

Literature Review On Climate Change
In the last 100 years, the amount of greenhouse gases in.
In the last 100 years, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased, causing the Earth to warm by an average of 0.6 degrees celsius, largely a result of burning fossil fuels for energy, transportation, and land use changes increased for food production. The basic science is straightforward and climate researchers have shown that gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and others can trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, causing a phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect. Human activities such as industry, transport, energy generation and deforestation all produce these greenhouse gases. In the last 20 years, concern has grown that global warming is inevitable and now considered most probably caused by man-made increases in
Great Barrier Reef Climate Change Essay
Climate change is a change in the average global or regional weather patterns. Climate changes includes factors such as; temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind and seasons, influenced by oceans, land surfaces and ice sheets. This plays a
Emergency Management. Tehron Cates. North Carolina Central
According to the IPCC (2007), climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. Studies suggest that the global climate has been warming and will probably continue to do so. Thus complicated process drives an array of effects, from distinct events like extreme weather to long-term impacts that vary by location, intensity,
Gen 200 Climate Change Research Paper
Climate change is the change in average weather of a region. Climate change can be, for example, change in region’s average annual rainfall or change in region’s average temperature for certain period (May, 2011). In a broader view, climate change can also be seen as change in Earth’s climate with an example being global warming.
Krill Research Paper
Greenhouse gases keep heat close to the earth’s surface making it liveable for humans and animals. However, global warming is happening largely due to an over-emittance of these gases and fossil fuels (natural oil, gasoline, coal)
Climate Changes And Climate Change
The UNFCC also defines climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over time periods.”
The Controversial Issue Of Ecological Footprint Or Climate Change
Most climate scientists agree with the idea that the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect", warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Over the last century, the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse
Climate Change And Its Impact On The Arctic
Climate is the average of the weather of a region, and the climate of the Earth is the climate average of all the regions. Based on that, climate change is a change in the average climate of the Earth. According to the NASA, “Some causes of climate change are natural. These include changes in Earth's orbit and in the amount of energy coming from the sun. Ocean changes and volcanic eruptions are also natural causes of climate change”
Understand The Causes Of Climate Change
To understand climate change, one must understand what a climate is. A climate can be defined as “the usual weather of a [particular] place…[to] include patterns of temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind, and seasons” (State of Washington, n.d.), just to name a few. Climate differs from weather as a climate is comprised of the usual conditions of a given place (i.e. is it consistently humid, dry, wet, cool, etc.), while weather is the conditions present at a given place at any one time (i.e. it is raining, snowing, sunny, etc.). Climates are unique to individual places and generally stay the same over time, while weather can change by the day.
Climate Change, An Outline Essay
Climate Change is the significant change in the climate and distribution of weather patterns on Earth ranging from the last decade to millennia earlier.
Argumentative Essay On Climate Change
One of the main reasons that earth’s temperatures are rising are due to greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are created when humans burn fossil fuels such as coals, natural gases, and oils to produce heat or electricity. These gases are then capable of trapping infrared radiation sent by the sun. Once these
Climate Change
Over the last 50 years, Human activities –particularly the burning fossil fuels have released sufficient quantities of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to trap additional heat in the lower atmosphere and affect the global climate.
Climate Change Is A Multi Dimensional Phenomena Essay
What is climate change? The term climate refers to the average weather pattern of a planet or region over time (Downie, Brash and Vaughan 2009, pp 1). Climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time. A lot of factors are concerned in this process, including changes in temperature, wind patterns andrainfall, especially the increase in the temperature of the earth 's atmosphere that is caused by the increase of particular gases, especially carbon dioxide.Although there is much dissent about the causes of climate change, most people agree that humans are the main reason of this global trouble. Resolving this problem is not an easy task, and is almost impossible to do so without integrated global cooperation. Yet governments around the world
The Issue Of Global Warming
The issue of global warming should be on the list of our top priorities. Studies show that the average of global temperatures have risen since the Industrial Revolution began. Since the Industrial Revolution, human emissions has quadrupled the frequency of certain heat extremes and many scientists have warned that a failure to bring greenhouse gases under control could eventually lead to a 62-fold increase in extreme heat blasts (Gillis Justin A17). Most of the increase is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. These activities contribute to a build-up in carbon dioxide and other gases in Earth’s atmosphere. The Earth’s atmosphere is made of gases like nitrogen, carbon dioxide and oxygen. These gases act as a blanket that covers and gives us warmth, but once these gases such as carbon dioxide absorbs heat, but does not release it back into space in which causes the increase in global temperature. This is called the greenhouse effect because it only traps heat but does not release it.
Related Topics
- Climate change
- Precipitation
The Essay Writing Experts UK Essay Experts
Disclaimer: This is an example of a student written essay. Click here for sample essays written by our professional writers.
View full disclaimer
Any scientific information contained within this essay should not be treated as fact, this content is to be used for educational purposes only and may contain factual inaccuracies or be out of date.
Literature Review: Impacts of Climate Change
Reference this

- https://www.ipcc.ch/working-group/wg2/?idp=620
- https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/effects-of-climate-change
- https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/
- https://www.climateandweather.net/global-warming/effects-of-climate-change.html
- https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/09/AC6_brochure_en.pdf
- https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-are-long-term-effects-climate-change-1?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products
- https://unfccc.int/files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf/press_factsh_science.pdf
- https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/climate-mitigation-and-adaptation
- https://www.wwf.org.au/what-we-do/climate/causes-of-global-warming#gs.99mmf5
- http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-4/causes-2.php
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related Services

Essay Writing Service

- Dissertation Writing Service

- Assignment Writing Service
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on UKEssays.com then please:
Our academic writing and marking services can help you!
- Find out more about our Essay Writing Service
- Undergraduate 2:2
- 7 day delivery
- Marking Service
- Samples of our Service
- Full Service Portfolio
Related Lectures
Study for free with our range of university lectures!
- All Available Lectures

Freelance Writing Jobs
Looking for a flexible role? Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher?
Study Resources
Free resources to assist you with your university studies!
- Dissertation Resources at UKDiss.com
- How to Write an Essay
- Essay Buyers Guide
- Referencing Tools
- Essay Writing Guides
- Masters Writing Guides
Search Support Articles
*You can also browse our support articles here >
Change Region / Country
Here you can choose which regional hub you wish to view, providing you with the most relevant information we have for your specific region. If your specific country is not listed, please select the UK version of the site, as this is best suited to international visitors.
United Kingdom
United States
United Arab Emirates
Saudi Arabia

An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
- Data and Tools
- National Forest Service Library
Review of literature on climate change and forest diseases of western North America

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
- My Bibliography
- Collections
- Citation manager
Save citation to file
Email citation, add to collections.
- Create a new collection
- Add to an existing collection
Add to My Bibliography
Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.
- Search in PubMed
- Search in NLM Catalog
- Add to Search
A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and sustainable mitigation measures
Affiliations.
- 1 School of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210094, People's Republic of China.
- 2 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Chemical Pollution Control and Resources Reuse, School of Environmental and Biological Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Xiaolingwei 200, Nanjing, 210094, People's Republic of China.
- 3 School of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210094, People's Republic of China. [email protected]
- 4 School of Business and Economics, North South University, Dhaka, 1229, Bangladesh.
- 5 Department of Journalism, Media and Communications, Daffodil International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
- 6 Department of Finance, College of Business Administration, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, 173, Alkharj, 11942, Saudi Arabia.
- PMID: 35378646
- PMCID: PMC8978769
- DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-19718-6
Climate change is a long-lasting change in the weather arrays across tropics to polls. It is a global threat that has embarked on to put stress on various sectors. This study is aimed to conceptually engineer how climate variability is deteriorating the sustainability of diverse sectors worldwide. Specifically, the agricultural sector's vulnerability is a globally concerning scenario, as sufficient production and food supplies are threatened due to irreversible weather fluctuations. In turn, it is challenging the global feeding patterns, particularly in countries with agriculture as an integral part of their economy and total productivity. Climate change has also put the integrity and survival of many species at stake due to shifts in optimum temperature ranges, thereby accelerating biodiversity loss by progressively changing the ecosystem structures. Climate variations increase the likelihood of particular food and waterborne and vector-borne diseases, and a recent example is a coronavirus pandemic. Climate change also accelerates the enigma of antimicrobial resistance, another threat to human health due to the increasing incidence of resistant pathogenic infections. Besides, the global tourism industry is devastated as climate change impacts unfavorable tourism spots. The methodology investigates hypothetical scenarios of climate variability and attempts to describe the quality of evidence to facilitate readers' careful, critical engagement. Secondary data is used to identify sustainability issues such as environmental, social, and economic viability. To better understand the problem, gathered the information in this report from various media outlets, research agencies, policy papers, newspapers, and other sources. This review is a sectorial assessment of climate change mitigation and adaptation approaches worldwide in the aforementioned sectors and the associated economic costs. According to the findings, government involvement is necessary for the country's long-term development through strict accountability of resources and regulations implemented in the past to generate cutting-edge climate policy. Therefore, mitigating the impacts of climate change must be of the utmost importance, and hence, this global threat requires global commitment to address its dreadful implications to ensure global sustenance.
Keywords: Antimicrobial resistance; Biodiversity; COVID-19; Climate change; Mitigation measures.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no competing interests.
Methodology search for finalized articles…
Methodology search for finalized articles for investigations. Source : constructed by authors
Framework of the analysis Process.…
Framework of the analysis Process. Source : constructed by authors
Global deaths from natural disasters,…
Global deaths from natural disasters, 1978 to 2020. Source EMDAT (2020)
Schematic description of potential impacts…
Schematic description of potential impacts of climate change on the agriculture sector and…
A typical interaction between the…
A typical interaction between the susceptible and resistant strains. Source: Elsayed et al.…
Sectoral impacts of climate change…
Sectoral impacts of climate change with adaptation and mitigation measures. Source : constructed…
Similar articles
- Abstracts of Presentations at the Association of Clinical Scientists 143 rd Meeting Louisville, KY May 11-14,2022. [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2022 May;52(3):511-525. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2022. PMID: 35777803 No abstract available.
- A comprehensive review of climate change impacts, adaptation, and mitigation on environmental and natural calamities in Pakistan. Hussain M, Butt AR, Uzma F, Ahmed R, Irshad S, Rehman A, Yousaf B. Hussain M, et al. Environ Monit Assess. 2019 Dec 16;192(1):48. doi: 10.1007/s10661-019-7956-4. Environ Monit Assess. 2019. PMID: 31844992 Review.
- Climate Change Adaptation through the Water-Energy-Food Nexus in Southern Africa. Mpandeli S, Naidoo D, Mabhaudhi T, Nhemachena C, Nhamo L, Liphadzi S, Hlahla S, Modi AT. Mpandeli S, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Oct 19;15(10):2306. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15102306. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018. PMID: 30347771 Free PMC article. Review.
- Vector-borne disease and climate change adaptation in African dryland social-ecological systems. Wilcox BA, Echaubard P, de Garine-Wichatitsky M, Ramirez B. Wilcox BA, et al. Infect Dis Poverty. 2019 May 27;8(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s40249-019-0539-3. Infect Dis Poverty. 2019. PMID: 31130141 Free PMC article. Review.
- Health Risks and Costs of Climate Variability and Change. Ebi KL, Hess JJ, Watkiss P. Ebi KL, et al. In: Mock CN, Nugent R, Kobusingye O, Smith KR, editors. Injury Prevention and Environmental Health. 3rd edition. Washington (DC): The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank; 2017 Oct 27. Chapter 8. In: Mock CN, Nugent R, Kobusingye O, Smith KR, editors. Injury Prevention and Environmental Health. 3rd edition. Washington (DC): The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank; 2017 Oct 27. Chapter 8. PMID: 30212118 Free Books & Documents. Review.
- Perspectives on the Use of Biopolymeric Matrices as Carriers for Plant-Growth Promoting Bacteria in Agricultural Systems. Pereira JF, Oliveira ALM, Sartori D, Yamashita F, Mali S. Pereira JF, et al. Microorganisms. 2023 Feb 13;11(2):467. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms11020467. Microorganisms. 2023. PMID: 36838432 Free PMC article. Review.
- Genetic Improvement of Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz: Opportunities and Challenges. Ghidoli M, Ponzoni E, Araniti F, Miglio D, Pilu R. Ghidoli M, et al. Plants (Basel). 2023 Jan 27;12(3):570. doi: 10.3390/plants12030570. Plants (Basel). 2023. PMID: 36771654 Free PMC article. Review.
- Effects of different external cooling placements prior to and during exercise on athletic performance in the heat: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Jiang D, Yu Q, Liu M, Dai J. Jiang D, et al. Front Physiol. 2023 Jan 10;13:1091228. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022.1091228. eCollection 2022. Front Physiol. 2023. PMID: 36703929 Free PMC article.
- A multivariate causality analysis of CO 2 emission, electricity consumption, and economic growth: Evidence from Western and Central Africa. Gyamerah SA, Gil-Alana LA. Gyamerah SA, et al. Heliyon. 2023 Jan 7;9(1):e12858. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12858. eCollection 2023 Jan. Heliyon. 2023. PMID: 36685378 Free PMC article.
- Technoeconomic Feasibility of Hydrogen Production from Waste Tires with the Control of CO 2 Emissions. Al-Qadri AA, Ahmed U, Abdul Jameel AG, Zahid U, Ahmad N, Shahbaz M, Nemitallah MA. Al-Qadri AA, et al. ACS Omega. 2022 Dec 14;7(51):48075-48086. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.2c06036. eCollection 2022 Dec 27. ACS Omega. 2022. PMID: 36591192 Free PMC article.
- Abbass K, Begum H, Alam ASA, Awang AH, Abdelsalam MK, Egdair IMM, Wahid R (2022) Fresh Insight through a Keynesian Theory Approach to Investigate the Economic Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Pakistan. Sustain 14(3):1054
- Abbass K, Niazi AAK, Qazi TF, Basit A, Song H (2021a) The aftermath of COVID-19 pandemic period: barriers in implementation of social distancing at workplace. Library Hi Tech
- Abbass K, Song H, Khan F, Begum H, Asif M (2021b) Fresh insight through the VAR approach to investigate the effects of fiscal policy on environmental pollution in Pakistan. Environ Scie Poll Res 1–14 - PubMed
- Abbass K, Song H, Shah SM, Aziz B. Determinants of Stock Return for Non-Financial Sector: Evidence from Energy Sector of Pakistan. J Bus Fin Aff. 2019;8(370):2167–0234.
- Abbass K, Tanveer A, Huaming S, Khatiya AA (2021c) Impact of financial resources utilization on firm performance: a case of SMEs working in Pakistan
Publication types
- Search in MeSH
LinkOut - more resources
Full text sources.
- Europe PubMed Central
- PubMed Central
- MedlinePlus Health Information
Miscellaneous
- NCI CPTAC Assay Portal
- Citation Manager
NCBI Literature Resources
MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer
The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.
- Link to Federal Reserve Facebook Page
- Link to Federal Reserve Twitter Page
- Link to Federal Reserve YouTube Page
- Link to Federal Reserve Flickr Page
- Federal Reserve LinkedIn Page
- Subscribe to RSS
- Subscribe to Email
- Recent Postings
- Publications
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, provides the nation with a safe, flexible, and stable monetary and financial system.
- Economic Research
Finance and Economics Discussion Series (FEDS)
Climate change and financial policy: a literature review.
Benjamin N. Dennis
This article reviews the rapidly proliferating economic literature on climate change and financial policy. We find: (1) enduring challenges in estimating the statistical properties of a changed climate; (2) emerging evidence of financial markets pricing in climate-related risks; and (3) a range of significant institutional distortions preventing such pricing from being complete. Finally, we argue that geographic regions may be an especially fruitful unit of analysis for understanding the financial impact of climate change. Accessible materials (.zip)
Keywords: Climate change, Climate-finance, Climate-related risk
DOI : https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2022.048
PDF: Full Paper
Disclaimer: The economic research that is linked from this page represents the views of the authors and does not indicate concurrence either by other members of the Board's staff or by the Board of Governors. The economic research and their conclusions are often preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. The Board values having a staff that conducts research on a wide range of economic topics and that explores a diverse array of perspectives on those topics. The resulting conversations in academia, the economic policy community, and the broader public are important to sharpening our collective thinking.
- < Previous
Home > Graduate School > GS_RP > 769
Research Papers
A LITERATURE REVIEW OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND URBAN SUSTAINABILITY
Julia L. Sanabria , Southern Illinois University Carbondale Follow
Degree Name
Master of Science
Department or Program
Geography and Environmental Resources
Dr. Leslie A. Duram
Cities are vulnerable to climate change, but they are also uniquely positioned to lead the way in both mitigating and adapting to it. While there is no single solution to climate change, cities have a responsibility to transition toward a more sustainable future. This paper examines current literature in climate change and sustainability in urban areas through a discussion of the urban heat island effect, human health, natural hazards, urbanization trends, socioeconomic factors, urban energy, water and wastewater, public transportation, waste management, green infrastructure and governance. The paper has three key goals: (1) to examine how climate change is affecting urban areas; (2) to assess how cities can enhance urban sustainability by addressing climate change; (3) to discuss resources available for city leaders wanting to transition to a sustainable city. These objectives are addressed using a literature review and includes examples of current sustainable initiatives in cities. The paper concludes with a discussion of limitations, recommendations, and future research in sustainable cities.
Since June 08, 2017
Advanced Search
- Notify me via email or RSS
- Morris Library
- Graduate School's Research Papers Guidelines
- Collections
- Disciplines
Author Corner
- Author Guidelines
- Submit Research
Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement
Privacy Copyright
- Reference Manager
- Simple TEXT file
People also looked at
Mini review article, farmers’ perception of climate change: a review of the literature for latin america.

