection of key areas in a protected area network, those that support biodiversity under current and future climate, can enhance the wider landscape and seascape scale resilience and ecosystem services, including those mitigating climate change (e.g. carbon sequestration).

(c) Nature-based solutions

Rather than being framed as a victim of climate change, biodiversity can be seen as a key ally in dealing with climate change. Ecosystem management and careful evidence-based restoration and stewardship have the potential to play major roles in climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, ecosystem-based solutions will be far from sufficient and there is still an urgent need to address the fossil fuel emissions problem as the primary approach to halting climate change. On the other hand, NbS often have many co-benefits to human societies. The contributions to this issue have illustrated these co-benefits e.g. urban ecosystems, tropical forests and high-latitude biomes, using strategies that range from restoring hydrologic function, to forest protection and restoration, to trophic rewilding. These papers have also shown that some maladapted ecosystem-based climate mitigation actions (e.g. large-scale bioenergy, afforestation of natural grasslands and peatlands) could have negative effects on terrestrial biodiversity and resilience [ 30 ]. There remains a need for better understanding of the benefits of NbS for fisheries, agriculture and other ecosystem services to human society, including how ecosystem management of multiple ecosystem services can also contribute to climate change mitigation [ 17 ]. Such a synthesis of evidence needs to evaluate the challenge of under-reporting of negative results, which can lead to an inflated assessment of the effectiveness of specific approaches and methodologies. It also needs to extend such analysis to a wider range of habitats and ecosystems [ 13 ], and evaluate the effectiveness of NbS using multiple response variables over appropriate spatial and temporal scales. There is already a growing evidence base for NbS to climate change mitigation and adaptation, which generally shows they are effective but more emphasis is needed on identifying their limits and challenges. This evidence is not sufficiently disseminated to inform decisions at all levels from international to local [ 17 ].

A major challenge in understanding and implementing nature-based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation is that of scalability. Climate change is a global problem, requiring multi-jurisdictional and multinational governance, yet many of the examples of NbS concern proof of concept studies over relatively small spatial scales. Additional benefits of solutions can be quite significant and may overcome the opportunity costs. The costs and benefits of solutions, as well as the problem itself, are inequitable across social groups. How can institutions be designed so that those who benefit are empowered to implement management actions? If the global community invests in local solutions in poor communities, there can be local and global benefits. There may be innovative opportunities for scaling, e.g. working with existing rural social protection programmes [ 24 ], or local fisheries management programmes, and many examples of good practice are emerging [ 5 ].

(d) What role for academic research?

A broad spectrum of academic research can contribute to understanding ecosystem responses to climate change, and facilitate ecosystem-based adaptation and mitigation. In terms of ecological science , there is an abundant need to understand how ecological systems function, how they are changing and will continue to change under environmental conditions with no historical analogue, and what interventions are needed to maintain and restore ecosystems. In terms of environmental economics , there is a need to understand the costs and benefits of any intervention, and how those costs and benefits are distributed across society. In terms of political ecology , there is a need to understand the power relations involved and how effective the catalysts that produce positive changes in behaviour and policy are likely to be, and how socially just management solutions can be designed and implemented.

We identify a number of priorities for natural and social scientists:

• (i) more effectively communicate the evidence base that already exists so that scientific knowledge is communicated to decision makers and other stakeholders in constructive, useful ways that can generate political will as well as inform actions;
• (ii) identify and address the key yet tractable knowledge gaps in ecosystem science. Many aspects of complex ecological systems will remain intractable for timescales longer than the timescales available to implement evidence-based solutions;
• (iii) identify how key elements of the complexity that enhance resilience and adaptation can be supported and propagated;
• (iv) identify where there are synergies and trade-offs. Interventions that maximize synergies between different ecosystem services are crucial for solutions which have any prospect of scalability; and
• (v) implement and/or maintain long-term monitoring, which is the only way to fully understand trajectories in complex contexts and evaluate the success of management interventions.

Climate change is ongoing, and within the next few decades, societies and ecosystems will either be committed to a substantially warmer world or major actions will have been taken to limit warming. Ecosystems play a major role in both of these scenarios. Extensive and connected ecosystems, species and genetic diversity, trophic intactness and habitat heterogeneity, can buffer the impacts of climate change. NbS, such as ecosystem management and restoration, can play an important role in climate change mitigation and societal adaptation, but will only provide benefits if deployed in conjunction with a reduction in fossil fuel emissions.

At some point this century, as human civilization faces the decarbonization challenge, global atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are likely to stabilize, and global temperatures will peak. Judicious protection and restoration of ecosystems could have played a significant role in that stabilization, and could continue to play a role in the subsequent cool-down. The climate change that will already have occurred will inevitably have led to some ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss. But in a world where NbS have been implemented at scale, ecosystems that are intact, extensive and connected have a much better chance of adapting and thriving in this new climate regime, and thereby of contributing to a vibrant and resilient biosphere that is needed for its own sake and for providing the fabric within which human societies exist and thrive.

Data accessibility

Authors' contributions.

All authors contributed to the editing of the accompanying thematic issue and contributed to this manuscript.

Competing interests

We declare we have no competing interests.

The National Acadamy of Sciences—Royal Society Forum that resulted in this thematic issue was supported by the Sackler Foundation.

Loading metrics

Open Access

Climate change and security research: Conflict, securitisation and human agency

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom

• Alex Arnall

Published: March 2, 2023

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000072
• Reader Comments

Climate change has increasingly been understood as a security problem by researchers, policymakers and media commentators. This paper reviews two strands of work that have been central to the development of this understanding–namely 1) the links between global heating and violent conflict and 2) the securitisation of climate change–before outlining an agency-oriented perspective on the climate-security nexus. While providing sophisticated analyses of the connections between climate change and security, both the conflict and securitisation strands have encountered several epistemological challenges. I argue that the climate security concept can be revitalised in a progressive manner if a more dynamic, relational approach to understanding security is taken. Such an approach recognises people’s everyday capacities in managing their own safety as well as the security challenges involved in responding to a continually evolving threat such as climate change.

Citation: Arnall A (2023) Climate change and security research: Conflict, securitisation and human agency. PLOS Clim 2(3): e0000072. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000072

Editor: Anamika Barua, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, INDIA

Copyright: © 2023 Alex Arnall. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, climate change has increasingly been understood as a security problem by a range of political actors, media commentators and researchers [ 1 ]. Part of a long-standing convention of securitising non-traditional threats, such as HIV/AIDS and transnational crime, that began in the late 1990s, climate change has, in the last 20 years, been lifted to the realms of ‘high politics’, such as those of the UN General Assembly and US military establishment. In general, there is consensus among researchers that climate change has the potential to undermine the securities of nation states and people. In addition, the existing insecurities that these entities experience (for example, due to political conflict or lack of economic opportunity) might be worsened by global heating [ 2 ]. However, how security is understood, the pathways and mechanisms via which it is connected to climate change, and what climate security (or lack of it) means for affected populations are issues of ongoing contention.

One of the complexities of these debates is that security means different things to different people [ 3 ] and organisations [ 4 ]. In general, security is defined as the condition of being free from danger or threat, either at a personal or collective level [ 5 ]. Threats can be real or imagined, imminent or in the future. Some researchers differentiate between ‘hard security’, referring to the actions of the military and related institutions, and ‘soft security’, which concerns how people access resources such as food and water [ 6 ]. Most common in climate change debates, however, is the division of security into ‘state security’ and ‘human security’ [ 7 ]. State security involves the capacities of countries “to manage climate-related threats to safeguard their sovereignty, military strength, and power in the international system” [ 8 , p.3]. Climate change risks undermining these capacities, threatening the opportunities and services that help people to sustain their lives and livelihoods. In the most extreme cases, climate change threatens the survival of entire countries, such as small island states located in the Pacific and Indian Oceans [ 9 ]. In contrast, human security “covers a variety of concerns ranging from the economy, the environment, the community, to health, the body and personal safety” [ 3 , p.92]. Human security does not just refer to physical needs but also to social and psychological ones, as well as the symbolic and cultural elements of identity [ 10 ].

The growth of interest in climate security can be traced back to wider concerns about environmental security that emerged in the 1980s, anxieties that were encapsulated by the World Commission on Environment and Development’s 1987 publication Our Common Future [ 11 ]. These concerns were accompanied by the reorientation of world powers at the end of the Cold War and the threat of global environmental change replacing the immediate dangers of nuclear war [ 12 ]. Since this time, climate change and security work has gained traction along two main strands. The first strand, according to Oels [ 13 ], concerns the risk of catastrophic climate change due to a failure of the international community to keep global heating below +2 degrees Celsius. Interest in this strand peaked in 2007 when the security implications of climate change were debated by the UN Security Council [ 14 , 15 ] and examined in reports produced by the US and UK security establishments [ 16 ]. The second strand, which emerged in the 1990s, concerns human security and, as outlined above, places greater emphasis on the wellbeing of people than on the security of states [ 17 ]. The human security strand was initially advanced through the UNDP’s 1994 Human Development Report [ 18 ] and culminated in the production of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report in 2014, which contained an entire chapter on human security [ 19 ].

In the last 20 years, work along these two strands has resulted in a plethora of academic papers and government reports. It is not my intention in this present paper, however, to provide a broad review of all studies produced to date. Instead, my approach is to highlight two areas of climate security research that have received considerable attention in recent years and to discuss some of the challenges that these bodies of work have encountered. The first area concerns the possibility of global heating leading to intercommunal or interstate conflict. Epistemologically, researchers in this area take a positivist approach, viewing human or state security as a pre-existing condition that is capable of being located and measured through empirical examination. However, as I will argue, while this approach has been a focus of considerable scientific endeavour in recent years, there is as yet little consensus among researchers on the extent to which climate change is leading (or will lead) to changes in human propensity to violence [ 20 ], with some expressing doubts that a direct link can, or should, be established at all [ 21 ].

In contrast to positivism, researchers working in the second area take a constructivist approach to understanding the climate-security nexus, seeking to explain how security problems and solutions are established, represented and acted upon in society and towards what purposes. This approach is exemplified by the so-called ‘Copenhagen School’, which focuses on the discursive links between security threats and extreme remedies and countermeasures. Under this School, researchers claim that climate change has been ‘securitised’, which risks producing a series of perverse outcomes including the militarisation, technicalisation or depoliticization of climate change policy. However, I will argue that, despite the influence of this critique in academic circles, the effects of securitisation on the policies and activities of national governments have been limited to date. In other words, by focusing on the realm of the representational, the securitisation field has made little connection with what governments and organisations are doing ‘on the ground’.

With these limitations in mind, I then go on to suggest a third approach, one that engages with the idea of human agency, or “capacity to make a difference” [ 22 , p.14], in climate change and security debates. This approach emphasises that the conditions of security and insecurity are not static but rather relational, negotiated and historically structured. It also draws attention to people’s day-to-day capabilities in managing their own climate securities while recognising the challenges of negotiating intersectionality in the context of a continually evolving threat like climate change. In advancing these ideas, I hope to develop a more dynamic approach to climate security debates than has been the case to date. The next section considers scientific efforts to establish an empirical link between climate and human conflict followed by consideration of the Copenhagen School’s approach to climate security in section 3. Section 4 introduces key ideas concerning climate security and human agency, and section 5 provides the conclusion.

2. Connecting climate change and conflict

Researchers have proposed several theoretical causal mechanisms between climate change, security and conflict in recent years. Barnett [ 2 ], for example, suggested that political scale, the nature of governance within countries, and scarcity or abundance of natural resources are three key influencers on the likelihood of conflict emerging as a result of climate change. Similarly, Seter [ 23 ] identified three factors–economic hardship, resource levels and migration driven by economic change–connecting climate change and conflict, and Bretthauer [ 24 ] suggested that agricultural dependence and low levels of education increase the likelihood of armed conflict resulting from global heating. Other researchers have emphasised that, while direct links between climate change and conflict exist, there are multiple pathways between these “ranging from agriculture and economic productivity or demographic pressure to psychological mechanisms” [ 25 , p. 241]. This means that, rather than a ‘one scenario fits all’ approach, people’s particular experiences of environmental change in the context of wider social structures and processes are likely to create individual paths to insecurity [ 16 ]. Researchers have also argued that climate change acts as a ‘threat multiplier’ rather than a direct cause of human insecurity and violence [ 10 ]. In other words, regions already vulnerable to violent conflict due to low levels of human development are similarly vulnerable to the effects of climate change [ 26 , 27 ]. This latter argument raises the prospect of ‘double exposure’ to climate change and conflict occurring among populations [ 28 ].

Together, these studies suggest that numerous connections exist between climate change, environmental degradation and conflict. However, finding empirical evidence of these connections has been challenging. While long-term historical studies have established a measurable relationship between climatic change and large-scale human crises [ 29 , 30 ], most work looking at change over shorter timeframes has been inconclusive, with “not yet much evidence for climate change as an important driver of conflict” [ 31 , p.7]. There are some examples where such an effect has been determined, although these have tended to be extreme or isolated examples. For example, in their study of the causation of conflict and displacement in East Africa over the last 50 years, Owain and Maslin [ 32 , p.1] found that climate variations played little role, although they did conclude that “severe droughts were a contributing driver of refugees crossing international borders”. Fjeld and von Uexkull [ 33 , p.444] were similarly tentative, concluding that, in certain conditions, there is “some evidence that the effect of rainfall shortages on the risk of communal conflict is amplified in regions inhabited by politically excluded ethno-political groups”. And Abel et al. [ 25 , p.246], utilising data on refugee flows between 2006 and 2015 across 157 countries, found little evidence for a “robust link between climatic shocks, conflict and asylum seeking for the full period”. The only exception, the authors noted, is evidence of a causal link between 2010 and 2012 when “global refugee flow dynamics were dominated by asylum seekers originating from Syria and countries affected by the Arab spring, as well as flows related to war episodes in Sub-Saharan Africa”. In these studies, the main barrier to establishing a clear climate-security connection has been the very wide range of research designs, scales of analysis and case studies undertaken [ 25 ] as well as the “numerous intervening economic and political factors that determine adaptation capacity” [ 34 , p.1]. Taken together, these factors complicate scientific efforts.

Given these challenges, there have been calls in the literature for more research to uncover direct pathways and intermediate factors connecting climate change and conflict. As pointed out by von Uexkull and Buhaug [ 35 ], techniques of analysis and disaggregation in the climate security field are becoming more sophisticated all the time, meaning that such connections might become more demonstrable in the future. Nonetheless, other researchers have expressed discomfort with the general direction of this work, suggesting that “some studies in environmental security are in danger of promulgating a modern form of environmental determinism by suggesting that climate conditions directly and dominantly influence the propensity for violence among individuals, communities and states” [ 36 , p.76]. Similarly, some researchers have questioned the frequent portrayal of people exposed to climate change and conflict as ‘threats’ to Western countries [ 37 , 38 ]. Inevitably, any discussion of state and human security, whether linked to environmental change or not, will implicitly or explicitly involve the identification of ‘suspect communities’ that are more likely to become insecure and therefore subject to security measures to contain or manage them [ 39 ]. These concerns move the focus of debate away from seeing climate security and insecurity as empirically verifiable conditions towards consideration of how in/security is represented via discourse. This is the focus of the next section.

3. Securitisation of climate change

Researchers working on the securitisation of climate change seek to understand how the idea of climate security is constructed as a ‘matter of concern’, in whose interests this process operates, and the social, economic and political consequences for individuals and groups identified as security threats or problems. As outlined above, this body of work mainly draws upon the Copenhagen School of security studies, which highlights the risk of “discursive practices invoking (current or projected) climatic events as an existential threat, thereby justifying urgent measures in response” [ 40 , p.807]. These measures, in turn, may be exceptional or extraordinary in nature, including the build-up of military and police forces along national borders [ 6 ]. In this way, an essentially political problem concerning the distribution of costs and benefits of measures to tackle climate change becomes overwhelmed by “perverse responses that do not address the [root] causes of climate change and even position those affected most by it as threatening” [ 41 , p.46]. The securitisation of climate change, in other words, threatens to remove global heating from political debate while imposing an antagonistic approach that poses “a threat to the kind of peaceful international cooperation and development initiatives needed to respond equitably and effectively” [ 42 , p.234].

In this way, the Copenhagen School has presented the main challenge to those seeking to elevate climate security to the ‘high politics’ of the UN and other international bodies in an attempt to generate publicity and attention [ 43 ]. There is, however, debate over the degree to which the apocalyptic images frequently used in climate security debates have translated into ‘real world’ changes in government policy and practice [ 44 ]. This is because, as argued by Warner and Boas [ 45 ], the actors that are mobilising climate change as an existential threat have tended to advocate relatively mundane response measures rather than more exceptional ones, thereby relying “on solutions that are anchored in the present-day distribution of power and geopolitics” [ 10 , p.280] instead of addressing root causes [ 46 ]. According to Mason [40, p.808], this mundane approach is “designed to manage climate risks in a way that renders them less threatening to Western geopolitical and geo-economic interests” but is also grounded in “a depoliticised stance reflecting UN norms of neutrality and impartiality”. For example, Burnett and Mach [ 47 , p.2] cast doubt on whether the many climate risk reports and statements produced by the US Department of Defence in recent years “are regularly translated into institutionalized planning and decision-making”, limiting response measures to “selective integration” of climate considerations into previously established security indices and country plans. Similarly, Trombetta [ 48 , p.144] argued that the risk of climate-induced migration to the EU has “become subjected to the already existing European machinery of managing and controlling migration” that is consistent with the logic of governing human movement ‘from a distance’ [ 49 ].

An additional challenge for the securitisation of climate change argument is that, while climate security rhetoric has garnered considerable attention in recent decades, its prevalence and impact has been geographically uneven, often because the catastrophic scenarios presented by such rhetoric have been met with scepticism by some audiences [ 45 ]. In the main, it is the large multinational organisations located in the Global North that have adopted the language of climate security [ 4 ], especially the European Union [ 50 , 51 ]. In contrast, there has been a decline in the amount of securitising climate change language in some countries located in the Global South [ 12 ]. Boas [ 52 ], for example, documented how the Indian government rejected ‘alarmist’ ideas of climate security, dismissing them as a Western negotiating tactic designed to encourage more binding carbon mitigation targets. Similarly, von Lucke [ 53 ] argued that the securitisation of climate change in Mexico produced a limited effect on government policy due, in part, to the dominance of ‘hard’ security issues in the country, such as conflicts with drug cartels. In these cases, there is little consensus over what role, if any, intergovernmental organisations like the UN Security Council should adopt in encouraging the governments of developing countries to move climate security concerns higher up their political agendas [ 54 ]. Taken together, these studies cast doubt on the argument advanced by scholars that the securitisation of climate change is leading to extreme and exceptional measures.

4. Climate change, human security and agency

Both the positivist and constructivist approaches to understanding the climate change-security relationship outlined above underplay human agency, or the ways in which “individuals with different resources at their disposal (economic, cultural, political or environmental) are able to negotiate the more-or-less favourable circumstances into which they are born and raised” [ 5 ]. For example, Raleigh [ 36 , p.77] suggested that, “In arguing that communities directly or indirectly respond to increased temperatures by attacking their neighbours, competitors or the state, deterministic studies neglect the complex political calculus of governance, the agency of communities, and the multiple ways that people actually cope with challenging environmental conditions”. Most actors, therefore, are capable of exercising some kind of power [ 22 ]–of processing social experience and devising ways of coping with climate insecurity–in ways that do not resort to violence, even under the most difficult of circumstances [ 55 ]. Moreover, McDonald [ 41 , p.47] argued that, while being “explicit about the pathologies associated with ‘securitization’”, the Copenhagen School has fallen short in providing clear ideas about human agency. This ambiguity, in turn, “serves to reinforce international power inequalities and renders criteria for intervention by powerful states and international institutions less transparent and less accountable” [ 56 , p.113]. With these limitations in mind, the aim of this section is to outline an agency-oriented perspective on climate security. As set out in section 1, this perspective emphasises the relationality of security and insecurity over time and between different places as well as the centrality of people’s own everyday security practices. These dimensions are explained in greater depth below.

Writing about human security in the Caribbean, Noxolo [ 57 ] makes the important point that security and insecurity are deeply located, historically grounded and constantly produced and reproduced in relation to one another. Security and insecurity, therefore, are not new, future-oriented concepts that have arisen solely in the context of climate change but, instead, are conditions that have been experienced by marginalised individuals and groups over time. This is evident, for example, when considering the effects of climate change on tribal communities in the United States [ 58 ] or on groups that have been repeatedly subject to population relocation [ 59 ]. Moreover, the distribution and effects of security and insecurity are geographically unequal. Indeed, Philo [ 60 , p.1] described the highly uneven geographies of security and insecurity as “entangled” across networks existing at a range of spatial scales, from the local to the global. In other words, the processes through which security and insecurity come about in different places are closely linked, and the measures undertaken by some groups to ensure their own securities potentially undermine or trade off the securities of others. For example, with regard to the risk of theft and burglary, Valverde [ 61 , p.13] pointed out that “the private security guard who is concerned to protect only one building will be likely to displace disorderly people to the next block”. Similarly, an intervention carried out by one group to secure their livelihoods in a situation of prolonged drought–such as farmers extracting water from a river to irrigate their crops–might diminish the availability of this resource for others downstream, thus risking the latter group’s security.

More broadly, trade-offs can emerge at the level of the nation state between, for example, imperatives to ensure national energy security [ 62 ] and people’s human securities in accessing agricultural land and water [ 63 ]. Hydroelectric dams, for example, are frequently promoted as sources of ‘green energy’ that contribute to climate change mitigation efforts and that help rapidly developing countries secure a much-needed supply of electricity [ 64 ]. However, as has been widely documented by researchers and activists, such dams are also often a source of insecurity for local populations, many of whom are displaced by construction activities, infrastructure and reservoirs, losing access to valuable natural resources in the process [ 65 ]. Security trade-offs in climate change responses can also occur in relation to planned adaptation or resilience-building initiatives undertaken by governments or development agencies. For example, the resettlement of vulnerable populations out of areas deemed to be no longer safe due to weather-related extremes can lower direct exposure to environmental shocks and stresses but can also lead to communities being subjected to new forms of danger that risk further diminishing their climate securities. To illustrate, Arnall [ 66 ], working in Mozambique, showed how the government-led relocation of small scale farmers out of river valleys to nearby areas of higher elevation land helped to protect farmers against large-scale floods. However, relocation also increased farmer exposure to drought, with the outcome that many vulnerable groups in resettled communities were compelled to return to live in floodplains in order to continue their farming activities. Returning in this manner increased their food and income securities but also increased the risks of physical harms from floods.

The existence of these inequalities can complicate efforts by governments and development agencies seeking to enhance people’s securities in the face of climate change [ 67 ]. However, it does not mean that people themselves are necessarily helpless. Individuals and groups, including women [ 68 , 69 ] and young people [ 70 ], are constrained by the structural inequalities in which they exist but at the same time often live with and manage a wide range of insecurities on an ongoing, everyday basis. As argued by Crawford and Hutchinson [ 71 , p.1185], this form of ‘lived security’ encompasses people’s “actual experiences of security processes and the related practices that people engage in to govern their own safety” rather than objectified, expert-led risk assessments [ 72 ]. A lived security approach, therefore, moves away from a focus on the spectacular and exceptional towards consideration of “what it means to be safe, secure and content” on a daily basis [ 73 , p.70]. Everyday security is important because if climate change research focuses purely on ‘official’ or ‘high’ security then much of what makes people’s lives liveable and meaningful ‘on the ground’ may be lost. For example, Arnall [ 74 , p.1], exploring farmer mobilities in and out of floodplains in rural Mozambique, drew on the notion of ‘everyday agency’ to show “people’s day-to-day capacities to respond to environmental variability and change while also drawing attention to the challenges associated with the gradual accumulation of risk in mobile, rural livelihoods”. In the light of increasing frequency, severity and duration of weather-related extremes around the world, understanding how people seek comfort and safety on a day-to-day basis will become increasingly important [ 75 – 77 ].

In living with and managing in/security, people’s everyday experiences are likely to be shaped by a wide range of enabling and constraining intersectional factors, including gender, class, ethnicity and age. These factors, in turn, can intersect with risks and impacts caused by environmental shocks and stresses to heighten conditions of vulnerability and marginalisation. As pointed out by Crawford and Hutchinson [ 71 , p.1189], the traditional field of security studies, which deals with politics and international relations, has been “rightly criticised for paying insufficient attention to the views and experiences of both minority groups and women”. Nonetheless, some feminist scholars have found the human security concept to be a useful one not only in articulating the structural disadvantages often experienced by women but also the crucial role played by women’s agency in the often overlooked domestic sphere [ 78 ]. For example, drawing on the case of two communities in central Mexico, Bee [ 79 ] highlighted the role of women’s knowledges in obtaining essential resources, including water and food, in the context of drought, thereby helping to achieve security at the household level. This example illustrates, in turn, the importance of disadvantaged groups being able to exercise agency to secure different forms of capital, including social, physical, financial, human and natural capitals, during weather-related crises and the harms that potentially arise when they are unable to do so [ 80 ]. In this way, an agency-oriented in/security lens has the potential, like vulnerability, to diagnose “inherent social and economic processes of marginalization and inequalities” in the context of environmental shocks and stresses and to seek to identify ways of addressing these [ 81 , p.5].

Understanding how intersectional processes of security and insecurity operate and are negotiated will become more and more important as the effects of climate change are increasingly felt over the next few decades. As I have argued above, people are often more capable of devising ways of coping with insecurity than is commonly appreciated in climate security debates. However, these capabilities cannot be taken for granted or afford to ‘stand still’ in the face of global heating. Indeed, as pointed out by Valverde [ 61 , p.5], “As Hobbes, the original philosopher of security, noted long ago…simply erecting a moat or taking other one-time measures to defend an existing space will not create security… The project of achieving security takes the form of an ever-rising spiral”. In other words, the task of addressing security needs can characterise an ‘arms-race’ between threats perceived and measures implemented, thus resembling an ongoing process of escalation rather than a final, achieved condition. Similarly, climate change is constantly presenting actual or anticipated threats to people’s securities that demand a continually evolving response. This creates new fields of governance that did not previously exist and that sometimes contradict or elude traditional management approaches to achieving climate security that rely on conventional notions of human progress and control [ 82 ]. For example, the emergence of heatwave risks in European cities in recent years contradicts “the common assumption that high levels of economic and technological development automatically lead to lower vulnerability to weather extremes” [ 83 , p.1]. And ‘extreme wildfires’, which have increased in magnitude, severity and prevalence in the past ten years, are presenting new and growing dangers to people in developed and developing countries alike despite the increasing abilities of scientists to map and predict wildfire occurrence [ 84 ]. In these cases, individuals and groups are not only required to negotiate their conditions of security with each other ‘on the ground’ but also with governments, agencies and scientists seeking to respond to global environmental change, often in trade-offs with other securities.

5. Conclusion

For advocates of a climate change-security link, 2007 was a high point, a moment when dominant, narrow accounts of security were challenged and climate change was elevated “to the ‘high politics’ realm…where it would attract the priority and funding it deserved” [ 41 , p.43]. There is little doubt that the positioning of climate security in this manner has helped to highlight the dangerous nature of global heating [ 2 ], providing the issue with a “major boost in attention” [ 6 , p.137]. However, as demonstrated in this paper, despite ongoing concerns about the securitisation of climate change, it has had little effect on the policies and activities of national governments, which have tended to take ‘business as usual’ approaches to managing and containing international migration. Similarly, notwithstanding the mainstream nature of climate change and conflict issues among international and national policymaking circles, the scientific community is generally ambiguous on the subject, frequently concluding that a direct link does not exist [ 21 ]. This is reflected by how human security featured prominently in the IPCC’s 5 th Assessment Report in 2014 but was little mentioned in its follow-up 6 th Assessment Report in 2021. Indeed, as well as spurring conflict, worsening climatic conditions also have the potential to set the stage for enhanced cooperation between actors in seeking to reach common solutions, especially at regional [ 85 ] and international levels [ 86 ].

These challenges have led some researchers to suggest that we ‘desecuritise’ climate change altogether, thus returning the global heating problem to the realm of normal politics where it can be openly debated and discussed [ 41 ]. And yet, despite the challenges that this field of research has encountered to date, I have argued that the climate security concept can be revitalised in a progressive manner if a more dynamic understanding of security is taken, one that recognises the relational, historically-grounded nature of security and insecurity and that appreciates the role of people’s everyday practices in managing their own safety. It is also necessary to consider where the social and ecological limits to such practices might lie, especially in relation to intersectionality and the security challenges involved in responding to a continually evolving threat such as climate change. These understandings are important considering the unequal spatial and temporal effects of global heating on societies that are being witnessing around the world. Crucially, such an approach also considers the highly uneven nature of governmental responses to climate change as individuals and groups seek to enhance their own securities within and across social structures.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 5. Rogers A, Castree N, Kitchin R. Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.
• 11. WCED. Our Common Future. Oxford: World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987.
• 18. UNDP. Human Development Report 1994: New Dimensions of Human Security. New York: United Nations Development Programme, 1994.
• 19. IPCC. Summary for policymakers. Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, et al., editors. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
• 22. Giddens A. The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1984.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 55. Long N, Van der Ploeg J. Heterogeneity, actor and structure: towards a reconstitution of the concept of structure. In: Booth D, editor. Rethinking social development: theory, research and practice. London: Longman 1994.
• 78. Robinson F. The Ethics of Care: A Feminist Approach to Human Security. Philadelphia, USA: Temple University Press; 2011.

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

• About YPCCC
• Yale Climate Connections
• Student Employment
• For The Media
• Past Events
• YPCCC in the News
• Climate Change in the American Mind (CCAM)
• Publications
• Climate Opinion Maps
• Climate Opinion Factsheets
• Six Americas Super Short Survey (SASSY)
• Resources for Educators
• All Tools & Interactives
• Partner with YPCCC

Home / For Educators: Grades 6-12 / Climate Explained: Introductory Essays About Climate Change Topics

Climate Explained: Introductory Essays About Climate Change Topics

Filed under: backgrounders for educators ,.

Climate Explained, a part of Yale Climate Connections, is an essay collection that addresses an array of climate change questions and topics, including why it’s cold outside if global warming is real, how we know that humans are responsible for global warming, and the relationship between climate change and national security.

More Activities like this

Climate Change Basics: Five Facts, Ten Words

Backgrounders for Educators

To simplify the scientific complexity of climate change, we focus on communicating five key facts about climate change that everyone should know. 

Why should we care about climate change?

Having different perspectives about global warming is natural, but the most important thing that anyone should know about climate change is why it matters.  

External Resources

Looking for resources to help you and your students build a solid climate change science foundation? We’ve compiled a list of reputable, student-friendly links to help you do just that!  

Subscribe to our mailing list

Please select all the ways you would like to hear from Yale Program on Climate Change Communication:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.

The Macroeconomic Impact of Climate Change: Global vs. Local Temperature

This paper estimates that the macroeconomic damages from climate change are six times larger than previously thought. We exploit natural variability in global temperature and rely on time-series variation. A 1°C increase in global temperature leads to a 12% decline in world GDP. Global temperature shocks correlate much more strongly with extreme climatic events than the country-level temperature shocks commonly used in the panel literature, explaining why our estimate is substantially larger. We use our reduced-form evidence to estimate structural damage functions in a standard neoclassical growth model. Our results imply a Social Cost of Carbon of $1,056 per ton of carbon dioxide. A business-as-usual warming scenario leads to a present value welfare loss of 31%. Both are multiple orders of magnitude above previous estimates and imply that unilateral decarbonization policy is cost-effective for large countries such as the United States.

Adrien Bilal gratefully acknowledges support from the Chae Family Economics Research Fund at Harvard University. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Mentioned in the News

More from nber.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

Advertisement

Climate change research and the search for solutions: rethinking interdisciplinarity

• Open access
• Published: 18 October 2021
• Volume 168 , article number  18 , ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• E. Lisa F. Schipper   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6228-9178 1 ,
• Navroz K. Dubash   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3758-8971 2 &
• Yacob Mulugetta   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3191-8896 3  

19k Accesses

41 Citations

140 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Growing political pressure to find solutions to climate change is leading to increasing calls for multiple disciplines, in particular those that are not traditionally part of climate change research, to contribute new knowledge systems that can offer deeper and broader insights to address the problem. Recognition of the complexity of climate change compels researchers to draw on interdisciplinary knowledge that marries natural sciences with social sciences and humanities. Yet most interdisciplinary approaches fail to adequately merge the framings of the disparate disciplines, resulting in reductionist messages that are largely devoid of context, and hence provide incomplete and misleading analysis for decision-making. For different knowledge systems to work better together toward climate solutions, we need to reframe the way questions are asked and research pursued, in order to inform action without slipping into reductionism. We suggest that interdisciplinarity needs to be rethought. This will require accepting a plurality of narratives, embracing multiple disciplinary perspectives, and shifting expectations of public messaging, and above all looking to integrate the appropriate disciplines that can help understand human systems in order to better mediate action.

Similar content being viewed by others

Placing diverse knowledge systems at the core of transformative climate research

Introduction: Grounding Global Climate Change

What is the ‘Social’ in Climate Change Research? A Case Study on Scientific Representations from Chile

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Urgency to solve climate change

Following the launch of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on 1.5C (IPCC 2018 ), pressure to take action on climate change has escalated significantly (Boykoff and Pearman 2019 ). While this attention is to be welcomed, it has implications for researchers of, and research on, climate change. A clear push is evident from within both the scientific and policy communities to get scientists to move beyond merely providing knowledge about climate change, to also helping society define the solutions (Haasnoot et al.  2020 ; Callaghan et al.  2020 ). Additionally, the solutions focus mirrors—and drives—civil society pressure for governments to take action on the climate crisis (Fisher and Nasrin 2020 ). This introduces new challenges for the ways in which science on climate change is undertaken and how the knowledge gained is used in the world of practice and policy (Hulme 2020 ). In particular, the search for solutions to climate change forces us to examine the way different disciplines interact in this process, most prominently through interdisciplinary research approaches (Castree et al. 2014 ).

In response to pressure for concrete, urgent, and actionable information, however, researchers often shear away detail, and pick one of a number of alternative messages to unite behind. The emerging narrative of ‘listen to the science’ unfortunately reinforces the message that discreet, clear, and neutral solutions readily exist (Evensen 2019 ). This is underpinned by a strong belief that science needs to be represented and communicated in easy-to-digest ‘bite-size’ statements targeting a policy audience, commonly believed to be working under time duress. The growing tendency for complex scientific findings to be summarized into single sentences for policy briefs is case-in-point. These communiqués are often simplified, tend to emphasize quantitative detail, and fail to do justice to the messiness of climate change impacts as they are experienced by people and ecosystems in different parts of the globe (Castán Broto 2020 ; Hulme 2011a ). Because they also abstract from political context, they avoid grappling with the reality of implementation challenges, and reflecting essential ambiguities that would raise the level of debate and reflection.

The critique that climate change research needs to be open to ways of knowing other than the natural sciences is not new (Shah 2020 ; Heymann 2019 ; Rigg and Reyes Mason 2018 ; Victor 2015 ; Barnes et al.  2013 ; Hulme 2011a and b ; Jasanoff 2010 ), nor are the calls for interdisciplinarity (Bhaskar et al.  2010 ; Simonovic and Davies 2006 ) and inter-epistemology (Murphy 2011 ). Interdisciplinarity is understood as the collective efforts to tackle a single issue from multiple disciplinary perspectives. In particular, this cuts across the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities. Our purpose here is to take that message further. We argue that in the push for solutions to climate change, knowledge on climate change is expressed in simplified and narrow ways that privileges predictive natural sciences over interpretative qualitative social sciences and humanities, even when this knowledge is generated in ostensibly interdisciplinary interactions.

Yet, because solutions are context-dependent and therefore not universal, the interpretive sciences are necessary to identify feasible and effective solutions. For example, a qualitative and locally informed assessment of vulnerability in a specific location can help avoid the maladaptation that otherwise risks resulting from poorly designed blue-print adaptation strategies (Eriksen et al.  2021 ). Consequently, we need new ways of generating and communicating knowledge on climate change through an interdisciplinarity that does not limit our visions nor narrow the evidence base needed for problems rooted in the deep relationship between the biosphere and human systems. We underscore the intricacy between interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity influenced by the need for policy relevance that is based on the assessment of scientific knowledge, which creates a unique context for reflection on which knowledge is needed to address the climate crisis. This commentary thus offers a cautionary tale about the consequences of conducting nominally interdisciplinary climate change research and assessment under the pressure to generate solutions. We explain why pressure for action leads to reductionist approaches, comment critically on interdisciplinarity as it is currently practised, and offer reflections on a way forward for rethinking interdisciplinarity.

2 Pressure for solutions leads to reductionism

Embracing the complexity of climate change research means reflecting both the natural and the social world, investigating the ways we give meaning to each and examining how they interact with each other. This requires conversations across disciplines to allow for answering questions that a single disciplinary lens cannot fully explain. It also means dealing with the inherent epistemic tensions between the disciplines and greater engagement with difference, which can be a source of creativity and deep learning. There is now increasing agreement that qualitative approaches and diverse ontological models are also needed to understand climate change in specific contexts (Nightingale et al. 2020 ; Goldman et al.  2018 ; Hulme 2010 ). Such perspectives bring out a more complete picture of climate change impacts, the drivers of vulnerability, and opportunities for adaptation and mitigation (Howarth et al.  2018 ). But this can lead to messy, contradictory information that is at odds with the type of evidence that decision-makers require for their applied world. For example, rather than a narrative about who is more vulnerable to climate change in a specific location, decision-makers ask for vulnerability indicators that lump diverse populations together in typologies, forcing categorization even when some individuals would span multiple categories. As a consequence, there remains a strong tendency to focus on reductionist messages, i.e. ‘clean’ narratives that offer discreet pathways (Rigg and Reyes Mason 2018 ), by definition excluding alternative, conflicting approaches that stem from diverse knowledges, including indigenous knowledge (Murphy 2011 ; Ford et al.  2016 ; Farbotko and Lazrus 2012 ). To illustrate these points, we examine two ways in which current representations of climate change knowledge sideline interpretivist disciplines: the way that numbers embody the process of reductionism, and how lack of epistemological diversity also reinforces reductionism and prevents interdisciplinarity from taking place.

2.1 Numbers—not stories

Visual representations of science have a long history (Trumbo 2000 ). Numbers and graphics, which underpin such representations, undoubtedly have an impact in policy conversations, particularly by concretizing complicated information for non-experts and are frequently seen as a way to convey both quantitative and qualitative knowledge on climate change. The result is that often numbers get prioritized over stories. Indeed, the desire by governments for IPCC figures to express ideas simply (Thoni and Livingston 2019 ) suggests that decision-makers are attuned to reductionist messages to help them navigate the masses of climate change knowledge. This is problematic, as both graphics and numbers can oversimplify intricacy of science, and thereby become misused or misunderstood. One example is when the IPCC 1.5 °C report was widely misrepresented as saying that there were 12 years left to act to avert the climate catastrophe. In fact, the report stated that in order to stay under 1.5 °C warming, CO 2 emissions needed to be reduced by half by or before 2030 (i.e. 12 years away from 2018). This led to confusion about when and how to take policy action (Allen 2019 ; Boykoff and Pearman 2019 ; Dubash 2020 ), exacerbating climate anxieties and extreme views, increasing the political polarization on climate change, and generating friction among scientists regarding the most suitable way to frame climate change in communication.

The UNEP Gap Report produced annually since 2010 provides a good illustration of both the power and pitfalls of non-contextual quantitative representation (UNEP 2019 ; Höhne et al.  2020 ). The articulation of an emissions ‘gap’ has been a politically powerful tool, communicated through one number—the Gigaton gap—and one iconic figure with a range of scenarios. Each report provides examples of promising sectoral actions—energy efficiency, land use, urbanization, and more—to fill this gap. Yet, in each subsequent year, the gap has remained and even grown, leaving unasked, and unanswered, why mitigation potential does not seem to be realized. To do so would require going beyond the discussion of an emissions gap, rooted in science, modelling, and technology, to perhaps examine an ‘implementation gap’, focused on politics, policy studies, sociology, and anthropology. Specifically, it would require understanding, at minimum, the national and local politics of realizing low-carbon transitions, the institutions required to oversee those transitions, and the behavioural changes needed at the level of citizens. But these questions, and their answers, are not amenable to reductionist analysis or acontextual answers.

2.2 (Lack of) epistemological diversity

Since the 1st Assessment Report, published in 1990, the IPCC has come a long way toward diversifying the disciplines in authors, starting with only a handful of scholars outside of the natural sciences, to a more even balance across the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) with authors, including Coordinating Lead Authors, stemming from both social sciences and humanities to provide greater diversity of perspectives. This is important because Corbera et al. ( 2016 ) find that epistemological homogeneity among 5th Assessment Report Working Group III authors contributes to narrowing the range of viewpoints and understandings of solutions to climate change. Similarly, lack of disciplinary representation among IPCC authors contributes to unevenness in the literature and evidence assessed (e.g. Hulme and Mahony 2010 ). Bjurström and Polk ( 2011 : p. 543), for example, have found that the IPCC, rather than being seen as an interdisciplinary effort, was a ‘loose cooperation between disciplines with limited integration’.

But while bringing theories, methods, and practices from across the range of scholarly disciplines is one step toward interdisciplinarity (Freeth and Caniglia 2020 ), these efforts can fall flat when the different philosophical underpinnings—i.e. epistemological perspectives—clash and default to ‘disciplinary capture’ by a single perspective (Brister 2016 ). The problem lies with the way in which different disciplines are not provided equal opportunities to contribute to thinking about solutions in the IPCC. For example, while Working Group II is entitled ‘impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability’, vulnerability is given far less emphasis within the reports, and only became part of the focus in the Third Assessment Report in 2007. Consequently, those researchers working on vulnerability are often devalued by a perspective that emphasizes climate change impacts over the underlying drivers of vulnerability, such as poor development, gender inequality, or racism. Addressing this problem would require an acknowledgement that interdisciplinary approaches need to be a platform for epistemological diversity in order to move away from reductionism, rather than only an exercise in multi-disciplinary representation.

The politically sensitive issue of carbon removal technologies illustrates how the IPCC’s contents are influenced by the dominance of a reductionist perspective. As Vardy et al. ( 2017 ) describe, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM) techniques are controversial among both scientists and decision-makers due to the considerable known and potentially unknown risks with these measures. Some have observed that by even acknowledging the literature on CDR and SRM, the IPCC was validating a potentially dangerous approach (Gardiner and Fragnière 2018 ; Frumhoff and Stephens 2018 ). However, more importantly, the qualitative knowledge on social transformations that could have accompanied the carbon removal narrative in the IPCC scenarios was ‘almost impossible’ to model in a way that would have fit with the scenarios (Vardy et al.  2017 : p. 63). Thus, by forcing the knowledge to fit into a reductionist framing, valuable understandings of human behaviour were marginalized. This sends the message that humanity can continue extracting resources and using energy at an ever-accelerating pace without acknowledging that how resources are used will need to change. Even scaling up renewable energy production and use, undoubtedly an important part of the solution to climate change that does not challenge lifestyles and consumption behaviour, can become yet another form of technofix. Knowing that the IPCC has significant influence on scientific knowledge and directions of climate change research in general (Vasileiadou et al.  2011 ; Goldman et al.  2018 ), this could also be highly worrying.

In short, the search for solution-oriented, generalizable statements to guide policy lead to an emphasis on forms of knowledge emerging from natural sciences, technology studies, and economics. These understandings do not engage with questions around the social dynamics of climate resilient futures, examined through the social sciences and humanities disciplinary lenses, which engage more with the context-specific politics and the ‘wicked’ nature of the problem, nor with the narratives found in indigenous knowledge. Yet it is precisely contextual understandings that are salient to implementation challenges, particularly in a Paris Agreement world driven by explicitly contextual ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ to mitigation.

3 Revisiting—and rethinking—interdisciplinarity

Interdisciplinarity is the go-to, unquestioned approach to gain more diverse perspectives, because it suggests the opportunity to consider a single problem from a variety of angles, and seek answers through multiple methodologies. However, collaboration is challenged by underlying differences in research methods, and fundamental epistemological disagreements about what constitutes knowledge needed for action. Indeed, whose model of knowledge should come at the forefront of deciding how society needs to respond to climate change? One can argue that ‘such matters are not climate science’ (Bendell 2020 ), rather that these lie in the domains of political science, sociology, or other human-focused disciplines. But if the nature of the challenge lies well beyond the scope of any single discipline, as climate change does, we have little choice but to grapple with these questions jointly. This is additionally complicated by growing policy pressures to filter statements from a political feasibility perspective. As a result, interdisciplinarity is not insulated from reductionism: quite to the contrary. In an effort to overcome these communications challenges, we often relate results in the form of familiar narratives, eliminating discipline-specific terms that convey the nuances of argument or evidence within the dialect of a single discipline and much meaning is lost.

Importantly, the willingness of all disciplines working on climate change to engage with each other is not a given. Even within the social sciences, competition between how to frame problems and design research means that collaborations can struggle to bear good results (Bracken and Oughton 2006 ). These clashes have left a room for a positivist worldview to dominate, consequently devaluing qualitative sciences and knowledges rooted in diverse epistemologies. The example of how indigenous knowledge has been sidelined from IPCC reports until recently even though many Indigenous Peoples are at the frontlines of climate change (García-del-Amo et al.  2020 ; Alexander et al.  2011 ) demonstrates how ontological disconnects create hierarchies of knowledge, whereby scientific knowledge that can be empirically measured is given greater validity. Encouragingly, there are efforts to link indigenous knowledge with scientific knowledge (Alexander et al.  2011 ), most notably in the ongoing IPCC AR6. Yet, these processes should not just use indigenous knowledge to ‘validate’ empirical measurements of climate change. To represent such knowledge adequately requires shifting framings away from reductionist science and instead embracing that indigenous knowledge brings other and equally valid understandings of why climate change is happening and what consequences it has.

4 New directions for interdisciplinary climate research

We recognize the increasing importance of interdisciplinarity as the climate change crisis worsens (Mooney et al.  2013 ; Olsen et al.  2013 ). Research has already identified characteristics of effective interdisciplinary collaborations on climate change. For example, Bruine de Bruin and Morgan ( 2019 ) draw on a technique called ‘mental models’ to focus on reorienting collaborations around a common goal and a joint methodology, using improved communication between researchers and their audience, something also underscored by Leigh and Brown ( 2021 ) in their study in interdisciplinary projects. Klink et al. ( 2017 ) suggest that the key to good interdisciplinary work is continuous evaluation of how researchers interact with each other, the project and the outputs. While retaining our belief in the benefits of interdisciplinary work, and the virtues of encouraging these approaches among new generations of researchers, we also believe we have to do interdisciplinarity better. Here, we propose four interrelated components of a way forward.

First, we have to change the objective of our research from a quest for a unitary vision of the past, present, and future, toward plural and co-existing perspectives. Diverse simultaneous narratives provide greater opportunity for political creativity than single narratives. Indeed, Pearce et al. ( 2005 ) suggest that ‘dissensus’ as an entry point, rather than consensus, may allow for greater deliberative decision-making. Studies of the IPCC for example suggest that the search for consensus frequently leads IPCC documents to frame unhelpfully bland conclusions on precisely those issues that are of the greatest policy relevance, and therefore politically charged, losing an opportunity to contribute to learning and debate (Victor 2015 ; Vardy et al.  2017 ). This can stem directly from the way that natural and social scientists are forced to make compromises due to their inherently different framings (Vardy et al.  2017 ). Reflecting the co-existence of the different epistemologies grounding different disciplines allows for productive engagement by a broader cross section. For example, the idea behind large-scale implementation of renewable energy as a climate mitigation strategy needs to be framed in its wider social and environmental impacts. These may include mineral extraction as inputs for manufacturing of renewables with all their exploitative implications of poor communities upstream and land expropriation to make way for solar farms that bring localized problems in the interest of globalized solutions of emission reductions. At the point of renewable energy use, vast areas of land for the expansion of solar farms are likely to present competition over land, often occupied by poor communities, hence giving rise to localized challenges.

Second, we need to draw on more (epistemologically) diverse knowledge sources. An acceptance of contestation and contradiction requires a messier intellectual landscape of climate understanding that emerges from different disciplinary perspectives. This would acknowledge the need for ‘uncomfortable knowledge’ in policy making proposed by Rayner ( 2012 ). This means avoiding sanctifying one disciplinary formulation and instead juxtaposing multiple disciplinary formulations. This compels researchers to find new approaches to speak across disciplines, for example, not just drawing on knowledge about human behaviour that can easily be plugged into integrated assessment or other models. Our inherently diverse ways of understanding the world requires us to ask, and answer, questions in different and deeper ways. This epistemological diversity requires us to acknowledge that there are different understandings of what knowledge is, and that this influences how knowledge is constructed (Gobbo and Russo 2020 ) and whose knowledge counts (England 2015 ; Haraway 1988 ). Critically, this also implies a re-working of how researchers communicate with policymakers, the media, and the public. Expectations of definitively stated universalistic statements will need to give way to an appreciation for multiple, contextually embedded messages about future pathways and their implications.

Third, we need to invest more in qualitative research that examines human behaviour. To adequately respond to the call to action, we need to better understand the basis of human responses to climate change. In other words, we need a sound understanding of the implementation gap as much, if not more, than the emissions gap. To do so, we have to go beyond a technical understanding of the potential for mitigation and adaptation, and draw on the social sciences and humanities to explore the factors—political, sociological, and institutional—that help explain whether and how these potentials can actually be realized, as argued by Nightingale et al. ( 2020 ). A recent review shows that many adaptation projects are contributing to increased, rather than reduced, vulnerability to climate change due in part to poor understandings of local contexts where projects are being implemented (Eriksen et al.  2021 ). These findings suggest that adaptation strategies should not be prioritized based on indicators of their implementation feasibility; more important is the consideration of whether they actually reduce the impacts of climate change. Embracing contextual knowledge requires national and local understandings and, as such, works as a defence against reductionism.

Finally, we need to broaden the knowledge base for action-relevant decision-making on climate change—from the current mechanistic approach to setting targets and charting a course alone, to also creating an information base for more regular and informed course correction. Part of the answer lies in encouraging interdisciplinary approaches among new generations of climate change researchers. This also involves asking ‘who speaks for climate change?’ and lessening the focus on reductionist messages and materials. This shift in emphasis comes from a position of humility about future-looking projections, because while our collective behaviour fits certain patterns, it does not fall neatly into deterministic categories. Who could, for instance, have predicted the scale and impact of the Fridays for the Future movement, substantially stimulated by one young pioneer, a feat well-funded NGOs that have been protesting climate change for decades were not able to achieve? Or the lessons about preparedness that we are learning from the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. Schipper et al.  2020 )? In addition to research that allows us to chart a course, we need a climate science that allows us to react flexibly to new developments, and holistically embrace the links between climate change, climate change policy action, and civil society uprisings such as the Black Lives Matter movement (e.g. Sigwalt 2020 ).

The climate debate requires careful quantitative analysis, without doubt. While there is widespread assumption that numerical values can speak a universal language, reductionist messages can easily be misunderstood and misused if they are stripped of the social and political dimensions within which they are framed—or even worse, if they emerge out of assessment that has marginalized such dimensions. We argue here that current mainstream approaches to interdisciplinarity result in limiting overall contributions from the social sciences and humanities to knowledge on climate change. First, it tends to induce all disciplines to assimilate reductionist sciences, tempted by the incentive that the resultant messages may be more palatable to natural scientists for the purposes of collaboration, consequently eliminating the richness otherwise contributed by these scholars. Second, it may alienate talented qualitative researchers who feel their work is less valued from climate change research, or who cannot find a common entry point for their knowledge. To find adequate solutions to climate change, we need to not only embrace inputs from all disciplines, but also to reframe the questions we ask and the approaches we pursue if we are to inform action without slipping into reductionist framings. To do so, this requires rethinking interdisciplinarity by welcoming a plurality of narratives, embracing multiple disciplinary perspectives, understanding human systems that mediate action better, and actively seeking knowledge that enables adaptive response to surprises.

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Alexander C, Bynum N, Johnson E, King U, Mustonen T, Neofotis P, Oettlé N, Rosenzweig C, Sakakibara C, Shadrin V, Vicarelli M, Waterhouse J, Weeks B (2011) Linking indigenous and scientific knowledge of climate change. Bioscience 61(6):477–484. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.6.10

Article   Google Scholar  

Allen M (2019) ‘Why protestors should be wary of ‘12 years to climate breakdown’ rhetoric’ The Conversation (18 April 2019) https://theconversation.com/why-protesters-should-be-wary-of-12-years-to-climate-breakdown-rhetoric-115489

Barnes J, Dove M, Lahsen M, Mathews A, McElwee P, McIntosh R, Moore F, O’Reilly J, Orlove B, Puri R, Weiss H, Yager K (2013) Contribution of anthropology to the study of climate change. Nat Clim Chang 3:541–544. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1775

Bendell J (2020) ‘The worst argument to try to win: response to criticism of the climate science in deep adaptation’, DeepAdaptation.info, https://jembendell.com/2020/02/27/the-worst-argument-to-try-to-win-response-to-criticism-of-the-climate-science-in-deep-adaptation/

Bhaskar R, Frank C, Hoyer GK, Naess P, Parker J (2010) Interdisciplinarity and climate change: Transforming knowledge and practice for our global futures. Routledge

Book   Google Scholar  

Bjurström A, Polk M (2011) Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report. Scientometrics 87(3):525–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0356-3

Boykoff M, Pearman O (2019) Now or never: how media coverage of the IPCC special report on 1.5 °C shaped climate-action deadlines. One Earth 1(3):285–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.10.026

Bracken LJ, Oughton EA (2006) What do you mean? The importance of language in developing interdisciplinary research. Trans Inst Br Geogr 31(3):371–382

Brister E (2016) Disciplinary capture and epistemological obstacles to interdisciplinary research: lessons from central African conservation disputes. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part c: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 56:82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.11.001

Bruine de Bruin W, Morgan MG (2019) Reflections on an interdisciplinary collaboration to inform public understanding of climate change, mitigation, and impacts. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116(16):7676–7683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803726115

Callaghan MW, Minx JC, Forster PM (2020) A topography of climate change research. Nat Clim Chang 10:118–123. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0684-5

Castán Broto V (2020) Climate change politics and the urban contexts of messy governmentalities. Territory, Politics, Governance 8(2):241–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2019.1632220

Castree N, Adams W, Barry J et al (2014) Changing the intellectual climate. Nature Clim Change 4:763–768. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2339

Corbera E, Calvet-Mir L, Hughes H, Paterson M (2016) Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report. Nature Clim Change 6:94–99. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2782

Dubash NK (2020) ‘Revisiting climate ambition: the case for prioritizing current action over future intent’. WIREs Climate Change. 11(e622). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.622

England K (2015) Producing feminist geographies: theory, methodologies and research strategies. In: Aitkin S, Valentine G (eds) Approaches to human geography, 2nd edn, pp 361–372

Eriksen S, Schipper ELF, Scoville-Simonds M, Vincent K, Adam HN, Brooks N, Harding B, Khatri D, Lenaerts L, Liverman D, Mills-Novoa M, Mosberg M, Movik S, Muok B, Nightingale A, Ojha H, Sygna L, Taylor M, Vogel C, West JJ (2021) Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: help, hindrance or irrelevance? World Dev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383

Evensen D (2019) The rhetorical limitations of the #FridaysForFuture movement. Nat Clim Chang 9:428–430. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0481-1

Farbotko C, Lazrus H (2012) The first climate refugees? Contesting global narratives of climate change in Tuvalu. Glob Environ Chang 22(2):382–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.11.014

Fisher DR, Nasrin S (2020) ‘Climate activism and its effects’. WIREs Clim Change e683. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.683

Ford J, Cameron L, Rubis J, Maillet M, Nakashima D, Willox AC, Pearce T (2016) Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nat Clim Chang 6:349–353. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2954

Freeth R, Caniglia G (2020) Learning to collaborate while collaborating: advancing interdisciplinary sustainability research. Sustain Sci 15:247–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00701-z

Frumhoff PC, Stephens JC (2018) Towards legitimacy of the solar geoengineering research enterprise. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 376:20160459. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0459

García-del-Amo D, Mortyn PG, Reyes-García V (2020) Including indigenous and local knowledge in climate research: an assessment of the opinion of Spanish climate change researchers. Clim Change 160:67–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02628-x

Gardiner SM, Fragnière A (2018) Geoengineering, political legitimacy and justice. Ethics, Policy & Environment 21(3):265–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2018.1562524

Gobbo F, Russo F (2020) Epistemic diversity and the question of Lingua Franca in science and philosophy. Found Sci 25:185–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-019-09631-6

Goldman MJ, Turner MD, Daly M (2018) A critical political ecology of human dimensions of climate change: epistemology, ontology, and ethics. WIREs Climate Change 9:4. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.526

Haasnoot M, Biesbroek R, Lawrence J et al (2020) Defining the solution space to accelerate climate change adaptation. Regional Environmental Change 20:37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01623-8

Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Stud 14(3):575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066

Heymann M (2019) The climate change dilemma: big science, the globalizing of climate and the loss of the human scale. Reg Environ Change 19:1549–1560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1373-z

Höhne N, den Elzen M, Rogelj J et al (2020) Emissions: world has four times the work or one-third of the time. Nature 579:25–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00571-x

Howarth C, Morse-Jones S, Brooks K, Kythreotis AP (2018) ‘Co-producing UK climate change adaptation policy: an analysis of the 2012 and 2017 UK Climate Change Risk Assessments. Environ Sci Policy 89:412–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.09.010

Hulme M (2010) Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Glob Environ Chang 20:558–564

Hulme M (2011a) Reducing the future to climate: a story of climate determinism and reductionism. Osiris 26(1):245–266

Hulme M (2011b) Meet the humanities. Nat Clim Chang 1:177–179. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1150

Hulme M (2020) One earth, many futures, no destination. One Earth 2(4):209–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.03.005

Hulme M, Mahony M (2010) Climate change: what do we know about the IPCC? Prog Phys Geogr 34:705–718

IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] (2018) ‘Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty’ [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)].