- 1 Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Social Science and Government, Mexico and Economics Department, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, Mexico City, Mexico
- 2 Economics Department, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, Mexico City, Mexico
Global climate is changing rapidly, and it is not clear if agricultural producers in developing countries will be able to adapt fast enough in order to mitigate its negative effects. In order to be willing to take adaptation measures, farmers need to perceive that the climate is changing or could change, and they need to attribute enough weight to this perception to take action. During the last two decades, the literature that examines farmers’ perception of climate change has gained ground, but it is still scant. This is particularly true for Latin America, which is highly vulnerable to climate change. Based on a review of original research articles published between 2000 and 2020, this article presents the status of knowledge about the topic in the region to identify research gaps and inform future research. The review found that the available research has been based mostly on qualitative analyses of case studies for a few countries. More research that identifies causal relationships is necessary. Data from surveys that are representative at the national or subnational levels, as well as longitudinal data, will be very helpful to better understand farmer’s perceptions. Finally, the use of field experiments and choice experiments can complement the use of observational data.
Introduction
Throughout human history, farmers have adapted to changing environmental, social and economic conditions ( Kurukulasuriya and Rosenthal, 2013 ). Nonetheless, it is not clear if agricultural producers will be able to keep up with the unprecedented speed at which climate is expected to change in the coming years ( Jones et al., 2012 ). The negative effects of these changes will be higher for agricultural producers that practice rainfed agriculture, as well as for those with limited access to credit and insurance, and those that are disconnected from regional or national markets ( Skoufias et al., 2011 ; Quiroga et al., 2015 ; IFAD, 2016 ; Castells-Quintana et al., 2018 ). In order to ameliorate these negative effects, public policies and interventions to promote and facilitate adaptation will be needed ( Howden et al., 2007 ; Kumar et al., 2020 ). Nonetheless, in order to be willing to implement adaptation measures, farmers need to be aware of climate change ( Silvestri et al., 2012 ; Simelton et al., 2013 ; Meldrum et al., 2018 ). In that sense, the perception that farmers have about climate change not only informs their planting decisions, but also determines the adoption of adaptation measures ( Meldrum et al., 2018 ; De Matos Carlos et al., 2020 ). Therefore, understanding farmers’ perceptions about climate change can be seen as a condition for the design and successful implementation of adaptation policies in agriculture ( Hansen et al., 2004 ; Silvestri et al., 2012 ; De Matos Carlos et al., 2020 ).
The number of studies that focus on understanding farmers’ climate change perception has been increasing, but it is still scant. This is particularly true for Latin America ( Dang et al., 2019 ; Karki et al., 2020 ), a region highly vulnerable to climate change ( López-Feldman and Hernández Cort ). This phenomenon is expected to have serious negative impacts on the income, consumption and health of agricultural producers in the region ( Reyer et al., 2017 ; IPCC et al., 2018 ), leading to increases in poverty and inequality ( Skoufias et al., 2011 ; Harvey et al., 2018 ; López-Feldman and Mora Rivera, 2018 ). Given this scenario, the lack of research on the determinants of climate change perception is worrisome. The objective of this work is to present an overview of the studies on this topic available for Latin America while identifying research gaps and potential paths for future research.
Climate Change Perception
Climate change perception is a complex process that encompasses a range of psychological constructs such as knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and concerns about if and how the climate is changing ( Whitmarsh and Capstick, 2018 ). Perception is influenced and shaped, among other things, by the individuals’ characteristics, their experience, the information that they receive, and the cultural and geographic context in which they live ( van der Linden, 2015 ; Whitmarsh and Capstick, 2018 ). Therefore, measuring climate change perception and trying to find its determinants is not an easy task.
The variability that local weather can have from one day to the other, from one season to the next, and between years, is one of the many challenges that a person faces when trying to distinguish between normal short-run variations and climate change manifestations ( Hansen et al., 2012 ). In fact, local short-term variations tend to be more salient than long-term trends and hence can have a key impact on the formation of climate change perceptions ( Lehner and Stocker, 2015 ). Although the perception of those that directly depend on the weather for at least part of their income, such as farmers, tend to be more accurate than that of their counterparts, they might still have problems using their own experience with weather variables to correctly interpret changes as being big enough as to feel worried and compelled to do something about it ( Weber, 2010 ; Whitmarsh and Capstick, 2018 ).
Life experiences influence perception, individuals who have been directly affected by extreme climatic events tend to report that the probability of such event happening again is relatively high ( Patt and Schröter, 2008 ; De Matos Carlos et al., 2020 ). Furthermore, the perception that a person has about climate change can be influenced or modified by the information that she receives ( Weber, 2010 ). Finally, it should be noted that perception is in part a subjective phenomenon, therefore, different people in the same locality might construct different perceptions of climate change even though they experience the same weather patterns ( Simelton et al., 2013 ).
The Link Between Perception and Adaptation to Climate Change
In order to protect the livelihoods of the population that directly depends on agriculture, adaptation of the agricultural sector to the adverse effects of climate change is crucial ( Asfaw et al., 2016 ). In a world with perfect information, complete markets, and adequate incentives, the decision to adopt or implement a particular adaptation measure would simply be a matter of evaluating the net benefits of said measure. That is certainly not the setting in which small and subsistence farmers in developing countries operate ( Castells-Quintana et al., 2018 ). Therefore, the adoption of adaptation measures is not an automatic or smooth process, quite the contrary. The evidence has shown that factors like inadequate access to insurance or credit, limited information about adaptation alternatives, and incomplete property rights, constitute barriers that small and subsistence farmers face in relation to technology adoption ( Asfaw et al., 2016 ). Furthermore, the decision to adopt a new technology or production method frequently entails cognitive processes, like mental accounting ( Thaler, 1999 ), loss aversion ( Kahneman and Tversky, 1979 ), and hyperbolic discounting ( Laibson, 1997 ), which can lead to suboptimal levels of adoption ( Zilberman et al., 2012 ). This is particularly relevant for adaptation to climate change, as even farmers with access to weather information and climate forecasts face considerable levels of uncertainty ( Silvestri et al., 2012 ). Under these conditions, the perception that farmers have about climate change is a key component to understanding their adaptation decisions ( Clarke, et al., 2012 ).
Adaptation requires not only that individuals perceive that something is changing or could change, but also that they attribute enough weight to this perception to be willing to take action and try to do something about it ( Eakin et al., 2014 ). In this sense, perceiving that the climate is changing can be seen as a pre-condition for the adoption of agricultural adaptation measures ( Simelton et al., 2013 ; Makuvaro et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, the successful implementation of public policies aimed towards the promotion of adaptation requires, among many other things, the cooperation and participation of the intended beneficiaries. If their perception about the consequences or immediacy of climate change is different from that of the policy makers, then it is likely that the implementation of the policy will fail ( Patt and Schrö ).
Climate Change Perception of Farmers in Latin America
Hansen et al. (2004) were the first to analyze the climate perceptions of farmers in a Latin American country (Argentina). The literature on this topic has slowly grown since then, although it is still scarce compared to that from Africa and South-East Asia ( Altea, 2020 ; Karki et al., 2020 ). Here we briefly summarize some of the main findings of the studies about Latin America published, in either English or Spanish, during the period 2000–2020. The articles’ selection process was based on some of the steps used in systematic reviews, in particular we followed Karki et al. (2020) and Dang et al. (2019) . For our search, we used the following combinations of keywords or closely related words: climate change (climate, climate variability, global warming, temperature, rainfall), extreme weather events (droughts, hurricanes, tropical storms), perception (understanding), Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, North America, Central America, South America), family farms (farms, small producers, farmers, subsistence farms, household, communities, villages), indigenous (indigeneity) . In our search, in addition to Science Direct and Web of Science , we also used Google Scholar. It has been shown that Google Scholar has a very good coverage in areas where Web of Science does not ( Martín-Martín, et al., 2018 ), therefore, by using these three databases we have a comprehensive coverage of the literature. The title and abstract of 112 published papers that resulted from the search were analyzed to check if at least one of the objectives of the paper was to empirically analyze the climate change perceptions of farmers in a Latin American country; if that was the case, the paper was included in the revision. We focused on research published in peer-reviewed journals, the only exception was ( Hansen et al., 2004 ) which was published as a technical report and was the first study to analyze the topic in a Latin American country. At the end of this procedure, 21 scientific articles met the pre-established criteria.
As Table 1 shows, the existing studies come from a limited number of countries in the region; Mexico being the country with the highest number of studies available with five. Case based analysis was conducted for most, allowing for a more in depth understanding of local actors and weather ( Funatsu et al., 2019 ), while excluding generalizations at greater scales. Only two studies ( Eakin et al., 2014 ; Leroy 2019 ), covered more than one Latin American country. The studies are based on small samples; the average sample size of the papers included in Table 1 is 240, with a range of 23–1,267 observations. Most of the studies are qualitative, only three use an econometric approach as part of the analysis. Latin America’s diversity in terms of ecosystems, climate, and agricultural production systems is reflected in the studies. The papers in Table 1 analyze farmers in settings that go from semiarid environments to high mountain ecosystems, intertropical alpine ecosystems ( páramos ), and tropical forests, and, although the majority of them are of subsistence farmers, there are also studies that look at small commercial farmers, such as winegrowers. Coffee is the crop that farmers were planting in most of the studies, followed by maize, banana, cacao, potatoes, sugar cane, beans, tomatoes, and cocoa.