Jasanoff S (2010) A new climate for society. Theory Cult Soc 27(2–3):233–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409361497

Klink J, Koundinya V, Kies K, Robinson C, Rao A, Berezowitz C, Widhalm M, Prokopy L (2017) Enhancing interdisciplinary climate change work through comprehensive evaluation. Clim Risk Manag 15:109–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2016.11.003

Leigh J, Brown N (2021) ‘Researcher experiences in practice-based interdisciplinary research’ Research Evaluation , rvab018. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab018

Mooney HA, Duraiappahb A, Larigauderiec A (2013) Evolution of natural and social science interactions in global change research programs. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(1):3665–3672. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107484110

Murphy BL (2011) From interdisciplinary to inter-epistemological approaches: confronting the challenges of integrated climate change research. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien 55:490–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2011.00388.x

Nightingale AJ, Eriksen S, Taylor M, Forsyth T, Pelling M, Newsham A, Boyd E, Brown K, Harvey B, Jones L, Bezner Kerr R, Mehta L, Naess L-O, Ockwell D, Scoones I, Tanner T, Whitfield S (2020) Beyond Technical Fixes: climate solutions and the great derangement. Climate Dev 12(4):343–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1624495

Olsen D, Borlaug S, Klitkou A, Lyall C, Yearley S (2013) ‘A better understanding of interdisciplinary research in climate change’ NIFU Working Paper 15/2013. https://nifu.brage.unit.no/nifu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2358611/NIFUworkingpaper2013-15.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Pearce W, Brown B, Nerlich B, Koteyko N (2005) Communicating climate change: conduits, content, and consensus. Wires Clim Change 6(6):613–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.366

Rayner S (2012) Uncomfortable knowledge: the social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Econ Soc 41(1):107–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2011.637335

Rigg J, Reyes Mason L (2018) (2018) ‘Five dimensions of climate science reductionism’. Nature Climate Change 8:1030–1032. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0352-1

Schipper ELF, Eriksen SE, Fernandez Carril L, Glavovic B, Shawoo Z (2020) Turbulent transformation: abrupt societal disruption and climate resilient development. Climate Dev. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1799738

Shah H (2020) Global problems need social science. Nature 577:295. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00064-x

Sigwalt D (2020) ‘Climate activists: here’s why your work depends on ending police violence’ Medium, https://sustainabilityx.co/climate-activists-heres-why-your-work-depends-on-ending-police-violence-fa1a76cf8c6f

Simonovic SP, Davies EGR (2006) Are we modelling the impacts of climatic change properly? Hydrol Process 20:431–433. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6106

Thoni T, Livingston JE (2019) Going beyond science-policy interaction? An analysis of views among intergovernmental panel on climate change actors. Critical Policy Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2019.1665564

Trumbo J (2000) Seeing Science: research opportunities in the visual communication of science. Sci Commun 21(4):379–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547000021004004

UNEP [UN Environment Programme] Emissions Gap Report 2019, ISBN: 978–92–807–3766–0

Vardy M, Oppenheimer M, Dubash NK, O’Reilly J, Jamieson D (2017) The intergovernmental panel on climate change: challenges and opportunities. Annu Rev Environ Resour 42:55–75. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-061053

Vasileiadou E, Heimeriks G, Petersen AC (2011) Exploring the impact of the IPCC Assessment Reports on science. Environ Sci Policy 14(8):1052–1061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.07.002

Victor D (2015) Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Nature 250:27–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/520027a

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors benefited from conversations with Brigitte Knopf and Heide Hackmann as co-members of the UN Secretary-General’s Science Advisory Group for the 2019 Climate Action Summit, and from comments and conversations with Lauren Rickards and Jamie Haverkamp, and constructive comments by three anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK

E. Lisa F. Schipper

Centre for Policy Research, Dharma Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, 110 021, India

Navroz K. Dubash

Department of Science, Technology, Engineering & Public Policy, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

Yacob Mulugetta

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

ELFS, NKD, and YM jointly conceptualized, drafted, and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Lisa F. Schipper .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval, consent to participate, consent for publication, conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Schipper, E.L.F., Dubash, N.K. & Mulugetta, Y. Climate change research and the search for solutions: rethinking interdisciplinarity. Climatic Change 168 , 18 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03237-3

Download citation

Received : 16 September 2020

Accepted : 02 October 2021

Published : 18 October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03237-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Interdisciplinarity
• Climate change research
• Reductionism
• Social science
• Climate solutions
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Search the United Nations

• What Is Climate Change
• Myth Busters
• Renewable Energy
• Finance & Justice
• Initiatives
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Paris Agreement
• Climate Ambition Summit 2023
• Climate Conferences
• Press Material
• Communications Tips

What Is Climate Change?

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change , primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.

Burning fossil fuels generates greenhouse gas emissions that act like a blanket wrapped around the Earth, trapping the sun’s heat and raising temperatures.

The main greenhouse gases that are causing climate change include carbon dioxide and methane. These come from using gasoline for driving a car or coal for heating a building, for example. Clearing land and cutting down forests can also release carbon dioxide. Agriculture, oil and gas operations are major sources of methane emissions. Energy, industry, transport, buildings, agriculture and land use are among the main sectors  causing greenhouse gases.

Humans are responsible for global warming

Climate scientists have showed that humans are responsible for virtually all global heating over the last 200 years. Human activities like the ones mentioned above are causing greenhouse gases that are warming the world faster than at any time in at least the last two thousand years.

The average temperature of the Earth’s surface is now about 1.2°C warmer than it was in the late 1800s (before the industrial revolution) and warmer than at any time in the last 100,000 years. The last decade (2011-2020) was the warmest on record , and each of the last four decades has been warmer than any previous decade since 1850.

Many people think climate change mainly means warmer temperatures. But temperature rise is only the beginning of the story. Because the Earth is a system, where everything is connected, changes in one area can influence changes in all others.

The consequences of climate change now include, among others, intense droughts, water scarcity, severe fires, rising sea levels, flooding, melting polar ice, catastrophic storms and declining biodiversity.

People are experiencing climate change in diverse ways

Climate change can affect our health , ability to grow food, housing, safety and work. Some of us are already more vulnerable to climate impacts, such as people living in small island nations and other developing countries. Conditions like sea-level rise and saltwater intrusion have advanced to the point where whole communities have had to relocate, and protracted droughts are putting people at risk of famine. In the future, the number of people displaced by weather-related events is expected to rise.

Every increase in global warming matters

In a series of UN reports , thousands of scientists and government reviewers agreed that limiting global temperature rise to no more than 1.5°C would help us avoid the worst climate impacts and maintain a livable climate. Yet policies currently in place point to a 3°C temperature rise by the end of the century.

The emissions that cause climate change come from every part of the world and affect everyone, but some countries produce much more than others .The seven biggest emitters alone (China, the United States of America, India, the European Union, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, and Brazil) accounted for about half of all global greenhouse gas emissions in 2020.

Everyone must take climate action, but people and countries creating more of the problem have a greater responsibility to act first.

We face a huge challenge but already know many solutions

Many climate change solutions can deliver economic benefits while improving our lives and protecting the environment. We also have global frameworks and agreements to guide progress, such as the Sustainable Development Goals , the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement . Three broad categories of action are: cutting emissions, adapting to climate impacts and financing required adjustments.

Switching energy systems from fossil fuels to renewables like solar or wind will reduce the emissions driving climate change. But we have to act now. While a growing number of countries is committing to net zero emissions by 2050, emissions must be cut in half by 2030 to keep warming below 1.5°C. Achieving this means huge declines in the use of coal, oil and gas: over two-thirds of today’s proven reserves of fossil fuels need to be kept in the ground by 2050 in order to prevent catastrophic levels of climate change.

Adapting to climate consequences protects people, homes, businesses, livelihoods, infrastructure and natural ecosystems. It covers current impacts and those likely in the future. Adaptation will be required everywhere, but must be prioritized now for the most vulnerable people with the fewest resources to cope with climate hazards. The rate of return can be high. Early warning systems for disasters, for instance, save lives and property, and can deliver benefits up to 10 times the initial cost.

We can pay the bill now, or pay dearly in the future

Climate action requires significant financial investments by governments and businesses. But climate inaction is vastly more expensive. One critical step is for industrialized countries to fulfil their commitment to provide $100 billion a year to developing countries so they can adapt and move towards greener economies.

To get familiar with some of the more technical terms used in connection with climate change, consult the Climate Dictionary .

Learn more about…

The facts on climate and energy

Climate change is a hot topic – with myths and falsehoods circulating widely. Find some essential facts here .

The science

See the latest climate reports from the United Nations as well as climate action facts .

Causes and Effects

Fossil fuels are by far the largest contributor to the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, which poses many risks to all forms of life on Earth. Learn more .

From the Secretary-General

Read the UN Chief’s latest statements on climate action.

What is net zero? Why is it important? Our  net-zero page  explains why we need steep emissions cuts now and what efforts are underway.

Renewable energy – powering a safer future

What is renewable energy and why does it matter? Learn more about why the shift to renewables is our only hope for a brighter and safer world.

How will the world foot the bill? We explain the issues and the value of financing climate action.

What is climate adaptation? Why is it so important for every country? Find out how we can protect lives and livelihoods as the climate changes.

Climate Issues

Learn more about how climate change impacts are felt across different sectors and ecosystems.

Why women are key to climate action

Women and girls are on the frontlines of the climate crisis and uniquely situated to drive action. Find out why it’s time to invest in women.

Facts and figures

• What is climate change?
• Causes and effects
• Myth busters

Cutting emissions

• Explaining net zero
• High-level expert group on net zero
• Checklists for credibility of net-zero pledges
• Greenwashing
• What you can do

Clean energy

• Renewable energy – key to a safer future
• What is renewable energy
• Five ways to speed up the energy transition
• Why invest in renewable energy
• Clean energy stories
• A just transition

Adapting to climate change

• Climate adaptation
• Early warnings for all
• Youth voices

Financing climate action

• Finance and justice
• Loss and damage
• $100 billion commitment
• Why finance climate action
• Biodiversity
• Human Security

International cooperation

• What are Nationally Determined Contributions
• Acceleration Agenda
• Climate Ambition Summit
• Climate conferences (COPs)
• Youth Advisory Group
• Action initiatives
• Secretary-General’s speeches
• Press material
• Fact sheets
• Communications tips

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 25 May 2024

Neither right nor wrong? Ethics of collaboration in transformative research for sustainable futures

• Julia M. Wittmayer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4738-6276 1 , 2 ,
• Ying-Syuan (Elaine) Huang 3 ,
• Kristina Bogner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1871-9828 4 ,
• Evan Boyle 5 ,
• Katharina Hölscher 6 ,
• Timo von Wirth 2 , 7 ,
• Tessa Boumans 2 ,
• Jilde Garst 8 ,
• Yogi Hale Hendlin 9 ,
• Mariangela Lavanga   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5925-9509 10 ,
• Derk Loorbach 1 ,
• Neha Mungekar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4663-0716 1 , 2 ,
• Mapula Tshangela 11 ,
• Pieter Vandekerckhove 12 &
• Ana Vasques 13  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  677 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

292 Accesses

Metrics details

• Environmental studies
• Science, technology and society

Transformative research is a broad and loosely connected family of research disciplines and approaches, with the explicit normative ambition to fundamentally question the status quo, change the dominant structures, and support just sustainability transitions by working collaboratively with society. When engaging in such science-practice collaborations for transformative change in society, researchers experience ethical dilemmas. Amongst others, they must decide, what is worthwhile to be researched, whose reality is privileged, and whose knowledge is included. Yet, current institutionalised ethical standards, which largely follow the tradition of medical ethics, are insufficient to guide transformative researchers in navigating such dilemmas. In addressing this vacuum, the research community has started to develop peer guidance on what constitutes morally good behaviour. These formal and informal guidelines offer a repertoire to explain and justify positions and decisions. However, they are only helpful when they have become a part of researchers’ practical knowledge ‘in situ’. By focusing on situated research practices, the article addresses the need to develop an attitude of leaning into the uncertainty around what morally good behaviour constitutes. It also highlights the significance of combining this attitude with a critical reflexive practice both individually and collaboratively for answering questions around ‘how to’ as well as ‘what is the right thing to do’. Using a collaborative autoethnographic approach, the authors of this paper share their own ethical dilemmas in doing transformative research, discuss those, and relate them to a practical heuristic encompassing axiological, ontological, and epistemological considerations. The aim is to support building practical wisdom for the broader research community about how to navigate ethical questions arising in transformative research practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

A tool for reflecting on research stances to support sustainability transitions

Negotiating the ethical-political dimensions of research methods: a key competency in mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research

Intentional Ecology: Integrating environmental expertise through a focus on values, care and advocacy

Introduction.

There is a growing recognition that current research has failed to adequately address persistent societal challenges, which are complex, uncertain, and evaluative in nature (Ferraro et al., 2015 ; Loorbach et al., 2017 ; Saltelli et al., 2016 ). Along with this recognition come calls for science to help address these increasingly urgent and complex challenges faced at a global and local level, such as biodiversity loss, climate change, or social inequalities (Future Earth, 2014 ; Parks et al., 2019 ; WBGU, 2011 ). This call is echoed from within academia (Bradbury et al., 2019 ; Fazey et al., 2018 ; Norström et al., 2020 ) and has also translated into corresponding research funding (Arnott et al., 2020 ; Gerber et al., 2020 ; Vermeer et al., 2020 ). The fundamental premise is that addressing complex societal challenges requires more than disciplinary knowledge alone and extends beyond the confines of academia (Gibbons et al., 1994 ; Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008 ; Lang et al., 2012 ). That is, addressing them necessitates interactive knowledge co-production and social learning with societal actors to produce actionable and contextually embedded knowledge for societal transformations (Chambers et al., 2021 ; Hessels et al., 2009 ; Schäpke et al., 2018 ). This trend has prompted a (re)surge of socially engaged approaches to research, including transdisciplinary research, phronetic social sciences, participatory research, action- and impact-oriented research, and transformative research. These approaches involve collaboration between academics and various societal stakeholders, such as policymakers, communities, enterprises, and civil society organisations.

However, often, such socially engaged research approaches are at odds with the institutional traditions designed for monodisciplinary knowledge production. Transformative research, for instance, does not claim an objective observer position; instead, it explicitly embraces a normative orientation. Its goal, as many have argued, is to facilitate transformative societal change towards justice and sustainability by recognising and addressing the deep and persistent socio-ecological challenges inherent in our current society (Mertens, 2007 ; Wittmayer et al., 2021 ). This motive to transform existing systems through collaborative research, in our view, obliges researchers to be more critical and vigilant in their decisions (Fazey et al., 2018 ). As we will present later in this paper, many of these decisions constitute ethical dilemmas, such as who decides what ‘good’ research is, whose knowledge to prioritise, or who should engage and under which circumstances. These ethical dilemmas are only poorly addressed by the ethical review processes in place at most universities, which remain dominated by linear and positivist framings of knowledge production and research design (Wood and Kahts-Kramer, 2023 ). Consequently, transformative researchers are often left struggling to choose “ between doing good (being ethically responsive to the people being researched) and doing good research (maintaining pre-approved protocols) ” (Macleod et al., 2018 , p. 10). The translation of the values and principles of transformative research into formal and informal ethical guidelines is only starting (Caniglia et al., 2023 ; Fazey et al., 2018 ; West and Schill, 2022 ).

Confronting these ethical dilemmas calls for greater reflexivity and dialogue with ourselves, among researchers, between researchers and their collaborators (including funders and professionals), and between researchers and the institutions within which they operate (Finlay, 2002 ; Horcea-Milcu et al., 2022 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ). Attesting to this call, the authors of this paper engaged in a ‘collaborative autoethnography’ (Lapadat, 2017 ; Miyahara & Fukao, 2022 ; Phillips et al., 2022 ) to explore the following research question: Which ethical dilemmas do researchers face in research collaborations that seek to catalyse transformations? And how do they navigate these in their collaborative practice? Thus, as an interdisciplinary group of researchers affiliated with academic research institutes, we shared, compared, and discussed our experiences concerning ethical dilemmas in our transformative research endeavours. In these discussions, we considered our interactions, engagements, and relationships with collaborators along with how institutional rules and norms influence or constrain our practices and relations.

This paper begins with an overview of transformative research and the challenges that arise when working collaboratively. It also testifies to the formal and informal attempts to support researchers in navigating those challenges (“Ethics in transformative research”). From there, we develop the argument that formal or informal guidelines are most meaningful when they have become a part of the practical wisdom of researchers. When they are, they support researchers in leaning into the uncertainty of what constitutes morally good behaviour and in navigating collaboration ‘in situ’. Inspired by Mertens ( 2017 ), we relate our own dilemmas to the three philosophical commitments that comprise a research paradigm: axiology, ontology, and epistemology (“Transformative research practice investigated through collaborative autoethnography”, also for an elaboration of the terms). We share concrete dilemmas while embedding and relating them to a broader body of knowledge around similar dilemmas and questions (“Collaboration in transformative research practice”). We close the paper by pointing to the importance of bottom-up ethics and the need to embed those into revalued and redesigned ethical standards, processes, and assessments that can provide external guidance and accountability (“Concluding thoughts”).

Ethics in transformative research

In this section, we first introduce transformative research (TR) in terms of its underlying values and its ontological and epistemological premises (Mertens, 2007 , 2017 ) (“Introducing transformative research”). We then connect it to its institutional context, where ethical standards and procedures fit the linear production of knowledge, leading to tensions with TR practices (“Institutional context: Formal ethical standards and processes”). Finally, we outline how the research community tries to address this misfit and the felt need for understanding what constitutes morally ‘right’ behaviour by providing peer guidance on the ethical conduct of TR (“Peer context: Informal heuristics for transformative research”).

Introducing transformative research

TR refers to a broad and loosely connected family of research disciplines and approaches, with the explicit normative ambition to fundamentally question the status quo, change the dominant structures, and support just sustainability transitions (Hölscher et al., 2021 ; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2018 ; Mertens, 2021 ; Schneidewind et al., 2016 ; Wittmayer et al., 2021 ). Transformative researchers thus start from the basic premise that “ all researchers are essentially interveners ” (Fazey et al., 2018 , p. 63). Consequently, they are explicit about the kind of normative orientation of their interventions to further a social justice and environmental sustainability agenda. There is no denying the fact that such research approaches can also be used with a different normative mindset and value orientation, which will have other ethical consequences.

TR builds on methodological and theoretical pluralism that knits together kindred, or even conflicting, perspectives to complement disciplinary specialism (Hoffmann et al., 2017 ; Horcea-Milcu et al., 2022 ; Midgley, 2011 ). As such, it also comes as a diverse phenomenon, and where such diversity is “ not haphazard […] we must be cautious about developing all-embracing standards to differentiate the ‘good’ from the ‘bad ’” (Cassell and Johnson, 2006 , p. 783). Such an ontological stance involves letting go of the idea of absolute truth and the need to tightly control the research process and outcomes (van Breda and Swilling, 2019 ). Instead, TR encourages continuous societal learning to generate actionable knowledge and transformative action that manifests in real-world changes in behaviours, values, institutions, etc. (Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ; Hölscher et al., 2021 ). In doing so, TR is often based upon pragmatist assumptions about the ways knowledge and action inform one another, generating contingent knowledge in a process of action and experimentation (Harney et al., 2016 ; Popa et al., 2015 ). The research process serves as a means to assess ideas in practical application, blending a critical realist stance on socially constructed reality with acknowledging subjectivism and the existence of multiple realities (Cassell and Johnson, 2006 ).

TR also represents an epistemological shift from the notion of the distanced, presumably unbiased, and all-knowing researcher and recognises individuals as sense-makers, agency holders, and change agents (Horcea-Milcu et al., 2022 ; Hurtado, 2022 ). Collaboration enables the elicitation of different kinds of knowledge, including scientific knowledge across disciplines as well as phronetic and tacit knowledge from practice. It aims at capturing the plurality of knowing and doing that is relevant to specific contexts and actors (Frantzeskaki and Kabisch, 2016 ; Nugroho et al., 2018 ; Pohl, 2008 ). This sort of mutual social learning supports joint sense-making and experimental processes. These then invite us to rethink existing situations, (re)define desired futures, and (re)position short-term action (Fazey et al., 2018 ; Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2016 ; Schneider et al., 2019 ). The co-creation of knowledge and action can increase ownership, legitimacy, and accountability and can help facilitate trust-building among diverse societal groups (Hessels et al., 2009 ; Lang et al., 2012 ). The latter is an essential ingredient for tackling complex societal problems during times of discrediting science and the rise of populist, antidemocratic movements (Saltelli et al., 2016 ).

Institutional context: formal ethical standards and processes

The institutional environment is challenging for researchers engaging in TR for multiple reasons; one challenge is the formal ethical standards and processes. Current approaches to ethical assessment in social science emerged from several international conventions in the field of medical ethics (BMJ, 1996 ; General Assembly of the World Medical Association, 2014 ; National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical, & Behavioural Research, 1979 ). Most formal research ethics reviews adopt the four principles of Beauchamp and Childress ( 2001 ), which include: (1) non-maleficence by attempting to not harm others; (2) respect for autonomy by attempting to provide information about the research that allows decisions to be taken; (3) beneficence by attempting to achieve useful outcomes outweighing the risks of participation; and (4) justice by attempting fairness in participation and distribution of benefits. These principles have found their way into formal ethical reviews, often practicing value-neutral and utilitarian ethics. This approach is debatable for TR approaches (Detardo-Bora, 2004 ) and seems more effective at protecting research institutions (foregrounding bureaucratically controllable compliance) than research participants (Christians, 2005 ). Indeed, many engaged in TR have raised concerns that neither these principles nor their formal translation account for the particularity, situatedness, epistemic responsibilities, and relationality that are key to the conduct and ethics of TR (Cockburn and Cundill, 2018 ; Lincoln, 2001 ; Parsell et al., 2014 ; Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 ). In the following paragraphs, we highlight several tensions between the understanding of research, as it informs many ethical standards in place, and an understanding of TR.

First, a pre-defined versus an emerging research design. Due to its real-world orientation, TR needs to be able to deal flexibly with changing contexts and windows of opportunity that might arise (Hurtado, 2022 ). Due to the relationality of TR, it requires ongoing interaction and negotiation between researchers and their collaborators (Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ; Bournot-Trites and Belanger, 2005 ; Williamson and Prosser, 2002 ). One-off general consent at the start (e.g., through informed consent forms), as is common for ethical review processes, is thus at odds with the emergent design of TR and is also argued to be insufficient in maintaining participants’ autonomy (Smith, 2008 ). As an alternative, Locke et al. ( 2013 ) posit that informed consent should be seen as a collective, negotiated, continuous process, especially in collaborative action research.

Second, assumed neutrality versus dynamic aspects of researchers’ positionalities. Ethical review protocols are geared towards upholding the objective position of researchers as outsiders in the investigated context, ensuring that they will not influence this research context in any way. However, TR explicates its ambition to influence real-world problems through engagement, acknowledging that research needs to confront existing hegemonic orders and emancipate those involved through a democratic process (Cassell and Johnson, 2006 ). Furthermore, researchers co-design, facilitate, and participate in the process of knowledge co-production, making them also participants and subjects of their own research (Janes, 2016 ). To enhance the validity and integrity of the research, Wood, and Kahts-Kramer ( 2023 ), among others, suggest that transformative researchers explicitly state their positionality. This involves reflecting on their assumptions, values, and worldviews.

Third, the primacy of knowledge generation versus the importance of action. Ethical review protocols, given their historical roots in medical practice, assume that the act of falsifying, generating, or improving theories alone would benefit participants, collaborators, and the public at large. Yet, researchers engaged in TR take a step further, seeking to develop both scientific and actionable knowledge in a way that addresses persistent societal problems and stimulates social change (Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ; Caniglia et al., 2021 ; Greenwood and Levin, 2007 ). As put by Wood and Kahts-Kramer ( 2023 , p. 7), “ the ethical imperative of participatory research is to bring about positive change and generate theory from reflection on the purposeful action ”. This approach strengthens the responsiveness of research to societal and political needs (Stilgoe et al., 2013 ).

Transformative researchers thus perceive a lack of utility and guidance from ethical standards and processes in place that have institutionalised a certain understanding of research and related sets of principles. Following Clouser and Gert ( 1990 ), one might question whether such institutionalisation of a moral consciousness is possible in the first place. They argue that so-called ‘principlism,’ “ the practice of using ‘principles’ to replace both moral theory and particular moral rules and ideals in dealing with the moral problems that arise in medical practice ” (Clouser and Gert, 1990 , p. 219), has reduced the much-needed debates on morality vis-à-vis research and results in inconsistent and ambiguous directives for morally ‘right’ action in practice. In response to the vacuum left by institutionalised ethics standards and processes and the perceived necessity of defining morally ‘right’ behaviour, the research community is turning inward to develop peer guidance on ethical conduct in TR. The subsequent section highlights several contributions to this endeavour.

Peer context: Informal heuristics for transformative research

Transformative researchers have started offering general principles or frameworks as informal heuristics for what constitutes ‘ethical’ TR. Caniglia et al. ( 2023 ), for example, argue that practical wisdom can serve as a moral compass in complex knowledge co-production contexts, and propose four central ‘wills’ for researchers to follow: committing to justice, embracing care, fostering humility, and developing courage. Under the framing of post-normal or Mode-2 science (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994 ; Gibbons et al., 1994 ; Nowotny et al., 2003 ), Fazey et al. ( 2018 ) present ten ‘essentials’ of action-oriented research on transforming energy systems and climate change research Footnote 1 . One of these essentials highlights that, as researchers, we intervene, and that failing to acknowledge and engage with this reality opens the doors to sustaining unjust power relations or positioning science as apolitical. To address this, they echo Lacey et al.’s ( 2015 , p. 201) assertion that such acknowledgment means “ be[ing] transparent and accountable about the choices made about what science is undertaken, and how it is funded and communicated ”.

Looking beyond sustainability scholarship, other researchers have also developed practical actions or strategies for enhancing their ethical behaviours in the research collaboration. Taking the unique attributes of community-based participatory research, Kwan and Walsh ( 2018 , p. 382) emphasise a “ focus on equity rather than equality ” and on practicing a constructive or generative use of power “ rather than adopting a power neutral or averse position ”. Others provide guiding questions to think about the forms and quality of relationships between researchers and participants (Rowan, 2000 ) and to support the navigation of the relationship between action research and other participants (Williamson and Prosser, 2002 ). Such questions should cover not only process-focused questions but also the risks and benefits of the intended outcomes, as well as questions around purpose, motivation, and directionalities (Stilgoe et al., 2013 ). Others also propose broader guidelines in which they pay attention to non-Western and non-human-centred virtue ethics, such as ‘Ubuntu’ (I am because we are) (Chilisa, 2020 ). In forwarding climate change as a product of colonisation, Gram-Hanssen et al. ( 2022 ) join Donald’s ( 2012 ) call for an ethical relationality and reiterate the need to ground all transformation efforts on a continuous process of embodying ‘right relations’ (see also Chilisa, 2020 ; Wilson, 2020 ).

Yet, as argued before, ethics in collaboration cannot be approached through developing principles and strategies alone. Not only might they not be at hand or on top of one’s mind when being immersed in a collaborative practice, which often requires a certain reaction on the spot. They also cannot or should not replace the quest for what morality means within that collaboration (cf. Clouser and Gert, 1990 ). Further questions have been prompted about the necessary skillsets for realising ethical principles in practice (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2018 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ; West and Schill, 2022 ). Caniglia et al. ( 2023 ), for example, propose that researchers need skills such as dealing with plural values with agility and traversing principles and situations with discernment. Others focus on competency building among research participants (Menon and Hartz-Karp, 2023 ). The subsequent section turns to the point of supporting researchers in navigating collaboration ‘in situ’ and in leaning into the uncertainty around what morally good behaviour constitutes—in concrete TR contexts that are plural and uncertain.

Transformative research practice investigated through collaborative autoethnography

Transformative research as a situated practice.

The aforementioned institutionalised ethical standards and procedures, as well as the informal peer heuristics, are two vantage points for guidance on what constitutes morally good behaviour for transformative researchers. These existing vantage points are either developed based on theoretical and philosophical framings or based on researchers’ actual experiences of doing TR. They do offer a repertoire to explain and justify positions and decisions in ethical dilemmas during research collaborations. However, it is not until such heuristics or principles have become part of the practical knowledge of researchers that they are useful for actual TR in situ.

Considering research more as a practice situates it as a social activity in a ‘real-world context’. In such a practice, researchers often make decisions on the spot. Moreover, due to the constraints posed by available time and resources, researchers often engage in what Greenwood and Levin ( 2007 , p. 130) term “ skilful improvisation ” or “ pragmatic concessions ” (Greenwood and Levin, 2007 , p. 85). This “ improvisational quality ” (Yanow, 2006 , p. 70) of the research process does not mean it is not carried out systematically. Such systematicity is based on “ action repertoires ” (Yanow, 2006 , p. 71) that researchers creatively use and remake (Malkki, 2007 ). This improvisation is thus neither spontaneous nor random; rather, it builds on and is based on the practical knowledge of researchers (formed through their experiences and their situatedness) guiding their behaviours in normatively complex situations. Using ‘organic design’ (Haapala et al., 2016 ), the researchers blend real-world settings into formal spaces, fostering bricolage and driving sustainable institutional evolution over time. Such practical knowledge includes “ both ‘know how’ knowledge (techne), […] and ethical and political-practical knowledge (phronesis)” (Fazey et al., 2018 , p. 61). Research can thus be considered a craft (Wittmayer, 2016 ): the skilful mastery of which develops over time through learning based on experience and reflection (Kolb, 1984 ).