TABLE 1 . Basic information for studies regarding climate change perception in Latin America.
The papers reviewed look at the perception that farmers have about changes in, among other climate and weather-related variables, temperature, precipitation, and droughts. Results show that most of the farmers have in fact perceived changes in these variables. A common approach used in many of the studies is to compare farmers perceptions with the actual measured variations in the respective variables. In this way, in addition to testing if farmers perceive changes in climate-related variables, it is also possible to test if farmers perceptions coincide with actual changes. The reported results are mixed, in some cases there is a clear correspondence between changes reported by farmers and actual changes ( Pinilla et al., 2012 ; Roco et al., 2015 ; Fourment et al., 2020 ), while in other contexts, farmers’ perceptions are less aligned with observed changes ( Valdivia et al., 2010 ; Gurgiser et at., 2016; Funatsu et al., 2019 ). However, even in those cases where farmers disagree in the direction in which weather variables are changing (e.g., more or less precipitation), they tend to agree in reporting that there is more variability and in mentioning that a less reliable and more unpredictable weather complicates their farming related decisions ( Eakin et al., 2014 ; Meli et al., 2015 ; López-García and Manzano, 2016 ). Nonetheless, in some cases even when farmers perceive climate variability, they do not attribute it to climate change as they see it as a future and long-term issue ( Fourment et al., 2020 ).
Even though the focus of this review was not farmers’ adoption of adaptation practices, the articles that do look at adoption show that, in general, farmers try to adapt to the changing environmental circumstances that they are facing ( Eakin et al., 2014 ; Jacobi et al., 2015 ; Gurgiser et al., 2016 ; Meldrum et al., 2018 ; De Matos Carlos et al., 2020 ). Particularly relevant for the focus of this review is the result reported by De Matos Carlos et al. (2020) showing that there is a positive correlation between the adoption of adaptation practices and perceiving a change in climate.
The literature for Africa and Asia has shown that factors such as age, gender, education, and culture, play an important role in the processes that determine farmers’ perception of climate change ( Karki et al., 2020 ). This seems to be the case in Latin America as well. Results for Chile show that younger and more educated household heads tend to have a perception of climate change that is more aligned with the observed changes in weather variables than the perception of their older and less educated counterparts ( Roco et al., 2015 ). Nonetheless, there is also evidence showing that, in other contexts, farmers might have similar perceptions of climate change irrespective of their age; that is the case for Southern Mexico ( Meli et al., 2015 ). Meanwhile, results for Brazil ( Funatsu et al., 2019 ), Peru ( Altea, 2020 ), and Mexico (Sánchez-Cortés and Lazos, 2011; Orduño et al., 2019 ) show that women are less involved than men in agricultural activities and in general in decision making. Furthermore, they tend to be less perceptive of climate change, and, at least according to the evidence for Brazil and Peru, when they perceive it, they do not think of it as an anthropogenic phenomenon. Similarly, some indigenous farmers in Bolivia see climate change as a punishment of God to inappropriate human behavior ( Boillat and Berkes, 2013 ). Results from an analysis of indigenous farmers in Mexico, show another relevant cultural aspect behind climate change perception; the Zoques in Chiapas use biological indicators (e.g., ants, birds and some plants), in addition to their observation of weather variables, to explain perceived changes in climate variability (Sánchez-Cortés and Lazos, 2011).
In addition to the aforementioned characteristics, agroclimatic conditions can also play a relevant role as a determinant of climate change perception ( Karki et al., 2020 ). In Chile, for example, farmers living in dryland areas, where rainfall is always marginal, seem to be more aware of climate change than those located in places where irrigation infrastructure is widely available ( Roco et al., 2015 ). Something similar, although less conclusive, is reported for Ecuador ( VanderMolen, 2011 ). Altea (2020) presents evidence suggesting that in Peru perception of climate change varies with the altitude in which the agricultural land is located. Meanwhile, in the case of Brazil, although droughts affect farmers located in the tropical rainforest as well as those living in shrubland areas (characterized by low and irregular levels of precipitation), rainforest farmers seem to be less aware of the effects of climate change ( De Matos Carlos et al., 2020 ). Farmers’ location can be related to perception for another reason: access to meteorological information. This seems to be the case of Chilean farmers, those located close to the regional capital are more aware of the actual changes in weather ( Roco et al., 2015 ). Finally, perception could be affected by recent experience with climate events. Barrucand et al. (2017) report that the perception of changes in precipitation could be biased upwards when farmers have been recently affected by a weather phenomenon; La Niña occurred a few months before farmers participating in their case study were interviewed.
Discussion, Research Gaps and Opportunities for Future Research
The “finite pool of worry” hypothesis proposes that climate change concern is a finite resource, that is, it diminishes as other worries rise in prominence ( Weber, 2006 ; Weber, 2015 ). Other than the work from Hansen et al. (2004) , this is something that has not been carefully studied for Latin American farmers. Understanding how the presence of more immediate threats (e.g., violence) might hinder concern, and therefore action, about the implications of climate change is crucial in a region with high levels of poverty, inequality and social unrest. In particular, it has been shown that exposure to violence can induce higher levels of risk aversion, which in turn hampers productive investments ( Moya, 2018 ). Given the relatively high levels of violence experienced by rural populations in many Latin American countries, understanding the effects that exposure to violence can have on climate change perceptions, as well as on adaptation decisions, is crucial for the successful adaptation of farmers in the region.
The studies available for Latin America are mostly qualitative in nature and based on case studies and small samples. While these studies provide abundant information in terms of the local context, it is desirable to complement them with quantitative studies, in particular with econometric studies. Econometric studies have the potential to identify the main factors behind climate change perceptions as well as the relationship between perception and adaptation. Furthermore, given the adequate data and the correct identification strategy, econometric tools can help establish causal relationships. Moreover, data from surveys that are representative at the national or sub-national levels are necessary to obtain results that can be generalized and used to scale-up adaptation policies and programs. Ideally, these data should be longitudinal in order to better understand how information and the occurrence of extreme climatic events affect perception and adaptation over time. The national statistical offices of all Latin American countries should regularly collect information on perception of climate change and adoption of adaptation mechanisms.
The use of field experiments and choice experiments is an alternative approach which can complement the use of observational data. These tools are used widely in behavioral, environmental and experimental economics, among other disciplines. The use of hypothetical scenarios, a characteristic of these two methods, allows for the construction of mental simulations of the negative effects of climate change. By being based on hypothetical scenarios, these methods have an important advantage over observational studies: they can be used to analyze policies before they are actually implemented. These methods could also be useful to test how successful different policies might be in terms of promoting adoption of adaptation measures. Furthermore, they can help us analyze the effect that different approaches to communicate climate change information has on perception. The issue of the perception of climate change in a context where concern is in fact a finite resource could also be analyzed using these methods. Applying field and choice experiments to study perception and adaptation to climate change in Latin America is a very promising agenda from a purely academic perspective, but, more importantly, it could be very relevant in terms of providing valuable information that could aid in the design and successful implementation of public policies.
The complexity behind the analysis of farmers’ climate change perception implies that the collaboration between researchers from different disciplines, such as economics, geography, meteorology, psychology, and sociology, among others, is almost a necessity. If such collaboration is successfully achieved, the results could generate recommendations for the design of adaptation policies that are better tailored to local conditions, less costly, more efficient, and conducive to rural development.
Author Contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
The Postdoctoral Fellowships Program of CONACYT and the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas provided support for IF during the development of the present investigation.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Altea, L. (2020). Perceptions of Climate Change and its Impacts: a Comparison between Farmers and Institutions in the Amazonas Region of Peru. Clim. Development 12 (2), 134–146. doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1605285
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Asfaw, S., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L., Arslan, A., and Cattaneo, A. (2016). What Determines Farmers' Adaptive Capacity? Empirical Evidence from Malawi. Food Sec. 8 (3), 643–664. doi:10.1007/s12571-016-0571-0
Barrucand, M. G., Giraldo Vieira, C., and Canziani, P. O. (2017). Climate Change and its Impacts: Perception and Adaptation in Rural Areas of Manizales, Colombia. Clim. Development 9 (5), 415–427. doi:10.1080/17565529.2016.1167661
Boillat, S., and Berkes, F. (2013). Perception and Interpretation of Climate Change Among Quechua Farmers of Bolivia: Indigenous Knowledge as a Resource for Adaptive Capacity. Ecol. Soc. 18 (4), 21. doi:10.5751/es-05894-180421
Castells-Quintana, D., Lopez-Uribe, M. D. P., and McDermott, T. K. J. (2018). Adaptation to Climate Change: A Review through a Development Economics Lens. World Development 104, 183–196. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.11.016
Clarke, C., Shackleton, S., and Powell, M. (2012). Climate Change Perceptions, Drought Responses and Views on Carbon Farming Amongst Commercial Livestock and Game Farmers in the Semiarid Great Fish River Valley, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 29 (1), 13–23. doi:10.2989/10220119.2012.687041
Dang, H. L., Li, E., Nuberg, I., and Bruwer, J. (2019). Factors Influencing the Adaptation of Farmers in Response to Climate Change: a Review. Clim. Development 11 (9), 765–774. doi:10.1080/17565529.2018.1562866
De Matos Carlos, S., da Cunha, D. A., Pires, M. V., and Do Couto-Santos, F. R. (2020). Understanding farmers' perceptions and adaptation to climate change: the case of Rio das Contas basin, Brazil. GeoJournal 85, 805–821. doi:10.1007/s10708-019-09993-1
Eakin, H., Tucker, C. M., Castellanos, E., Diaz-Porras, R., Barrera, J. F., and Morales, H. (2014). Adaptation in a Multi-Stressor Environment: Perceptions and Responses to Climatic and Economic Risks by Coffee Growers in Mesoamerica. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 16, 123–139. doi:10.1007/s10668-013-9466-9
Fourment, M., Ferrer, M., Barbeau, G., and Quénol, H. (2020). Local Perceptions, Vulnerability and Adaptive Responses to Climate Change and Variability in a Winegrowing Region in Uruguay. Environ. Manage. 66 (4), 590–599. doi:10.1007/s00267-020-01330-4
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Funatsu, B. M., Dubreuil, V., Racapé, A., Debortoli, N. S., Nasuti, S., and Le Tourneau, F.-M. (2019). Perceptions of Climate and Climate Change by Amazonian Communities. Glob. Environ. Change 57, 101923. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.007
Gurgiser, W., Juen, I., Singer, K., Neuburger, M., Schauwecker, S., Hofer, M., et al. (2016). Comparing peasants' perceptions of precipitation change with precipitation records in the tropical Callejón de Huaylas, Peru. Earth Syst. Dynam. 7 (2), 499–515. doi:10.5194/esd-7-499-2016
Hansen, J., Marx, S., and Weber, E. (2004). The Role of Climate Perceptions, Expectations, and Forecasts in Farmer Decision Making: The Argentine Pampas and South Florida . NY, U.S.A: Palisades . Technical report 04-01. doi:10.2172/833414
CrossRef Full Text
Hansen, J., Sato, M., and Ruedy, R. (2012). Perception of Climate Change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (37), E2415–E2423. doi:10.1073/pnas.1205276109
Harvey, C. A., Saborio-Rodríguez, M., Martinez-Rodríguez, M. R., Viguera, B., Chain-Guadarrama, A., Vignola, R., et al. (2018). Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Among Smallholder Farmers in Central America. Agric. Food Secur 7 (1), 57. doi:10.1186/s40066-018-0209-x
Howden, S. M., Soussana, J.-F., Tubiello, F. N., Chhetri, N., Dunlop, M., and Meinke, H. (2007). Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104 (50), 19691–19696. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701890104
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (2016). Rural Development Report 2016: Fostering Inclusive Rural Transformation . Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development .
Jacobi, J., Schneider, M., Bottazzi, P., Pillco, M., Calizaya, P., and Rist, S. (2015). Agroecosystem Resilience and Farmers' Perceptions of Climate Change Impacts on cocoa Farms in Alto Beni, Bolivia. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 30 (2), 170–183. doi:10.1017/s174217051300029x
Jones, H. P., Hole, D. G., and Zavaleta, E. S. (2012). Harnessing Nature to Help People Adapt to Climate Change. Nat. Clim Change 2 (7), 504–509. doi:10.1038/nclimate1463
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica 47 (2), 263–291. doi:10.2307/1914185
Karki, S., Burton, P., and Mackey, B. (2020). The Experiences and Perceptions of Farmers about the Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Crop Production: a Review. Clim. Development 12 (1), 80–95. doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1603096
Kumar, S., Mishra, A. K., Pramanik, S., Mamidanna, S., and Whitbread, A. (2020). Climate Risk, Vulnerability and Resilience: Supporting Livelihood of Smallholders in Semiarid India. Land Use Policy 97, 104729. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104729
Kurukulasuriya, P., and Rosenthal, S. (2013). Climate Change and Agriculture: A Review of Impacts and Adaptations . Washington, DC: World Bank . Environment department papers no. 91 (Climate change series.
Laibson, D. (1997). Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting. Q. J. Econ. 112 (2), 443–478. doi:10.1162/003355397555253
Lehner, F., and Stocker, T. F. (2015). From Local Perception to Global Perspective. Nat. Clim Change 5, 731–734. doi:10.1038/nclimate2660
Leroy, D. (2019). Farmers' Perceptions of and Adaptations to Water Scarcity in Colombian and Venezuelan Páramos in the Context of Climate Change. Mountain Res. Development 39 (2), R21–R34. doi:10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-18-00062.1
López-Feldman, A., and Mora Rivera, J. J. (2018). “The Effects of Climate Change on Poverty and Income Distribution: A Case Study for Rural Mexico,” in Economic Tools and Methods for the Analysis of Global Change Impacts on Agriculture and Food Security . Editor S. Quiroga (Cham: Springer ).
Google Scholar
López Feldman, A. J., and Hernández Cortés, D. (2016). Cambio climático y agricultura: una revisión de la literatura con énfasis en América Latina. El Trimestre 83 (332), 459–496. doi:10.20430/ete.v83i332.231
López-García, T. G., and Manzano, M. G. (2016). Vulnerabilidad climática y situación socioambiental: percepciones en una región semiárida del noreste de México. Myb 22 (2), 105–117. doi:10.21829/myb.2016.2221328
Makuvaro, V., Walker, S., Masere, T. P., and Dimes, J. (2018). Smallholder Farmer Perceived Effects of Climate Change on Agricultural Productivity and Adaptation Strategies. J. Arid Environments 152, 75–82. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2018.01.016
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., and Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A Systematic Comparison of Citations in 252 Subject Categories. J. informetrics 12 (4), 1160–1177. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
Meldrum, G., Mijatović, D., Rojas, W., Flores, J., Pinto, M., Mamani, G., et al. (2018). Climate Change and Crop Diversity: Farmers' Perceptions and Adaptation on the Bolivian Altiplano. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 20, 703–730. doi:10.1007/s10668-016-9906-4
Meli, P., Landa, R., López-Medellín, X., and Carabias, J. (2015). Social Perceptions of Rainforest and Climatic Change from Rural Communities in Southern Mexico. Ecosystems 18, 1343–1355. doi:10.1007/s10021-015-9903-8
Moya, A. (2018). Violence, Psychological Trauma, and Risk Attitudes: Evidence from Victims of Violence in Colombia. J. Development Econ. 131, 15–27. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2017.11.001
Orduño, M., Kallas, Z., and Ornelas, H., S. (2019). Analysis of Farmers’ Stated Risk Using Lotteries and Their Perceptions of Climate Change in the Northwest of Mexico. Agronomy 9 (1), 4. doi:10.3390/agronomy9010004
Patt, A., and Schröter, D. (2008). Perceptions of Climate Risk in Mozambique: Implications for the success of Adaptation Strategies. Glob. Environ. Change 18 (3), 458–467. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.04.002
Pinilla, M. C. H., Rueda, A., and Pinzón, C. (2012). Percepciones sobre los fenómenos de variabilidad y cambio climáticos entre campesinos del centro de Santander, Colombia. Ambiente y Desarrollo 16 (31), 25–37.
Quiroga, S., Suárez, C., and Solís, J. D. (2015). Exploring Coffee Farmers' Awareness about Climate Change and Water Needs: Smallholders' Perceptions of Adaptive Capacity. Environ. Sci. Pol. 45, 53–66. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.09.007
Reyer, C. P. O., Adams, S., Albrecht, T., Baarsch, F., Boit, A., Canales Trujillo, N., et al. (2017). Climate Change Impacts in Latin America and the Caribbean and Their Implications for Development. Reg. Environ. Change 17, 1601–1621. doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0854-6
Roco, L., Engler, A., Bravo-Ureta, B. E., and Jara-Rojas, R. (2015). Farmers' Perception of Climate Change in Mediterranean Chile. Reg. Environ. Change 15 (5), 867–879. doi:10.1007/s10113-014-0669-x
Sánchez-Cortés, M. S., and Lazos, C. E (2011). Indigenous Perception of Changes in Climate Variability and its Relationship with Agriculture in a Zoque Community of Chiapas, Mexico. Climatic Change 107 (3-4), 363–389. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9972-9
Silvestri, S., Bryan, E., Ringler, C., Herrero, M., and Okoba, B. (2012). Climate Change Perception and Adaptation of Agro-Pastoral Communities in Kenya. Reg. Environ. Change 12 (4), 791–802. doi:10.1007/s10113-012-0293-6
Simelton, E., Quinn, C. H., Batisani, N., Dougill, A. J., Dyer, J. C., Fraser, E. D. G., et al. (2013). Is Rainfall Really Changing? Farmers' Perceptions, Meteorological Data, and Policy Implications. Clim. Development 5, 123–138. doi:10.1080/17565529.2012.751893
Skoufias, E., Rabassa, M., and Olivieri, S. (2011). The Poverty Impacts of Climate Change: A Review of the Evidence . in Policy Research Working Paper . Washington, DC: World Bank . no. WPS 5622. doi:10.1596/1813-9450-5622
Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental Accounting Matters. J. Behav. Decis. Making 12 (3), 183–206. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(199909)12:3<183::aid-bdm318>3.0.co;2-f
IPCC (2018). “Summary for Policymakers,” in 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 in Press . Editors V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shuklaet al.
Valdivia, C., Seth, A., Gilles, J. L., García, M., Jiménez, E., Cusicanqui, J., et al. (2010). Adapting to Climate Change in Andean Ecosystems: Landscapes, Capitals, and Perceptions Shaping Rural Livelihood Strategies and Linking Knowledge Systems. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 100 (4), 818–834. doi:10.1080/00045608.2010.500198
Van der Linden, S. (2015). The Social-Psychological Determinants of Climate Change Risk Perceptions: Towards a Comprehensive Model. J. Environ. Psychol. 41, 112–124. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012
VanderMolen, K. (2011). Percepciones de cambio climático y estrategias de adaptación en las comunidades agrícolas de Cotacachi (Debate Agrario-Rural). Ecuador Debate 82, 145–157.
Weber, E. U. (2015). Climate Change Demands Behavioral Change: What Are the Challenges? Soc. Res. 82 (3), 561–580. Availableat: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44282122 .
Weber, E. U. (2006). Experience-based and Description-Based Perceptions of Long-Term Risk: Why Global Warming Does Not Scare Us (Yet). Climatic Change 77 (1), 103–120. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3
Weber, E. U. (2010). What Shapes Perceptions of Climate Change? Wires Clim. Change 1 (3), 332–342. doi:10.1002/wcc.41
Whitmarsh, L., and Capstick, S. (2018). “Perceptions of Climate Change,” in Psychology and Climate Change: Human Perceptions, Impacts, and Responses . Editors S. Clayton, and C. Manning ( Academic Press ), 13–33. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-813130-5.00002-3
Zilberman, D., Zhao, J., and Heiman, A. (2012). Adoption versus Adaptation, with Emphasis on Climate Change. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 4 (1), 27–53. doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-083110-115954
Keywords: perception, climate change, adaptation, Latin America, farmer, agriculture
Citation: Fierros-González I and López-Feldman A (2021) Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change: A Review of the Literature for Latin America. Front. Environ. Sci. 9:672399. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2021.672399
Received: 26 February 2021; Accepted: 26 May 2021; Published: 07 June 2021.
Reviewed by:
Copyright © 2021 Fierros-González and López-Feldman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Alejandro López-Feldman, [email protected]
This article is part of the Research Topic
Climate Change and Society
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
- Explore content
- About the journal
- Publish with us
- Sign up for alerts
Review Articles

Dryland productivity under a changing climate
In this Review, the authors discuss recent advances in understanding dryland productivity and functions, examining outstanding debates on dryland response to change and the uncertainties associated with predicting climate trajectories.
- Wenzhe Jiao
- Paolo D’Odorico

Leveraging social cognition to promote effective climate change mitigation
Human cooperation, which is essential for climate action, is shaped by the social cognition of individuals. This Review examines three mechanisms that play an important role in discouraging pro-environmental behaviours, but which can also provide effective solutions for collective action.
- Mélusine Boon-Falleur
- Aurore Grandin
- Coralie Chevallier

Revisiting the promise of carbon labelling
Carbon labelling may affect changes in both organizational and retail consumer behaviour. This Review examines the effectiveness of label programmes on the behaviour of actors throughout product supply chains, discussing current challenges, future pathways and implications for label design.
- Khan M. R. Taufique
- Kristian S. Nielsen
- Michael P. Vandenbergh

A social–ecological perspective on climate anxiety in children and adolescents
Children and adolescents may be the age cohort most vulnerable to climate anxiety. This Review uses a social–ecological theoretical framework to outline how they are uniquely susceptible to climate anxiety and identify potential protective factors.
- Tara J. Crandon
- James G. Scott
- Hannah J. Thomas

Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments
Border carbon adjustments are appraised as a measure to address carbon leakage and competitiveness concerns. This Review Article discusses the possible impacts, as well as practical challenges for implementation.
- Christoph Böhringer
- Carolyn Fischer
- Thomas Fox Rutherford

Emergent biogeochemical risks from Arctic permafrost degradation
Thawing permafrost in the Arctic may release microorganisms, chemicals and nuclear waste that have been stored in frozen ground and by cold temperatures. This Review discusses the current state of potential hazards and their risks under warming to identify prospective threats to the Arctic.
- Kimberley R. Miner
- Juliana D’Andrilli
- Charles E. Miller
Gender equality in climate policy and practice hindered by assumptions
Gender has a powerful influence on experiences of, and resilience to, climate change. In this Review, the authors provide an overview of four common gender assumptions, and offer four suggestions for a more informed pursuit of gender equality in climate change policy and practice.
- Jacqueline D. Lau
- Danika Kleiber
- Philippa J. Cohen
Accountability and data-driven urban climate governance
The shift to data-driven urban climate governance alters accountability. This Review examines critically the drivers of the shift—standardization, transparency and capacity building—and how best to achieve equitable climate mitigation outcomes within this context.
- Sara Hughes
- Sarah Giest
- Laura Tozer

Phytoplankton dynamics in a changing Arctic Ocean
Ongoing Arctic changes are impacting phytoplankton. This Review considers recent primary productivity trends and the environmental drivers, as well as how these are changing, that drive phytoplankton diversity in the region.
- Mathieu Ardyna
- Kevin Robert Arrigo

Disconnects between ecological theory and data in phenological mismatch research
Phenological shifts due to climate change can desynchronize the timings of life history events between species, but predicting the consequences is challenging. Changes to current methodologies would allow testing of the widely used Cushing hypothesis and improve predictions of climate change impacts.
- Heather M. Kharouba
- Elizabeth M. Wolkovich

Adjusting the lens of invasion biology to focus on the impacts of climate-driven range shifts
Climate change will cause species to shift their ranges to persist. This Review uses invasion ecology theory to consider the impacts of shifting species and how to manage these shifts to protect the recipient communities as well as the survival of the shifters.
- Piper D. Wallingford
- Toni Lyn Morelli
- Cascade J. B. Sorte

Defining Southern Ocean fronts and their influence on biological and physical processes in a changing climate
Ocean fronts and other hydrographic features are important for climate and ecology. This Review discussed fronts in the Southern Ocean, their detection and response to climate change, alongside the implications for studying the biology of the region.
- Christopher C. Chapman
- Mary-Anne Lea
- Mark Hindell

From incremental to transformative adaptation in individual responses to climate-exacerbated hazards
Individual responses to climate hazards can contribute to long-term societal resilience. This Review finds that the literature emphasizes intrapersonal cognitive and affective drivers of adaptation behaviour rather than the interpersonal social factors that promote coordinated cooperative action.
- Robyn S. Wilson
- Atar Herziger
- Jeremy S. Brooks

Divergent consensuses on Arctic amplification influence on midlatitude severe winter weather
Amplified warming in the Arctic has been linked to weather variability in the midlatitudes. This Review considers the evidence from both observations and modelling studies on this link for increasing severe winter weather, including cold temperatures and heavy snowfalls.

Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world
Transformation of the land sector is required to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5 °C. Here, modelled emission pathways and mitigation strategies are reviewed. A land-sector roadmap of priority measures and key regions is presented.
- Stephanie Roe
- Charlotte Streck
- Deborah Lawrence

Sea-level driven land conversion and the formation of ghost forests
A review of the phenomenon of low-lying ‘ghost forests’, and the physical and ecological mechanisms that control their occurrence in the context of sea level rise, with a focus on the Atlantic Coast of North America.
- Matthew L. Kirwan
- Keryn B. Gedan

Contributions of GRACE to understanding climate change
The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission, launched in 2002, allows monitoring of changes in hydrology and the cryosphere with terrestrial and ocean applications. This Review Article focuses on its contribution to the detection and quantification of climate change signals.
- Byron D. Tapley
- Michael M. Watkins
- Isabella Velicogna

Learning about urban climate solutions from case studies
Cities around the world are at the forefront of enacting climate mitigation policies, but effective action requires a better understanding of potential solutions. This Review offers a systematic exploration of the urban case study literature and discusses ways to best make use of the growing body of cases.
- William F. Lamb
- Felix Creutzig
- Jan C. Minx
The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation
In this Review, a Bayesian framework is used to explain climate change belief updating, and the evidence required to support claims of directional motivated reasoning versus a model in which people aim for accurate beliefs, but vary in how they assess information credibility.
- James N. Druckman
- Mary C. McGrath

Broad threat to humanity from cumulative climate hazards intensified by greenhouse gas emissions
This Review examines the pathways through which humans are impacted by climate change and shows that by 2100 the world’s population will be simultaneously exposed to at least three hazards, and in some locations as many as six, under an RCP 8.5 scenario.
- Camilo Mora
- Daniele Spirandelli
- Cynthia L. Hunter
Quick links
- Explore articles by subject
- Guide to authors
- Editorial policies

Please note that Internet Explorer version 8.x is not supported as of January 1, 2016. Please refer to this support page for more information.
- Download full issue

Climate Services
Review article upscaling of climate services – what is it a literature review.
Translating climate data and information for use in real-world applications often involves the development of climate service prototypes within the constraints of pilot or demonstration projects. However, these services rarely make the transition from prototype to fully-fledged, transferrable and/or repeatable climate services – that is, there are problems with upscaling them beyond the pilot/demonstrator phase.
In this paper we are using the mainstream understanding of the three main types of upscaling: reaching many (horizontal), enhancing the enabling environment (vertical), and expanding the product or service’s features (functional). Through a review of the general upscaling literature, coupled with focused interviews with weather/climate services experts, we found that there are common barriers to, and enablers for, successful upscaling – many of which apply to the specific case of upscaling climate services. Barriers include problems with leadership (e.g. the absence of a long-term vision and/or strategy for upscaling); limited funding or lack of a business model for the service at scale; issues with the enabling environment for upscaling (e.g. poor policy context, inadequate governance systems); and poor user engagement.
Lessons learned from the literature in the context of upscaling climate services include planning for it as early as possible in the prototyping process; including a monitoring, evaluation and learning approach to inform upscaling progress; taking actions to foster and enhance the enabling environment; and searching for a balance between generic solutions and fit-for-purpose products.
- Previous article in issue
- Next article in issue
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Cited by (0)
Present address: Resilient Analytics (A Stanley Consultants Company), 385 Interlocken Crescent, Ste 250, Broomfield, CO, 80021, USA.

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.
Your Environment. Your Health.
Climate change and human health literature portal a review of climate change, mitigation and adaptation, climate change and human health literature portal.
- Publisher http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.009
Global climate change is a change in the long-term weather patterns that characterize the regions of the world. Scientists state unequivocally that the earth is warming. Natural climate variability alone cannot explain this trend. Human activities, especially the burning of coal and oil, have warmed the earth by dramatically increasing the concentrations of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The more of these gases humans put into the atmosphere, the more the earth will warm in the decades and centuries ahead. The impacts of warming can already be observed in many places, from rising sea levels to melting snow and ice to changing weather patterns. Climate change is already affecting ecosystems, freshwater supplies, and human health. Although climate change cannot be avoided entirely, the most severe impacts of climate change can be avoided by substantially reducing the amount of heat-trapping gases released into the atmosphere. However, the time available for beginning serious action to avoid severe global consequences is growing short. This paper reviews assessing of such climate change impacts on various components of the ecosystem such as air, water, plants, animals and human beings, with special emphasis on economy. The most daunting problem of global warming is also discussed. This paper, further reviews the mitigation measures, with a special focus on carbon sequestration and clean development mechanism (CDM). The importance of synergy between climate change mitigation and adaptation has been discussed. An overview of the relationship between economy and emissions, including Carbon Tax and Emission Trading and the policies are also presented. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Resource Description

weather or climate related pathway by which climate change affects health
resource focuses on specific type of geography
resource focuses on specific location
specification of health effect or disease related to climate change exposure
type of model used or methodology development is a focus of resource
format or standard characteristic of resource
related topics that intersect with those captured in other filters
- Help & FAQ
A review of climate change, mitigation and adaptation
- Mechanical Engineering
Research output : Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review
Global climate change is a change in the long-term weather patterns that characterize the regions of the world. Scientists state unequivocally that the earth is warming. Natural climate variability alone cannot explain this trend. Human activities, especially the burning of coal and oil, have warmed the earth by dramatically increasing the concentrations of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The more of these gases humans put into the atmosphere, the more the earth will warm in the decades and centuries ahead. The impacts of warming can already be observed in many places, from rising sea levels to melting snow and ice to changing weather patterns. Climate change is already affecting ecosystems, freshwater supplies, and human health. Although climate change cannot be avoided entirely, the most severe impacts of climate change can be avoided by substantially reducing the amount of heat-trapping gases released into the atmosphere. However, the time available for beginning serious action to avoid severe global consequences is growing short. This paper reviews assessing of such climate change impacts on various components of the ecosystem such as air, water, plants, animals and human beings, with special emphasis on economy. The most daunting problem of global warming is also discussed. This paper, further reviews the mitigation measures, with a special focus on carbon sequestration and clean development mechanism (CDM). The importance of synergy between climate change mitigation and adaptation has been discussed. An overview of the relationship between economy and emissions, including Carbon Tax and Emission Trading and the policies are also presented.
- Carbon sequestration
- Clean development mechanism
- Climate change
- Emission trading
- Global warming
- Mitigation and adaptation
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
Access to Document
- 10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.009
Other files and links
- Link to publication in Scopus
- Link to the citations in Scopus
Fingerprint
- Climate change Engineering & Materials Science 100%
- Earth (planet) Engineering & Materials Science 38%
- Ecosystems Engineering & Materials Science 32%
- Gases Engineering & Materials Science 25%
- Carbon Engineering & Materials Science 22%
- Sea level Engineering & Materials Science 20%
- Snow Engineering & Materials Science 18%
- Taxation Engineering & Materials Science 17%
A review of climate change, mitigation and adaptation. / Vijayavenkataraman, S. ; Iniyan, S.; Goic, Ranko.
T1 - A review of climate change, mitigation and adaptation
AU - Vijayavenkataraman, S.
AU - Iniyan, S.
AU - Goic, Ranko
N1 - Copyright: Copyright 2011 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2012/1
Y1 - 2012/1
N2 - Global climate change is a change in the long-term weather patterns that characterize the regions of the world. Scientists state unequivocally that the earth is warming. Natural climate variability alone cannot explain this trend. Human activities, especially the burning of coal and oil, have warmed the earth by dramatically increasing the concentrations of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The more of these gases humans put into the atmosphere, the more the earth will warm in the decades and centuries ahead. The impacts of warming can already be observed in many places, from rising sea levels to melting snow and ice to changing weather patterns. Climate change is already affecting ecosystems, freshwater supplies, and human health. Although climate change cannot be avoided entirely, the most severe impacts of climate change can be avoided by substantially reducing the amount of heat-trapping gases released into the atmosphere. However, the time available for beginning serious action to avoid severe global consequences is growing short. This paper reviews assessing of such climate change impacts on various components of the ecosystem such as air, water, plants, animals and human beings, with special emphasis on economy. The most daunting problem of global warming is also discussed. This paper, further reviews the mitigation measures, with a special focus on carbon sequestration and clean development mechanism (CDM). The importance of synergy between climate change mitigation and adaptation has been discussed. An overview of the relationship between economy and emissions, including Carbon Tax and Emission Trading and the policies are also presented.
AB - Global climate change is a change in the long-term weather patterns that characterize the regions of the world. Scientists state unequivocally that the earth is warming. Natural climate variability alone cannot explain this trend. Human activities, especially the burning of coal and oil, have warmed the earth by dramatically increasing the concentrations of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The more of these gases humans put into the atmosphere, the more the earth will warm in the decades and centuries ahead. The impacts of warming can already be observed in many places, from rising sea levels to melting snow and ice to changing weather patterns. Climate change is already affecting ecosystems, freshwater supplies, and human health. Although climate change cannot be avoided entirely, the most severe impacts of climate change can be avoided by substantially reducing the amount of heat-trapping gases released into the atmosphere. However, the time available for beginning serious action to avoid severe global consequences is growing short. This paper reviews assessing of such climate change impacts on various components of the ecosystem such as air, water, plants, animals and human beings, with special emphasis on economy. The most daunting problem of global warming is also discussed. This paper, further reviews the mitigation measures, with a special focus on carbon sequestration and clean development mechanism (CDM). The importance of synergy between climate change mitigation and adaptation has been discussed. An overview of the relationship between economy and emissions, including Carbon Tax and Emission Trading and the policies are also presented.
KW - Carbon sequestration
KW - Clean development mechanism
KW - Climate change
KW - Emission trading
KW - Global warming
KW - Mitigation and adaptation
KW - Policies
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=82355180955&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=82355180955&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.009
DO - 10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.009
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:82355180955
SN - 1364-0321
JO - Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
JF - Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