Such experiential learning should go beyond reflecting on what lies in view to include seeing how attributes of the viewer shape what is being viewed (cf. Stirling, 2006 ). Engaging in TR includes being one’s own research instrument, which puts a researcher’s positionality, i.e., their social, cultural, and political locations, centre stage. It reminds us that researchers are “ located within networks of power and participate in the (re)configuration of power relations ” (Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 , p. 74). This positionality, the sum of what makes a person and how this informs their actions (Haraway, 1988 ; Kwan and Walsh, 2018 ; Marguin et al., 2021 ), is increasingly being acknowledged in academia. It has a long history in feminist theories, participatory action research, and the critical pedagogy of decolonisation. Positionality refers to the “ researcher’s self-understanding and social vision ” (Coghlan and Shani, 2005 , p. 539) as well as their motivation to ‘better society’ (Boyle et al., 2023 ; Kump et al., 2023 ) and how these affect how researchers interpret ethical guidelines, conduct research, interpret data, and present findings. Consequently, one’s positionality can make certain research choices seem unethical. Mertens ( 2021 , p. 2), for example, considers “ continuing to do research in a business-as-usual manner” unethical as it makes the researcher “ complicit in sustaining oppression ”.

Acknowledging one’s positionality and normative role is part of a broader reflexive practice of critically questioning, reflecting on, and being transparent about values, as well as taking responsibility and accountability for research processes and outcomes (Fazey et al., 2018 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ; Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 ). Such a reflexive practice can support individual researchers to act ethically, but more so, to improve our collective ways of being and doing (i.e., an ethically informed research community) by constantly connecting what should be (i.e., the guidelines) and how it has been done (i.e., the practices) through critical reflexive practices. This improvement at the collective level includes a re-valuation and redesign of existing processes and guidelines for morally good research.

A collaborative autoethnography

Responding to this need for critical reflexivity, we engaged with our storied experience in navigating concrete and immediate ethical dilemmas that we have encountered when collaborating with others for TR in practice. We did so through collaborative autoethnography, a multivocal approach in which two or more researchers work together to share personal stories and interpret the pooled autoethnographic data (Chang et al., 2016 ; Lapadat, 2017 ; Miyahara and Fukao, 2022 ). Collaborative autoethnography is appropriate for our inquiry as it broadens the gaze from the dilemmas of the self to locate them within categories of experience shared by many. Interrogating our personal narratives and understanding the shared experiences through multiple lenses not only facilitates a more rigorous, polyvocal analysis but also reveals possibilities for practical action or intervention (Lapadat, 2017 ). Collaborative auto-ethnography can thus be considered an approach that moves “ beyond the clichés and usual explanations to the point where the written memories come as close as they can make them to ‘an embodied sense of what happened’ ” (Davies and Gannon, 2006 , p. 3). It also supports developing researcher reflexivity (Miyahara and Fukao, 2022 ).

Overall, we engaged in two types of collaborative activities over the course of a period of 18 months: writing and discussing. In hindsight, this period can be divided into three phases: starting up, exploring, and co-working. The first phase was kicked off by an online dialogue session with about 30 participants convened by the Design Impact Transition Platform of the Erasmus University Rotterdam in April 2022. The session was meant to explore and share experiences with a wide range of ethical dilemmas arising from TR collaboration in practice. Following this session, some participants continued deliberating on the questions and dilemmas raised in differing constellations and developed the idea of codifying and sharing our experiences and insights via a publication. In a second phase, we started writing down individual ethical dilemmas, both those we had discussed during the seminar and additional ones. These writings were brought together in an online shared file, where we continued our discussions. This was accompanied by meetings in differing constellations and of differing intensity for the researchers involved.

A third phase of intense co-work was framed by two broader online sessions. During a session in May 2023, we shared and discussed a first attempt at an analysis and sense-making of our individual dilemmas. During this session, we discerned the heuristic by Mertens et al. (2017) and discussed how it could be helpful in structuring our different experiences. Inspired by Mertens et al. (2017), we re-engaged with the three critical dimensions of any research paradigm to scrutinise our philosophical commitments to doing TR. A re-engagement with issues of axiology (the nature of ethics and values), ontology (the nature of reality), and epistemology (the nature of knowledge), as illustrated in Table 1 , allowed us to reconcile our ethical dilemmas and opened a space for a more nuanced understanding and bottom-up approach to the ethics of collaboration in TR. In moving forward, the heuristic also helped to guide the elicitation of additional dilemmas. This session kicked off a period of focused co-writing leading up to a second session in December 2023, where we discussed writing progress and specifically made sense of and related the ethical dilemmas to existing literature and insights.

Especially in this last phase, as we interacted dialogically to analyse and interpret the collection of storied experiences of ethical dilemmas, our thinking about the ethics of collaboration has evolved. It went beyond considering the inadequacy of institutional rules and how we navigated those, towards acknowledging their interplay with individual positionality and a researcher’s situated practice. Closer attention to the contexts within which the ethical dilemmas have arisen has led us to return to our philosophical commitments as transformative researchers and reflect on our assumptions about collaboration and research from a transformative standpoint.

The author team thus comprises a high proportion of those participating in the initial session, as well as others who joined the ensuing collective interpretation and analysis resulting in this paper. An important characteristic of the authors is that we are all affiliated with academic research institutions and that all but one of these institutions are based in high-income countries. It is in this context that we have shared our experiences, which is also limited by it. As such, this paper will mainly speak to other researchers affiliated with academic institutions in comparable settings. Acknowledging these limitations, we are from different (inter)disciplinary backgrounds Footnote 2 , nationalities, and work in different national settings and urban and rural locations. This diversity of contexts impacts the constellation of ethical dilemmas that we were faced with. We thus synthesise lessons from disparate yet still limited contexts, whilst remaining cognisant of the ungeneralisable nature of such a study.

Collaboration in transformative research practice

At the heart of our collaborative autoethnographic experience was the sharing and sensemaking of ethical dilemmas. In this section, we share those dilemmas (see Tables 2 – 4 ) clustered along the three philosophical commitments that served to deepen the analysis and interpretation of our storied experience. We embed our dilemmas with the broader body of knowledge around similar issues to discuss ways forward for practical knowledge around ‘what is good’ TR practice and ‘how to’ navigate ethical dilemmas.

Axiological dimension

Axiology is the study of value, which concerns what is considered ‘good’, what is valued, and most importantly, what ‘ought to be’. The axiological standpoint of TR is to address persistent societal problems and to contribute to transitions towards more just and sustainable societies. The commitment to knowledge development and transformative actions is also shaped by different personal judgements, disciplinary traditions, and institutional contexts. Together, these raise ethical concerns around the shape and form of research collaborations, the research lines being pursued, and where and for whom the benefits of the research accrue. Table 2 provides the details of the ethical dilemmas (described as encounters) that we discuss in the following.

Taking up a transformative stance goes hand in hand with individual researchers holding different roles at the same time (Hoffmann et al., 2022 ; Horlings et al., 2020 ; Jhagroe, 2018 ; Schut et al., 2014 ). Often resulting from this, they also perceive a wide range of responsibilities towards diverse groups (stakeholders, peers, the academic community, etc.). This is why transformative researchers face questions of who is responsible for what and whom in front of whom, and these questions influence and are influenced by what they consider the ‘right’ thing to do in relation to others in a collaborative setting. As a result, their axiological position is constructed intersubjectively in and through interactions unfolding in the communities of important others. It is thus relational and may differ depending on ‘the other’ in the research collaboration (Arrona & Larrea, 2018 ; Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ). Encounter 1 illustrates this through a constellation of the research collaboration that holds the potential to become a conflict of interest.

Such conflicts of interest can also occur in the very choice of which ‘community’ is being considered as the main beneficiary of the collaboration. The emphasis on action in TR, especially with regards to the principles of beneficence and justice that we mentioned in “Ethics in transformative research”, can increase this dilemma. Researchers are to continuously evaluate their (perceived) obligations. This includes, for example, obligations towards the scientific community (contributions to the academic discourse via publications) vs. obligations towards stakeholders (being a provider of free practical advice or consultant) vs. scientific requirements (academic rigour and independence) vs. stakeholder requests (answering practical questions). Researchers have to position themselves in this contested field of what ‘good research’ and ‘useful outcomes’ mean and sometimes question or challenge their peers or the academic system at large (see also Kump et al., 2023 ). This is the very question raised by Encounter 2 , where researchers are forced to decide which stakeholders’ values and needs should be prioritised in transforming clinical practice and improving the lives of patients.

Moreover, a similar prioritisation between the interests of different groups needs to be made between whether to create knowledge according to traditional scientific standards of systematicity and rigour or supporting collaborators in developing usable knowledge. This is surely a dilemma that arises from being embedded in an institutional context that judges according to different standards, but it also arises from the double commitment of TR to knowledge development and transformative action (Bartels et al., 2020 ). Huang et al. ( 2024 ) for example show how axiological assumptions serve as the base from which different notions of research excellence (e.g., scientific rigour, ‘impactful’ scholarship) are operationalised and supported institutionally. Encounter 3 reflects a similar dilemma as the lecturer juggles conflicting priorities that are inherent to the axiological concerns of TR. That is, can the goals of knowledge development in the traditional academic sense and transformative action be achieved simultaneously? The answer provided by Encounter 3 seems to suggest a redefinition of what ‘good’ scientific knowledge is, for immediate action to be possible.

Yet, perceived responsibilities—towards human and non-human actors, but also towards the own university, the institutional arrangements in which we partake, and what we understand as ethical behaviours—exist in a close, interdependent relationship with our inner ethical standards. Creed et al. ( 2022 , p. 358) capture this “ collection of sedimented evaluations of experiences, attachments, and commitments ” as an ‘embodied world of concern’. This can illustrate the complexity of how an individual researcher’s values, emotions, or sentiments tend to intertwine, and can sometimes clash, with the concerns of their communities and the social-political situation where they operate. Given that one’s embodied world of concern is not fixed but characterised by emerging pluralism, as Encounter 4 illustrates, the consequence of an ethical decision tends to fall more heavily on those with less axiological privilege, such as early career researchers or those located in regions where the opportunity for scientific publishing is limited (Kruijf et al., 2022 ).

As transformative researchers seek systemic change, their values cannot help but influence their research collaboration, including the choice of whom they work with and which methods to use. However, the intention of strengthening the responsiveness of research to societal and political needs through TR collaborations risks being co-opted by the interests of those funding research activities (Bauwens et al., 2023 ; Strydom et al., 2010 ). As illustrated in Encounter 5 , this might cause dilemmas when being approached by stakeholders (e.g., oil and gas companies) to do research, which may not sit well with the subjective judgements of the researcher or with an overall need for transformative change. Researchers can be caught in an odd position and left to wonder whether a compromise of values is worth the risks and end gain, depending on whether a positive contribution can still be achieved. Negotiating our axiological stances with collaborators thus allows researchers to be seen as social beings embedded in patterns of social interdependence, who are not only “ capable and can flourish ” but also “ vulnerable and susceptible to various kinds of loss or harm [and] can suffer ” (Sayer, 2011 , p. 1).

Ontological dimension

Ontology is the philosophical study of being, which concerns the nature of reality and what really exists. TR can start from diverse ontological stances, including critical realist, pragmatist, or subjectivist perspectives. This includes a strong acknowledgement that “ there are multiple versions of what is believed to be real ” (Mertens, 2017 , p. 21). Yet, such a pluralist stance remains a theoretical exercise up until the point that researchers ought to define what are ‘the things’ that need to be transformed and into what. In this situation, at least two debates arise: Do ‘the things’ exist based on a specific ontological commitment, such as the divide between measurable constructs and socially constructed understandings of risks and inequities. And is the existence of ‘the things’ universal or merely a construct of a specific time, space, or social group? As the researcher illustrated in Encounter 6 (see Table 3 for the detailed encounters), if maths anxiety and eco-anxiety are recognised as ‘real’ because of growing clinical research, why can’t the research team accept the construct of ‘science anxiety’ that their teacher collaborators have perceived in their classrooms? Collaboration thus remains especially challenging when researchers strive for academic rigour from an empiricist standpoint while having to cross paths or work with individuals from different ontological positions (Midgley, 2011 ).

Commitments to working collaboratively with members of ‘marginalised’ and ‘vulnerable’ communities add to this dilemma, as researchers are bound to encounter the ethical dilemmas of whose reality is privileged, whose reality can or should be legitimised and considered ‘true’ in a TR process (Kwan and Walsh, 2018 ). In Encounter 7 , for instance, research participants do not recognise themselves as ‘climate displaced persons’ or ‘climate migrants’ because they have a long history of migration for a plethora of reasons. Now, should researchers continue using this term with a view to gain political attention to the issues of climate change, or should they abstain from doing so? How does this relate to their commitment to transformative action, including shaping political agendas? The intention to target system-level change in TR (Burns, 2014 ; Kemmis, 2008 ) also means that researchers ought to interrogate the mechanisms that inflict certain perceived realities on the powerless in the name of good causes (Edelman, 2018 ; Feltham-King et al., 2018 ), the ways in which these narratives are deployed by powerful stakeholders (Thomas and Warner, 2019 ) and how these are translated into (research) action.

Moreover, research and action on ‘scientific’ problems can deflect attention from other problems that local communities most care about or lead to unexpected, even negative, implications for some stakeholders. With increasing pressure on the societal impact of research and funding tied to certain policy goals, the issues of labelling and appropriation might only perpetuate a deficit perspective on specific groups (Eriksen et al., 2021 ; Escobar, 2011 ; van Steenbergen, 2020 ). Encounter 8 highlights that, without caution, well-intended efforts risk perpetuating harm and injustice —upholding a certain deficit perspective of the community in question. Communities accustomed to ‘helicopter’ research, where academics ‘fly-in, fly-out’ to further their careers at the expense of the communities, may be reluctant to collaborate. This necessitates transparency, active listening, deliberative involvement, and trust building (Adame, 2021 ; Haelewaters et al., 2021 ). It also reminds us of the ‘seagull syndrome’,’ which attests to the frustration felt by community members towards outsider ‘experts’ making generalisations and false diagnoses based on what is usually a superficial or snapshot understanding of local community dynamics (Porter, 2016 ). In some incidents, transformative researchers may need to redesign collaboration processes in TR that centre on the realities of people in the study (Hickey et al., 2018 ).

Epistemological dimension

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge, and its primary concern is the relationship between the knower and what can be known. Transformative researchers usually work at the interface of disciplines, each with their own ideas on what constitutes ‘scientifically sound’ but also ‘socially robust’ or ‘actionable’ knowledge (Mach et al., 2020 ; Nowotny et al., 2003 ). Many thus hold the epistemological assumption that knowledge is created through multiple ways of knowing, and the processes of knowledge generation need to recognise how power inequities may shape the normative definition of legitimate knowledge. This stance raises ethical concerns about whose knowledge systems and ways of knowing are included, privileged, and/or legitimised in TR practice. Moreover, it raises concerns about ways of ensuring a plurality of knowledge spaces (Savransky, 2017 ).

Using an epistemological lens to interrogate collaborative practice in TR can illuminate a wide range of ethical dilemmas associated with longstanding critiques of Western norms and ‘scientific superiority’ (Dotson, 2011 ; Dutta et al., 2022 ; Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 ). It also brings to the fore the power dynamics inherent within collaborative processes of TR for sustainability (de Geus et al., 2023 ; Frantzeskaki and Rok, 2018 ; Kanemasu and Molnar, 2020 ; Kok et al., 2021 ; Strumińska-Kutra and Scholl, 2022 ). A particular ethical challenge is related to the fact that it is typically researchers from the Global North who design and lead research collaborations, even when these take place in the Global South. This immediately creates “ an inequality that is not conducive to effective co-production ” and requires “ dedicated commitment to identify and confront the embodied power relations [and] hegemonic knowledge systems among the participants in the process ” (Vincent, 2022 , p. 890). See Table 4 for details on the ethical dilemmas that we discuss in the following.

Concerns about epistemic justice (Ackerly et al., 2020 ; Harvey et al., 2022 ; Temper and Del Bene, 2016 ) and interpretation of voices (Komulainen, 2007 ) are largely rooted in the deficit narratives about the capacity of certain groups for producing knowledge or for being knowers. Encounter 9 shows how easily certain voices can be muted as not being considered to speak from a position of knowledge. Research processes can usefully be expanded to include disinterested or disengaged citizens (Boyle et al., 2022 ), or those opposing a project or initiative so as to lay bare the associated tensions of knowledge integration and co-production (Cockburn, 2022 ). Encounter 10 illustrates that such silencing also relates to the question of who holds legitimate knowledge. This research has three parties that may hold legitimate knowledge: the researcher, the corporation, and the local community. However, the extent to which the researchers’ knowledge is heard remains unclear since the corporation does not consider it in its actions. It also illustrates common insecurities about what one can attain using certain research methods. The reliance of political institutions and citizens on expert advice, particularly when dealing with acute crises (e.g., Covid-19 pandemic), also tends to exacerbate the depoliticisation of decisions (Rovelli, 2021 ).

Moreover, TR practice nearly inevitably results in privileging certain ways of knowing and knowledges. Researchers make space for shared action or dialogue around a certain issue, inviting certain groups but not others, and choosing certain methods and not others. Encounter 11 illustrates the issue of favouritism in research collaboration. It elaborates on how thoughtful facilitation can intervene to level the playing field and provide a way out of the dilemma going beyond the question of whose benefit it serves. This facilitation enables meaningful collaboration among all parties involved. Particularly in policy sectors dominated by political and economic considerations, which exhibit strong vested interests, there is a need to foster meaningful and safe participation (Nastar et al., 2018 ). Skilled facilitation is crucial for uniting marginalised groups, preparing them to deal with the intricacies of scientific jargon and technological hegemony (Djenontin and Meadow, 2018 ; Reed and Abernethy, 2018 ). The contextual dimensions of collaborators, their associated worldviews, and the social networks in which they are situated are important epistemological foundations. Yet, these are not static and can shift over time throughout collaborative partnerships.

As explicated in “Introducing transformative research”, TR represents an epistemological shift to recognise researchers as sense-makers, agency holders, and change agents. This philosophical commitment can create dilemmas for ‘embedded researchers’ seeking to strengthen the science-policy interface. Encounter 12 illustrates how occupying a dual role — to dive into action and to publish scientifically — can be at odds. This encounter alludes to the fact that transformative researchers often navigate different roles, which come with different, at times conflicting, epistemological priorities and ways of knowing (e.g., roles as a change agent and a reflective scientist, the approach of ‘Two-Eyed Seeing’ by Indigenous scholars) (Bulten et al., 2021 ; Temper et al., 2019 ; Wittmayer and Schäpke, 2014 ). Importantly, such roles change over time in a TR practice and over the course of a researcher’s career (McGowan et al., 2014 ; Pohl et al., 2017 ).

Involving diverse stakeholders in knowledge co-production also inevitably leads to ethical questions concerning how to integrate diverse knowledge systems, especially those using multi-method research designs or models to aid decision-making (Hoffmann et al., 2017 ). Models can be useful in providing scenarios, however, they are constructed by people based on certain assumptions. These assumptions serve as the fundamental lenses through which complex real-world systems are simplified, analysed, and interpreted within the model framework. Despite the well-intention of researchers, the practice of establishing a shared understanding and reaching consensus about key constructs in a model is often unattainable. As Encounter 13 illustrates, participatory model building requires the capacity and willingness of all involved to knit together kindred, or even conflicting, perspectives to complement disciplinary specialism.

We explored the dilemmas of researchers pertaining to knowing ‘how to’ act in a certain situation and considering ‘what is doing good’ in that situation. Transformative researchers (re)build their practical knowledge of what doing research means through cultivating a reflexive practice that puts experiences in context and allows to learn from them. From a meta-perspective, doing TR is a form of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984 ) and doing TR involves traversing an action research cycle: experiencing and observing one’s action research practice, abstracting from it, building knowledge, and experimenting with it again to cultivate what has been referred to as first person inquiry (Reason and Torbert, 2001 ).

Concluding thoughts

In this article, we set out to explore which ethical dilemmas researchers face in TR and how they navigate those in practice. We highlighted that researchers engaging in TR face a context of uncertainty and plurality around what counts as ethically acceptable collaboration. With TR emphasising collaboration, it becomes important to discern the notion of ‘right relations’ with others (Gram-Hanssen et al., 2022 ), to attend to the positionality of the researcher, and to reconfigure power relations. Importantly, with TR emphasising the need for structural and systematic changes, researchers need to be aware of how research itself is characterised by structural injustices.

Using a collaborative autoethnography, we shared ethical dilemmas to uncover the messiness of collaborative TR practice. We established how guidance from institutionalised reference systems (i.e., ethical review boards and procedures) currently falls short in recognising the particularities of TR. We described how the research community generates informal principles, or heuristics to address this gap. However, we also appreciated that in actual collaboration, researchers are often ‘put on the spot’ to react ‘ethically’ in situ, with limited time and space to withdraw and consult guidelines on ‘how to behave’. Such informal heuristics are thus but a start and a helpful direction for developing the practical knowledge of researchers on how to navigate a plural and uncertain context.

This practical knowledge is based on an awareness of the uncertainty around what constitutes morally good behaviour and builds through experience and a critical reflexive practice. Our aim is not to share another set of principles, but rather to highlight the situatedness of TR and the craftsmanship necessary to navigate it and, in doing so, build practical knowledge through experiential learning and insight discovery (Kolb, 1984 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ). Such a bottom-up approach to research ethics builds on the experiences of researchers engaging in TR as a situated practice vis-à-vis their personal motivations and normative ambitions and the institutional contexts they are embedded in. This approach nurtures the critical reflexivity of researchers about how they relate to ethical principles and how they translate this into their normative assumptions, practical hypotheses, and methodological strategy.

Next to continuous learning, this critical reflexivity on TR as craftmanship can enhance practical wisdom not only for the individual but also for the broader community of researchers. We envision such wisdom not as a set of closed-ended guidelines or principles, but rather as a growing collection of ethical questions enabling the TR community to continuously deepen the interrogation of their axiological, ontological, and epistemological commitments (see Table 5 ). Only through this ongoing process of reacting, reflecting, and questioning—or as referred to by Pearce et al. ( 2022 , p. 4) as “an insight discovery process”—can we collectively learn from the past to improve our future actions.

However, such a bottom-up approach to ethics can only form one part of the answer, set in times of an evolving research ethics landscape. Researchers engaging in transformative academic work cannot and should not be left alone. Additionally, researchers’ ethical judgements cannot be left to their goodwill and virtuous values alone. Therefore, another important part of the answer is the carving out of appropriate institutions that can provide external guidance and accountability. This will require nothing less than structural and cultural changes in established universities and research environments. Rather than having researchers decide between doing good and doing ‘good’ research, such environments should help to align those goals.

From this work, questions arise on how institutional environments can be reformed or transformed to be more conducive to the particularities of TR, and to help nurture critical reflexivity. We highlight the critical role that ethic review boards can play in starting to rethink their roles, structures, and underlying values. Practical ideas include employing mentors for transformative research ethics, having ethical review as a process rather than as a one-off at the start of the project, or continuously investing in moral education. Thus, we underscore the importance of individual reflexivity and learning. However, we would like to set this in the broader context of organisational learning, and even unlearning, among academic institutions to overhaul our academic systems in response to the urgent imperative of tackling socio-ecological challenges globally. In this transformative endeavour, careful consideration of how the ethics of research and collaboration shape academics’ socially engaged work is indispensable.

The full set of essentials is the following: (1) Focus on transformations to low-carbon, resilient living; (2) Focus on solution processes; (3) Focus on ‘how to’ practical knowledge; (4) Approach research as occurring from within the system being intervened; (5) Work with normative aspects; (6) Seek to transcend current thinking; (7) Take a multi-faceted approach to understand and shape change; (8) Acknowledge the value of alternative roles of researchers; (9) Encourage second-order experimentation; and (10) Be reflexive. Joint application of the essentials would create highly adaptive, reflexive, collaborative, and impact-oriented research able to enhance capacity to respond to the climate challenge.

Disciplines include amongst others anthropology, business administration, climate change adaptation, cultural economics, economics, economic geography, education, health sciences, human geography, international development studies, philosophy, political science, sociology, urban planning.

Ackerly BA, Friedman EJ, Menon K, Zalewski M (2020) Research ethics and epistemic oppression. Int. Feminist J Politics 22(3):309–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2020.1771006

Article   Google Scholar  

Adame F (2021) Meaningful collaborations can end ‘helicopter research’. Nature d41586-021-01795–1. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01795-1

Arnott JC, Neuenfeldt RJ, Lemos MC (2020) Co-producing science for sustainability: can funding change knowledge use? Glob Environ Change 60:101979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101979

Arrona A, Larrea M (2018) Soft resistance: balancing relationality and criticality to institutionalise action research for territorial development. In: Bartels KPR, Wittmayer JM (eds.) Action research in policy analysis. critical and relational approaches to sustainability transitions. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York, pp 134–152

Bartels KPR, Greenwood DJ, Wittmayer JM (2020) How action research can make deliberative policy analysis more transformative. Policy Stud 41(4):392–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2020.1724927

Bartels KPR, Wittmayer JM (eds) (2018) Action research in policy analysis. critical and relational approaches to sustainability transitions. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York

Bauwens T, Reike D, Calisto-Friant M (2023) Science for sale? Why academic marketization is a problem and what sustainability research can do about it. Environ Innov Soci Transit 48:100749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100749

Beauchamp T, Childress J (2001) Principles Biomedical Ethics (5th ed.). Oxford University Press

BMJ. (1996) The Nuremberg Code (1947). 313(7070), 1448. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1448

Bournot-Trites M, Belanger J (2005) Ethical dilemmas facing action researchers. J Educ Thought (JET)/Rev de La Pensée Éducative 39(2):197–215

Google Scholar  

Boyle E, Galvin M, Revez A, Deane A, Ó Gallachóir B, Mullally G (2022) Flexibility & structure: community engagement on climate action & large infrastructure delivery. Energy Policy 167:113050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113050

Boyle E, McGookin C, O’Mahony C, Bolger P, Byrne E, Gallachóir BÓ, Mullally G (2023) Understanding how institutions may support the development of transdisciplinary approaches to sustainability research. Research for All, 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.14324/RFA.07.1.07

Bradbury H, Waddell S, O’Brien K, Apgar M, Teehankee B, Fazey I (2019) A call to action research for transformations: the times demand it. Action Res 17(1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750319829633

Bulten E, Hessels LK, Hordijk M, Segrave AJ (2021) Conflicting roles of researchers in sustainability transitions: balancing action and reflection. Sustain Sci 16(4):1269–1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00938-7

Burns D (2014) Systemic action research: changing system dynamics to support sustainable change. Action Res 12(1):3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750313513910

Caniglia G, Freeth R, Luederitz C, Leventon J, West SP, John B, Peukert D, Lang DJ, von Wehrden H, Martín-López B, Fazey I, Russo F, von Wirth T, Schlüter M, Vogel C (2023) Practical wisdom and virtue ethics for knowledge co-production in sustainability science. Nat Sustain 6(5):493–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01040-1

Caniglia G, Luederitz C, von Wirth T, Fazey I, Martín-López B, Hondrila K, König A, von Wehrden H, Schäpke NA, Laubichler MD, Lang DJ (2021) A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nat Sustain 4(2):93–100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z

Cassell C, Johnson P (2006) Action research: explaining the diversity. Hum Relat 59(6):783–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726706067080

Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Ryan ME, Reid RS, Riechers M, Serban A, Bennett NJ, Cvitanovic C, Fernández-Giménez ME, Galvin KA, Goldstein BE, Klenk NL, Tengö M, Brennan R, Cockburn JJ, Hill R, Munera C, Nel JL, Österblom H, Pickering T (2021) Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat. Sustainability 4(11):983–996. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x

Chang H, Ngunjiri F, Hernandez K (2016) Collaborative autoethnography (Vol. 8). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315432137/collaborative-autoethnography-kathy-ann-hernandez-heewon-chang-faith-ngunjiri

Chilisa B (2020) Indigenous research methodologies. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

Christians C (2005) Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In: Y Lincoln (ed) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 139–164

Clouser K, Gert B (1990) A critique of principlism. J Med Philos 152(2):219–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/15.2.219

Cockburn J (2022) Knowledge integration in transdisciplinary sustainability science: Tools from applied critical realism. Sustain Dev 30(2):358–374

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Cockburn J, Cundill G (2018) Ethics in transdisciplinary research: Reflections on the implications of ‘Science with Society’. In: Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research. Springer, Cham, pp 81–97

Coghlan D, Shani ABR (2005) Roles, Politics, and Ethics in Action Research Design. Syst Pract Action Res 18(6):533–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-005-9465-3

Creed WED, Hudson BA, Okhuysen GA, Smith-Crowe K (2022) A place in the world: vulnerability, well-Being, and the Ubiquitous evaluation that animates participation in institutional processes. Acad Manag Rev 47(3):358–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0367

Davies B, Gannon S (2006) The practices of collective biography. In: Davies B, Gannon S (eds) Doing collective biography. Investigating the production of subjectivity, Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp 1–15

de Geus T, Avelino F, Strumińska-Kutra M, Pitzer M, Wittmayer JM, Hendrikx L, Joshi V, Schrandt N, Widdel L, Fraaije M, Iskandarova M, Hielscher S, Rogge K (2023) Making sense of power through transdisciplinary sustainability research: insights from a transformative power lab. Sustain Sci. 18(3):1311–1327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01294-4

Detardo-Bora K (2004) Action research in a world of positivist-oriented review boards. Action Res 2(3):237–253

Djenontin INS, Meadow AM (2018) The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice. Environ Manag 61(6):885–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1028-3