- Emergent Technologies & Democracy
- Editor-at-Large Login

Climate Change Denial & Skepticism: A Review of the Literature
Political actors and individuals who deny the reality of human-caused climate change are a minority with an outsized ability to shape domestic climate science, policy, and communications. This literature review traces the development of climate change denial from its beginnings in conservative organizations and the energy industry in the mid-20th century, and shows how the initial denialists’ work has been refined by contemporary actors to spread climate dis- and misinformation online. The essay examines the scholarly literature on the alignment of climate change denial with identity, showing how climate change denial has become woven into certain cultural, political, racial, and religious identities. It further traces the tactics for spreading climate change denial, like social media targeting and conspiracy theories designed to cast doubt on scientific findings. Finally, the essay explores scholars’ work examining ways to disrupt climate change denial, build support for scientific institutions, and bolster acceptance of knowledge about climate change.
Introduction
As the effects of climate change on our weather, economies, and societies continue to worsen, a related phenomenon of climate denialism threatens a healthy people and planet. “Climate denial,” a catch-all term to describe activities and opinions that run counter to the existing scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, is an obstacle to action on climate change (Collomb 2014 ; Farmer & Cook 2012 ; Schafer 2015 ; Walter et al. 2017 ; Whitmarsh 2011 ). As wildfires, droughts, and flooding across the U.S. becomes a new normal, why do some politicians, business leaders, and everyday Americans insist climate change does not exist?
We must address climate change denialism because the dangers posed by climate change are quite real. Comprehensive reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reveal that the predicted consequences of unchecked climate change are extremely likely to be dire physically, economically, and socio-culturally to humans and the planet (IPCC 2021 ; IPCC 2014 ). Action is necessary to prevent a runaway global environmental crisis, but dysfunctional information dynamics, sticky anti-climate narratives, and coordinated tactics by disinformation producers erode public support for pro-environmental policies (Cook et al. 2016 ; Tesler 2017 ).
While climate change denialism is a broad term, there’s significant nuance that many scholars have developed over time. Typically, denialism exists on a spectrum from rigid rejection to confusion and disinterest. The Yale Global Warming’s Six Americas report (2021) defines six U.S. groups ranging from belief to disbelief, with categories like “dismissive” and “doubtful” falling within a denialist spectrum. Coan, Boussalis, Cook, and Nanko ( 2021 ) classify denialism in groupings such as “it’s not real,” our focus in this paper, and “it’s not bad” or “the experts are unreliable.”
Research has shown that climate denialists are a large minority with an outsized impact. Less than 30% of the US population does not believe in climate change; which as of 2022, is roughly 90 million people (Leiserowitz et al. 2020 ). This minority has a powerful voice. False claims about climate change in the US has spilled over into action, instigating events ranging from violent threats like armed citizens taking to Oregon streets over wildfire conspiracies to click-bait style stunts like a U.S. senator bringing a snowball into the Capitol in a facetious attempt to demonstrate that the Earth is not warming. While climate mis- and disinformation has existed prior to social media, the rise of these platforms has enabled climate deniers to network with one another and amplify false claims, dangerous hoaxes, misleading climate studies, and create echo chambers of denialist feedback loops (see: Bloomfield & Tillery 2019 ; Koteyko et al. 2013 ; Lewandowsky et al. 2019 ; Lutzke et al. 2019 ; Pearce et al. 2018 ; Samantray & Pin 2019 ).
Polling and research has identified common demographic characteristics of people who do not believe in climate change; the most consistent characteristic is conservative political identity (McCright 2011 ; Björnberg et al. 2017 ; Treen et al. 2020a ; Treen et al. 2020b ). Yet being a part of an identifiable minority of the population has not prevented this group from significantly shaping domestic climate science, policy, and communications (Leiserowitz et al. 2020). Knowing who is most likely to deny climate change does not answer all of the questions surrounding climate change denial: including the history of the movement, why it persists, and what efforts can be taken to change minds about climate change and the possibility of limiting its effects.
In this literature review we look at the history of the producers of climate denialism in the Republican party, conservative organizations, and the energy industry, and how their work has been refined by contemporary actors to spread climate dis- and misinformation online. We will also consider climate denialists’ identity through the lens of demographic variables like politics, geography, race, and religious affiliation. Finally, we explore the pervasiveness of these climate denial narratives, and where we stand on disrupting them. Understanding the nuances of climate change denialism in the US is pressing; our days to secure the political will for robust conservationist policies—and thus warding off the worst effects of climate change— are numbered.
Producers and Motivations
Current manifestations of climate denialism are over fifty years in the making. Its rise coincided with the advent of climate change in the public consciousness in the early 1960s (Oreskes & Conway 2010 ; Dunlap & McCright 2011 ; Dunlap & McCright 2012 ). Concerned about the effects of an adequate response to prevent climate change—notably the fear of economic regulation, reduction in consumer spending, and challenges to free market capitalism—actors from the fossil fuel industry, corporate America, and conservative foundations, such as the Koch Foundation, founded a group of conservative think tanks (CTTs), like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, that came to function as the de facto mouthpieces of the climate denial movement (Oreskes & Conway 2010; Dunlap & McCright 2011; Dunlap & McCright 2012). As the movement gained traction, more CTTs joined the scene creating a “scientific Potemkin Village” as Oreskes and Conway described the strategy. Some members included the Heartland Institute, the CATO Institute, and the Marshall Institute (Oreskes & Conway 2010).
Conservative think tanks have impressive support and output, positioning their climate denialism as a central feature of the American conservative agenda. The financial backing of large corporate entities and foundations, as well as the intellectual backing of numerous skeptical scientists and politicians, successfully instigated a massive campaign to manufacture climate change denial. This campaign cast doubt over well-established scientific consensus and slowly cemented opposition to climate change reform in the conservative mind (Oreskes & Conway 2010; Grasso 2019 ; Cook 2019 ).
The most developed body of research concerning climate denial focuses on the conservative foundations and carbon-intensive industry actors involved in its production. For example, the Information Council for the Environment (ICE) was created by the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association, and Edison Electrical Institute. In the 1990s ICE’s campaign goal was to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact),” a goal which continues today (Oreskes 2012 ). To be clear, the energy sector knew about the climate-warming effects of burning fossil fuels (a scientific fact established in the late nineteenth century). The coal industry knew since the 1960s that their emissions were warming, and Exxon in 1982 accurately predicted the climate-warming conditions we see now from burning fossil fuels (Mann 2021 , p.24). These actors have been part of a coalition that has fostered the wide-spread, popular rejection of climate science; and in so doing they have warded off any economic and policy changes that would accompany climate science’s public acceptance.
One of the methods used by conservative think tanks to promote the public’s skepticism of climate science was to attack specific scientists who raised alarms about climate change. For example, energy industries took an aggressive stance against Rachel Carson, the scientist who wrote Silent Spring in 1962. Industry representatives at the time described her as “radical” and “hysterical,” and she remained a target for decades: for example, in 2012 fellows from the Competitive Enterprise Institute published an article entitled “Rachel Carson’s Deadly Fantasies” in which they repeatedly criticized her science (Mann 2021, p12). Further attacks have been levied against contemporary scientists and environmentalists such as Bill Nye, Al Gore, and Michael Mann (Bloomfield & Tillery 2019). Some of these attacks also fall within the “corrupted scientist archetype,” a term popularized by Doug Cloud ( 2020 ) to describe when challengers of anthropogenic climate change argue that scientists are tainted by financial and political ties–meaning their science is inaccurate and not impartial.
Conservative think tanks promoted anti-climate change propaganda through a variety of other mechanisms, the most significant of which were books and conservative media (Jaques et al. 2008 ; Painter and Ashe 2012 ; Cook 2019). Starting in the early 1970s, coalitions of contrarian scientists backed by the CTTs pushed out books and journal articles questioning the validity of their opponents’ findings. Additionally, as Painter and Ashe point out, the organizations and their associated actors have relied upon journalists upholding the idea of “balanced media coverage” on opposing sides of a topic. This meant that climate change denialists had the same amount of news coverage as legitimate climate scientists, and ultimately made it appear as though the two sides should be weighed equally in a viewer’s mind (Boykoff & Boykoff 2004 ; Painter & Ashe 2012). There is a broad scholarly consensus that these tactics, along with a variety of other strategies, allowed conservative actors and corporations to mount a highly successful disinformation campaign that effectively manufactured the contemporary American climate denial movement (Collomb 2014 ).
The Who, Where and Why of Climate Denial
Using survey research and studies of demographics, scholars have investigated the motivations of the sectors of public that deny anthropogenic climate change. These insights signal a key finding: conservative political identity is potentially the strongest link between people who share this disbelief. The findings align with political scientists’ understanding of the centrality of group identifications—like racial, religious, and cultural identities—to democratic processes; in this view, partisanship is a meta-identity that can contain a number of different social affiliations.
People vote to align with their group identity more often than according to their policy preferences (Mason, 2018). Understanding the motivations of popular climate denialism can help change hearts and minds; while climate denialists are the minority in the US, they present an outsize roadblock to deploying climate-saving policies at scale. For example, many Republican representatives in Congress block environmental policies that the majority of Americans, including some conservatives, might want to see become law.
Geographically, there are differences in climate beliefs at the national and local levels ( Zhang et al. 2018). Broadly, rural parts of the United States—notably in Appalachia, the Midwest, and the South—that historically have large conservative populations remain the most skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, even in the face of first-hand experience of climate-related events, such as extreme drought (Metcalfe 2015 ; Olson-Hazboun & Howe 2018 ; Lachapelle & Albrecht 2018 ). In urban areas with higher concentrations of political liberals, the opposite is true (Lachapelle & Albrecht 2018). Rural states with ties to the energy industry, like Wyoming, West Virginia, and North Dakota, are particular strongholds of climate denialism; these are locations where over 50% of the population did not believe in anthropogenic climate change . This dynamic of “urban belief” versus “rural reluctance” can partially be tracked to local industry: counties with high-polluting energy industries, like coal, have higher rates of disbelief (Howe, P., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J., & Leiserowitz, A. 2015 ). Yet leaving these states aside, the difference in popular opinion between urban and rural locales is overall a modest one: 73% of the US population overall believes in climate change, while 64% of rural populations believe in climate change (Olson-Hazboun & Howe 2018). More robust research into location-based public opinion of climate change is required to unpack the community effects and spread of climate mis- and disinformation.
Demographic research on age and education level may help explain the urban-rural divide as well, but findings on these variables have been inconsistent, highlighting how political leanings are probably the best determinant (Hamilton et al. 2015 ; Lachapelle & Albrecht 2018). For example, conservative white males who vary in education and age are the most likely to share or believe in climate misinformation (McCright 2011; Björnberg et al. 2017; Treen et al. 2020a; Treen et al. 2020b). Overall, geographic analysis across the country underscores how climate denialism is often tied to ideologically conservative communities.
Further rooting climate disbelief in conservative political identity are the Republican Party’s policies and messaging. The party’s political leaders have been using conspiracy theories on anthropogenic climate change as a framing technique to serve their political agenda. In the early 2000s, a staffer to then- President George W. Bush sent strategy memos to Republican members of Congress instructing them to use the term “climate change” over “global warming” because “climate change” sounded like a natural process and, therefore, could be used to avoid a public push for new regulations that are contrary to conservative values (Saunders 2017 ). This groundwork helped establish a belief among Republicans that “global warming” was a hoax; a belief perpetuated today by former President Donald Trump on Twitter. This plan worked: conservatives are documented to be more likely to believe global warming is a hoax over adherents to other political ideologies (Van Der Linden 2015).
Conservative ideology and faith are also deeply tied for US white, evangelical Protestants, and this group have lower levels of climate change belief than other racial or religious groups, including those who identify as religiously unaffiliated. According to a Pew Research Center study , only 41% of US white, mainline Protestants believe that the Earth is warming due to human behavior. White evangelicals have an even higher rate of disbelief and is the highest out of any racial and religious group in the US of climate change denialism (Heimlich 2011 ; Bardon 2020 ). They also have a strong correlation with politically conservative ideology, highlighting again the link between politics and climate change beliefs. In comparison, non-white Christians largely believe in climate change, and many of these groups are also on the political left. Black protestants in the US are mostly concerned about climate change, and mostly left leaning (Bardon 2019 ). Latinx Catholics have the highest rate of anthropogenic climate change belief among religious ethnic groups.
There are multiple theories to explain why climate change denialism is so pervasive in the white, Evangelical community—some that draw conclusions from their continually intertwining religious and political beliefs and some that eschew this religious-political relationship. Research has found that evangelicals rank their scriptural duties above secular concerns, such as global warming (Zaleha & Szasz 2015; Veldman 2019 ). There are also fringe Christian groups that believe in an approaching end-time apocalypse and view it as justification for climate skepticism (Barker & Bearce 2013 ; Zaleha & Szasz 2015).
However, scholarly consensus holds that influence from politics and business interests has had a bigger influence on white, evangelicals’ climate-change skepticism than scriptural or eschatological concerns. Veldman (2019), for example, argues that the Reagan administration in the 1980s was the source of the notion that Christians did not need to believe in climate change because the apocalypse would come soon; most Christians who are climate skeptics feel that climate change belief stems from hubris about the knowability of the world, or is a form of Marxism. Other research suggests that there is not a natural fit between Evangelical Christianity and anti-environmentalism, given that US Evangelicals have held a close spiritual relationship to nature since the early nineteenth century (Grainger 2019). Altogether, Evangelical Christianity plays a role in climate denialism, but probably more as a marker of group identity tied with other political or social beliefs (Veldman 2019; Berry 2020 ; Kahan et al. 2011 ; Barker & Bearce 2013).
Disinformation campaigns have led to climate skepticism in certain sectors of society, but it is worth reiterating that the majority of Americans believe in anthropogenic climate change and think that it is time to act. According to a 2020 Yale Climate Change Communications report, while 73% of Americans believe in global warming only 62% think it is caused by people’s actions (Leiserowitz et al. 2020). A report by Krosnick and MacInnis (2020), found that most Americans support some green initiatives, for instance the practice of carbon pricing whereby private industry is held financially responsible for their emissions. Most Americans are interested in renewables, such as moving away from fossil fuels to water, wind, and solar for electricity generation.
Evolution of Tactics: Social Media
The “climate denial machine” funded by conservative foundations in the twentieth century has been amplified on social media platforms (Dunlap & McCright 2012; Vicario et al. 2016; Treen, Williams & O’Neill 2020). The proportion of Americans receiving their environmental news from social media has jumped in the past few years, stressing how the evolving new media landscape has contributed to the spread of climate denialism (Hansen 2018 , Pew 2018 ). Platforms currently have limited capacities for stopping climate disinformation, although evidence suggests that they are awakening to the issue. As users engage with information about climate change online, they can spread conspiracy theories and other inflammatory content; through this process they ultimately fuel disinformation (Donovan 2020).
Before September 2020, Meta (formerly Facebook), classified anthropogenic climate change as an opinion and excused it from typical fact-checking procedures (Penney 2020 , Smith 2021). The platform’s limited oversight of climate science has allowed mis- and disinformation to spread. For example, CBS News reported that a 2016 analysis of popular climate Facebook posts found misinformation about climate change to be the most circulated. Another 2020 report found that 51 climate denial advertisements had been viewed at least 8 million times on Facebook that year in the US—most of them had been funded by conservative organizations (Ivanova 2020 ; InfluenceMap 2020 ). While Meta’s latest policies require informational labels on climate change posts, like warning labels on misinformation, it is too soon to know if they will be effective. The company’s plans for expansion into the “metaverse” raise further questions about its ability to curb disinformation online. Andrew Bosworth, Meta’s new CTO, stated in 2022 that content moderation in the metaverse “at any meaningful scale is practically impossible” (Frenkel & Browning, 2021 ). While Meta is changing on paper, there appears to be a gulf between policy and reality.
Meta is not a lone spreader of climate mis- and disinformation. According to a 2020 Friends of the Earth report , the number of mappable Twitter accounts—meaning the accounts where we can trace their network of interactions and engagements on the platform—active in spreading climate denial content is small, but has outsized influence. These accounts are prolific and have significantly more tweets relative to their group size and the pro-climate science mappable group of accounts. In a network map, the climate denial group was politically right-leaning (Khoo & Ryan 2020 ).
YouTube promotes climate denial propaganda through their “Up Next” video recommendation algorithms and monetization program. A report by Avaaz (2020) found that when watching videos YouTube’s algorithm suggested for “global warming,” the promoted “up next” videos were rife with climate disinformation— approximately 16% of the top 100 recommended.
Misinformation, up until recently, was also monetized through YouTube’s payment scheme, in which advertisers pay a fee to content creators if their ad runs on their video. This means that large companies who ran ads on climate misinformation videos, such as Samsung and Warner Bros., effectively paid the climate denial community to spread their content. YouTube announced in October 2021 it will prohibit ads on climate disinformation videos. However, content moderation on platforms has been inconsistent, and therefore it remains to be determined how well this move will be enforced, and how effective it will be (Fischer 2021 ).
Platform architecture could play a role in how easily climate change mis- and disinformation spreads. Newer studies are exploring Reddit communities—previously untapped yet popular online for climate communications—and found that Reddit’s unique architecture might prevent polarized echo chambers (Treen et al. 2022). On social media platforms, echo chambers can create feedback loops of similar content, ultimately reinforcing content that could be mis- or disinformation. Another large sample study on Reddit found that climate change denialism was steadfast when confronted with opposing science and views, ultimately reinforcing it (Oswald & Bright 2022). While the platform architecture could be helpful in prevention, countering these denialist communities online shows less promise.
Ultimately, there are limitations to what can be known about climate change mis- and disinformation on social media platforms as platform companies do not always make data available to researchers. Also, as company policies and practices change so quickly, it is difficult to evaluate what is happening in the space. However, what has been evaluated by scholars indicates that inaccurate information about climate change spreads relatively unmoderated on social media. (Bloomfield & Tillery 2019; Koteyko, Jaspal & Nerlich 2013 ; Lewandowsky 2019; Lutzke et al. 2019 ; Pearce et al. 2018; Samantray & Pin 2019). Importantly, the percentage of climate denialists in the U.S. has not risen with the tide of social media platforms. Conspiracy theories and mis- and disinformation exist without social media, and we cannot say social media is making climate denialism worse on a purely numbers level. More research is needed to determine how social media content and interactions might impact the perception of climate change and how social media might be used advantageously for climate change activists or scientists for raising public awareness. Moving forward, we should consider where social media makes tried-and-true disinformation methods worse and explore how people’s awareness of climate change develops when it is mediated through social platforms.
Evolution of Tactics: Conspiracy Theories
Climate deniers’ tactics have evolved since the 1970s to encompass using conspiracy theories to attack climate change science, scientists, and pro-climate activists. In 2009, a server at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was hacked, and thousands of climate scientists’ emails were posted on the open web. The scandal, dubbed “Climategate,” by climate change denialists, allowed them to portray climate change as a conspiracy built on manipulated data. The scandal was picked up by news sources, and this amplification cast doubt on an international climate change mitigation conference taking place that year. Climategate is found to have reduced trust in climate change and scientists and stands as one of the more prominent examples of conspiracy theory-driven misinformation (Leiserowitz et al. 2013; Washington 2011 , p 43; Elgesem et al., 2015 ). Over the past decade, conspiracy theories have become a cornerstone of climate change denial. For example, the pro-climate activist Greta Thunberg has been slandered by conspiracy theories ranging from her mental ability to being a puppet for others, which began on Twitter and Reddit before circulating on the open web to conservative sites like Daily Wire or PJ Media (Dave et al. 2020 , Graphika 2020 ).
A case study for examining how conspiracy theories work in practice is the circulation of memes, which are one of the most common ways that climate change denial spreads online. A 2020 report from First Draft found thousands of climate conspiracy posts on Instagram, owned by Meta, missing a label identifying them as disinformation. Memes made up 80% of the report’s dataset. First Draft found that the top fifty most-engaged-with memes could be found on 82 other platforms, like Pinterest (Smith 2021). Image-heavy and laced with humor and irony, memes go beyond mere jokes and are strategically used in common climate change denialists’ arguments that seek to emphasize the hypocrisy of pro-climate movements and people (Boykoff & Goodman 2009; Ross & Rivers 2019). They are also excellent vehicles for conspiratorial thinking and are found to suppress productive civil discourse online (Woods & Hahner 2019 ; Smith 2021). Ross and Rivers (2019) found memes furthering climate denialism in repetitive templates like “Condescending Wonka”; for example, one meme of this type says, “So you believe in man-made climate change and you still drive a car, interesting” overlaying a picture of Willy Wonka smiling knowingly. Also, as they are images, memes can avoid typical AI content moderation that focuses on text, underscoring the need for research on their dissemination and reach, as well as the development of more effective content moderation (Smith 2021).
Climate conspiracies are also gaining traction in response to local events and natural disasters. For example, in response to the U.S.’s catastrophic fire season in 2020, a conspiracy campaign circulated on social media tying the fires to “Antifa” arsonists (Cameron 2020 ). The campaign reached such entrenchment in Oregon, for example, that Facebook deleted posts, and the Portland FBI publicly stated it was misinformation. This wildfire conspiracy was also circulated by QAnon-sympathetic accounts, indicating a growing interest by the conspiracy group in climate denialism. Leading up to 2020, QAnon accounts started sharing climate misinformation, and climate denial influencers began interacting with the QAnon social media community through hashtags or by giving credence to QAnon conspiracies online (Graphika 2020; Lasky & Korenha 2020 ).
Conspiracies that climate change is a hoax, communist plot, or the next step towards totalitarianism contains rhetoric that isn’t exclusively Republican Party talking points, extending their sphere of influence (Uscinski & Olivella 2017 ). Research suggests that the climate hoaxes and conspiracies affect the mindset of individuals outside of the conservative party, notably individuals who identify as party-independents (Uscinski & Olivella 2017). U.S. Republicans, who are deeply influenced by cues from their prominent Republican politicians, are more susceptible to anti-climate change conspiracy endorsements than Democrats (Saunders 2017 ). Regardless of party affiliation, exposure to climate conspiracy theories—even brief encounters—has been linked to a decrease of pro-environmental behaviors and an increase in feeling uncertain on the issue (Jolley & Douglas 2014 ; Van Der Linden 2015 ).
The use of conspiracy theories by climate deniers highlights how mis- and disinformation on the topic is persisting, enabled by new technology, and how anti- environmental groups are evolving strategies and aligning with like-minded movements to match our contemporary socio-political life.
Ideological Entrenchment
Due to decades of effort on the part of denialists, U.S. conservatives remain strongly resistant to believing in climate change, and this effect has only been bolstered by social media. Yet leaving technological affordances aside, what accounts for the persistence of climate change denial? Scholars have examined the issue through various scholarly lenses, such as psychology, anthropology, and political science; this work suggests that the issue cannot be narrowly encapsulated by one theory or element. Much of the work done so far has been interested in explanations relying on identity threats to distinct identities, like religious ones, and differing community levels of trust in media for news, scientific facts and the scientists performing the studies themselves, and politicians as credible sources of moral and policy guidance.
As we have already seen, one indicator of climate denialism’s persistence is its strong association with political identity. In a way that is distinct from other kinds of scientific misinformation, like vaccine skepticism, rejection of the climate science consensus has from the start become a hallmark of American conservatism and conservative identity (McCright & Dunlap 2011; Fischer 2019). Collomb ( 2014 ) argues that for the conservative movement, rejecting climate change is a matter of ideological survival. A cornerstone of the U.S. conservative platform is an opposition to government regulation that would limit consumption, which is seen as an indicator of success and expanding economic prosperity. Therefore, government regulation of the fossil fuel industries, policies such as a carbon tax, and policies that would incentivize citizens towards sustainable consumption patterns are antithetical to conservative core beliefs.
Scholars understand the entrenchment of climate change denialism among conservatives via the phenomenon of “motivated reasoning,” in which people are motivated to accept or reject certain information that aligns with their existing belief system and values. Accepting climate change would entail accepting a re-shuffling of economic and social orders, which is antithetical to traditional conservative identity (Hart & Nisbet 2012 ; Kahan 2016 ; Bardon 2019; Hornsey 2020). To demonstrate this, Saunders (2017) observes that the term “global warming” threatens the identity of Republicans more than “climate change” as it sounds all-encompassing. In a survey, Saunders found that Republicans were more likely to deny global warming is happening rather than climate change—despite them colloquially meaning the same thing.
Yet not all scholars are on board with the motivated reasoning model. Druckman and McGrath ( 2019 ) argue climate denialism can be more accurately explained by the fact that individuals hold differing levels of trust in source materials. Their research suggests that climate skepticism in certain groups is due to a lack of perceived credibility in climate change information, such as if a scientific claim seems like it has a political slant or is intended to further an agenda. At its worst, an individual who believes the scientific claim had an ulterior motive could spread this belief online, starting a new conspiracy theory. Druckman and McGrath suggest that accurate climate change information should come from a group’s trusted sources, such as religious or community leaders, rather than individuals or organizations who are outsiders.
Another theory that explains the success of climate denialism is “elite framing,” trading on the notion that constituents trust their preferred politicians’ opinion on the topic rather than from their own communities (Tesler 2018; Saunders 2017). Since polarization of the topic is indisputable (see: Guber 2013 ; Collomb 2014; McCright & Dunlap 2011; Fischer 2019), elite framing broadly builds on this already established relationship. A study by Brule, Carmichael, and Jenkins ( 2012 ) found that the words and actions of leading politicians were more effective in guiding climate opinions than extreme weather events, access to scientific information, and media coverage. Saunders (2017) also found that Republicans are particularly prone to believing climate change mis- and disinformation in the form of elite framing.
However, the politicization of climate change cannot fully account for the widespread adoption of climate skepticism. In many ways, accepting the reality of climate change and its consequences is an existential threat: it requires that most Americans accept that their current way of life, and capitalism as we know it, will need to drastically alter in the coming decades. This realization presents major obstacles in promoting the acceptance of climate change, even outside of how it interacts with partisan identity. Feygina et al. ( 2010 ) point out that as people we have an “epistemic need to maintain a sense of certainty and stability” that inclines us to defend the status quo, which in this case is a world not existentially threatened by climate change. Interestingly, they note that this is even the case for people who are disadvantaged under the existing status quo, which could explain the embrace of climate denial by low-income communities actively underserved by the existing market system.
The notion that Americans have an anti-intellectual streak that transcends partisanship has also been proposed as an explanation for the persistence of climate denial. Merkley’s ( 2020 ) survey of thousands of Americans found a link between disbelief and a mistrust of experts like scientists, especially when a fact had a strong scientific consensus behind it—like climate change does. These findings are unique; they add to the picture of climate change rejection in the U.S. by exploring aspects of American political and social life that are distinct from consumerism and pro-small government views. As we see with other forms of scientific misinformation, the continued denigration of expertise and experts in society aids the spread of climate misinformation (Bennet & Livingston 2018 ; Elsasser & Dunlap 2013 ).
Merkley’s study went further: he found a causal chain that suggested populism, or populist rhetoric, affects an individual’s ability to properly process and accept scientific studies and scientific consensus. He dubbed this pattern “anti-intellectualism,” following twentieth-century historian Richard Hofstadter’s influential 1964 study. In short, a rise in populism breeds anti-intellectualism, whereby anti-intellectualism moderates an individual’s ability to accept—or in this instance not accept—anthropogenic climate change (Merkley 2020). This link between populism, anti-intellectualism, and climate change denialism is particularly pertinent considering that many consider this the “age of populism” as its presence is increasing in the U.S., Europe, and other industrial nations globally (Berman 2021). Climate misinformation could be a long- chain symptom of populist sentiments. A more thorough understanding of the links between populism, anti-intellectualism, and climate change globally will help inform the push to build international coalitions against climate change.