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Donald D (2012) Indigenous Métissage: a decolonizing research sensibility. Int J Qual Stud Educ 25(5):533–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2011.554449

Dotson K (2011) Tracking epistemic violence, tracking practices of silencing. Hypatia 26(2):236–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01177.x

Dutta U, Azad AK, Hussain SM (2022) Counterstorytelling as epistemic justice: decolonial community‐based praxis from the global south. Am J Commun Psychol 69(1–2):59–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12545

Edelman NL (2018) Researching sexual healthcare for women with problematic drug use: returning to ethical principles in study processes. In: In: Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research, Springer, Cham, pp 47–62

Eriksen S, Schipper ELF, Scoville-Simonds M, Vincent K, Adam HN, Brooks N, Harding B, Khatri D, Lenaerts L, Liverman D, Mills-Novoa M, Mosberg M, Movik S, Muok B, Nightingale A, Ojha H, Sygna L, Taylor M, Vogel C, West JJ (2021) Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: Help, hindrance or irrelevance? World Dev 141:105383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383

Escobar A (2011) Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World, vol 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Fazey I, Schäpke N, Caniglia G, Patterson J, Hultman J, van Mierlo B, Säwe F, Wiek A, Wittmayer J, Aldunce P, Woods M, Wyborn C (2018) Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research. Energy Res Soc Sci 40:54–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.026

Feltham-King T, Bomela Y, Macleod CI (2018) Contesting the nature of young pregnant and mothering women: critical healthcare nexus research, ethics committees, and healthcare institutions. In: Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research, Springer, Cham, pp 63–79

Ferraro F, Etzion D, Gehman J (2015) Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: robust action revisited. Organ Stud 36(3):363–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614563742

Finlay L (2002) Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qua Res 2:209–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200205

Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N (2016) Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environ Sci Policy 62:90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.010

Frantzeskaki N, Rok A (2018) Co-producing urban sustainability transitions knowledge with community, policy and science. Environ Innov Soc Transit 29(August):47–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.08.001

Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1994) The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecol Econ 10(3):197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(94)90108-2

Future Earth (2014) Future Earth 2025 Vision. International Council for Science (ICSU), Paris. Online at: https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/future-earth_10-year-vision_web.pdf

General Assembly of the World Medical Association (2014) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Coll Dent 81(3):14–18

Gerber A, Forsberg E-M, Shelley-Egan C, Arias R, Daimer S, Dalton G, Cristóbal AB, Dreyer M, Griessler E, Lindner R, Revuelta G, Riccio A, Steinhaus N (2020) Joint declaration on mainstreaming RRI across Horizon Europe. J Responsible Innov 7(3):708–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1764837

Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzmann S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage Publications, London

Gram-Hanssen I, Schafenacker N, Bentz J (2022) Decolonizing transformations through ‘right relations. Sustain Sci 17(2):673–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00960-9

Greenwood DJ, Levin M (2007) Introduction to Action Research. Social Research for Social Change. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Haapala J, Rautanen S-L, White P, Keskinen M, Varis O (2016) Facilitating bricolage through more organic institutional designs? The case of water users’ associations in rural Nepal. Int J Commons 10(2):1172. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.688

Haelewaters D, Hofmann TA, Romero-Olivares AL (2021) Ten simple rules for Global North researchers to stop perpetuating helicopter research in the Global South. PLOS Comput Biol 17(8):e1009277. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009277

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Stud 14(3):575. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066

Harney L, Mccurry J, Wills J (2016) Developing ‘ process pragmatism ’ to underpin engaged research in human geography. Prog Hum Geogr 40(3):316–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515623367

Harvey B, Huang Y-S, Araujo J, Vincent K, Sabiiti G (2022) Breaking vicious cycles? A systems perspective on Southern leadership in climate and development research programmes. Clim Dev 14(10):884–895. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.2020614

Hessels LK, van Lente H, Smits R (2009) In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Sci Public Policy 36(5):387–401. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X442034

Hickey G, Richards T, Sheehy J (2018) Co-production from proposal to paper Three examples show how public participation in research can be extended at every step of the process to generate useful knowledge. Nature 562:29–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06861-9

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye, D, Pohl, C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., Cham https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3

Hoffmann S, Deutsch L, Klein JT, O’Rourke M (2022) Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts. Hum Soc Sci Commun 9(1):147. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41599-022-01138-Z

Hoffmann S, Pohl C, Hering JG (2017) Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes. Res Policy 46(3):678–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.004

Hölscher K, Wittmayer JM, Hirschnitz-garbers M, Olfert A, Schiller G, Brunnow B (2021) Transforming science and society? Methodological lessons from and for transformation research. Res Eval 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa034

Horcea-Milcu A-I, Leventon J, Lang DJ (2022) Making transdisciplinarity happen: Phase 0, or before the beginning. Environ Sci Policy 136:187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.05.019

Horlings LG, Nieto-Romero M, Pisters S, Soini K (2020) Operationalising transformative sustainability science through place-based research: the role of researchers. Sustain Sci. 15(2):467–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00757-x

Huang YS, Harvey B, Vincent K (2024) Large-scale sustainability programming is reshaping research excellence: Insights from a meta-ethnographic study of 12 global initiatives Environ Sci Policy 155:103725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103725

Hurtado S (2022) The transformative paradigm. In: Pasque PA (ed) Advancing culturally responsive research and researchers: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, Routledge, London, pp 15–17

Jaeger-Erben M, Nagy E, Schäfer M, Süßbauer E, Zscheischler J (2018) Von der Programmatik zur Praxis: Plädoyer für eine Grounded Theory transformationsorientierter Forschung. GAIA - Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 27(1):117–121. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.1.5

Janes J (2016) Democratic encounters? Epistemic privilege, power, and community-based participatory action research. Action Res 14(1):72–87

Jhagroe S (2018) Transition scientivism: on activist gardening and co-producing transition knowledge ‘from below’. In: Bartels KPR, Wittmayer JM (eds) Action Research in Policy Analysis. Critical and Relational Appoaches to Sustainability Transitions, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York, pp 64–85

Kanemasu Y, Molnar G (2020) Representing’ the voices of Fijian women rugby players: Working with power differentials in transformative research. Int Rev Sociol Sport 55(4):399–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690218818991

Kemmis S (2008) Critical theory and participatory action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) The Sage Handbook of Action Research. Participative inquiry and practice, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, London, pp 695–707

Kok KPW, Gjefsen MD, Regeer BJ, Broerse JEW (2021) Unraveling the politics of ‘doing inclusion’ in transdisciplinarity for sustainable transformation. Sustain Sci 16(6):1811–1826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01033-7

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kolb, D (1984) The Process of Experiential Learning. In: Experiential Learning. Experience as The Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, pp 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7223-8.50017-4

Komulainen S (2007) The Ambiguity of the Child’s ‘Voice’ in Social Research. Childhood 14(1):11–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568207068561

Kruijf JV, Verbrugge L, Schröter B, den Haan R, Cortes Arevalo J, Fliervoet J, Henze J, Albert C (2022) Knowledge co‐production and researcher roles in transdisciplinary environmental management projects. Sustain Dev 30(2):393–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2281

Kump B, Wittmayer J, Bogner K, Beekman M (2023) Navigating force conflicts: a case study on strategies of transformative research in the current academic system. J Clean Prod 412:137374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137374

Kwan C, Walsh C (2018) Ethical issues in conducting community-based participatory research: a narrative review of the literature. Qual Rep. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3331

Lacey J, Howden SM, Cvitanovic C, Dowd A-M (2015) Informed adaptation: ethical considerations for adaptation researchers and decision-makers. Glob Environ Change 32:200–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.011

Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Sci. 7:25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Lapadat JC (2017) Ethics in autoethnography and collaborative autoethnography. Qual Inq 23(8):589–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417704462

Lincoln Y (2001) Engaging sympathies: Relationships between action research and social constructivism. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) The Sage Handbook of Action Research. Participative inquiry and practice, SAGE Publications, London, pp 124–132

Locke T, Alcorn N, O’Neill J (2013) Ethical issues in collaborative action research. Educ Action Res 21(1):107–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.763448

Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Avelino F (2017) Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Annu Rev Environ Resour 42(1):599–626. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340

Lotz-Sisitka H, Ali MB, Mphepo G, Chaves M, Macintyre T, Pesanayi T, Wals A, Mukute M, Kronlid D, Tran DT, Joon D, McGarry D (2016) Co-designing research on transgressive learning in times of climate change. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 20:50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.04.004

Mach KJ, Lemos MC, Meadow AM, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Arnott JC, Ardoin NM, Fieseler C, Moss RH, Nichols L, Stults M, Vaughan C, Wong-Parodi G (2020) Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 42:30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.002

Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) (2018) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research. Springer, Cham

Malkki LH (2007) Tradition and Improvisation in Ethnographic Field Research. In: Cerwonka A, Malkki LH, Improvising Theory. Process and Temporality in Ethnographic Fieldwork, The University of Chicago Press, pp 162–187

Marguin S, Haus J, Heinrich AJ, Kahl A, Schendzielorz C, Singh A (2021) Positionality Reloaded: Über die Dimensionen der Reflexivität im Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft: Ein EditorialPositionality Reloaded: Debating the Dimensions of Reflexivity in the Relationship Between Science and Society: An Editorial. Historical Soc Res 46:734. https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.46.2021.2.7-34

McGowan KA, Westley F, Fraser EDG, Loring PA, Weathers KC, Avelino F, Sendzimir J, Roy Chowdhury R, Moore M-L (2014) The research journey: travels across the idiomatic and axiomatic toward a better understanding of complexity. Ecol Soc 19(3):art37. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06518-190337

Menon S, Hartz-Karp J (2023) Applying mixed methods action research to explore how public participation in an Indian City could better resolve urban sustainability problems. Action Res 21(2):230–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750320943662

Mertens DM (2007) Transformative paradigm: mixed methods and social justice. J Mixed Methods Res 1(3):212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302811

Mertens DM (2017) Transformative research: Personal and societal. Int J Transform Res 4(1):18–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijtr-2017-0001

Mertens DM (2021) Transformative research methods to increase social impact for vulnerable groups and cultural minorities. Int J Qua Methods 20:160940692110515. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211051563

Midgley G (2011) Theoretical pluralism in systemic action research. Syst Pract Action Res 24:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-010-9176-2

Miyahara M, Fukao A (2022) Exploring the use of collaborative autoethnography as a tool for facilitating the development of researcher reflexivity. System 105:102751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102751

Nastar M, Abbas S, Aponte Rivero C, Jenkins S, Kooy M (2018) The emancipatory promise of participatory water governance for the urban poor: Reflections on the transition management approach in the cities of Dodowa, Ghana and Arusha, Tanzania. Afr Stud 77(4):504–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/00020184.2018.1459287

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical, & Behavioral Research. (1979) The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research ( Vol. 1 ) . United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Online available here: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P, Bednarek AT, Bennett EM, Biggs R, de Bremond A, Campbell BM, Canadell JG, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Fulton EA, Gaffney O, Gelcich S, Jouffray JB, Leach M, Österblom H (2020) Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustainability 3(3):182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2003) Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva 41(3):179–194

Nugroho K, Carden F, Antlov H (2018) Local knowledge matters: Power, context and policy making in Indonesia. Policy Press, Bristol

Parks S, Rincon D, Parkinson S, Manville C (2019) The changing research landscape and reflections on national research assessment in the future . RAND. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3200.html

Parsell M, Ambler T, Jacenyik-Trawoger C (2014) Ethics in higher education research. Stud High Educ 39(1):166–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.647766

Pearce BJ, Deutsch L, Fry P, Marafatto FF, Lieu J (2022) Going beyond the AHA! moment: insight discovery for transdisciplinary research and learning. Hum Soc Sci Commun 9(1):123. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01129-0

Phillips L, Christensen-Strynø MB, Frølunde L (2022) Thinking with autoethnography in collaborative research: a critical, reflexive approach to relational ethics. Qual Res 22(5):761–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211033446

Pohl C (2008) From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy 11(1):46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.06.001

Pohl C, Krütli P, Stauffacher M (2017) Ten reflective steps for rendering research societally relevant. GAIA-Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 26(1):43–51. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.26.1.10

Popa F, Guillermin M, Dedeurwaerdere T (2015) A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: from complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 65:45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002

Porter A (2016) Decolonizing policing: indigenous patrols, counter-policing and safety. Theor Criminol 20(4):548–565

Reason P, Torbert W (2001) The action turn: toward a transformational social science. Concepts Transform 6(1):1–37. https://doi.org/10.1075/cat.6.1.02rea

Reed MG, Abernethy P (2018) Facilitating Co-production of transdisciplinary knowledge for sustainability: working with canadian biosphere reserve practitioners. Soc Nat Resour 31(1):39–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1383545

Rovelli C (2021) Politics should listen to science, not hide behind it. Nat Mater 20(2):272–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-020-00891-3

Rowan J (2000) Research ethics. Int J Psychother 5(2):103–110

Saltelli A, Ravetz JR, Funtowicz S (2016) Who will solve the crisis in science? In: Benessia A, Funtowicz S, Giampietro M, Guimaraes Pereira A, Ravetz J, Saltelli A, Strand R, van der Sluijs JP (eds) The rightful place of science: Science on the verge. Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes

Savransky M (2017) A decolonial imagination: sociology, anthropology and the politics of reality. Sociology 51(1):11–26

Sayer A (2011) Why things matter to people: Social science, values and ethical life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Schäpke N, Bergmann M, Stelzer F, Lang DJ (2018) Labs in the real world: advancing transdisciplinary research and sustainability transformation: mapping the field and emerging lines of inquiry. Gaia 27:8–11. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.4

Schneider F, Giger M, Harari N, Moser S, Oberlack C, Providoli I, Schmid L, Tribaldos T, Zimmermann A (2019) Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environ Sci Policy 102(October):26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.017

Schneidewind U, Singer-Brodowski M, Augenstein K (2016) Transformative science for sustainability transitions. In: Handbook on sustainability transition and sustainable peace, Springer, pp 123–136

Schut M, Paassen AV, Leeuwis C, Klerkx L (2014) Towards dynamic research configurations: A framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes. 41(August 2013), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct048

Smith L (2008) Ethical principles in practice. Evidence from participatory action research. Kairaranga 9(3):16–21. https://doi.org/10.54322/kairaranga.v9i3.135

Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42(9):1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008

Stirling A (2006) Precaution, foresight and sustainability: Reflection and reflexivity in the governance of science and technology. In: Voß JP, Bauknecht D, Kemp R (eds) Reflexive governance for sustainable development, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 225–272

Strumińska-Kutra M, Scholl C (2022) Taking power seriously: towards a power-sensitive approach for transdisciplinary action research. Futures 135(December 2021):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102881

Strydom WF, Funke N, Nienaber S, Nortje K, Steyn M (2010) Evidence-based policymaking: a review. South Afr J Sci 106(5/6):8 pages. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajs.v106i5/6.249

Temper L, Del Bene D (2016) Transforming knowledge creation for environmental and epistemic justice. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 20:41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.05.004

Temper L, McGarry D, Weber L (2019) From academic to political rigour: insights from the ‘Tarot’ of transgressive research. Ecol Econ 164:106379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106379

Thomas KA, Warner BP (2019) Weaponizing vulnerability to climate change. Glob Environ Change 57:101928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101928

van Breda J, Swilling M (2019) The guiding logics and principles for designing emergent transdisciplinary research processes: learning experiences and reflections from a transdisciplinary urban case study in Enkanini informal settlement, South Africa. Sustain Sci 14(3):823–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0606-x

van Steenbergen F (2020) Zonder marge geen centrum. Een pleidooi voor een rechtvaardige transitie. [PhD-Thesis]. Erasmus University Rotterdam

Vermeer J, Pinheiro H, Petrosova L, Eaton D (2020) Evaluation of the Belmont Forum: Final report. Technolopolis Group. https://www.belmontforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Belmont-Forum-External-Evaluation.pdf

Vincent K (2022) Development geography I: Co-production. Prog Hum Geogr 46(3):890–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132522107905

WBGU (2011) Flagship report: world in transition—a social contract for sustainability. In: Berlin: German Advisory

West S, Schill C (2022) Negotiating the ethical-political dimensions of research methods: a key competency in mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research. Hum Soc Sci Commun 9(1):294. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01297-z

Wijsman K, Feagan M (2019) Rethinking knowledge systems for urban resilience: Feminist and decolonial contributions to just transformations. Environ Sci Policy 98:70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.017

Williamson GR, Prosser S (2002) Action research: politics, ethics and participation. J Adv Nurs 40(5):587–593. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02416.x

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wilson S (2020) Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing. https://fernwoodpublishing.ca/book/research-is-ceremony-shawn-wilson

Wittmayer JM (2016) Transition Management, Action Research and Actor Roles: Understanding local sustainability transitions. Erasmus University Rotterdam

Wittmayer JM, Loorbach D, Bogner K, Hendlin Y, Hölscher K, Lavanga M, Vasques A, von Wirth T, de Wal M (2021) Transformative Research: Knowledge and action for just sustainability transitions (Design Impact Transition Platform Working Paper Series). Design Impact Transition Platform Erasmus University Rotterdam. https://pure.eur.nl/en/publications/transformative-research-knowledge-and-action-for-just-sustainabil

Wittmayer JM, Schäpke N (2014) Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci 9(4):483–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4

Wood L, Kahts-Kramer S (2023) But how will you ensure the objectivity of the researcher?’ Guidelines to address possible misconceptions about the ethical imperatives of community-based research. Res Ethics 19(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221135882

Yanow D (2006) Neither rigorous nor objective? Interrogating criteria for knowledge claims in interpretive science. In: Yanow D, Schwartz-Shea P, Interpretation and Method. Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, M.E. Sharpe, pp 67–88

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

DRIFT, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Julia M. Wittmayer, Derk Loorbach & Neha Mungekar

Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Julia M. Wittmayer, Timo von Wirth, Tessa Boumans & Neha Mungekar

Faculty of Education, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

Ying-Syuan (Elaine) Huang

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Kristina Bogner

MaREI Centre for Energy Climate and Marine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Katharina Hölscher

Research Lab for Urban Transport (ReLUT), Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Timo von Wirth

Business Management & Organisation Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Jilde Garst

Erasmus School of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Yogi Hale Hendlin

Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Mariangela Lavanga

Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

Mapula Tshangela

Delft Centre for Entrepreneurship, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Pieter Vandekerckhove

Erasmus University College Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Ana Vasques

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Julia M. Wittmayer and Ying-Syuan Huang drafted the work for important intellectual content, substantially contributed to the concept and design of the work, and contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data for the work. Kristina Bogner, Evan Boyle, Katharina Hölscher, and Timo von Wirth substantially contributed to the concept or design of the work and contributed to the analysis or interpretation of data for the work. Tessa Boumans, Jilde Garst, Yogi Hendlin, Mariangela Lavanga, Derk Loorbach, Neha Mungekar, Mapula Tshangela, Pieter Vandekerckhove, and Ana Vasues contributed to the analysis or interpretation of data for the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia M. Wittmayer .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval and Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wittmayer, J.M., Huang, YS.(., Bogner, K. et al. Neither right nor wrong? Ethics of collaboration in transformative research for sustainable futures. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 677 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03178-z

Download citation

Received : 21 December 2023

Accepted : 13 May 2024

Published : 25 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03178-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Open access
• Published: 14 May 2024

Rain, rain, go away, come again another day: do climate variations enhance the spread of COVID-19?

• Masha Menhat 1 ,
• Effi Helmy Ariffin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8534-0113 2 ,
• Wan Shiao Dong 3 ,
• Junainah Zakaria 2 ,
• Aminah Ismailluddin 3 ,
• Hayrol Azril Mohamed Shafril 4 ,
• Mahazan Muhammad 5 ,
• Ahmad Rosli Othman 6 ,
• Thavamaran Kanesan 7 ,
• Suzana Pil Ramli 8 ,
• Mohd Fadzil Akhir 2 &
• Amila Sandaruwan Ratnayake 9  

Globalization and Health volume  20 , Article number:  43 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

490 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

The spread of infectious diseases was further promoted due to busy cities, increased travel, and climate change, which led to outbreaks, epidemics, and even pandemics. The world experienced the severity of the 125 nm virus called the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a pandemic declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2019. Many investigations revealed a strong correlation between humidity and temperature relative to the kinetics of the virus’s spread into the hosts. This study aimed to solve the riddle of the correlation between environmental factors and COVID-19 by applying RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses (ROSES) with the designed research question. Five temperature and humidity-related themes were deduced via the review processes, namely 1) The link between solar activity and pandemic outbreaks, 2) Regional area, 3) Climate and weather, 4) Relationship between temperature and humidity, and 5) the Governmental disinfection actions and guidelines. A significant relationship between solar activities and pandemic outbreaks was reported throughout the review of past studies. The grand solar minima (1450-1830) and solar minima (1975-2020) coincided with the global pandemic. Meanwhile, the cooler, lower humidity, and low wind movement environment reported higher severity of cases. Moreover, COVID-19 confirmed cases and death cases were higher in countries located within the Northern Hemisphere. The Blackbox of COVID-19 was revealed through the work conducted in this paper that the virus thrives in cooler and low-humidity environments, with emphasis on potential treatments and government measures relative to temperature and humidity.

• The coronavirus disease 2019 (COIVD-19) is spreading faster in low temperatures and humid area.

• Weather and climate serve as environmental drivers in propagating COVID-19.

• Solar radiation influences the spreading of COVID-19.

• The correlation between weather and population as the factor in spreading of COVID-19.

Graphical abstract

Introduction

The revolution and rotation of the Earth and the Sun supply heat and create differential heating on earth. The movements and the 23.5° inclination of the Earth [ 1 ] separate the oblate-ellipsoid-shaped earth into northern and southern hemispheres. Consequently, the division results in various climatic zones at different latitudes and dissimilar local temperatures (see Fig.  1 ) and affects the seasons and length of a day and night in a particular region [ 2 ]. Global differential heating and climate variability occur due to varying solar radiation received by each region [ 3 ]. According to Trenberth and Fasullo [ 4 ] and Hauschild et al. [ 5 ] the new perspective on the issue of climate change can be affected relative to the changes in solar radiation patterns. Since the study by Trenberth and Fasullo [ 4 ] focused on climate model changes from 1950 to 2100, it was found that the role of changing clouds and trapped sunlight can lead to an opening of the aperture for solar radiation.

The annual average temperature data for 2021 in the northern and southern hemispheres ( Source: meteoblue.com ). Note: The black circles mark countries with high Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections

Furthermore, the heat from sunlight is essential to humans; several organisms could not survive without it. Conversely, the spread of any disease-carrying virus tends to increase with less sunlight exposure [ 6 ]. Historically, disease outbreaks that led to epidemic and pandemic eruptions were correlated to atmospheric changes. Pandemic diseases, such as the flu (1918), Asian flu (1956–1958), Hong Kong flu (1968), and recently, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (2019), recorded over a million death toll each during the winter season or minimum temperature conditions [ 7 ]. The total number of COVID-19 cases is illustrated in Fig.  2 .

A graphical representation of the total number of COVID-19 cases across various periods between 2020 and 2021. ( Source : www.worldometers.info ). Note: The black circles indicate countries with high numbers COVID-19-infections

In several previous outbreaks, investigations revealed a significant association between temperature and humidity with a particular focus on the transmission dynamics of the infection from the virus into the hosts [ 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Moreover, disease outbreaks tended to heighten in cold temperatures and low humidity [ 11 ]. Optimal temperature and sufficient relative humidity during evaporation are necessary for cloud formation, resulting in the precipitated liquid falling to the ground as rain, snow, or hail due to the activity of solar radiation balancing [ 4 ].

Consequently, the radiation balancing processes in the atmosphere are directly linked to the living beings on the earth, including plants and animals, and as well as viruses and bacterias. According to Carvalho et al. [ 12 ]‘s study, the survival rate of the Coronaviridae Family can decrease during summer seasons. Nevertheless, numerous diseases were also developed from specific viruses, such as influenza, malaria, and rubella, and in November 2019, a severe health threat originated from a 125 nm size of coronavirus, had resulted in numerous deaths worldwide.

Transmission and symptoms of COVID-19

The COVID-19, or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered pathogenic virus from the coronavirus family, the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) [ 13 ]. The first case was recorded in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 [ 14 ]. The pathogenic virus is transmitted among humans when they breathe in air contaminated with droplets and tiny airborne particles containing the virus [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ].

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the most common symptoms of COVID-19 infection include fever, dry cough, and tiredness. Nevertheless, older people and individuals with underlying health problems (lung and heart problems, high blood pressure, diabetes, or cancer) are at higher risk of becoming seriously ill and developing difficulty breathing [ 19 ]. The COVID-19 was initially only predominant in China but rapidly spread to other countries globally. The remarkably swift acceleration of the number of infections and mortality forced WHO to declare COVID-19 a global public health emergency on the 30th of January 2020, which was later declared as a pandemic on the 11th of March 2020 [ 20 ].

Since no vaccine was available then, WHO introduced the COVID-19 preventative measures to reduce the chances of virus transmission. The guideline for individual preventative included practising hand and respiratory hygiene by regularly cleaning hands with soap and water or alcohol-based sanitisers, wear a facemask and always maintaining at least a one-meter physical distance [ 21 ]. Nevertheless, the worldwide transmission of COVID-19 has resulted in fear and forced numerous countries to impose restrictions rules, such as lockdown, travel bans, closed country borders, restrictions on shipping activities, and movement limitations, to diminish the spread of COVID-19 [ 22 ].

According to WHO, by the 2nd of December 2020, 63,379,338 confirmed cases and 1,476,676 mortalities were recorded globally. On the 3rd of December 2021, 263,655,612 confirmed cases and deaths were recorded, reflecting increased COVID-19 infections compared to the previous year. The American and European regions documented the highest COVID-19 patients with 97,341,769 and 88,248,591 cases, respectively (see Fig. 2 ), followed by Southeast Asia with 44,607,287, Eastern Mediterranean accounted 16,822,791, Western Pacific recorded 6,322,034, and Africa reported the lowest number of cases at 6,322,034 [ 19 ].

Recently, an increasing number of studies are investigating the association between environmental factors (temperature and humidity) and the viability, transmission, and survival of the coronavirus [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. The results primarily demonstrated that temperature was more significantly associated with the transmission of COVID-19 [ 27 , 28 , 29 ] and its survival period on the surfaces of objects [ 30 ]. Consequently, the disease was predominant in countries with low temperature and humidity [ 31 ], which was also proven by Diao et al. [ 32 ]‘s study demonstrating higher rates of COVID-19 transmission in China, England, Germany, and Japan.

A comprehensive systematic literature review (SLR) is still lacking despite numerous research on environmental factors linked to coronavirus. Accordingly, this article aimed to fill the gap in understanding and identifying the correlation between environmental factors and COVID-19 by analysing existing reports. Systematically reviewing existing literature is essential to contribute to the body of knowledge and provide beneficial information for public health policymakers.

Methodology

The present study reviewed the protocols, formulation of research questions, selection of studies, appraisal of quality, and data abstraction and analysis.

The protocol review

The present SLR was performed according to the reporting standards for systematic evidence syntheses (ROSES) and followed or adapted the guidelines as closely as possible. Thus, in this study, a systematic literature review was guided by the ROSES review protocol (Fig.  3 ). Compared to preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA), ROSES is a review protocol specifically designed for a systematic review in the conservation or environment management fields [ 33 ]. Compared to PRISMA, ROSES offers several advantages, as it is tailored to environmental systematic review, which reduces emphasis on quantitative synthesis (e.g. meta-analysis etc.) that is only reliable when used with appropriate data [ 34 ].

The flow diagram guide by ROSES protocol and Thematical Analysis

The current SLR started by determining the appropriate research questions, followed by the selection criteria, including the review, specifically on the keywords employed and the selection of journals database. Subsequently, the appraisal quality process and data abstraction and analysis were conducted.

Formulation of research questions

The entire process of this SLR was guided by the specific research questions, while sources to be reviewed and data abstraction and analysis were in line with the determined research question [ 35 , 36 ]. In the present article, a total of five research questions were formed, namely:

What the link between solar activity and COVID-19 pandemic outbreaks?

Which regions were more prone to COVID-19?

What were the temporal and spatial variabilities of high temperature and humidity during the spread of COVID-19?

What is the relationship between temperature and humidity in propagating COVID-19?

How did the government’s disinfection actions and guidelines can be reducing the spread of COVID-19?

Systematic searching strategies

Selection of studies.

In this stage of the study, the appropriate keywords to be employed in the searching process were determined. After referring to existing literature, six main keywords were chosen for the searching process, namely COVID-19, coronavirus, temperature, humidity, solar radiation and population density. The current study also utilised the boolean operators (OR, AND, AND NOT) and phrase searching.

Scopus was employed as the main database during the searching process, in line with the suggestion by Gusenbauer and Haddaway [ 37 ], who noted the strength of the database in terms of quality control and search and filtering functions. Furthermore, Google Scholar was selected as the supporting database. Although Halevi et al. [ 38 ] expressed concerns about its quality, Haddaway et al. [ 39 ] reported that due to its quantity, Google Scholar was suitable as a supporting database in SLR studies.

In the first stage of the search, 2550 articles were retrieved, which were then screened. The suitable criteria were also determined to control the quality of the articles reviewed [ 40 ]. The criteria are: any documents published between 2000 to 2022, documents that consist previously determined keywords, published in English, and any environment-related studies that focused on COVID-19. Based on these criteria, 2372 articles were excluded and 178 articles were proceeded to the next step namely eligibility. In the eligibility process, the title and the abstract of the articles were examined to ensure its relevancy to the SLR and in this process a total of 120 articles were excluded and only 58 articles were processed in the next stage.

Appraisal of the quality

The study ensured the rigor of the chosen articles based on best evidence synthesis. In the process, predefined inclusion criteria for the review were appraised by the systematic review team based on previously established guidelines and the studies were then judged as being scientifically admissible or not [ 40 ]. Hence, by controlling the quality based on the best evidence synthesis, the present SLR controls its quality by including articles that are in line with the inclusion criteria. It means that any article published within the timeline (in the year 2000 and above), composed of predetermined keywords, in English medium, and environment-related investigations focusing on COVID-19 are included in the review. Based on this process, all 58 articles fulfilled all the inclusion criteria and are considered of good quality and included in the review.

Data abstraction and analysis

The data abstraction process in this study was performed based on five research questions (please refer to 2.2, formulation of research questions). The data that was able to answer the questions were abstracted and placed in a table to ease the data analysis process. The primary data analysis technique employed in the current study was qualitative and relied on thematic analysis.

The thematic technique is a descriptive method that combines data flexibly with other information evaluation methods [ 41 ], aiming to identify the patterns in studies. Any similarities and relationships within the abstracted data emerge as patterns. Subsequently, suitable themes and sub-themes would be developed based on obtained patterns [ 42 ]. Following the thematic process, five themes were selected in this study.

Background of the selected articles

The current study selected 58 articles for the SLR. Five themes were developed based on the thematic analysis from the predetermined research questions: the link between solar activity and pandemic outbreaks, regional area, climate and weather, the relationship between temperature and humidity, and government disinfection action guidelines. Among the articles retrieved between 2000 and 2022; two were published in 2010, one in 2011, four in 2013, three in 2014, two in 2015, six in 2016 and 2017, respectively, one in 2018, six in 2019, twelve in 2020, eight in 2021, and seven in 2022.

Temperature- and humidity-related themes

The link between solar activity and pandemic outbreaks.

Numerous scientists have investigated the relationship between solar activities and pandemic outbreaks over the years ([ 43 ]; A [ 27 , 44 , 45 ].). Nuclear fusions from solar activities have resulted in minimum and maximum solar sunspots. Maximum solar activities are characterised by a high number of sunspots and elevated solar flare frequency and coronal mass injections. Minimum solar sunspot occurrences are identified by low interplanetary magnetic field values entering the earth [ 1 ].

A diminished magnetic field was suggested to be conducive for viruses and bacteria to mutate, hence the onset of pandemics. Nonetheless, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe [ 46 ] reported that the link between solar activity and pandemic outbreaks is only speculative. The literature noted that the data recorded between 1930 and 1970 demonstrated that virus transmissions and pandemic occurrences were coincidental. Moreover, no pandemic cases were reported in 1979, when minimum solar activity was recorded [ 47 ].

Chandra Wickramasinghe et al. [ 48 ] suggested a significant relationship between pandemic outbreaks and solar activities as several grand solar minima, including Sporer (1450–1550 AD), Mounder (1650–1700 AD), and Dalton (1800–1830) minimums, were recorded coinciding with global pandemics of diseases, such as smallpox, the English sweat, plague, and cholera pandemics. Furthermore, since the Dalton minimum, which recorded minimum sunspots, studies from 2002 to 2015 have documented the reappearance of previous pandemics. For example, influenza subtype H1N1 1918/1919 episodically returned in 2009, especially in India, China, and other Asian countries. Zika virus, which first appeared in 1950, flared and became endemic in 2015, transmitted sporadically, specifically in African countries. Similarly, SARS-CoV was first recorded in China in 2002 and emerged as an outbreak, MERS-CoV, in middle east countries a decade later, in 2012.

In 2020, the World Data Centre Sunspot Index and Long-term Solar Observations ( http://sidc.be ) confirmed that a new solar activity was initiated in December 2019, during which a novel coronavirus pandemic also occurred, and present a same as the previous hypothesis. Nevertheless, a higher number of pandemic outbreaks were documented during low minimum solar activities, including Ebola (1976), H5N1 (Nipah) (1967–1968), H1N1 (2009), and COVID-19 (2019–current). Furthermore, Wickramasinghe and Qu [ 49 ] reported that since 1918 or 1919, more devastating and recurrent pandemics tend to occur, particularly after a century. Consequently, within 100 years, a sudden surge of influenza was recorded, and novel influenza was hypothesised to emerge.

Figure  4 demonstrates that low minimum solar activity significantly reduced before 2020, hence substantiating the claim that pandemic events are closely related to solar activities. Moreover, numerous studies (i.e. [ 43 ], Chandra [ 46 , 47 , 48 ]) reported that during solar minimums, new viruses could penetrate the surfaces of the earth and high solar radiation would result in lower infection rates, supporting the hypothesis mentioned above.

The number of sunspots in the last 13 years. Note : The yellow curve indicates the daily sunspot number and the 2010–2021 delineated curve illustrates the minimum solar activity recorded (source: http://sidc.be/silso )

Regional area

In early December 2019, Wuhan, China, was reported as the centre of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak [ 50 ]. Chinese health authorities immediately investigated and controlled the spread of the disease. Nevertheless, by late January 2020, the WHO announced that COVID-19 was a global public health emergency. The upgrade was due to the rapid rise in confirmed cases, which were no longer limited to Wuhan [ 28 ]. The disease had spread to 24 other countries, which were mainly in the northern hemisphere, particularly the European and Western Pacific regions, such as France, United Kingdom, Spain, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, and Indonesia [ 51 , 52 ]. The migration or movement of humans was the leading agent in the spread of COVID-19, resulting in an almost worldwide COVID-19 pandemic [ 53 ].

The first hotspots of the epidemic outspread introduced by the Asian and Western Pacific regions possessed similar winter climates with an average temperature and humidity rate of 5–11 °C and 47–79%. Consequently, several publications reviewed in the current study associated the COVID-19 outbreak with regional climates (i.e. [ 1 , 29 , 54 , 55 ]) instead of its close connection to China. This review also discussed the effects of a range of specific climatological variables on the transmission and epidemiology of COVID-19 in regional climatic conditions.

America and Europe documented the highest COVID-19 cases, outnumbering the number reported in Asia [ 19 ] and on the 2nd of December 2020, the United States of America (USA) reported the highest number of confirmed COVID-19 infections, with over 13,234,551 cases and 264,808 mortalities (Da S [ 56 ].). The cases in the USA began emerging in March 2020 and peaked in late November 2020, during the wintertime in the northern hemisphere (December to March) [ 53 ]. Figure  5 demonstrates the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic in several country which represent comparison two phase of summer and one phase of winter. Most of these countries tend to increase of COVID cases close to winter season. Then, it can be worsening on phase two of summer due to do not under control of human movement although the normal trend it is presenting during winter phase.

The evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic from the 15th of February 2020 to the 2nd of December 2020 ( Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus )

The coronavirus spread aggressively across the European region, which recorded the second highest COVID-19 confirmed cases after America. At the end of 2020, WHO reported 19,071,275 Covid-19 cases in the area, where France documented 2,183,275 cases, the European country with the highest number of confirmed cases, followed by the United Kingdom (1,629,661 cases) and Spain (1,652,801 cases) [ 19 ]. Europe is also located in the northern hemisphere and possesses a temperate climate.

The spatial and temporal transmission patterns of coronavirus infection in the European region were similar to America and the Eastern Mediterranean, where the winter season increased COVID-19 cases. Typically, winter in Europe occurs at the beginning of October and ends in March. Hardy et al. [ 57 ] also stated that temperature commonly drops below freezing (approximately − 1 °C) when snow accumulates between December to mid-March, resulting in an extreme environment. Figure 5 indicates that COVID-19 cases peaked in October when the temperature became colder [ 21 ]. Similarly, the cases were the highest in the middle of the year in Australia and South Asian countries, such as India, that experience winter and monsoon, respectively, during the period.

In African regions, the outbreak of COVID-19 escalated rapidly from June to October before falling from October to March, as summer in South Africa generally occurs from November to March, while winter from June to August. Nevertheless, heavy rainfall generally transpires during summer, hence the warm and humid conditions in South Africa and Namibia during summer, while the opposite happens during winter (cold and dry). Consequently, the outbreak in the region recorded an increasing trend during winter and subsided during the summer, supporting the report by Gunthe et al. [ 58 ]. Novel coronavirus disease presents unique and grave challenges in Africa, as it has for the rest of the world. However, the infrastructure and resources have limitations for Africa countries facing COVID-19 pandemic and the threat of other diseases [ 59 ].

Conclusively, seasonal and regional climate patterns were associated with COVID-19 outbreaks globally. According to Kraemer et al. [ 60 ], they used real-time mobility data in Wuhan and early measurement presented a positive correlation between human mobility and spread of COVID-19 cases. However, after the implementation of control measures, this correlation dropped and growth rates became negative in most locations, although shifts in the demographics of reported cases were still indicative of local chains of transmission outside of Wuhan.

Climate and weather

The term “weather” represents the changes in the environment that occur daily and in a short period, while “climate” is defined as atmospheric changes happening over a long time (over 3 months) in specific regions. Consequently, different locations would experience varying climates. Numerous reports suggested climate and weather variabilities as the main drivers that sped or slowed the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 worldwide [ 44 , 61 , 62 , 63 ].

From a meteorological perspective, a favourable environment has led to the continued existence of the COVID-19 virus in the atmosphere [ 64 ]. Studies demonstrated that various meteorological conditions, such as the rate of relative humidity (i.e. [ 28 ]), precipitation (i.e. [ 65 ]), temperature (i.e. [ 66 ]), and wind speed factors (i.e. [ 54 ]), were the crucial components that contributed to the dynamic response of the pandemic, influencing either the mitigation or exacerbation of novel coronavirus transmission. In other words, the environment was considered the medium for spreading the disease when other health considerations were put aside. Consequently, new opinions, knowledge, and findings are published and shared to increase awareness, thus encouraging preventive measures within the public.

The coronavirus could survive in temperatures under 30 °C with a relative humidity of less than 80% [ 67 ], suggesting that high temperatures and lower relative humidity contributed to the elicitation of COVID-19 cases [ 18 , 51 , 58 , 68 ]. Lagtayi et al. [ 7 ] highlighted temperature as a critical factor, evidently from the increased transmission rate of MERS-Cov in African states with a warm and dry climate. Similarly, the highest COVID-19 cases were recorded in dry temperate regions, especially in western Europe (France and Spain), China, and the USA, while the countries nearer to the equator were less affected. Nevertheless, the temperature factor relative to viral infections depends on the protein available in the viruses. According to Chen and Shakhnovich [ 69 ], there is a good correlation between decreasing temperature and the growth of proteins in virus. Consequently, preventive measures that take advantage of conducive environments for specific viruses are challenging.

Precipitation also correlates with influenza [ 43 ]. A report demonstrated that regions with at least 150 mm of monthly precipitation threshold level experienced fewer cases than regions with lower precipitation rates. According to Martins et al. [ 70 ], influenza and COVID-19 can be affected by climate, where virus can be spread through the respiratory especially during rainfall season. The daily spread of Covid-19 cases in tropical countries, which receive high precipitation levels, are far less than in temperate countries [ 27 ]. Likewise, high cases of COVID-19 were reported during the monsoon season (mid-year) in India during which high rainfall is recorded [ 71 ]. Moreover, the majority of the population in these regions has lower vitamin D levels, which may contribute to weakened immune responses during certain seasons [ 27 ].

Rainfall increases the relative atmospheric humidity, which is unfavourable to the coronaviruses as its transmission requires dry and cold weather. Moreover, several reports hypothesised that rain could wash away viruses on object surfaces, which is still questioned. Most people prefer staying home on rainy days, allowing less transmission or close contact. Conversely, [ 72 ] exhibited that precipitation did not significantly impact COVID-19 infectiousness in Oslo, Norway due the location in northern hemisphere which are during winter season presenting so cold.

Coşkun et al. [ 54 ] and Wu et al. [ 29 ] claimed that wind could strongly correlate with the rate of COVID-19 transmission. Atmospheric instability (turbulent occurrences) leads to increased wind speed and reduces the dispersion of particulate matter (PM 2.5 and PM 10 ) in the environment and among humans. An investigation performed in 55 cities in Italy during the COVID-19 outbreak proved that the areas with low wind movement (stable atmospheric conditions) possessed a higher correlation coefficient and exceeded the threshold value of the safe level of PM 2.5 and PM 10 . Resultantly, more individuals were recorded infected with the disease in the regions. As mentioned in Martins et al. [ 70 ] the COVID-19 can be affected by climate and the virus can be spread through respiratory which is the virus moving in the wind movement.

The relationship between temperature and humidity

Climatic parameters, such as temperature and humidity, were investigated as the crucial factors in the epidemiology of the respiratory virus survival and transmission of COVID-19 ([ 61 ]; S [ 73 , 74 ].). The rising number of confirmed cases indicated the strong transmission ability of COVID-19 and was related to meteorological parameters. Furthermore, several studies found that the disease transmission was associated with the temperature and humidity of the environment [ 55 , 64 , 68 , 75 ], while other investigations have examined and reviewed environmental factors that could influence the epidemiological aspects of Covid-19.

Generally, increased COVID-19 cases and deaths corresponded with temperature, humidity, and viral transmission and mortality. Various studies reported that colder and dryer environments favoured COVID-19 epidemiologically [ 45 , 76 , 77 ]. As example tropical region, the observations indicated that the summer (middle of year) and rainy seasons (end of the year) could effectively diminish the transmission and mortality from COVID-19. High precipitation statistically increases relative air humidity, which is unfavourable for the survival of coronavirus, which prefers dry and cold conditions [ 32 , 34 , 78 , 79 ]. Consequently, warmer conditions could reduce COVID-19 transmission. A 1 °C increase in the temperature recorded a decrease in confirmed cases by 8% increase [ 45 ].

Several reports established that the minimum, maximum, and average temperature and humidity correlated with COVID-19 occurrence and mortality [ 55 , 80 , 81 ]. The lowest and highest temperatures of 24 and 27.3 °C and a humidity between 76 and 91% were conducive to spreading the virulence agents. The propagation of the disease peaked at the average temperature of 26 °C and humidity of 55% before gradually decreasing with elevated temperature and humidity [ 78 ].

Researchers are still divided on the effects of temperature and humidity on coronavirus transmission. Xu et al. [ 26 ] confirmed that COVID-19 cases gradually increased with higher temperature and lower humidity, indicating that the virus was actively transmitted in warm and dry conditions. Nevertheless, several reports stated that the spread of COVID-19 was negatively correlated with temperature and humidity [ 10 , 29 , 63 ]. The conflicting findings require further investigation. Moreover, other factors, such as population density, elderly population, cultural aspects, and health interventions, might potentially influence the epidemiology of the disease and necessitate research.

Governmental disinfection actions and guidelines

The COVID-19 is a severe health threat that is still spreading worldwide. The epidemiology of the SAR-CoV-2 virus might be affected by several factors, including meteorological conditions (temperature and humidity), population density, and healthcare quality, that permit it to spread rapidly [ 16 , 17 ]. Nevertheless, in 2020, no effective pharmaceutical interventions or vaccines were available for the diagnosis, treatment, and epidemic prevention against COVID-19 [ 73 , 82 ]. Consequently, after 2020 the governments globally have designed and executed non-pharmacological public health measures, such as lockdown, travel bans, social distancing, quarantine, public place closure, and public health actions, to curb the spread of COVID-19 infections and several studies have reported on the effects of these plans [ 13 , 83 ].

The COVID-19 is mainly spread via respiratory droplets from an infected person’s mouth or nose to another in close contact [ 84 ]. Accordingly, WHO and most governments worldwide have recommended wearing facemasks in public areas to curb the transmission of COVID-19. The facemasks would prevent individuals from breathing COVID-19-contaminated air [ 85 ]. Furthermore, the masks could hinder the transmission of the virus from an infected person as the exhaled air is trapped in droplets collected on the masks, suspending it in the atmosphere for longer. The WHO also recommended adopting a proper hand hygiene routine to prevent transmission and employing protective equipment, such as gloves and body covers, especially for health workers [ 86 ].

Besides wearing protective equipment, social distancing was also employed to control the Covid-19 outbreak [ 74 , 87 ]. Social distancing hinders the human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus in the form of droplets from the mouth and nose, as evidenced by the report from Sun and Zhai [ 88 ]. Conversely, Nair & Selvaraj [ 89 ] demonstrated that social distancing was less effective in communities and cultures where gatherings are the norm. Nonetheless, the issue could be addressed by educating the public and implementing social distancing policies, such as working from home and any form of plague treatment.

Infected persons, individuals who had contact with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients, and persons living in areas with high transmission rates were recommended to undergo quarantine by WHO. The quarantine could be implemented voluntarily or legally enforced by authorities and applicable to individuals, groups, or communities (community containment) [ 90 ]. A person under mandatory quarantine must stay in a place for a recommended 14-day period, based on the estimated incubation period of the SARS-CoV-2 [ 19 , 91 ]. According to Stasi et al. [ 92 ], 14-days period for mandatory quarantine it is presenting a clinical improvement after they found 5-day group and 10-day group can be decrease number of patient whose getting effect of COVID-19 from 64 to 54% respectively. This also proven by Ahmadi et al. [ 43 ] and Foad et al. [ 93 ], quarantining could reduce the transmission of COVID-19.

Lockdown and travel bans, especially in China, the centre of the coronavirus outbreak, reduced the infection rate and the correlation of domestic air traffic with COVID-19 cases [ 17 ]. The observations were supported by Sun & Zhai [ 88 ] and Sun et al. [ 94 ], who noted that travel restrictions diminished the number of COVID-19 reports by 75.70% compared to baseline scenarios without restrictions. Furthermore, example in Malaysia, lockdowns improved the air quality of polluted areas especially in primarily at main cities [ 95 ]. As additional, Martins et al. [ 70 ] measure the Human Development Index (HDI) with the specific of socio-economic variables as income, education and health. In their study, the income and education levels are the main relevant factors that affect the socio-economic.

A mandatory lockdown is an area under movement control as a preventive measure to stop the coronavirus from spreading to other areas. Numerous governments worldwide enforced the policy to restrict public movements outside their homes during the pandemic. Resultantly, human-to-human transmission of the virus was effectively reduced. The lockdown and movement control order were also suggested for individuals aged 80 and above or with low or compromised immunities, as these groups possess a higher risk of contracting the disease [ 44 ].

Governments still enforced movement orders even after the introduction of vaccines by Pfizer, Moderna, and Sinovac, as the vaccines only protect high-risk individuals from the worst effects of COVID-19. Consequently, in most countries, after receiving the first vaccine dose, individuals were allowed to resume life as normal but were still required to follow the standard operating procedures (SOP) outlined by the government.

The government attempted to balance preventing COVID-19 spread and recovering economic activities, for example, local businesses, maritime traders, shipping activities, oil and gas production and economic trades [ 22 , 96 ]. Nonetheless, the COVID-19 cases demonstrated an increasing trend during the summer due to the higher number of people travelling and on vacation, primarily to alleviate stress from lockdowns. Several new variants were discovered, including the Delta and Omicron strains, which spread in countries such as the USA and the United Kingdom. The high number of COVID-19 cases prompted the WHO to suggest booster doses to ensure full protection.

As mentioned in this manuscript, the COVID-19 still uncertain for any kind factors that can be affected on spreading of this virus. However, regarding many sources of COVID-19 study, the further assessment on this factor need to be continue to be sure, that we ready to facing probably in 10 years projection of solar minimum phase can be held in same situation for another pandemic.

The sun has an eleven-year cycle known as the solar cycle, related to its magnetic field, which controls the activities on its surface through sunspots. When the magnetic fields are active, numerous sunspots are formed on its surface, hence the sun produces more radiation energy emitted to the earth. The condition is termed solar maximum (see Fig.  6 , denoted by the yellow boxes). Alternatively, as the magnetic field of the sun weakens, the number of sunspots decreases, resulting in less radiation energy being emitted to the earth. The phenomenon is known as the solar minimum (see Fig. 6 , represented by the blue boxes).

The emergence and recurrence of pandemics every 5 years in relation to solar activities ( Source: www.swpc.noaa.gov/ ). Note: The yellow boxes indicate the solar maximum, while the blue boxes represent the solar minimum

The magnetic field of the sun protects the earth from cosmic or galactic cosmic rays emitted by supernova explosions, stars, and gamma-ray bursts [ 97 ]. Nevertheless, galactic cosmic rays could still reach the earth during the solar minimum, the least solar radiation energy period. In the 20th and early 21st centuries, several outbreaks of viral diseases that affected the respiratory system (pneumonia or influenza), namely the Spanish (1918–1919), Asian (1957–1958) and Hong Kong (1968) flu, were documented. Interestingly, the diseases that claimed numerous lives worldwide occurred at the peak of the solar maximum.

Figure  6 illustrates the correlation between the number of sunspots and disease outbreaks from 1975 to 2021, including COVID-19, that began to escalate in December 2019. Under the solar minimum conditions, the spread of Ebola (1976), H5N1 (1997–1998), H1N1 (2009), and COVID-19 (2019-2020) were documented, while the solar maximum phenomenon recorded SARS (2002) and H7N9 (2012–2013) or MERS outbreaks. Nonetheless, solar activity through the production of solar sunspots began to decline since the 22nd solar cycle. Accordingly, further studies are necessary to investigate the influence such solar variations could impart or not on pandemic development.

Despite the findings mentioned above, the sun and cosmic radiations could influence the distribution or outspread of disease-spreading viruses. The rays could kill the viruses via DNA destruction or influence their genetic mutations, which encourage growth and viral evolution. Nevertheless, the connection between radiation and the evolutionary process requires further study by specialists in the field it is become true or not.

The spread of viral diseases transpires naturally in our surroundings and occurs unnoticed by humans. According to records, the spread of pandemic diseases, including the Black Death (fourteenth century) and the Spanish flu (1919), was significantly influenced by the decline and peak of solar activities. Furthermore, in the past 20 years, various diseases related to the influenza virus have been recorded. According to the pattern observed, if all diseases were related to the solar cycle (solar maximum and minimum), the viral diseases would reoccur every 5 to 6 years since they first appeared between 1995 and 2020. Accordingly, the next pandemic might occur around 2024 or 2025 and need to have a proper study for prove these statements. Nonetheless, the activities on the surface of the sun have been weakening since the 23rd solar cycle and it can be proven later after the proper study can be make it.

The beginning of the COVID-19 spread, only several countries with the same winter climate with an average temperature of 5–11 °C and an average humidity rate of 47–79% located at latitudes 30–50 N reported cases. The areas included Wuhan distribution centres in China, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, South Korea, Japan, and the USA (see Fig.  5 ). Other than biological aspects, the higher number of confirmed cases recorded in colder environments was due to the human body secreting less lymphoproliferative hormone, leading to decreased immunogenicity effects and increased risk of infection [ 24 ]. Consequently, the virus could attack and rapidly infect humans during the period [ 1 , 54 ].

The lymphoproliferative response is a protective immune response that plays a vital role in protecting and eradicating infections and diseases. On the other hand, staying in warm conditions or being exposed to more sunlight would lower the risks of infection. According to Asyary and Veruswati [ 98 ], sunlight triggers vitamin D, which increases immunity and increases the recovery rates of infected individuals.

Researchers believe that viruses could survive in the environment for up to 3 to 4 years or even longer. The survival rate of the microorganisms is relatively high, which is related to their biological structures, adaptability on any surfaces, and transmission medium to spread diseases. Viruses possess simple protein structures, namely the spike, membrane, and envelope protein; therefore, when they enter living organisms (such as through the respiratory system), the viruses are easily transmitted.

Once they have entered a host, the viruses duplicate exponentially and swarm the lungs. Subsequently, after the targeted organs, such as the lungs, are invaded, the viruses attack the immune system and create confusion in protective cells to destroy healthy cells. The situation is still considered safe in younger and healthy individuals as their immune systems could differentiate and counter-attack the viruses, curing them. Nonetheless, in elders and individuals with several chronic diseases, most of their protective cells are dead, hence their immune system is forced to work hard to overcome the infection. Pneumonia and death tend to occur when the situation is overwhelming [ 85 ]. Consequently, the viruses are harmful to humans as they could multiply in a short period, enter the blood, and overrun the body.

The coronavirus could attach to surfaces without a host, including door knobs and steel and plastic materials. The microorganisms could survive alone, but virologists have yet to determine how long. If someone touches any surface with the virus, the individual would then be infected. The situation would worsen if the infected person contacted numerous people and became a super spreader. A super spreader does not exhibit any symptoms and continuously transmits the virus without realising it. An infected individual transmits the coronavirus via droplets from coughs or sneezes. Nevertheless, scientists have yet to determine if coronavirus is spread via airborne or droplets, hence requiring thorough evaluation [ 99 ].

The COVID-19 virus mutates over time, and it can be changing any times. Mutations alter the behaviour and genetic structure of the virus, resulting in a new strain. Numerous research have been conducted to procure vaccines and anti-viral medications, but mutations have led to evolutionary disadvantages. The novel strains are more infectious than the original ones. As of November 2020, approximately six new coronavirus strains have been detected, each displaying different transmission behaviours [ 100 ].

Recent studies demonstrated that the mutated viruses exhibit little variability, allowing scientists to produce viable vaccines [ 71 ]. Furthermore, different types of vaccines are manufactured by different countries, which could be advantageous. Currently, most countries also recommend booster doses to attain extra protection after receiving the mandatory two vaccine doses. In same time, the social and physical interactions between humans also necessitate to be aware.

The COVID-19 virus is primarily transmitted through droplets produced by an infected person. Accordingly, physical distancing, a one-metre minimum distance between individuals [ 19 ], and following the SOP might prevent or avoid spreading the disease. Moreover, self-quarantine, school closures, working from home, cancelling large events, limiting gatherings, and avoiding spending long periods in crowded places are essential strategies in enforcing physical distancing at a community level. The policies are essential precautions that could reduce the further spreading of coronavirus and break the chain of transmission.

Government support also need to control the spread of COVID-19 with the strict SOP. The SOP enforcement in public places would enhance adherence to the new practice among the public and the community, aiding in curbing disease transmission. Practising limited meetings and social gatherings, avoiding crowded places, workplace distancing, preventing non-necessary travels of high-risk family members, especially those with chronic disease, and adhering to the recommended SOP could reduce coronavirus outbreaks. Nonetheless, individual awareness is also necessary to achieve COVID-19 spread prevention.

Many researchers are focused on identifying the primary drivers of pandemic outbreaks. Seasonal, temperature, and humidity differences significantly impacted COVID-19 growth rate variations. It is crucial to highlight the potential link between the recurrence of pandemics every 5 years and solar activities, which can influence temperature and humidity variations. Notable variations in COVID-19 mortality rates were observed between northern and southern hemisphere countries, with the former having higher rates. One hypothesis suggests that populations in the northern hemisphere may receive insufficient sunlight to maintain optimal vitamin D levels during winter, possibly leading to higher mortality rates.

The first COVID-19 case was detected in Wuhan, China, which is in the northern hemisphere. The number of cases rapidly propagated in December during the winter season. At the time, the temperature in Wuhan was recorded at 13–18 °C. Accordingly, one theory proposes that the survival and transmission of the coronavirus were due to meteorological conditions, namely temperatures between 13 and 18 °C and 50–80% humidity.

Daily rainfall directly impacts humidity levels. The coronavirus exhibited superior survival rates in cold and dry conditions. Furthermore, transmissible gastroenteritis (TGEV) suspensions and possibly other coronaviruses remain viable longer in their airborne states, which are more reliably collected in low relative humidity than in high humidity. Consequently, summer rains would effectively reduce COVID-19 transmission in southern hemisphere regions.

In southern hemisphere regions, the summer seasons are accompanied by a high average temperature at the end and beginning of the year. Countries with temperatures exceeding 24 °C reported fewer infections. As temperatures rise from winter to summer, virus transmission is expected to decline. Nonetheless, the activities and transmission of the virus were expected to decrease during winter to summer transitions, when the countries would be warmer. The peak intensity of infections strongly depends on the level of seasonal transmissions.

Social distancing plays a critical role in preventing the overload of healthcare systems. Many respiratory pathogens, including those causing mild common cold-like syndromes, show seasonal fluctuations, often peaking in winter. This trend can be attributed to increased indoor crowding, school reopening, and climatic changes during autumn.

The spread of COVID-19 to neighbouring regions can be attributed to population interactions. Migration patterns, such as the movement from northern to southern regions during the warmer months, have significant epidemiological impacts. This trend mirrors the behavior of influenza pandemics where minor outbreaks in spring or summer are often followed by major waves in autumn or winter.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Novel coronavirus

Coronavirus disease 2019

Deoxyribonucleic acid

Swine influenza

Influenza A virus subtype H5N1

Asian Lineage Avian Influenza A(H7N9) Virus

Middle East respiratory syndrome

Middle East respiratory syndrome Coronavirus

Particulate matter

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus

Syndrome coronavirus 2

Systematic literature review

Standard operating procedure

Transmissible gastroenteritis Virus

United States of America

World Health Organization

Apanovich I. Climate and man. Opposition or natural stage of the earth’s evolution? Norwegian journal of development of the international. Science. 2019;26(25):12–27.

Google Scholar  

Borah P, Singh MK, Mahapatra S. Estimation of degree-days for different climatic zones of north-East India. Sustain Cities Soc. 2015;14(1):70–81.