Anthropogenic climate change denialism’s staying power in American society, predominantly within conservative groups, has a harrowing history and prospect. Its deep entrenchment with identity, notably around American “values,” makes it hard to tease apart and affect pro-climate change behavior from these groups. Probing this complexity is critical, and further research on reducing polarization and the rise of populism in the current U.S. political landscape would be a particularly relevant route of inquiry.
Combating Climate Denialism
Given the scope of the problem, what can be done? How can activists, policymakers, and the media effectively combat climate related disinformation, restore trust in scientific institutions, and bolster acceptance of knowledge about climate change? These questions sit at the center of an emerging, and challenging, area of inquiry. As we have previously explored in this literature review, climate denialism is a highly politicized issue in the American party system and information ecosystem (also see: Chinn et al. 2020 ). Researchers have been exploring ways to mitigate climate denial by using deliberate communication strategies that might help avoid charged partisan language.
Rhetorical changes, such as avoiding the term “climate change” in favor of phrases like “economic development” or “public health” have been shown to help de-politicize climate policy (Myers et al. 2012 ; Weathers & Kendall 2015 ; Romsdahl et al. 2019 ). Romsdahl et al. surveyed 232 local governments in the conservative Great Plains—defined in the study as: Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, North & South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas—and found that many local governments framed green initiatives without invoking the term “climate change,” instead choosing language based on shared values or related issues such as economic efficiency, stewardship/creation care, or sustainability; when framed this way, these projects garnered greater public support (Romsdahl et al. 2019, Romsdahl 2020 ).
How to frame climate communication is a broad problem facing the field, extending beyond the politicization of the issue. Public opinion polls demonstrate that US audiences of print and broadcast media want more coverage of climate change, and think that they are not well informed on the issue (Gustafson et al, 2020 ). Yet experience has shown that this content needs to avoid inciting a backlash by viewers, regardless of their political beliefs. Research has found that negative, fearful rhetoric about climate change from traditional media sources causes viewer apathy. There is also a perception among viewers that traditional news sources sensationalize extreme weather and climate coverage, undermining their credibility (Whitmarsh 2008; Kaltenbacher & Drews 2020 ). Considering that the alternative is a stew of misinformation found online, a critical question for researchers and media organizations is how to create informative news from reputable sources.
While some media coverage in the space is insufficient, new communication methods that use games, humor, and fiction to alter knowledge and attitudes towards climate change have grown in popularity. Research has shown that games can help users to identify misinformation later (Basol et al. 2020 ), and gamification resilience testing has been growing as a possibility to combat climate denialism. For example, the game Cranky Uncle teaches players about critical thinking, building their resistance to climate misinformation. Humor can also alter perceptions and behaviors on climate change while avoiding fear or shock; for example, late night TV-hosts have held segments educating their viewers on climate change through satire and jokes. That being said, studies on the efficacy of this type of climate messaging has shown mixed results (Feldman 2017 ; Vraga et al. 2019 ; Kaltenbacher & Drews 2020). A potential new pathway for climate science communication is fiction; novels and stories that highlight the effects of climate change in the stories they tell. One study suggests that reading fiction about climate change can increase readers’ perceived importance of climate change (Schneider-Mayerson et al. 2020 ).
A strategy for mitigating misinformation known as “inoculation” is gaining support among climate communication scholars and scientists. Inoculation is a preventative method whereby an individual is pre-exposed to climate denial information (Van der Linden et al. 2015b , Cook et al. 2016; Van der Linden et al. 2017 ). Researchers testing the strategy suggest that it is possible to “inoculate” people against climate change disinformation, or “pre-bunk” false claims against climate change, in two ways. One aspect of the strategy involves highlighting the extent of scientific consensus on the topic; a second aspect involves preventatively exposing individuals to specific false claims in order to debunk them. Cook (2016) also argues that the inoculation strategy is more efficient than just traditional “debunking” of problematic information that occurs after a viewer has already been exposed to it. In debunking, many people resist the influence of new, true ideas because they have already become convinced by false information; this is called the “continued influence effect” (Cook 2016; Lewandowsky et al. 2012 ).
With more Americans over the past few years becoming concerned with climate change, there’s the potential to engage with people whose opinions could shift. Instead of focusing on the resolute denialists, policymakers could focus on the moveable ones. Yale’s Global Warming’s Six Americas report ( 2021 ) visualizes this through a spectrum of six distinct groups that range from climate change belief to denialism. The “cautious” and “disengaged” groups sit roughly in the middle of this spectrum, and might hold the most potential to be swayed into anthropogenic climate change beliefs out of other denialist groups (Leiserowitz et al. 2022). Furthermore, when changing hearts and minds, studies have found that discussing personal values in intimate conversations can be effective in swaying denialists into believers. In comparison, conversations that strictly focused on discussing the facts of climate change were less persuasive (van Swol et al. 2021 ; Bloomfield et al. 2020). Connecting with skeptics and changing their opinions was more influenced by interpersonal connection than science.
Policymakers can also adopt smarter strategies for communicating about climate change. Van Der Linden et al. ( 2015a ) argue that there are five main ways to improve policy makers’ public engagement with climate change. They advise: contextualizing climate change’s current and localized risk to individuals; using local community norms for messaging; helping with engagement; outlining how their policies have social good if quickly enacted; and making ethical appeals for conservation. Weber & Stern ( 2011 ) emphasize that “non-persuasive communication,” where the focus is on improving climate change understanding generally rather than promoting a specific policy, is also valuable for encouraging pro-environmental policy sentiments.
Next Steps for Research and Policy
Significant scholarly attention to the history of anti-climate propaganda production has made clear who are the producers of climate denial, who is influenced by these messages, and why climate denial persists. At present, researchers are coalescing around the question “what now?”
A large portion of the research on climate denialism focuses on the United States. This is understandable seeing that for a time, climate denial and skepticism appeared to be an American phenomenon heavily concentrated among U.S. conservatives. However, this has not remained true—particularly in places like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia (Buchholz 2020 ). As high resource-extraction countries, the former a petrostate and the latter the primary global supplier of palm oil, this economic connection might be an explanation for denialism, but researchers are not yet certain. An international comparative approach might be necessary to understand local circumstances (Björnberg et al. 2017). While authors such as Krange, Kaltenborn, & Hultman ( 2019 ) have profiled non-U.S. centric climate denial, an expanded focus on the local characteristics of anti-climate change sentiment across the globe seems warranted, especially due to the recent global rise in populist movements. In the U.S. and in Europe, populist movements have also included negative attitudes towards mitigating climate change, which suggests that more research is needed to see if the link between populism and climate-change denial holds true globally.
Escalating partisan polarization in the current U.S. political system and media is contributing to the intensity of climate change denialism as a secondary effect (Dunlap, McCright & Yarosh 2016; Chinn et al. 2020). Continuing to research solutions to the polarization conundrum would thereby also decrease climate change denialism substantially. Some research has started tracking whether specific examples of pro-climate policy explanations have caused an increase or decrease in denialism, and further research would prove useful (Fisher, Waggle & Leifeld 2012).
On a broad scale, climate deniers might be swayed as more people experience climate upheaval first-hand, such as large wildfires and extreme flooding. Research that evaluates the relationship of altered weather patterns to shifts in public opinion could illuminate a connection. An extreme weather event could serve as a case study about how direct experience affects public opinion: researchers would have the opportunity to study local media coverage in the wake of the event, local politicians’ responses, and community organizing efforts. Climate change activists and social scientists could also learn from these case studies to develop new pathways to belief for at-risk communities.
Another path forward would be to consider policy interventions that are tailored to the communities that are most likely to hold anti-climate change beliefs. The demographics of climate deniers in the United States are relatively clear, with distinct cultural, economic, historical, and social reasons to explain the persistence of their beliefs. Further research into what could decouple political conservatism and climate change denialism would prove useful as well. Most of the U.S. population believes in climate change, so respectful and sensitive intervention strategies to combat denialism should reflect the distinct questions and beliefs of these minority communities.
How people understand the issue of climate change is pivotal to how they will react to it. When misinformation obstructs this understanding, it prevents clear-eyed judgements about the world and can block a movement toward transformative environmental policies from political representatives and business leaders. While climate change skepticism is decreasing in America, it is far from eradicated, and still exerts considerable political force. Finding ways to convince people that climate change exists is a great challenge but vital to ensure a healthy planet.
The author wishes to thank Adriana DiSilvestro for her contributions to the article. Any opinions expressed in this article are the author’s only, and not any public or private entities.
Works Cited
Bardon, A. (2019). The Truth About Denial: Bias and Self-Deception in Science, Politics, and Religion. In The Truth About Denial. Oxford University Press. https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190062262.001.000 1/oso-9780190062262
Bardon, A. (2020). Faith and politics mix to drive evangelical Christians’ climate change denial. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/faith-and-politics-mix-to-drive-evangelical-christians-climate-change-denial-143145
Barker, D. C., & Bearce, D. H. (2013). End-Times Theology, the Shadow of the Future, and Public Resistance to Addressing Global Climate Change. Political Research Quarterly, 66(2), 267–279.
Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J., & Linden, S. van der. (2020). Good News about Bad News: Gamified Inoculation Boosts Confidence and Cognitive Immunity Against Fake News. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.91
Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118760317
Berman, S. (2021) The Causes of Populism in the West, Annual Review of Political Science, 24, 71-88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102503
Björnberg, K. E., Karlsson, M., Gilek, M., & Hansson, S. O. (2017). Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.066
Bloomfield, E. F., & Tillery, D. (2019). The Circulation of Climate Change Denial Online: Rhetorical and Networking Strategies on Facebook. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1527378
Bloomfield, E. F., Van Swol, L. M., Chang, C.-T., Willes, S., & Ahn, P. H. (2020). The Effects of Establishing Intimacy and Consubstantiality on Group Discussions About Climate Change Solutions. Science Communication, 42(3), 369 394. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1075547020927017
Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
Boykoff, M. and Goodman, M. (2009). Conspicuous redemption? Reflections on the promises and perils of the ‘Celebritization’ of climate change. Geoforum, 40(3), 395-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.04.006
Bricker, Brett Jacob (2013) Climategate: A Case Study in the Intersection of Facticity and Conspiracy Theory, Communication Studies, 64:2, 218-239, DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2012.749294
Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, J. C. (2012). Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Climatic Change, 114(2), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012- 0403-y
Buchholz, K. (2020, December 3). Infographic: Where Climate Change Deniers Live. Statista Infographics. https://www.statista.com/chart/19449/countries-with-biggest-share-of- climate-change-deniers/
Cameron, D. (2020, September 11). Debunked “Antifa” Wildfire Rumors Spread on Facebook Overload 911, Spur Calls to Violence. Gizmodo. https://gizmodo.com/debunked-antifa- wildfire-rumors-spread-on-facebook-over-1845029629
Chinn, S., Hart, P. S., & Soroka, S. (2020). Politicization and Polarization in Climate Change News Content, 1985-2017. Science Communication, 42(1), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1075547019900290
Cloud, Doug (2020) “The Corrupted Scientist Archetype and Its Implications for Climate Change Communication and Public Perceptions of Science”, Environmental Communication , DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2020.1741420
Coan, T. G., Boussalis, C., Cook, J., & Nanko, M. O. (2021). Computer-assisted classification of contrarian claims about climate change. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 22320. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01714-4
Collomb, J.-D. (2014). The Ideology of Climate Change Denial in the United States. European journal of American studies, 9(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.4000/ejas.10305
Cook, J. (2016, October 26). Countering Climate Science Denial and Communicating Scientific Consensus. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.314
Cook, J. (2019). Understanding and Countering Misinformation About Climate Change. In I. E. Chiluwa & S. A. Samoilenko (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Deception, Fake News, and Misinformation Online (pp. 281–306). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8535-0.ch016
Cook, J., & Washington, H. (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. Earthscan. https://www.routledge.com/Climate-Change-Denial-Heads-in-the-Sand/Washington- Cook/p/book/9781849713368
Dave, A., Boardman Ndulue, E., Schwartz-Henderson, L., & Weiner, E. (2020, July 22). Targeting Greta Thunberg: A Case Study in Online Mis/Disinformation. The German Marshall Fund of the United States. https://www.gmfus.org/publications/targeting-greta-thunberg-case-study-online-misdisinformation
De Witte, M. (2018, July 16). Poll shows consensus for climate policy remains strong. Stanford News. https://news.stanford.edu/2018/07/16/poll-shows-consensus-climate-policy-remains-strong/
Donovan, J. (2020). Deconstruction Disinformation’s Threat to Democracy. The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 44(1), 153-160. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48599286
Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019). The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nature Climate Change, 9(2), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1
Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2011, August 18). Organized Climate Change Denial. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.003.0010
Dunlap, R., & McCright, A. M. (2012). Organized Climate Change Denial. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, 144–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.003.0010
Elgesem, D., Steskal, L., & Diakopoulos, N. (2015). Structure and Content of the Discourse on Climate Change in the Blogosphere: The Big Picture. Environmental Communication, 9(2), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.983536
Elsasser, S. W., & Dunlap, R. E. (2012). Leading Voices in the Denier Choir: Conservative Columnists’ Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science—Shaun W. Elsasser, Riley E. Dunlap, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212469800
Facebook Downs Inauthentic Cluster Inspired by QAnon (Takedown, pp. 1–19). (2020). Graphika. https://graphika.com/reports/facebook-downs-inauthentic-cluster-inspired-by- qanon/
Farmer, G. T., & Cook, J. (2013). Understanding Climate Change Denial. In G. T. Farmer & J. Cook (Eds.), Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Vol. Volume 1-The Physical Climate (pp. 445–466). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5757- 8_23
FBI Portland. (2020, September 11). Reports that extremists are setting wildfires in Oregon are untrue. Help us stop the spread of misinformation by only sharing information from trusted, official sources. https://t.co/ENc4c3kjep [Tweet]. @FBIPortland. https://twitter.com/FBIPortland/status/1304485033210769409
Feldman, L. (2017, June 16). Assumptions About Science in Satirical News and Late-Night Comedy. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.35
Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System Justification, the Denial of Global Warming, and the Possibility of “System-Sanctioned Change.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209351435
Fisher, D. R., Waggle, J., & Leifeld, P. (2013). Where Does Political Polarization Come From? Locating Polarization Within the U.S. Climate Change Debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1), 70–92. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0002764212463360
Fischer, F. (2019). Knowledge politics and post-truth in climate denial: On the social construction of alternative facts. Critical Policy Studies, 13(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2019.1602067
Fischer, S. (2021, October 7). Google, YouTube to prohibit ads and monetization on climate denial content. Axios. https://www.axios.com/google-youtube-climate-change-734f2b05-40e2-4e05-9100-39de589b3b0a.html
Grasso, M. (2019). Oily politics: A critical assessment of the oil and gas industry’s contribution to climate change. Energy Research & Social Science, 50, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.11.017
Guber, D. L. (2013). A Cooling Climate for Change? Party Polarization and the Politics of Global Warming. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(1), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212463361
Gustafson, A., Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Kotcher, J., Rosenthal, S. A., & Goldberg, M. H. (2020). Climate Change in the Minds of U.S. News Audiences [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/95tsr
Hamilton, L. C., Hartter, J., Lemcke-Stampone, M., Moore, D. W., & Safford, T. G. (2015). Tracking Public Beliefs About Anthropogenic Climate Change. PLOS ONE, 10(9), e0138208. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138208
Hansen, A. (2018). Environment, media and communication. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781317231639
Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. (20112012). Boomerang Effects in Science Communication: How Motivated Reasoning and Identity Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization About Climate Mitigation Policies. Communication Research, 6(39), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
Heimlich, R. (2011, December 2). White Evangelical Protestants and the Partisan Divide. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2011/12/02/white-evangelical- protestants-and-the-partisan-divide/
Hornsey, M. J. (2020). Why Facts Are Not Enough: Understanding and Managing the Motivated Rejection of Science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(6), 583–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420969364
Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., & Fielding, K. S. (2018). Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations. Nature Climate Change, 8(7), 614–620. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0157-2
Howe, P., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015) “Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA,” Nature Climate Change . DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2583.
InfluenceMap. (2020, October). Climate Change and Digital Advertising. https://influencemap.org/report/Climate-Change-and-Digital-Advertising-86222daed29c6f49ab2da76b0df15f76
IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.
IPCC, & Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III. (2014). AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014 (No. 5). IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
Ivanova, I. (2020, September 16). Environmentalists pan Facebook’s new climate change hub. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-climate-change-denial-information-center/
Jacques, P. J., Dunlap, R. E., & Freeman, M. (2008). The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, 17(3), 349–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010802055576
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014). The social consequences of conspiracism: Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases intentions to engage in politics and to reduce one’s carbon footprint. British Journal of Psychology, 105(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12018
Kahan, D. M. (2015). In Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. In R. A. Scott, M. Kosslyn, & M. Buchmann (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource (pp. 1–16). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118900772
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
Kaltenbacher, M., & Drews, S. (2020). An Inconvenient Joke? A Review of Humor in Climate Change Communication. Environmental Communication, 14(6), 717–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1756888
Khoo, M., & Ryan, M. (2020, August 28). Climate, Clicks, Capitalism, and Conspiracists. Medium. https://foe-us.medium.com/climate-clicks-capitalism-and-crazies-a336640b47d
Koteyko, N., Jaspal, R., & Nerlich, B. (2013). Climate change and “climategate” in online reader comments: A mixed methods study. The Geographical Journal, 179(1), 74–86.
Krange, O., Kaltenborn, B. P., & Hultman, M. (2019). Cool dudes in Norway: Climate change denial among conservative Norwegian men. Environmental Sociology, 5(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2018.1488516
Lachapelle, P., & Albrecht, D. (Eds.). (2018). Public Opinion on Climate Change in Rural America. In Addressing Climate Change at the Community Level in the United States (pp. 33–49). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351211727
Lasky, N., & Korenha, M. (2020, September 28). Climate Deniers Turn to QAnon to Spread Misinformation. Our Daily Planet. https://www.ourdailyplanet.com/story/climate-deniers- turn-to-qanon-to-spread-misinformation/
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Ballew, M., Goldberg, M. H., & Gustafson, A. (2018). Climate Change in the American Mind: December 2018. Yale University and George Mason University. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-december-2018/
Leiserowitz, A. Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Neyens, L., Marlon, J., Carman, J., Lacroix, K., & Goldberg, M. (2022). Global Warming’s Six Americas, September 2021. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
Leiserowitz, A. A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., Smith, N., & Dawson, E. (2013). Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 818–837. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0002764212458272
Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Fay, N., & Gignac, G. E. (2019). Science by social media: Attitudes towards climate change are mediated by perceived social consensus. Memory & Cognition, 47(8), 1445–1456. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00948-y
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018
Lutzke, L., Drummond, C., Slovic, P., & Árvai, J. (2019). Priming critical thinking: Simple interventions limit the influence of fake news about climate change on Facebook. Global Environmental Change, 58, 101964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101964
Mann, M. E. (2021). New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet. PublicAffairs. Mason, Lilliana. (2018). Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1163–1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003
Merkley, E. (2019). Anti-Intellectualism, Anti-elitism, and Motivated Resistance to Expert Consensus [Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association]. University of British Columbia.
Merkley, E. (2020). Anti-Intellectualism, Populism, and Motivated Resistance to Expert Consensus. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(1), 24–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz053
Metcalfe, J. (2015, April 7). Which States Have the Most Climate Change Skeptics? Bloomberg.com. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-07/these-maps-show-which-u-s-states-have-the-most-climate-change-skeptics
Milman, O., & Harvey, F. (2019, May 8). US is hotbed of climate change denial, major global survey finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/07/us- hotbed-climate-change-denial-international-poll
Myers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach, E. W., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 113(3), 1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6
Olson-Hazboun, S. K., & Howe, P. D. (2018). Public Opinion on Climate Change in Rural America: A Potential Barrier to Resilience. In P. Lachapelle & D. Albrecht (Eds.), Addressing Climate Change at the Community Level in the United States (pp. 34–50). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351211727-3/public-opinion-climate-change-rural-america-shawn-olson-hazboun-peter-howe
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change (Reprint edition). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Oswald, L., Bright, J. (2022) How Do Climate Change Skeptics Engage with Opposing Views Online? Evidence from a Major Climate Change Skeptic Forum on Reddit, Environmental Communication, DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2022.2071314
Painter, J., & Ashe, T. (2012). Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10. 7(4), 044005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/7/4/044005
Pearce, W., Niederer, S., Özkula, S. M., & Sánchez Querubín, N. (2018). The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries. WIREs Climate Change, 10(2), e569. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.569
Penney, V. (2020, September 14). How Facebook Handles Climate Disinformation—The New York Times. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/climate/climate-facebook-fact-checking.html
Pew Research Center. (2020, June 23). Two-Thirds of Americans Think Government Should Do More on Climate. Pew Research Center Science & Society. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think- government-should-do-more-on-climate/
Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright & Jerrod H. Yarosh (2016) The Political Divide on Climate Change: Partisan Polarization Widens in the U.S., Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58:5, 4-23, DOI: 10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995
Romsdahl, R. J. (2020). Deliberative framing: Opening up discussions for local-level public engagement on climate change. Climatic Change, 162(2), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02754-x
Romsdahl, R. J., Wood, R. S., Harsell, D. M., & Hultquist, A. (2019). Framing local climate change policies in the US Great Plains. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(6), 734–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1673154
Ross, A. and Rivers, D. (2019). Internet Memes, Media Frames, and the Conflicting Logics of Climate Change Discourse, Environmental Communication, 13(7), 975-994, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1560347
Samantray, A., & Pin, P. (2019). Credibility of climate change denial in social media. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0344-4
Saunders, K. L. (2017). The impact of elite frames and motivated reasoning on beliefs in a global warming conspiracy: The promise and limits of trust. Research & Politics, 4(3), 2053168017717602. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017717602
Schäfer, M. S. (2015). Climate Change and the Media. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition) (pp. 853–859). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.91079-1
Schneider-Mayerson, M., Gustafson, A., Leiserowitz, A., Goldberg, M. H., Rosenthal, S. A., & Ballew, M. (2020). Environmental Literature as Persuasion: An Experimental Test of the Effects of Reading Climate Fiction. Environmental Communication, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1814377
Sîrbu, A., Pedreschi, D., Giannotti, F., & Kertész, J. (2019). Algorithmic bias amplifies opinion fragmentation and polarization: A bounded confidence model. PLOS ONE, 14(3), e0213246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213246
Tesler, M. (2017). Elite Domination of Public Doubts About Climate Change (Not Evolution): Political Communication: Vol 35, No 2. 35(2), 306–326. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1380092
Treen, K. M., Williams, H. T. P., & O’Neill, S. J. (2020, A). Online misinformation about climate change. WIREs Climate Change, 11(5), e665. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.665
Treen, K., Williams, H. T. P., & O’Neill, S. (2020, B). How climate change misinformation spreads online. Carbon Brief. https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-change-misinformation-spreads-online
Treen, K., Williams, H.T.P., O’Neill, S., Coan, T.G. (2022) Discussion of Climate Change on Reddit: Polarized Discourse or Deliberative Debate?, Environmental Communication, DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2022.2050776
Uscinski, J. E., & Olivella, S. (2017). The conditional effect of conspiracy thinking on attitudes toward climate change. Research & Politics, 4(4), 2053168017743105. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017743105
Van der Linden, S. (2015). The conspiracy-effect: Exposure to conspiracy theories (about global warming) decreases pro-social behavior and science acceptance. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 171–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.045
Van der Linden, S., Leizerowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2015 B). The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence. PLoS ONE, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
Van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015 A). Improving Public Engagement With Climate Change: Five “Best Practice” Insights From Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 10(6), 758–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615598516
Veldman, R. G. (2019). The Gospel of Climate Skepticism: Why Evangelical Christians Oppose Action on Climate Change (1st ed.). University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvpb3zdh
Van Swol, L. M., Bloomfield, E. F., Chang, C.-T., & Willes, S. (2021). Fostering climate change consensus: The role of intimacy in group discussions. Public Understanding of Science, 09636625211020661. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F09636625211020661
Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., et al. (2016). The spreading of misinformation. PNAS, 113(3), 554-559. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113
Vraga, E. K., Kim, S. C., & Cook, J. (2019). Testing Logic-based and Humor-based Corrections for Science, Health, and Political Misinformation on Social Media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63(3), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2019.1653102
Walter, S., Brüggemann, M., & Engesser, S. (2018). Echo Chambers of Denial: Explaining User Comments on Climate Change. Environmental Communication, 12(2), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394893
Washington, H., & Cook, J. (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. Routledge.
Weathers, M. R., & Kendall, B. E. (2016). Developments in the Framing of Climate Change as a Public Health Issue in US Newspapers. Environmental Communication, 10(5), 593–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1050436
Weber, E. U., & Stern, P. C. (2011). Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66(4), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023253
Whitmarsh, L. (2009). What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming.” Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506073088
Whitmarsh, L. (2011). Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 690–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.016
Why is YouTube Broadcasting Climate Misinformation to Millions? (pp. 1–66). (2020). https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/youtube_climate_misinformation/
Woods, H. S., & Hahner, L. A. (2019). Make America Meme Again: The Rhetoric of the Alt-Right (New edition). Peter Lang Inc., International Academic Publishers.
Zaleha, B. D., & Szasz, A. (2015). Why conservative Christians don’t believe in climate change. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 71(5), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340215599789
Zhang, B., van der Linden, S., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J. R., Howe, P. D., & Leiserowitz, A. (2018). Experimental effects of climate messages vary geographically. Nature Climate Change, 8(5), 370–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0122-0
Table of Contents
Internet Explorer lacks support for the features of this website. For the best experience, please use a modern browser such as Chrome, Firefox, or Edge.