Article   Google Scholar  

Chen D, Chen HW. Using the Köppen classification to quantify climate variation and change: an example for 1901-2010. Environmental Development. 2013;6(1):69–79.

Trenberth KE, Fasullo JT. Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiation. Geophys Res Lett. 2009;36

Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ, Guinée L, Lane J, Fantke P, Zelm v R, et al. Life Cycle Impact Assessment – The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment; 2015. p. 345.

Book   Google Scholar  

Nakada LYK, Urban RC. COVID-19 pandemic: environmental and social factors influencing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in São Paulo. Brazil Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2021;28(30):40322–8.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lagtayi, R., Lairgi, L., Daya, A., & Khouya, A. (2021). The impact of the average temperature, humidity, wind speed, altitude and population density on daily COVID-19 infections’ evolution. January, 9094.

Majumder MS, Liu D, Poirier C, Mandl KD, Lipsitch M, The MS. The role of absolute humidity on transmission rates of the COVID-19 outbreak; 2020.

Wiersinga WJ, Rhodes A, Cheng AC, Peacock SJ, Prescott HC. Pathophysiology, transmission, diagnosis, and treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A review. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association. 2020;324(8):782–93.

Zhang X, Maggioni V, Houser P, Xue Y, Mei Y. The impact of weather condition and social activity on COVID-19 transmission in the United States. J Environ Manag. 2022;302:114085.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Mäkinen TM, Juvonen R, Jokelainen J, Harju TH, Peitso A, Bloigu A, et al. Cold temperature and low humidity are associated with increased occurrence of respiratory tract infections. Respir Med. 2009;103(3):456–62.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Carvalho FRS, Henriques DV, Correia O, Schmalwieser AW. Potential of solar UV radiation for inactivation of Coronaviridae family. Photochem Photobiol. 2021;97:213–20.

Ali I, Alharbi OM. COVID-19: disease, management, treatment, and social impact. Sci Total Environ. 2020;728:138861.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Jin Y, Yang H, Ji W, Wu W, Chen S, Zhang W, et al. Virology, epidemiology, pathogenesis, and control of covid-19. Viruses. 2020;12(4):1–17.

Sohrabi C, Alsafi Z, O’Neill N, Khan M, Kerwan A, Al-Jabir A, et al. World health organization declares global emergency: A review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Int J Surg. 2020;76:71–6.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wang J, Tang K, Feng K, Lv W. High temperature and high humidity reduce the transmission of COVID-19; 2020a.

Wang L, Duan Y, Zhang W, Liang J, Xu J, Zhang Y, et al. Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of 26 cases of covid-19 arising from patient-to-patient transmission in Liaocheng, China. Clinical Epidemiology. 2020b;12:387–91.

Xie J, Zhu Y. Science of the Total environment association between ambient temperature and COVID-19 infection in 122 cities from China. Sci Total Environ. 2020;724:138201.

World Health Organization. (2020a). Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19-10April 2020. https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19—10- april-2020.

Bostock B. South Korea is testing 200,000 members of a doomsday church linked to more than 60% of its coronavirus cases; 2020.

World Health Organization. (2020b). Health topics/coronavirus. https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1.

Menhat M, Mohd Zaideen IM, Yusuf Y, Salleh NHM, Zamri MA, Jeevan J. The impact of Covid-19 pandemic: A review on maritime sectors in Malaysia. Ocean Coast Manag. 2021;209:105638.

Byun WS, Heo SW, Jo G, Kim JW, Kim S, Lee S, et al. Is coronavirus disease (COVID-19) seasonal? A critical analysis of empirical and epidemiological studies at global and local scales. Environ Res. 2021;196:110972.

Dhakal P, Pokhrel P, B. Seasonal variation and COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal. Nepal Medical Journal. 2020;3(2):77–80.

Mehmet Ş. Science of the Total environment impact of weather on COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. 728; 2020.

Xu H, Yan C, Fu Q, Xiao K, Yu Y, Han D, et al. Science of the Total environment possible environmental effects on the spread of COVID-19 in China. Sci Total Environ. 2020;731:139211.

Rosario DKA, Mutz YS, Bernardes PC, Conte-Junior CA. Relationship between COVID-19 and weather: case study in a tropical country. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2020;229:113587.

Wang J, Tang K, Feng K, Lin X, Lv W, Chen K, et al. Impact of temperature and relative humidity on the transmission of COVID-19: A modelling study in China and the United States. BMJ Open. 2021;11(2):1–16.

Wu Y, Jing W, Liu J, Ma Q, Yuan J, Wang Y, et al. Effects of temperature and humidity on the daily new cases and new deaths of COVID-19 in 166 countries. Sci Total Environ. 2020;729:1–7.

Casanova LM, Jeon S, Rutala WA, Weber DJ, Sobsey MD. Effects of air temperature and relative humidity on coronavirus survival on surfaces. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010;76(9):2712–7.

Islam N, Bukhari Q, Jameel Y, Shabnam S, Erzurumluoglu AM, Siddique MA, et al. COVID-19 and climatic factors: A global analysis. Environ Res. 2021;193:110355.

Diao Y, Kodera S, Anzai D, Gomez-Tames J, Rashed EA, Hirata A. Influence of population density, temperature, and absolute humidity on spread and decay durations of COVID-19: A comparative study of scenarios in China, England, Germany, and Japan. One Health. 2021;12:100203.

Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS. ROSES reporting standards for systematic evidence syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ Evid. 2018;7(1):4–11.

Sharif N, Dey SK. Impact of population density and weather on COVID-19 pandemic and SARS-CoV-2 mutation frequency in Bangladesh. Epidemiol Infect. 2021:1–10.

Kraus S, Breier Dasí-Rodríguez S. El arte de elaborar una revisión bibliográfica sistemática en la investigación sobre el espíritu empresarial. Int Entrep Manag J. 2020;16:1023–42.

Xiao Y, Watson M. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J Plan Educ Res. 2019;39(1):93–112.

Gusenbauer M, Haddaway NR. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(2):181–217.

Halevi G, Moed H, Bar-Ilan J. Suitability of Google scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics. 2017;11(3):823–34.

Haddaway NR, Collins AM, Coughlin D, Kirk S. The role of google scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):1–17.

Littlewood C, Chance-Larsen K, McLean S. Quality appraisal as a part of the systematic review. International Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation. 2010;1(1):53–8.

Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15(3):398–405.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.

Ahmadi M, Sharifi A, Dorosti S, Jafarzadeh Ghoushchi S, Ghanbari N. Investigation of effective climatology parameters on COVID-19 outbreak in Iran. Sci Total Environ. 2020;729

Gupta A, Banerjee S, Das S. Significance of geographical factors to the COVID-19 outbreak in India. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment. 2020;6(4):2645–53.

Pequeno P, Mendel B, Rosa C, Bosholn M, Souza JL, Baccaro F, et al. Air transportation, population density and temperature predict the spread of COVID-19 in Brazil. PeerJ. 2020;2020(6):1–15.

Hoyle F, Wickramasinghe NC. Sunspots and influenza [6]. Nature. 1990;343(6256):304.

Wickramasinghe NC, Rocca MC, Tokoro G, Temple R. Journal of infectious diseases. Scienctific Research and Community. 2020;1(4):1–10.

Wickramasinghe NC, Steele EJ, Wainwright M, Tokoro G, Fernando M, Qu J. Sunspot cycle minima and pandemics : A case for vigilance at the present time. Journal of Astrobiology & Outreach. 2017;5:2332–519.

Wickramasinghe NC, Qu J. Are we approaching a new influenza pandemic. Virol Curr Res. 2018;2(107):2.

Guan W, Ni Z, Hu Y, Liang W, Ou C, He J, et al. Disease 2019 in China; 2020.

Bashir MF, Ma B, Bilal K, Bashir MA, Tan D, Bashir M. Correlation between climate indicators and COVID-19 pandemic in New York, USA. Sci Total Environ. 2020;728:138835.

Cucinotta D, Vanelli M. WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta Biomed. 2020;91:157–60.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lin C, Lau AKH, Fung JCH, Guo C, Chan JWM, Yeung DW, et al. A mechanism-based parameterisation scheme to investigate the association between transmission rate of COVID-19 and meteorological factors on plains in China. Sci Total Environ. 2020;737:140348.

Coşkun H, Yıldırım N, Gündüz S. The spread of COVID-19 virus through population density and wind in Turkey cities. Sci Total Environ. 2021;751

Yang HY, Lee JKW. The impact of temperature on the risk of covid-19: A multinational study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(8)

Candido DD, Watts A, Abade L, Kraemer MUG, Pybus OG, Croda J, et al. Routes for COVID-19 importation in Brazil. Journal of Travel Medicine. 2020;27(3):1–3.

Hardy JP, Groffman PM, Fitzhugh RD, Henry KS, Welman AT, Demers JD, et al. Snow depth manipulation and its influence on soil frost and water dynamics in a northern hardwood forest. Biogeochemistry. 2001;56(2):151–74.

Gunthe SS, Swain B, Patra SS, Amte A. On the global trends and spread of the COVID-19 outbreak: preliminary assessment of the potential relation between location-specific temperature and UV index. Journal of Public Health (Germany). 2020:1–10.

Rosenthal PJ, et al. COVID-19: shining the light on Africa. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;102(6):1145–8.

Kraemer MUG, et al. The effect of human mobility and control measures on the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Science. 2020;368:493–7.

Dalziel BD, Kissler S, Gog JR, Viboud C, Bjørnstad ON, Metcalf CJE, et al. Urbanization and humidity shape the intensity of influenza epidemics in U.S. cities. Science. 2018;362:75–9.

Sahoo PK, Powell MA, Mittal S, Garg VK. Is the transmission of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) weather dependent? J Air Waste Manage Assoc. 2020;70(11):1061–4.

Selcuk M, Gormus S, Guven M. Impact of weather parameters and population density on the COVID-19 transmission: evidence from 81 provinces of Turkey. Earth Syst Environ. 2021;5(1):87–100.

Abraham J, Turville C, Dowling K, Florentine S. Does climate play any role in covid-19 spreading?—an Australian perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(17)

Sehra ST, Salciccioli JD, Wiebe DJ, Fundin S, Baker JF. Maximum daily temperature, precipitation, ultraviolet light, and rates of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(9):2482–7.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rubin D, Huang J, Fisher BT, Gasparrini A, Tam V, Song L, et al. Association of Social Distancing, population density, and temperature with the instantaneous reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 in counties across the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(7):1–12.

Comunian S, Dongo D, Milani C, Palestini P. Air pollution and covid-19: The role of particulate matter in the spread and increase of covid-19’s morbidity and mortality. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12):1–22.

Tosepu R, Gunawan J, Effendy DS, Ahmad LOAI, Lestari H, Bahar H, et al. Correlation between weather and Covid-19 pandemic in Jakarta, Indonesia. Sci Total Environ. 2020;725

Chen and Shakhnovich. Thermal adaptation of viruses and Bacteria. Biophys J. 2010;98:1109–18.

Martins LD, da Silva I, Batista WV, Andrade MF, Freitas ED, Jorge Alberto Martins JA. How socio-economic and atmospheric variables impact COVID-19 and influenza outbreaks in tropical and subtropical regions of Brazil. Environ Res. 2020;191:110184.

Kulkarni H, Khandait H, Narlawar UW, Rathod P, Mamtani M. Independent association of meteorological characteristics with initial spread of Covid-19 in India. Sci Total Environ. 2021;764:142801.

Menebo MM. Science of the Total environment temperature and precipitation associate with Covid-19 new daily cases : A correlation study between weather and Covid-19 pandemic in. Sci Total Environ. 2020;737:139659.

Gupta S, Patel KK. Global Epidemiology of First 90 Days into COVID-19 Pandemic :Disease Incidence , Prevalence , Case Fatality Population Density, Urbanisation. J Health Manag. 2020;22(2):117–28.

Haque SE, Rahman M. Association between temperature, humidity, and COVID-19 outbreaks in Bangladesh. Environ Sci Pol. 2020;114:253–5.

Sharma P, Singh AK, Agrawal B, Sharma A. Correlation between weather and COVID-19 pandemic in India: an empirical investigation. J Public Aff. 2020;20(4)

Fu S, Wang B, Zhou J, Xu X, Liu J, Ma Y, et al. Meteorological factors, governmental responses and COVID-19: evidence from four European countries. Environ Res. 2021;194:110596.

Mecenas P, Bastos RT, Vallinoto AC, Normando D. Effects of temperature and humidity on the spread of COVID-19: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2020;15:1–21.

Malki Z, Atlam ES, Hassanien AE, Dagnew G, Elhosseini MA, Gad I. Association between weather data and COVID-19 pandemic predicting mortality rate: machine learning approaches. Chaos, Solitons Fractals. 2020;138:110137.

Sasikumar K, Nath D, Nath R, Chen W. Impact of extreme hot climate on COVID-19 outbreak in India. GeoHealth. 2020;4(12)

Kodera S, Rashed EA, Hirata A. Correlation between COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates in Japan and local population density, temperature, and absolute humidity. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(15):1–14.

Sobral MFF, Duarte GB, da Penha Sobral AIG, Marinho MLM, de Souza Melo A. Association between climate variables and global transmission oF SARS-CoV-2. Sci Total Environ. 2020;729:138997.

Patel SK, Pathak M, Tiwari R, Yatoo MI, Malik YS. A vaccine is not too far for COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic A vaccine is not too far for COVID-19. May; 2020.

Nicola M, Neill NO, Sohrabi C, Khan M, Agha M, Agha R. Evidence based management guideline for the COVID-19 pandemic - review article. Int J Surg. 2020;77:206–16.

Atangana E, Atangana A. Facemasks simple but powerful weapons to protect against COVID-19 spread: can they have sides effects? Results in Physics. 2020;19:103425.

Sarmadi M, Moghanddam VK, Dickerson AS, Martelletti L. Association of COVID-19 distribution with air quality, sociodemographic factors, and comorbidities: an ecological study of US states. Air Qual Atmos Health. 2021;14(4):455–65.

Chung CJ, Nazif TM, Wolbinski M, Hakemi E, Lebehn M, Brandwein R, et al. The restructuring of structural heart disease practice during The Covid-19 pandemic. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020; InPress

Bukhari Q, Massaro JM, D’agostino RB, Khan S. Effects of weather on coronavirus pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(15):1–12.

Sun C, Zhai Z. The efficacy of social distance and ventilation effectiveness in preventing COVID-19 transmission. Sustain Cities Soc. 2020;62:102390.

Nair N, Selvaraj P. Using a cultural and social identity lens to understand pandemic responses in the US and India. Int J Cross-cult Manag. 2021;21(3):545–68.

Cetron M, Landwirth J. Public health and ethical considerations in planning for quarantine. Yale J Biol Med. 2005;78(5):325–30.

Jernigan DB. Update: public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak—United States, February 24, 2020. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 69. 2020.

Stasi C, Fallani S, Voller F, Silvestri C. Treatment for COVID-19: an overview. Eur J Pharmacol. 2020;889:173644.

Foad CAKK, Xun N, Pejman J, Nataraj RC. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of an epidemiological model for COVID-19 including public behavior and government action. Nonlinear Dynamics. 2020;101(3):1545–59.

Sun Z, Zhang H, Yang Y, Wan H, Wang Y. Science of the Total environment impacts of geographic factors and population density on the COVID-19 spreading under the lockdown policies of China. Sci Total Environ. 2020;746(666):141347.

Abdullah S, Mansor AA, Napi NNLM, Mansor WNW, Ahmed AN, Ismail M, et al. Air quality status during 2020 Malaysia movement control order (MCO) due to 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) pandemic. Sci Total Environ. 2020;729:139022.

Menhat M, Yusuf Y. Factors influencing the choice of performance measures for the oil and gas supply chain - exploratory study. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2018;342(1)

Ćirkovića MM, Vukotića B. Long-term prospects: mitigation of supernova and gamma-ray burst threat to intelligent beings. Acta Astronautica. 2016;129:438–46.

Asyary A, Veruswati M. Science of the Total environment sunlight exposure increased Covid-19 recovery rates : A study in the central pandemic area of Indonesia. Sci Total Environ. 2020;729:139016.

Jayaweeraa M, Pererab H, Gunawardanaa B, Manatungea J. Transmission of COVID-19 virus by droplets and aerosols: A critical review on the unresolved dichotomy. Environ Res. 2020;188:1–18.

Leung K, Shum MHH, Leung GM, Lam TTY, Wu JT. Early transmissibility assessment of the N501Y mutant strains of SARS-CoV-2 in the United Kingdom, October to November 2020. Euro Surveill. 2020;26(1)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would also like to acknowledge the Editors and an anonymous reviewer, who contributed immensely to improving the quality of this publication and a special thanks to Muhammad Hafiy Nauwal Effi Helmy, that contributed an excellent idea through singing during the COVID-19 lockdown period.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Maritime Studies, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030, Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia

Masha Menhat

Institute of Oceanography and Environment, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030, Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia

Effi Helmy Ariffin, Junainah Zakaria & Mohd Fadzil Akhir

Faculty of Science and Marine Environment, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030, Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia

Wan Shiao Dong & Aminah Ismailluddin

Institute for Social Science Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Hayrol Azril Mohamed Shafril

Social, Environmental and Developmental Sustainability Research Center, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

Mahazan Muhammad

Institute of Geology Malaysia, Board of Geologists, 62100, Putrajaya, Malaysia

Ahmad Rosli Othman

Executive Office, Proofreading By A UK PhD, 51-1, Biz Avenue II, 63000, Cyberjaya, Malaysia

Thavamaran Kanesan

Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Suzana Pil Ramli

Faculty of Applied Sciences, Uva Wellassa University, Badulla, 90000, Sri Lanka

Amila Sandaruwan Ratnayake

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have been involved in writing this editorial and contributing to the review of the manuscript. MM and EHA contribute to conceptualization. IA and ARO have made the figure.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Effi Helmy Ariffin .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not Applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Menhat, M., Ariffin, E.H., Dong, W.S. et al. Rain, rain, go away, come again another day: do climate variations enhance the spread of COVID-19?. Global Health 20 , 43 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01044-w

Download citation

Received : 27 July 2023

Accepted : 22 April 2024

Published : 14 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01044-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Coronavirus
• Solar radiation
• Temperature
• Social distancing

Globalization and Health

ISSN: 1744-8603

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises (2013)

Chapter: 1 introduction.

CHAPTER ONE Introduction

T he idea that Earth’s climate could abruptly change in a drastic manner has been around for several decades. Early studies of ice cores showed that very large changes in climate could happen in a matter of a few decades or even years, for example, local to regional temperature changes of a dozen degrees or more, doubling or halving of precipitation rates, and dust concentrations changing by orders of magnitude (Dansgaard et al., 1989; Alley et al., 1993). In the last few decades, scientific research has advanced our understanding of abrupt climate change significantly. Some original fears have been allayed or now seem less ominous, but new ones have sprung up. Fresh reminders occur regularly that thresholds and tipping points exist not only in the climate system, but in other parts of the Earth system ( Box 1.1 ).

What has become clearer recently is that the issue of abrupt change cannot be confined to a geophysical discussion of the climate system alone. The key concerns are not limited to large and abrupt shifts in temperature or rainfall, for example, but also extend to other systems that can exhibit abrupt or threshold-like behavior even in response to a gradually changing climate. The fundamental concerns with abrupt change include those of speed—faster changes leave less time for adaptation, either economically or ecologically—and of magnitude—larger changes require more adaptation and generally have greater impact. This report offers an updated look at the issue of abrupt climate change and its potential impacts, and takes the added step of considering not only abrupt changes to the climate system itself, but also abrupt impacts and tipping points that can be triggered by gradual changes in climate.

This examination of the impacts of abrupt change brings the discussion into the human realm, raising questions such as: Are there potential thresholds in society’s ability to grow sufficient food? Or to obtain sufficient clean water? Are there thresholds in the risk to coastal infrastructure as sea levels rise? The spectrum of possibilities here is very wide, too wide to be fully covered in any single report. In practice, little is known about these and other possible abrupt changes. As such, this report lays out what is currently known about the risks, raises flags to point out potential threats, and proposes improved monitoring and warning schemes to help prepare us for both known and unknown abrupt changes. This report can be viewed as the current frame in an ongoing movie in which we grasp the basic plot, but we are not sure what plot twists lie ahead or even how the various characters are related. As scientific research and monitoring progresses, i.e., as we watch the movie and learn more about the key characters and

BOX 1.1 EXAMPLES OF RECENT ABRUPT CHANGE IN THE EARTH SYSTEM

Stratospheric Ozone Depletion

During the early 1970s, concerns arose in the scientific community that inputs of nitrogen oxides (known as “NOx”) from a proposed fleet of supersonic aircraft flying in the stratosphere and of industrially produced halocarbon gases containing chlorine and bromine (CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons and chlorofluorobromocarbons) had the potential to deplete the amount of ozone in the stratosphere. Halogen oxide radicals were predicted to form from the degradation of halocarbons in the stratosphere. Intensive study of the stratosphere, extending more than a decade, confirmed the rising concentrations of CFCs and halons in the atmosphere, and of halogen oxide radicals in the stratosphere. International negotiations led to the signing of the Montreal Protocol in 1987, requiring a 50 percent reduction in CFCs and a 100 percent reduction in halon production by 2000 by the developed countries.

However, two years prior to the treaty, scientists learned that the column amount of ozone over Antarctica in the austral spring had been declining since the late 1960s, and it had been reduced by almost a factor of two by the mid-1980s (Farman et al., 1985); See Figure A . The continuous record of column ozone abundances measured at Halley Bay, Antarctica, showed

FIGURE A Total column ozone in Antarctica, at the Halley Bay station of the British Antarctic Survey (black) and averaged over the whole polar region of Antarctica (blue, from satellite data). (Adapted from WMO/ UNEP [2010] plus data from the British Antarctic Survey [ http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/data/ZOZ5699.DAT , downloaded 26 April 2013].)

that October ozone column amounts started to drift lower in the late 1960s and 1970s. Satellite records and measurements from other stations confirmed that this change was occurring on the continental scale of Antarctica. This was an abrupt change in the timescale of human activities, the scale of the whole polar region, but lack of continuity and rejection of data perceived to be anomalous prevented the detection of the change from space observations.

The Montreal Protocol was amended to require complete phase-out of most ozone-depleting CFCs by 1996 in developed countries and by 2010 in rest of the world. In addition, the Protocol was amended or adjusted multiple times to reduce emissions of all ozone-depleting substances. As a result of the Montreal Protocol and its amendments, stratospheric ozone is expected to return to its pre-1980 values as the atmospheric abundances of ozone-depleting substances decline in the coming decades. Column global ozone amounts prevalent in the early1970s are expected to be restored by the mid-21st century, although stratospheric cooling associated with changes in greenhouse gases will alter the trajectory of the restoration. The Antarctic ozone hole is expected to no longer occur towards the late 21st century, and this recovery is not expected to be influenced as much by climate change as the global ozone amounts (WMO/UNEP, 2010).

The Antarctic ozone hole represents an abrupt change to the Earth system. Although it is not specifically an abrupt climate change, for the purposes of this report, it is a recent example of the type an unforeseen global threshold event. The Antarctic ozone hole appeared within a few years after a threshold was crossed—when the concentrations of inorganic chlorine exceeded the concentration of nitrogen oxides in the lower altitudes of the polar stratosphere—and it affected a large portion of the globe. Thus, it exemplifies the scope and magnitude of the types of impacts that abrupt changes from human activities can have on the planet.

Bark Beetle Outbreaks

Bark beetles are a natural part of forested ecosystems, and infestations are a regular force of natural change. In the last two decades, though, the bark beetle infestations that have occurred across large areas of North America have been the largest and most severe in recorded history, killing millions of trees across millions of hectares of forest from Alaska to southern California (Bentz, 2008); see Figure B . Bark beetle outbreak dynamics are complex, and a variety of circumstances must coincide and thresholds must be surpassed for an outbreak to occur on a large scale. Climate change is thought to have played a significant role in these recent outbreaks by maintaining temperatures above a threshold that would normally lead to cold-induced mortality. In general, elevated temperatures in a warmer climate, particularly when there are consecutive warm years, can speed up reproductive cycles and increase the likelihood of outbreaks (Bentz et al., 2010). Similar to many of the issues described in this report, climate change is only one contributing factor to these types of abrupt climate impacts, with other human actions such as forest history and management also playing a role. There are also feedbacks to the climate system from these outbreaks, which represent an important mechanism by which climate change may undermine the ability of northern forests to take up and store atmospheric carbon (Kurz et al., 2008).

FIGURE B Photographs of a pine bark beetle and of a beetle-killed forest in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Source: Top: Photo by Dion Manastyrski; Bottom: Photo from Anthony Barnosky.

how they interact, it is hoped that scientists and policymakers will learn to anticipate abrupt plot changes and surprises so that societies can be better prepared to handle them.

PREVIOUS DEFINITIONS OF ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE

As recently as the 1980s, the typical view of major climate change was one of slow shifts, paced by the changes in solar energy that accompany predictable variations in Earth’s orbit around the sun over thousands to tens of thousands of years (Hays et al., 1976). While some early studies of rates of climate change, particularly during the last glacial period and the transition from glacial to interglacial climates, found large changes in apparently short periods of time (e.g., Coope et al., 1971), most of the paleoclimate records reaching back tens of thousands of years lacked the temporal resolution to resolve yearly to decadal changes. This situation began to change in the late 1980s as scientists began to examine events such as the climate transition that occurred at the end of the Younger Dryas about 12,000 years ago (e.g., Dansgaard et al., 1989) and the large swings in climate during the glacial period that have come to be termed “Dansgaard-Oescher events” (“D-O events;” named after two of the ice core scientists who first studied these phenomena using ice cores). At first these variations seemed to many to be too large and fast to be climatic changes, and it was only after they were found in several ice cores (e.g., Anklin et al., 1993; Grootes et al., 1993), 1 and in many properties (e.g., Alley et al., 1993), including greenhouse gases (e.g., Severinghaus and Brook, 1999) that they became widely accepted as real.

This perspective is important, as first definitions of abrupt climate change were tied directly to these D-O events, which themselves are defined by changes in temperature, precipitation rates, dust fallout, and concentrations of certain greenhouse gases. For this reason, previous reviews of abrupt change have tended to focus on the physical climate system, and the potential for abrupt changes and threshold behavior has been expressed primarily in climatic terms (key references listed in Box 1.2 ).

The first systematic review of abrupt climate change was by the National Research Council ( Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises; NRC, 2002). This study defined abrupt climate change as follows:

“Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the

____________________

1 http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/ .

BOX 1.2 PREVIOUS REPORTS ON ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE

Key references on the subject of abrupt climate change:

• Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (NRC, 2002)
• IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (IPCC, 2007c)
• Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.4: Abrupt Climate Change (USCCSP, 2008)
• Tipping Elements in the Earth’s Climate System (Lenton et al., 2008)
• Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis (NRC, 2012a)
• 2013 National Climate Assessment (National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee, 2013)

climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.”

This early definition is critically important in two regards. First, it focuses on the climate system itself, a focus that remains widely used today. Second, it raises the possibility of thresholds or tipping points being forced or pushed by an undetectably small change in the cause of the shift. The 2002 report goes on to expand on its definition by placing abrupt climate change into a social context:

“To use this definition in a policy setting or public discussion requires some additional context, … because while many scientists measure time on geological scales, most people are concerned with changes and their potential impacts on societal and ecological time scales. From this point of view, an abrupt change is one that takes place so rapidly and unexpectedly that human or natural systems have difficulty adapting to it. Abrupt changes in climate are most likely to be significant, from a human perspective, if they persist over years or longer, are larger than typical climate variability, and affect sub-continental or larger regions. Change in any measure of climate or its variability can be abrupt, including change in the intensity, duration, or frequency of extreme events.”

This expanded definition raised the issues of persistence, of changes being so large that they stand out above typical variability, and that changes in extremes, not just baselines, were considered to be abrupt climate changes. It also placed climate change into the context of impacts of those changes, and the change being considered abrupt if it exceeds the system’s capacity to adapt.

In the subsequent years many papers were published on abrupt climate change, some with definitions more focused on time (e.g., Clark et al., 2002), and others on the relative speed of the causes and reactions. Overpeck and Cole (2006), for example, defined abrupt climate change as “a transition in the climate system whose duration is

fast relative to the duration of the preceding or subsequent state.” Lenton et al. (2008) formally introduced the concept of tipping point, defining abrupt climate change as:

“We offer a formal definition, introducing the term “tipping element” to describe subsystems of the Earth system that are at least subcontinental in scale and can be switched—under certain circumstances—into a qualitatively different state by small perturbations. The tipping point is the corresponding critical point—in forcing and a feature of the system—at which the future state of the system is qualitatively altered.”

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment report defined abrupt climate change as:

“forced or unforced climatic change that involves crossing a threshold to a new climate regime (e.g., new mean state or character of variability), often where the transition time to the new regime is short relative to the duration of the regime.”

In late 2008 a report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (USCCSP) was dedicated to the topic of abrupt climate change. The Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.4: Abrupt Climate Change (USCCSP, 2008) defined abrupt climate change as:

“A large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems.”

This simple definition directly focuses attention on the impacts of change on natural and human systems and is important in that it directly combines the physical climate system with human impacts. As an increasingly interdisciplinary approach was taken to studying abrupt climate change, there was an accompanying evolution in thinking, expanding from abrupt changes in the physical climate system to include abrupt impacts from climate change.

More recently, Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis (NRC, 2012b) examined the topic of climate change in the context of national security and briefly addressed the issue of abrupt climate change. They noted that events that did not meet the common criterion of a semi-permanent change in state could still force other systems into a permanent change, and thus qualify as an abrupt change. For example, a mega-drought may be followed by the return of normal precipitation rates, such that no baseline change occurred, but if that drought caused the collapse of a civilization, a permanent, abrupt change occurred in the system impacted by climate.

The 2002 NRC study introduced the important issue of gradual climate change causing abrupt responses in human or natural systems, noting “Abrupt impacts therefore have the potential to occur when gradual climatic changes push societies or ecosys-

tems across thresholds and lead to profound and potentially irreversible impacts.” The 2002 report also noted that “…the more rapid the forcing, the more likely it is that the resulting change will be abrupt on the time scale of human economies or global ecosystems” and “The major impacts of abrupt climate change are most likely to occur when economic or ecological systems cross important thresholds” (NRC, 2002). The 2012 NRC study embraced this issue more fully and expanded on the concept. The first part of their definition is straightforward:

“Abrupt climate change is generally defined as occurring when some part of the climate system passes a threshold or tipping point resulting in a rapid change that produces a new state lasting decades or longer (Alley et al., 2003). In this case “rapid” refers to timelines of a few years to decades.”

The second part of their definition echoes the 2002 report in emphasizing the role of abrupt responses to gradually changing forcing (emphasis added):

“Abrupt climate change can occur on a regional, continental, hemispheric, or even global basis. Even a gradual forcing of a system with naturally occurring and chaotic variability can cause some part of the system to cross a threshold, triggering an abrupt change . Therefore, it is likely that gradual or monotonic forcings increase the probability of an abrupt change occurring.”

DEFINITION OF ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE FOR THIS REPORT

The committee embraces the broader concept of abrupt climate change described in the 2002 NRC report and the definition from the 2012 Climate and Social Stress report, while expanding the scope of the definition further by considering abrupt climate impacts , as well as abrupt climate changes ( Box 1.3 ). This distinction is critical, and represents a broadening of the focus from just the physical climate system itself to also encompass abrupt changes in the natural and human-built world that may be triggered by gradual changes in the physical climate system. Thus, the committee begins by defining that, for this report, the term “abrupt climate change” as being abrupt changes in the physical climate system, and the related term, “abrupt climate impacts,” as being abrupt impacts resulting from climate change, even if the climate change itself is gradual (but reaches a threshold value that triggers an abrupt impact in a related system)

This definition of abrupt climate change also helps to set a time frame for what kinds of phenomena are considered in this report. Environmental changes occurring over timescales exceeding 100 years are not frequently considered in decision-making by the general public, private sector, or the government. For some, projected changes oc-

BOX 1.3 DEFINITION OF ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE FOR THIS REPORT

The subject of this report includes both the abrupt changes in the physical climate system (hereafter called “abrupt climate change”) and abrupt impacts in the physical, biological, or human systems triggered by a gradually changing climate (hereafter called “abrupt climate impacts”. These abrupt changes can affect natural or human systems, or both. The primary timescale of concern is years to decades. A key characteristic of these changes is that they can unfold faster than expected, planned for, or budgeted for, forcing a reactive, rather than proactive mode of behavior. These changes can propagate systemically, rapidly affecting multiple interconnected areas of concern.

curring over less than 100 years begin to raise questions related to inter-generational equity and can be viewed as a relevant time frame for certain policy settings. Changes occurring over a few decades, i.e., a generation or two, begin to capture the interest of most people because it is a time frame that is considered in many personal decisions and relates to personal memories. Also, at this time scale, changes and impacts can occur faster than the expected, stable lifetime of systems about which society cares. For example, the sizing of a new air conditioning system may not take into consideration the potential that climate change could make the system inadequate and unusable before the end of its useful lifetime (often 30 years or more). The same concept applies to other infrastructure, such as airport runways, subway systems, and rail lines. Thus, even if a change is occurring over several decades, and therefore might not at first glance seem “abrupt,” if that change affects systems that are expected to function for an even longer period of time, the impact can indeed be abrupt when a threshold is crossed. “Abrupt” then, is relative to our “expectations,” which for the most part come from a simple linear extrapolation of recent history, and “expectations” invoke notions of risk and uncertainty. In such cases, it is the cost associated with unfulfilled expectations that motivates discussion of abrupt change. Finally, changes occurring over one to a few years are abrupt, and for most people, would also be alarming if sufficiently large and impactful. In this report, the committee adopts the time frame for “abrupt” climate changes as years to decades.

The committee chose to focus their discussions of abrupt climate changes to those relevant to human society, including changes in the physical climate itself, and resulting changes to human expectations. Given our reliance on natural systems for ecosystem services, impacts to natural systems are of great concern to society as well. This consideration of unexpected impacts to societies and ecosystems broadens the discussion beyond the physics and chemistry of the climate system to include effects on humans and biota on local, regional, national, and international scales occurring

over years to decades. This is a broad definition that could easily encompass too many topics to cover in one report, and in this report, the committee has attempted to steer clear of the temptation to craft a laundry list of topics. As the climate science community is in the early stages of examining many potential socioeconomic impacts, the discussion is thus necessarily limited in this report to those impacts for which there is good reason to suspect they are both abrupt and could actually occur.

There is a nascent but rapidly growing literature on the theory behind how abrupt transitions occur ( Box 1.4 ). This research is also beginning to tackle the even harder question of how to anticipate abrupt transitions, across many disciplines and systems, a topic that this report returns to in more depth in Chapter 4 .

BOX 1.4 MECHANISMS OF ABRUPT CHANGE

Shocks or sudden events in the environment have often been classified into categories based on duration: (1) large temporary disturbances (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis); and (2) shifts in long-term behavior (e.g., El Niño events, glacial cycles) (Lenton, 2013). However, both of these categories are really different aspects of the same fundamental phenomenon, a change in the system dynamics from the “normal” behavior.

Although much is unknown about the mechanisms that can result in abrupt changes, some examples where there has been progress include positive feedbacks and bifurcations. Positive feedbacks occur when the system’s own dynamics enhance the effect of a perturbation, leading to an instability. If these positive feedbacks are not controlled via damping mechanisms or negative feedbacks, the system can pass through a “tipping point” into a new domain (Scheffer et al., 2012a). Bifurcations occur when changes in a parameter of the system result in qualitatively different behavior (e.g., stable points become unstable, one stable point becomes multiple stable points). The presence of bifurcations can easily result in abrupt changes. For instance, random fluctuations from within a system (stochastic endogenous fluctuations) can cause the system to depart from an equilibrium or quasi-equilibrium state (e.g., fast, weather time-scale phenomena forcing changes on the longer time-scale climate). Rate-dependent shifts can also occur: a rapid change to an input or parameter of the system may cause it to fail to track changes, and thus tip (Ashwin et al., 2012).

More generally, however, a key characteristic required for abrupt changes to occur is the property of state dependence (aka nonlinearity or nonseperability), where the dynamics (i.e., behavior) of the system are dependent on the system’s current state, which may also include its history (time-lagged manifolds). Generically, it is not correct to study these systems using linear methods or by examining variables in isolation (Sugihara et. al. 2012). Overall, research on abrupt changes and tipping points is moving from examining simple systems to investigations of highly connected networks (Scheffer et al., 2012a). The literature on downstream consequences of climate change has not arrived at a clear, common framework analytically as is the case for the physical aspects.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE—PREVIOUS REPORTS ON ABRUPT CHANGE

Here the committee summarizes several previous reports on the topic of abrupt climate change and their recommendations, with the purpose of placing the present study and its recommendations within the context of this previous work. It is particularly instructive to report where progress has been made, and where previous recommendations continue to be echoed but not acted upon.

2002 NRC Report on Abrupt Climate Change

As mentioned above, the first NRC report to comprehensively address abrupt climate change was entitled Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (NRC, 2002). This study remains one of the most comprehensive investigations of abrupt climate change to date, addressing the evidence, the potential causes, the potential for the current greenhouse-gas-induced warming to trigger abrupt change, and the potential impacts, ranging from economic to ecological to hydrological to agricultural. One of their key findings was captured in the title of the report, and is summarized by the following quotation:

“Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the Earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.”

The report made five recommendations in two general categories: implementation of targeted areas of research to expand observations of the present and the past, and implementation of focused modeling efforts.

The first recommendation called for research programs to “collect data to improve understanding of thresholds and non-linearities in geophysical, ecological, and economic systems.” The report particularly called out for more work on modes of coupled atmosphere-ocean behavior, oceanic deep-water processes, hydrology, and ice. In the intervening decade, progress has been made in some of these areas. Since 2004 the ocean’s meridional overturning circulation has been monitored at 26°N in the North Atlantic (Cunningham et al., 2007). Progress has been made in ice sheet observations from satellites (e.g., Pritchard et al., 2010; Joughin et al., 2010) and in a better understanding of modes of ocean-atmosphere behavior. Nonetheless, as detailed in this

report, additional improvements in monitoring for abrupt climate change could be undertaken. For example, the interface between ocean and ice sheet is known to be critical part of ice sheet functioning, yet there are few observations, and no systematic monitoring of the changing conditions at this interface. Also, satellite observations of ice sheets are tenuous as satellites age and funding to replace them, let alone expand their capabilities, is uncertain.

The 2002 report also called for economic and ecological research, a comprehensive land-use census, and development of integrated economic and ecological data sets. Again, some improvements have been made in these areas, notably the National Ecological Observing Network (NEON) to monitor key ecosystem variables in the United States. Other areas, such as a comprehensive land-use census, remain largely unaddressed.

In its second recommendation, the 2002 report called for new, interdisciplinary modeling efforts that would bring together the physical climate system with ecosystems and human systems in an effort to better predict the impacts of abrupt climate change on humans and natural systems, and to better understand the potential for abrupt climate change during warm climate regimes. During the last decade, considerable improvements have been made in many aspects of coupled climate models. Although biases remain, simulation quality has improved for the models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) compared to earlier models (e.g., Knutti et al., 2013). In addition, many climate models have transitioned to include Earth system modeling capabilities (e.g., Hurrell et al., 2013; Collins et al., 2012) in that they incorporate biogeochemical cycles and/or other aspects beyond the standard physical climate model components (atmosphere, ocean, land, sea ice). These new capabilities allow for prognostic simulation of the carbon cycle and the assessment of biogeochemical feedbacks (e.g., Long et al., 2013). In some cases, models now also include the ability to simulate atmospheric chemistry (e.g., Lamarque et al., 2013; Shindell et al., 2013) and large ice sheets (e.g., Lipscomb et al., 2013). This has resulted in more complete system interactions within the model and the ability to investigate additional feedbacks and climate-relevant processes. The inclusion of isotopes into some models (e.g., Sturm et al., 2010; Tindall et al., 2010) is also allowing for a more direct comparison with paleoclimate proxies of relevance to past abrupt change, and a more comprehensive evaluation of the sources and sinks of the atmospheric water cycle that is critical in assessing the risk of future abrupt change and its impacts (e.g., Risi et al., 2010).

Efforts are also underway to more directly link human system interactions into Earth system models. This includes the incorporation of new elements such as agricultural crops (Levis et al., 2012) and urban components (Oleson, 2012). It also includes new efforts to link Integrated Assessment Models to Earth System models (e.g., van Vuuren

et al., 2012; Schneider, 1997 Goodess et al., 2003; Bouwman et al., 2006; Warren et al., 2008; Sokolov et al., 2005). Enhancements in model resolution are also enabling the simulation of high-impact weather events of societal relevance (such as tropical cyclones) within climate models (e.g., Jung et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2009; Bacmeister et al., 2013; Manganello et al., 2012). However, computational resources, while increasing, still remain an obstacle for climate-scale high-resolution simulations. Additionally, model parameterizations and processes need to be reconsidered for simulations at these scales, a task that remains an active research area.

The third recommendation of the 2002 report called for more and better observational data on how our planet and climate system have behaved in the past, with a focus on the high temporal-resolution paleoclimate records required to assess abrupt climate changes. The past decade has witnessed a number of advances in this area, notably terrestrial records from temperate latitudes from cave deposits (e.g., Wang et al., 2008, and references therein), more and better resolved records from ocean sediments (NRC, 2011b), and expanded reconstructions of regional scale hydrological data—including mega-droughts—and changes to the monsoons from records including tree rings and pollen (e.g., Cook et al., 2010c). However, although scientists clearly have an improved understanding of past abrupt climate changes today compared with a decade ago, in many cases the data still remain too sparse spatially to test mechanisms of change using models. Multi-proxy data sets, in which a number of aspects of the climatic and environmental systems are simultaneously reconstructed, remain sparse as well.

The fourth recommendation of the 2002 report focused on improving incorporation of low-probability but high-impact events into societal thinking about climate change. The tendency is to assume a simple distribution of outcomes, and focus on the most probable ones. This approach underestimates the likelihood of extreme events, even ones that would have high impact. If one views risk as the product of likelihood and consequence, then highly consequential, “extreme” events, even if they are unlikely, may pose an equal risk to common events that are not as consequential. The damages resulting from recent extreme weather events (e.g., Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, etc.) suggest that there is still a need to better plan for low-probability, highconsequence events, regardless of whether or not their cause is statistically rooted in observed climate trends. That most model predictions for future climate change include more frequent extreme events only heightens the need to take this recommendation seriously.

The fifth and final recommendation of the 2002 report dealt with “no regrets” measures and their application to the potential for abrupt climate change. The report called for taking low-cost steps such as slowing climate change, improving climate

forecasts, slowing biodiversity loss, and developing new technologies to increase the adaptability and resiliency of markets, ecological systems, and infrastructure. While there has been some progress in this regard over the past decade, progress has been slow, and remains inadequate to match the scope and scale of the problem. The scientific community has worked to improve climate models, for example, but little has been done to limit greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the rate of greenhouse gas addition to the atmosphere continues to increase, with many policies in place to accelerate rising greenhouse gases (IMF, 2013). It is sobering to consider that about one-fifth of all fossil fuels ever burned were burned since the 2002 report was released. 2 If indeed, as the 2002 report states, “… greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the Earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events”, then the danger that existed in 2002 is even higher now, a decade later.

2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

The next major report on climate change following the 2002 report was the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007c). 3 The AR4 did not specifically call out abrupt climate change and address it separately, but abrupt climate change was discussed in both the physical science context and in the context of mitigation and adaptation. The Working Group I report, the Physical Science Basis (IPCC, 2007b), acknowledged that our understanding of abrupt climate change was notably incomplete and that this limited the ability to model abrupt change, stating that “Mechanisms of onset and evolution of past abrupt climate change and associated climate thresholds are not well understood. This limits confidence in the ability of climate models to simulate realistic abrupt change.” However, the Working Group I report did specifically address the issue of a shutdown of the formation of North Atlantic Deep Water and concluded from modeling studies that although it was very likely (>90 percent chance) that the deep water formation would slow in the coming century, it was very unlikely (<10 percent chance) that this process would undergo a large abrupt transition, at least in the coming decades to century. This was an important advancement in the understanding of the potential threats of

2 Sum of global emissions from 1751 through 2009 inclusive is 355,676 million metric tons of carbon; sum of global emissions from 2002 through 2009 inclusive is 64,788 million metric tons of carbon (Boden et al., 2011). Total carbon emissions for 2002-2009 compared to the total 1751-2009 is thus greater than 18%.

3 The Working Group I report of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the IPCC was released after this report had been submitted for peer-review. The Committee drew their conclusions from the broader scientific literature, which is also the basis for IPCC AR5. Although this report only references the IPCC AR5 in a few instances, the broader conclusions of this report are consistent with the IPCC AR5.

abrupt climate change, and an example of a threat that has been categorized as less likely due to improved understanding of the process.

The AR4 Working Group 2 (WG2) report, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (IPCC, 2007a), addresses abrupt climate change throughout the report, and summarizes the impacts of extreme events and key vulnerabilities including topics such as coastal inundation, food supply disruption, and drought. The AR4 WG2 report repeatedly calls for more research to be done on the impacts of abrupt change, particularly a collapse of the North Atlantic Deep Water formation (which was not considered likely) and a relatively rapid sea level rise of many meters due to rapid (century-scale) loss of ice from Greenland and/or West Antarctica, noting that without a better scientific understanding of the potential impacts, it was impossible to carry out impact assessments. That report also notes that there has been “little advance” on the topic of “proximity to thresholds and tipping points.”

The AR4 Working Group 3 report on Mitigation of Climate Change (Metz et al., 2007) mentions abrupt climate change, but does not consider the topic in detail. It acknowledges that abrupt climate changes are not well incorporated into conventional decision-making analysis, which tends to enable substantial vulnerability to high-impact, low-probability events. This potentially increases the damages from any such events that could occur—and perhaps even the probability of such events—through lack of mitigation and adaptation. Similarly, abrupt climate change can challenge assumptions made in economic cost-benefit analyses, for example the cost of a lost species versus the savings realized in not acting to save that species.

2008 USCCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.4: Abrupt Climate Change

The next major report to address abrupt climate change was the 2008 United States Climate Change Strategic Plan Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.4, Abrupt Climate Change report (USCCSP, 2008). This report (also known as SAP 3.4) was focused solely on abrupt climate change, but took a different approach from the 2002 NRC report by focusing on four key areas of interest:

• Rapid Changes in Glaciers and Ice Sheets and their Impacts on Sea Level;
• Hydrological Variability and Change;
• Potential for Abrupt Change in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC); and
• Potential for Abrupt Changes in Atmospheric Methane.

As stated in their introduction, “This SAP picks up where the NRC report and the IPCC AR4 leave off, updating the state and strength of existing knowledge, both from the paleoclimate and historical records, as well as from model predictions for future change.” Their findings are woven into the present report, but are too extensive to repeat in this Introduction. A few key findings are discussed briefly, however.

“Although no ice-sheet model is currently capable of capturing the glacier speedups in Antarctica or Greenland that have been observed over the last decade, including these processes in models will very likely show that IPCC AR4 projected sea level rises for the end of the 21st century are too low.” This finding re-states the caveat expressed in the AR4 concerning the lack of understanding about glacial dynamics, particularly fast-flowing, large glaciers such as parts of Greenland and West Antarctica. As detailed in the present report, the scientific community has not yet formed a consensus regarding the rate with which large glaciers can shed ice, and thus uncertainty remains about the speed and eventual magnitude of sea level rise, both over this coming century, and beyond.

The SAP 3.4 raised two questions concerning tipping points in droughts. The first is the model predicted expansion of aridity into the U.S. Southwest accompanying the general warming of the ocean and atmosphere. As they state, “If the model results are correct, then this drying may have already begun, but currently cannot be definitively identified amidst the considerable natural variability of hydroclimate in Southwestern North America.” This remains a key area of concern, and one that is addressed in this report. The SAP 3.4 also raised the issue of monitoring for tipping point behavior in the hydrological cycle ( Chapter 4 of that report), including the potential for megadroughts in a world warmed by greenhouse gases. Physical understanding suggests that mega-droughts are more likely to be triggered by interior reorganization of the ocean-atmosphere system rather than by overall warming of Earth’s surface, although overall warming can cause interior reorganization and thus can be responsible indirectly. The SAP 3.4 report states that it is unclear whether current climate models are capable of predicting the onset of mega-droughts: “… systematic biases within current coupled atmosphere-ocean models raise concerns as to whether they correctly represent the response of the tropical climate system to radiative forcing and whether greenhouse forcing will actually induce El Niño/Southern Oscillation-like patterns of tropical SST change that will create impacts on global hydroclimate…”. Research done since SAP 3.4 suggests that the drying from human-caused climate change (radiatively forced reduction of the net surface water flux, i.e., the precipitation minus evapotranspiration) appears to be comparable to the drying induced by the impacts of La Nina over the Southwestern North America since 1979 (Seager and Naik, 2012). In the future, drying forced by the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gases

to the atmosphere is expected to increase along with earlier melting and reduced storage of mountain snow packs, although whether changes of climate variability would intensify or mitigate such drying remains uncertain (Seager and Vecchi, 2010). In addition, as increasing anthropogenic forcing shifts the surface temperature distribution (Trenberth et al., 2007; Meehl et al., 2007b), extreme warm temperatures and soil moisture loss would increase. Thus, the “climate dice”, mainly controlled by random climate variability, would become more “loaded” with the risk of mega-drought even if a particular drought is simply the result of natural climate variability (Hansen et al., 2012, 2013a).

The SAP 3.4 also addressed the potential for tipping points in the North Atlantic Deep Water formation; and in the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere. As with the IPCC AR4 report, the SAP 3.4 report concluded that deepwater formation was not likely to “tip,” although it is likely to decrease, with impacts on precipitation patterns that could be tipped on regional scales. The potential for catastrophic methane release, from decomposition of terrestrial carbon stocks in permafrost, or methane ice in clathrates, was considered small. However, the potential for gradually increasing methane and CO 2 release from thawing permafrost was considered important, and would accelerate the loading of these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over many decades to centuries. The report recommended that the United States should “Prioritize the monitoring of atmospheric methane abundance and its isotopic composition with spatial density sufficient to allow detection of any change in net emissions from northern and tropical wetland regions.” Such a prioritization has not occurred; in fact, the primary monitoring network for greenhouse gases globally, the NOAA network, 4 has faced funding cuts of over 30 percent in the past several years.

2012 NRC Report on Climate and Social Stress

The NRC report Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis (2012b) is the most recent report to address abrupt climate change. It dedicates a section to a general discussion of abrupt climate change, with an additional section allocated to the topic of extreme events. The report focuses on the coming decade, and as such they conclude that there is little expectation in the scientific community for an abrupt change on that timescale. It makes several recommendations including enhanced monitoring, such as enhanced drought metrics to assess if a region is entering a new mega-drought. These include social factors as well, for example:

4 http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/flask.html .

“changes in the social, economic, and political factors that affect the size of the exposed populations, their susceptibility to harm, the ability of the populations to cope, and the ability of their governments to respond. Where potentially affected areas are important producers of key global commodities such as food grains, it would also be important to assess the effects of climate-induced supply reductions on global markets and vulnerable populations.”

The NRC 2012 report also called for enhanced monitoring of such factors, and noted that society is, in general, rather blind to what is at risk to abrupt climate change, for example, having only limited understanding about the risks posed by sea level rise to coastal infrastructure, toxic materials in landfills, or drinking water aquifers.

THIS REPORT

Looking back across these previous reports, it can be seen that while a great deal of progress on the topic of abrupt climate change has been made, there is still a long way to go to achieve an understanding of these issues with enough fidelity to be able to anticipate their occurrence. This report takes on that challenge, as per the committee’s statement of task, given in Box 1.5 .

Organization of the Report

The committee recognized that discussions of abrupt climate changes and impacts of abrupt climate changes may have different audiences. As such, the report is organized so that one can seek information on the processes as well as information on the impacts.

Chapter 2 gives examples of abrupt climate changes, specifically those examples that the committee believes are worthy of highlighting either because they are currently believed to be the most likely and the most impactful, because they are predicted to potentially cause severe impacts but with uncertain likelihood, or because they are now considered to be unlikely to occur but have been widely discussed in the literature or media. This section includes processes such as the changing chemistry of the oceans and the melting of ice sheets leading to sea level rise. Many of these processes have been discussed in the recent reports ( Box 1.2 ), and the committee provides an updated discussion building on those previous reports.

Chapter 3 discusses abrupt climate impacts from the perspective of how they affect humans, building on many of the same processes discussed in Chapter 2 . Examples include abrupt changes in food availability, water availability, and ecosystem services.

BOX 1.5 STATEMENT OF TASK

This study will address the likelihood of various physical components of the Earth system to undergo major and rapid changes (i.e., abrupt climate change) and, as time allows, examine some of the most important potential associated impacts and risks. This study will explore how to monitor climate change for warnings of abrupt changes and emerging impacts. The study will summarize the current state of scientific understanding on questions such as:

1. What is known about the likelihood and timing of abrupt changes in the climate system over decadal timescales? Are any of the phenomena considered by the committee currently embodied in computational climate models? The committee could consider relevant physical and biological phenomena such as:

• large, abrupt changes in ocean circulation and regional climate;

• reduced ice in the Arctic Ocean and permafrost regions;

• large-scale clathrate release;

• changes in ice sheets;

• large, rapid global sea-level rise;

• growing frequency and length of heat waves and droughts;

• effects on biological systems of permafrost/ground thawing (carbon cycle effects);

• phase changes such as cloud formation processes; and

• changes in weather patterns, such as changes in snowpack, increased frequency and magnitude of heavy rainfall events and floods, or changes in monsoon patterns and modes of interannual or decadal variability.

2. For the abrupt climate changes and resulting impacts identified by the committee, what are the prospects for developing an early warning system and at what lead time scales? What can be monitored to provide such warnings? What monitoring capabilities are already in place? The committee will consider monitoring capabilities that include both direct observations and the use of models in conjunction with observations.

3. What are the gaps in our scientific understanding and current monitoring capabilities? What are the highest priority needs for future research directions and monitoring capabilities to fill those gaps?

Chapter 4 examines the way forward in terms of both research on abrupt changes and their impacts, and monitoring to detect and potentially predict abrupt changes. This chapter examines priorities and capabilities for addressing research knowledge gaps. It also addresses the question of what to monitor to observe that an abrupt change is coming, and how to identify tipping points in various systems.

This page intentionally left blank.

Climate is changing, forced out of the range of the past million years by levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases not seen in the Earth's atmosphere for a very, very long time. Lacking action by the world's nations, it is clear that the planet will be warmer, sea level will rise, and patterns of rainfall will change. But the future is also partly uncertain—there is considerable uncertainty about how we will arrive at that different climate. Will the changes be gradual, allowing natural systems and societal infrastructure to adjust in a timely fashion? Or will some of the changes be more abrupt, crossing some threshold or "tipping point" to change so fast that the time between when a problem is recognized and when action is required shrinks to the point where orderly adaptation is not possible?

Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change is an updated look at the issue of abrupt climate change and its potential impacts. This study differs from previous treatments of abrupt changes by focusing on abrupt climate changes and also abrupt climate impacts that have the potential to severely affect the physical climate system, natural systems, or human systems, often affecting multiple interconnected areas of concern. The primary timescale of concern is years to decades. A key characteristic of these changes is that they can come faster than expected, planned, or budgeted for, forcing more reactive, rather than proactive, modes of behavior.

Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change summarizes the state of our knowledge about potential abrupt changes and abrupt climate impacts and categorizes changes that are already occurring, have a high probability of occurrence, or are unlikely to occur. Because of the substantial risks to society and nature posed by abrupt changes, this report recommends the development of an Abrupt Change Early Warning System that would allow for the prediction and possible mitigation of such changes before their societal impacts are severe. Identifying key vulnerabilities can help guide efforts to increase resiliency and avoid large damages from abrupt change in the climate system, or in abrupt impacts of gradual changes in the climate system, and facilitate more informed decisions on the proper balance between mitigation and adaptation. Although there is still much to learn about abrupt climate change and abrupt climate impacts, to willfully ignore the threat of abrupt change could lead to more costs, loss of life, suffering, and environmental degradation. Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change makes the case that the time is here to be serious about the threat of tipping points so as to better anticipate and prepare ourselves for the inevitable surprises.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Edwards’ latest studies shed light on climate-tech needs

May was a big month for Assistant Professor Morgan Edwards , as she published two important climate technology studies. These new papers could provide timely insights into the development of technologies that must scale rapidly to meet the needs of the warming planet and the 2015 Paris Agreement established to limit global temperature increases.

Assessing direct air capture with carbon storage technology

On May 6, a study co-led by Edwards and PhD student Zachary Thomas debuted in the  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . The research found that direct air capture with carbon storage (DACCS) could help remove nearly five gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) by midcentury if the emerging technology, which uses chemicals to capture the heat-trapping gas directly from the air, develops at a rate similar to other technologies that grew quickly in the past.

“Countries around the world and many other actors – from local governments to corporations to universities – are setting net zero targets,” Edwards says. “We know we will need to rapidly reduce CO 2 emissions at the source, but technologies like DACCS that can remove CO 2 directly from the atmosphere could also play an important role.”

The international team of researchers working on Edwards’ project also included La Follette Professor Gregory Nemet and La Follette alum Jenna Greene (MPA ’22), now a PhD student with the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies.

Read more about this study

Corporate investments boost climate-tech startups

On May 15, a  new study  co-authored by Edwards was published in Nature Energy . This research, led by Assistant Research Professor Kathleen Kennedy of the Center for Global Sustainability in the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, found that corporate investments into climate-tech start-ups coupled with public and other private funding can expedite the deployment of new technologies. Edwards and her co-authors hope that this research can help policymakers develop more effective strategies for incentivizing the innovation needed to address the climate crisis.

“This analysis addresses a critical knowledge gap on the effects of growing corporate investments on the success of climate-tech,” Edwards says. “We find that corporate investment is consistently associated with higher rates of exits, and in recent years corporate investment is not correlated with failure, indicating that corporations may have learned from earlier losses and could play a larger role in supporting climate-tech moving forward.”

Next up, Edwards, Nemet, and other study coauthors will share additional insights on climate-tech innovation when they release the second edition of the  State of Carbon Dioxide Removal  report on June 4, 2024.

Subscribe to our newsletter

• Facebook Logo
• Twitter Logo
• Linkedin Logo