Literature Review of Climate Change Impacts on Pacific Salmon and Steelhead
Environmental changes acting on salmon are not just from temperature change but from a number of physical changes in freshwater and ocean habitat.
Environmental changes acting on salmon are not just from temperature change but from a number of physical changes in freshwater and ocean habitat. These changes affect both habitat and food availability.
Environmental contaminants are increasing, along with changes in the abundance and distribution of species that compete with or prey on salmon. As salmon populations change in size or hatcheries breed selectively, genetic variability in salmon populations changes too. These are all drivers of change in salmon.
Salmon respond to climate change through behavior, morphology (body shape), growth rates, performance, survival, and population growth rate or productivity. They may also adapt through timing shifts, as described for wild sockeye salmon
Run-timing Matters: Evolution, Plasticity, and Functional Extinction of Unique Pacific Salmon Populations
Salmon are exceptionally well studied relative to many other taxa. Therefore, an extensive literature documenting drivers and responses in salmon is available to help understand processes that are likely to affect many other species.
Thus, the literature on salmon provides a valuable case study of biological impacts of climate change more generally. To clarify what is known, we conduct annual literature reviews of studies addressing climate impacts on salmon, particularly salmon in the Pacific Northwest.

References
(Available from NWFSC Publications Database )
Crozier, L. G. 2011. Biological effects of climate change: literature review of 2010 citations for NMFS biological opinion. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington
Crozier, L. G. 2012. Biological effects of climate change: literature review of 2011 citations for NMFS biological opinion. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington
Crozier, L. G. 2013. Impacts of climate change on Columbia River salmon: a review of the scientific literature published in 2012. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington
Crozier, L. G., D. Dechant, K. Sullivan. 2014. Impacts of climate change on Columbia River salmon: a review of the scientific literature published in 2013. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington
Crozier, L. G. 2015. Impacts of climate change on salmon of the Pacific Northwest: a review of the scientific literature published in 2014. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington
Crozier, L. G. 2016. Impacts of climate change on salmon of the Pacific Northwest: a review of the scientific literature published in 2015. Report of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington
Crozier, L. G. 2017. Impacts of climate change on salmon of the Pacific Northwest: a review of the scientific literature published in 2016. Butzerin, J. M. National Marine Fisheries Service , Seattle, Washington
Crozier, L. G., J. Siegel. 2018. Impacts of climate change on salmon of the Pacific Northwest: a review of the scientific literature published in 2017. National Marine Fisheries Service , Seattle, Washington
Siegel, J., L. G. Crozier. 2019. Impacts of climate change on salmon of the Pacific Northwest: a review of the scientific literature published in 2018. National Marine Fisheries Service , Seattle, Washington
Siegel, J., and L. G. Crozier. 2020. Impacts of Climate Change on Columbia River Salmon: A review of the scientific literature published in 2019. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. https://doi.org/10.25923/jke5-c307.

Recent News
Work with us.

Southern Residents Work Harder For Prey, But Catch Fewer Fish, New Research Finds

Unsettled Pacific Ocean Offers Surprises as Climate Change Alters Ecosystem

Last updated by Northwest Fisheries Science Center on September 07, 2022

2022 CalCOFI Summer Survey
2022 calcofi spring survey.

Collecting Data on Diverse West Coast Waters

Salmon on the High Seas: Unlocking the Mystery of Salmon in the North Pacific
- Open Access
- Published: 04 January 2021
Climate change and health in North America: literature review protocol
- Sherilee L. Harper ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7298-8765 1 ,
- Ashlee Cunsolo 2 ,
- Amreen Babujee 1 ,
- Shaugn Coggins 1 ,
- Mauricio Domínguez Aguilar 3 &
- Carlee J. Wright 1
Systematic Reviews volume 10 , Article number: 3 ( 2021 ) Cite this article
16k Accesses
7 Citations
10 Altmetric
Metrics details
Climate change is a defining issue and grand challenge for the health sector in North America. Synthesizing evidence on climate change impacts, climate-health adaptation, and climate-health mitigation is crucial for health practitioners and decision-makers to effectively understand, prepare for, and respond to climate change impacts on human health. This protocol paper outlines our process to systematically conduct a literature review to investigate the climate-health evidence base in North America.
A search string will be used to search CINAHL®, Web of Science™, Scopus®, Embase® via Ovid, and MEDLINE® via Ovid aggregator databases. Articles will be screened using inclusion/exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. First, the inclusion/exclusion criteria will be applied to article titles and abstracts, and then to the full articles. Included articles will be analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods.
This protocol describes review methods that will be used to systematically and transparently create a database of articles published in academic journals that examine climate-health in North America.
Peer Review reports
The direct and indirect impacts of climate change on human health continue to be observed globally, and these wide-ranging impacts are projected to continue to increase and intensify this century [ 1 , 2 ]. The direct climate change effects on health include rising temperatures, which increase heat-related mortality and morbidity [ 3 , 4 , 5 ], and increased frequency and intensity of storms, resulting in increased injury, death, and psychological stressors [ 2 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Indirect climate change impacts on health occur via altered environmental conditions, such as climate change impacts on water quality and quantity, which increase waterborne disease [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]; shifting ecosystems, which increase the risk of foodborne disease [ 14 , 15 , 16 ], exacerbate food and nutritional security [ 17 , 18 ], and change the range and distribution of vectors that cause vectorborne disease [ 19 , 20 ]; and place-based connections and identities, leading to psycho-social stressors and potential increases in negative mental health outcomes and suicide [ 6 , 8 ]. These wide-ranging impacts are not uniformly or equitably distributed: children, the elderly, those with pre-existing health conditions, those experiencing lower socio-economic conditions, women, and those with close connections to and reliance upon the local environment (e.g. Indigenous Peoples, farmers, fishers) often experience higher burdens of climate-health impacts [ 1 , 2 , 21 ]. Indeed, climate change impacts on human health not only are dependent on exposure to climatic and environmental changes, but also depend on climate change sensitivity and adaptive capacity—both of which are underpinned by the social determinants of health [ 1 , 22 , 23 ].
The inherent complexity, great magnitude, and widespread, inequitable, and intersectional distribution of climate change impacts on health present an urgent and grand challenge for the health sector this century [ 2 , 24 , 25 ]. Climate-health research and evidence is critical for informing effective, equitable, and timely adaptation responses and strategies. For instance, research continues to inform local to international climate change and health vulnerability and adaptation assessments [ 26 ]. However, to create evidence-based climate-health adaptation strategies, health practitioners, researchers, and policy makers must sift and sort through vast and often unmanageable amounts of information. Indeed, the global climate-health evidence base has seen exponential growth in recent years, with tens of thousands of articles published globally this century [ 22 , 25 , 27 , 28 ]. Even when resources are available to parse through the evidence base, the available research evidence may not be locally pertinent to decision-makers, may provide poor quality of evidence, may exclude factors important to decision-makers, may overlook temporal and geographical scales over which decision-makers have impact, and/or may not produce information in a timely manner [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ].
Literature reviews that utilize systematic methods present a tool to efficiently and effectively integrate climate-health information and provide data to support evidence-based decision-making. Furthermore, literature reviews that use systematic methods are replicable and transparent, reduce bias, and are ultimately intended to improve reliability and accuracy of conclusions. As such, systematic approaches to identify, explore, evaluate, and synthesize literature separates insignificant, less rigorous, or redundant literature from the critical and noteworthy studies that are worthy of exploration and consideration [ 38 ]. As such, a systematic approach to synthesizing the climate-health literature provides invaluable information and adds value to the climate-health evidence base from which decision-makers can draw from. Therefore, we aim to systematically and transparently create a database of articles published in academic journals that examine climate-health in North America. As such, we outline our protocol that will be used to systematically identify and characterize literature at the climate-health nexus in North America.
This protocol was designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines [ 39 , 40 ] and presented in accordance with the PRISMA-P checklist.
Research questions
Research on climate change and human health encompasses a diverse range of health outcomes, climate change exposures, populations, and study designs. Given the breadth and depth of information needed by health practitioners and decision-makers, a variety of research questions will be examined (Table 1 ).
Search strategy
The search strategy, including the search string development and selection of databases, was developed in consultation with a research librarian and members of the research team (SLH, AC, and MDA). The search string contains terms related to climate change [ 41 , 42 ], human health outcomes [ 1 , 25 , 43 , 44 ], and study location (Table 2 ). Given the interdisciplinary nature of the climate-health nexus and to ensure that our search is comprehensive, the search string will be used to search five academic databases:
CINAHL® will be searched to capture unique literature not found in other databases on common disease and injury conditions, as well as other health topics;
Web of Science™ will be searched to capture a wide range of multi-disciplinary literature;
Scopus® will be searched to capture literature related to medicine, technology, science, and social sciences;
Embase® via Ovid will be searched to capture a vast range of biomedical sciences journals; and
MEDLINE® via Ovid will be searched to capture literature on biomedical and health sciences.
No language restrictions will be placed on the search. Date restrictions will be applied to capture literature published on or after 01 January 2013, in order to capture literature published after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (which assessed literature accepted for publication prior to 31 August 2013). An initial test search was conducted on June 10, 2019, and updated on February 14, 2020; however, the search will be updated to include literature published within the most recent full calendar year prior to publication.
To explore the sensitivity of our search and capture any missed articles, (1) a snowball search will be conducted on the reference lists of all the literature that meet the inclusion criteria and (2) a hand search of three relevant disciplinary journals will be conducted:
Environmental Health Perspectives , an open access peer-reviewed journal that is a leading disciplinary journal within environmental health sciences;
The Lancet , a peer-reviewed journal that is the leading disciplinary journal within public health sciences; and
Climatic Change , a peer-reviewed journal covering cross-disciplinary literature that is a leading disciplinary journal for climate change research.
Citations will be downloaded from the databases and uploaded into Mendeley™ reference management software to facilitate reference management, article retrieval, and removal of duplicate citations. Then, de-duplicated citations will be uploaded into DistillerSR® to facilitate screening.
Article selection
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
To be included, articles must evaluate or examine the intersection of climate change and human health in North America (Fig. 1 ). Health is defined to include physical, mental, emotional, and social health and wellness [ 1 , 25 , 43 , 44 ] (Fig. 1 ). This broad definition will be used to examine the nuanced and complex direct and indirect impacts of climate change on human health. To examine the depth and breadth of climate change impacts on health, climate change contexts are defined to include seasonality, weather parameters, extreme weather events, climate, climate change, climate variability, and climate hazards [ 41 , 42 ] (Fig. 1 ). However, articles that discuss climate in terms of indoor work environments, non-climate hazards due to geologic events (e.g. earthquakes), and non-anthropogenic climate change (e.g. due to volcanic eruptions) will be excluded. This broad definition of climate change contexts will be used in order to examine the wide range and complexity of climate change impacts on human health. To be included, articles need to explicitly link health outcomes to climate change in the goal statement, methods section, and/or results section of the article. Therefore, articles that discuss both human health and climate change—but do not link the two together—will be excluded. The climate-health research has to take place in North America to be included. North America is defined to include Canada, the USA, and Mexico in order to be consistent with the IPCC geographical classifications; that is, in the Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC began confining North America to include Canada, Mexico, and the USA [ 45 ] (Fig. 1 ). Articles published in any language will be eligible for inclusion. Articles need to be published online on or after 01 January 2013 to be included. No restrictions will be placed on population type (i.e. all human studies will be eligible for inclusion).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria to review climate change and health literature in North America
Level 1 screening
The title and abstract of each citation will be examined for relevance. A stacked questionnaire will be used to screen the titles and abstracts; that is, when a criterion is not met, the subsequent criteria will not be assessed. When all inclusion criteria are met and/or it is unclear whether or not an inclusion criterion is met (e.g. “unsure”), the article will proceed to Level 2 screening. If the article meets any exclusion criteria, it will not proceed to Level 2 screening. Level 1 screening will be completed by two independent reviewers, who will meet to resolve any conflicts via discussion. The level of agreement between reviewers will be evaluated by dividing the total number of conflicts by the total number of articles screened for Level 1.
Level 2 screening
The full text of all potentially relevant articles will be screened for relevance. A stacked questionnaire will also be used to screen the full texts. In Level 2 screening, only articles that meet all the inclusion criteria will be included in the review (i.e. “unsure” will not be an option). Level 2 screening will be completed by two independent reviewers, who will meet to resolve any conflicts via discussion. The level of agreement between reviewers will be evaluated by dividing the total number of conflicts by the total number of articles screened for Level 2 (Fig. 2 ).

Flow chart of screening questions for the literature review on climate change and health in North America
Data extraction and analysis
A data extraction form will be created in DistillerSR® ( Appendix 2 ) and will be tested by three data extractors on a sample of articles to allow for calibration on the extraction process (i.e. 5% of articles if greater than 50 articles, 10% of articles if less than or equal to 50 articles). After completing the calibration process, the form will be adapted based on feedback from the extractors to improve usability and accuracy. The data extractors will then use the data extraction form to complete data extraction. Reviewers will meet regularly to discuss and resolve any further issues in data extraction, in order to ensure the data extraction process remains consistent across reviewers.
Data will be extracted from original research papers (i.e. articles containing data collection and analysis) and review articles that reported a systematic methodology. This data extraction will focus on study characteristics, including the country that the data were collected in, focus of the study (i.e. climate change impact, adaptation, and/or mitigation), weather variables, climatic hazards, health outcomes, social characteristics, and future projections. The categories within each study characteristic will not be mutually exclusive, allowing more than one response/category to be selected under each study characteristic. For the country of study, Canada, the USA, and/or Mexico will be selected if the article describes data collection in each country respectively. Non-North American regions will be selected if the article not only collects data external to North America, but also includes data collection within Canada, the USA, and/or Mexico. For the study focus, data will be extracted on whether the article focuses on climate change impacts, adaptation, and/or mitigation within the goals, methods, and/or results sections of the article. Temperature, precipitation, and/or UV radiation will be selected for weather variables if the article utilizes these data in the goal, methods, and/or results sections. Data will be extracted on the following climatic hazards if the article addresses them in the goal, methods, and/or results sections: heat events (e.g. extreme heat, heat waves), cold events (e.g. extreme cold, winter storms), air quality (e.g. pollution, parts per million (PPM) data, greenhouse gas emissions), droughts, flooding, wildfires, hurricanes, wildlife changes (including changes in disease vectors such as ticks or mosquitos), vegetation changes (including changes in pollen), freshwater (including drinking water), ocean conditions (including sea level rise and ocean acidity/salinity/temperature changes), ice extent/stability/duration (including sea ice and freshwater ice), coastal erosion, permafrost changes, and/or environmental hazards (e.g. exposure to sewage, reduced crop productivity).
Data will be extracted on the following health outcomes if the article focuses on them within the goal, methods, and/or results sections: heat-related morbidity and/or mortality, respiratory outcomes (including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), cardiovascular outcomes (including heart attacks or stroke), urinary outcomes (e.g. urinary tract infections, renal failure), dermatologic concerns, mental health and wellness (e.g. suicide, emotional health), fetal health/birth outcomes and/or maternal health, cold exposure, allergies, nutrition (including nutrient deficiency), waterborne disease, foodborne disease, vectorborne disease, injuries (including accidents), and general morbidity and/or mortality. Data on the following social characteristics will also be extracted from the articles if they are included in the goal, methods, and/or results sections of the article: access to healthcare, sex and/or gender, age, income, livelihood (including data on employment, occupation), ethnicity, culture, Indigenous Peoples, rural/remote communities (“rural”, “remote”, or similar terminology must be explicitly mentioned), urban communities (“urban”, “city”, “metropolitan”, or similar terminology must be explicitly used), coastal communities (use of “coastal”, or similar terms must be explicitly mentioned), residence location (zipcode/postal code, neighbourhood, etc.), level of education, and housing (e.g. data on size, age, number of windows, air conditioning). Finally, data will be collected on future projections, including projections that employ qualitative and/or quantitative methods that are included in the goal, methods, and/or results sections of the article.
Descriptive statistics and regression modelling will be used to examine publication trends. Data will be visualized through the use of maps, graphs, and other visualization techniques as appropriate. To enable replicability and transparency, a PRISMA flowchart will be created to illustrate the article selection process and reasons for exclusion. Additionally, qualitative thematic analyses will be conducted. These analyses will utilize constant-comparative approaches to identify patterns across articles through the identification, development, and refinement of codes and themes. Article excerpts will be grouped under thematic categories in order to explore connections in article characteristics, methodologies, and findings.
Quality appraisal of studies included in the systematic scoping review will be performed using a framework based on the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [ 46 ] and the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) tool [ 47 ]. This will enable appraisal of evidence in reviews that contain qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies, as well as appraisal of methodological limitations in included qualitative studies. These tools may be adapted to include additional questions as required in order to fit the scope and objectives of the review. A minimum of two reviewers will independently appraise the included articles and discuss judgements as needed. The findings will be made available as supplementary material for the review.
Climate-health literature reviews using systematic methods will be increasingly critical in the health sector, given the depth and breadth of the growing body of climate change and health literature, as well as the urgent need for evidence to inform climate-health adaptation and mitigation strategies. To support and encourage the systematic and transparent identification and synthesis of climate-health information, this protocol describes our approach to systematically and transparently create a database of articles published in academic journals that examine climate-health in North America.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Abbreviations
Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool
Parts per million
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses, Protocol Extension
- United States of America
Ultraviolet
Smith KR, Woodward A, Campbell-Lendrum D, Chadee DD, Honda Y, Liu Q, et al. Human health: impacts, adaptation, and co-benefits. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, et al., editors. Climate Change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability part A: global and sectoral aspects contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 709–54.
Google Scholar
Watts N, Amann M, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Belesova K, Bouley T, Boykoff M, et al. The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: from 25 years of inaction to a global transformation for public health. Lancet. 2018;391(10120):581–630.
Article Google Scholar
Son JY, Liu JC, Bell ML. Temperature-related mortality: a systematic review and investigation of effect modifiers. Environ Res Lett. 2019;14:073004.
Campbell S, Remenyi TA, White CJ, Johnston FH. Heatwave and health impact research: a global review. Heal Place. 2018;53:210–8.
Sanderson M, Arbuthnott K, Kovats S, Hajat S, Falloon P. The use of climate information to estimate future mortality from high ambient temperature: a systematic literature review. PLoS One. 2017: e0180369.
Rataj E, Kunzweiler K, Garthus-Niegel S. Extreme weather events in developing countries and related injuries and mental health disorders - a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:1020.
Saulnier DD, Brolin Ribacke K, von Schreeb J. No Calm after the storm: a systematic review of human health following flood and storm disasters. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(5):568–79.
Cunsolo A, Neville E. Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss. Nat Clim Chang. 2018;8:275–81.
Levy K, Woster AP, Goldstein RS, Carlton EJ. Untangling the impacts of climate change on waterborne diseases: a systematic review of relationships between diarrheal diseases and temperature, rainfall, flooding, and drought. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50:4905–22.
Article CAS Google Scholar
Semenza JC, Herbst S, Rechenburg A, Suk JE, Höser C, Schreiber C, et al. Climate change impact assessment of food- and waterborne diseases. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2012;42(8):857–90.
Cann K, Thomas D, Salmon R, W-J AP, Kay D. Extreme water-related weather events and waterborne disease. Epidemiol Infect. 2013;141:671–86.
Andrade L, O’Dwyer J, O’Neill E, Hynds P. Surface water flooding, groundwater contamination, and enteric disease in developed countries: a scoping review of connections and consequences. Environ Pollut. 2018;236:540–9.
Harper SL, Wright C, Masina S, Coggins S. Climate change, water, and human health research in the Arctic. Water Secur. 2020;10:100062.
Park MS, Park KH, Bahk GJ. Interrelationships between multiple climatic factors and incidence of foodborne diseases. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:2482.
Lake IR, Barker GC. Climate change, foodborne pathogens and illness in higher-income countries. Curr Environ Heal Rep. 2018;5(1):187–96.
Lake IR, Gillespie IA, Bentham G, Nichols GL, Lane C, Adak GK, et al. A re-evaluation of the impact of temperature and climate change on foodborne illness. Epidemiol Infect. 2009;137(11):1538–47.
Lake IR, Hooper L, Abdelhamid A, Bentham G, Boxall AB. a. A, Draper A, et al. Climate change and food security: health impacts in developed countries. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120(11):1520–6.
Springmann M, Mason-D’Croz D, Robinson S, Garnett T, Godfray HCJ, Gollin D, et al. Global and regional health effects of future food production under climate change: a modelling study. Lancet. 2016;387(10031):1937–46.
Campbell-Lendrum D, Manga L, Bagayoko M, Sommerfeld J. Climate change and vector-borne diseases: what are the implications for public health research and policy? Philos Trans R Soc London. 2015;370:20130552.
Sweileh WM. Bibliometric analysis of peer-reviewed literature on climate change and human health with an emphasis on infectious diseases. Glob Health. 2020;16(1):1–17.
Ford J. Indigenous health and climate change. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(7):1260–6.
Butler CD. Climate change, health and existential risks to civilization: a comprehensive review (1989–2013). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(10):2266.
Tong S, Ebi K. Preventing and mitigating health risks of climate change. Environ Res. 2019;174:9–13.
Ebi KL, Hess JJ. The past and future in understanding the health risks of and responses to climate variability and change. Int J Biometeorol. 2017;61(S1):71–80.
Hosking J, Campbell-Lendrum D. How well does climate change and human health research match the demands of policymakers? A scoping review. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120(8):1076–82.
Berry P, Enright PM, Shumake-Guillemot J, Villalobos Prats E, Campbell-Lendrum D. Assessing health vulnerabilities and adaptation to climate change: a review of international progress. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):2626.
Verner G, Schütte S, Knop J, Sankoh O, Sauerborn R. Health in climate change research from 1990 to 2014: positive trend, but still underperforming. Glob Health Action. 2016;9:30723.
Ebi KL, Hasegawa T, Hayes K, Monaghan A, Paz S, Berry P. Health risks of warming of 1.5 °C, 2 °C, and higher, above pre-industrial temperatures. Environ Res Lett. 2018;13(6):063007.
Bäckstrand K. Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Glob Environ Polit. 2003;3(4):24–41.
Susskind L, Jain R, Martyniuk A. Better environmental policy studies: how to design and conduct more effective analyses. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2001. p. 256.
Holmes J, Clark R. Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation. Environ Sci Policy. 2008;11(8):702–11.
Pearce T, Ford J, Duerden F, Smit B, Andrachuk M, Berrang-Ford L, et al. Advancing adaptation planning for climate change in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR): a review and critique. Reg Environ Chang. 2011;11(1):1–17.
Gearheard S, Shirley J. Challenges in community-research relationships: learning from natural science in Nunavut. Arctic. 2007;60(1):62–74.
Brownson R, Royer C, Ewing R, McBride T. Researchers and policymakers: travelers in parallel universes. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(2):164–72.
Feldman P. Improving communication between researchers and policy makers in long-term care or, researchers are from Mars; policy makers are from Venus. Gerontologist. 2001;41(3):312–21.
Pearce TD, Ford JD, Laidler GJ, Smit B, Duerden F, Allarut M, et al. Community collaboration and climate change research in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Res. 2009;28(1):10–27.
Duerden F, Beasley E, Riewe R, Oakes J. Assessing community vulnerabilities to environmental change in the Inuvialuit region. Climate Change: Linking Traditional and Scientific Knowledge. Winnipeg, MB: Aboriginal Issues Press; 2006.
Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309(6954):597–9.
Tricco A, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D. The Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.
IPCC. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, et al., editors. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013. 1535 pp.
IPCC. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, et al., editors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012. p. 582.
Woodward A, Smith KR, Campbell-Lendrum D, Chadee DD, Honda Y, Liu Q, et al. Climate change and health: on the latest IPCC report. Lancet. 2014;383(9924):1185–9.
Confalonieri U, Menne B, Akhtar R, Ebi KL, Hauengue M, Kovats RS, et al. Human Health. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE, editors. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 391–431.
IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: regional aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Barros VR, Field CB, Dokken DJ, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Bilir TE, et al., editors. Climate change 2014 impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: part A: global and sectoral aspects. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 688.
Hong Q, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), Version 2018. Registration of copyright (#1148552), Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada; 2018. p. 1–11.
Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Carlsen B, Colvin CJ, Gülmezoglu M, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):1001895.
Download references
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Maria Tan at the University of Alberta Library for the advice, expertise and guidance provided in developing the search strategy for this protocol. Special thanks to those who assisted with methodology refinement, including Etienne de Jongh, Katharine Neale, and Tianna Rusnak.
Funding was provided by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (to SLH and AC). The funding body had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
School of Public Health, University of Alberta, ECHA, 11405 87 Ave NW, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1C9, Canada
Sherilee L. Harper, Amreen Babujee, Shaugn Coggins & Carlee J. Wright
School of Arctic & Subarctic Studies, Labrador Institute of Memorial University, 219 Hamilton River Road, Stn B, PO Box 490, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, NL, A0P 1E0, Canada
Ashlee Cunsolo
Unidad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Calle 61 x 66 # 525. Col. Centro, Mérida, Yucatán, México
Mauricio Domínguez Aguilar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Contributions
SLH, AC, and MDA contributed to the conceptualization, methodology, writing, and editing of the manuscript. AB contributed to the methodology, writing, and editing of the manuscript. SC contributed to the writing and editing of the manuscript. CJW contributed to visualization, writing, and editing of the manuscript. The authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Sherilee L. Harper .
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate, 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.
Supplementary Information
13643_2020_1543_moesm1_esm.jpg.
Additional file 1.
Search strategy for CINAHL®, Web of Science™, Scopus®, Embase® via Ovid, and MEDLINE® via Ovid.
Data extraction form
- *Categories were not mutually exclusive; that is, more than one category could be selected
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.
Harper, S.L., Cunsolo, A., Babujee, A. et al. Climate change and health in North America: literature review protocol. Syst Rev 10 , 3 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01543-y
Download citation
Received : 30 October 2020
Accepted : 23 November 2020
Published : 04 January 2021
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01543-y
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
- Climate Change
- Human Health
- Mental Health
- North America
Systematic Reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
- Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
- General enquiries: [email protected]
Cookies on GOV.UK
We use some essential cookies to make this website work.
We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.
We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.
You have accepted additional cookies. You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

- Research for Development Outputs
Literature review on the impact of climate change on economic development in Northern Ghana.
This study identifies evidence on risks and opportunities associated with climate change with regards to economic development
The purpose of this study is to identify existing evidence on risks and opportunities associated with climate change with regards to economic development, and in particular agricultural development, in North of Ghana; in order to inform wider strategy for work in the North, and feed into early thinking on the approach to climate and environment programming.
Marke, A. Literature review on the impact of climate change on economic development in Northern Ghana. EPS PEAKS, UK (2013) 19 pp.
- Literature_Review_on_the_impact_of_climate_change_on_economic_development_in_Northern_Ghana.pdf
Is this page useful?
- Yes this page is useful
- No this page is not useful
Help us improve GOV.UK
Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.
To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. We’ll send you a link to a feedback form. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Don’t worry we won’t send you spam or share your email address with anyone.
Process for Literature Review
- Chapter (PDF)
- Citation (RIS)
A2.1 Introduction
USGCRP, 2016: Appendix 2: Process for Literature Review. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 301–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0FQ9TJT
The systematic literature review included a comprehensive search of the literature, collection and incorporation of information submitted by the public, screening and assessment of the eligibility of the collected literature, and synthesis of the collected literature. Authors were provided with detailed guidance, including Information Quality Act ( IQA ) procedures and the following process for the literature review.
A2.2 Identification of Literature Sources
The sources of literature and information assessed for this report were derived from a comprehensive literature search conducted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ( NIEHS ), literature submitted for consideration during public engagement opportunities, references included in the Third National Climate Assessment ( 2014 NCA ), 1 and additional sources of information or data identified by the chapter authors.
NIEHS, coordinating closely with the Interagency Crosscutting Group on Climate Change and Human Health ( CCHHG ), developed an updated (2012–2014) Health Sector Literature Review and Bibliography as part of the larger literature review for the 2014 NCA. The NIEHS search covered multiple electronic databases (such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) as well as web search engines such as Google Scholar. Overall, searches were limited to publication dates of 2007 or later and to English-language citations. NIEHS conducted an eligibility screening of the information retrieved from the citation databases. 2
A Federal Register Notice (FRN) published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) on behalf of the U.S. Global Change Research Program ( USGCRP ) on February 7, 2014, called for submissions of relevant, peer-reviewed, scientific and/or technical research studies on observed and/or projected climate change impacts on human health in the United States. 3 A second FRN was published on April 7, 2015, announcing a public comment period, in which many commenters suggested additional sources of literature for consideration. 4 Chapter authors were responsible for screening and assessing the eligibility of literature submitted by the public using the same process developed by NIEHS.
In the process of performing the review and evaluating the literature, authors identified additional relevant literature, not captured in the NIEHS literature search or public call for information. Chapter authors screened and assessed the eligibility of these sources using the same process developed by NIEHS.
A2.3 Screening for Eligibility
Throughout the process of drafting this assessment, guidance was provided to authors regarding the requirements of the IQA . In accordance with these requirements, chapter authors considered information quality when deciding whether or not to use source material in their chapter. The literature review guidance provided to authors required consideration of the following criteria for each source of information used in the assessment:
- Utility: Is the particular source important to the topic of your chapter?
- Transparency and traceability: Is the source material identifiable and publicly available?
- Objectivity: Why and how was the source material created? Is it accurate and unbiased?
- Information integrity and security: Will the source material remain reasonably protected and intact over time?
The Supporting Evidence sections of each chapter include “Traceable Accounts” for the Key Findings. The Traceable Accounts identify the key studies for explaining a particular issue or answering a particular question, and which form the basis of support for Key Findings. Key studies exhibit the general attributes defined below:
- Focus: the work not only addresses the area of inquiry under consideration but also contributes to its understanding;
- Verify: the work is credible within the context of the wider body of knowledge/literature or, if not, the new or varying information is documented within the work;
- Integrity: the work is structurally sound; in a piece of research, the design or research rationale is logical and appropriate;
- Rigor: the work is important, meaningful, and non-trivial relative to the field and exhibits sufficient depth of intellect rather than superficial or simplistic reasoning;
- Utility: the work is useful and professionally relevant; it makes a contribution to the field in terms of the practitioners’; understanding or decision-making on the topic; and
- Clarity: it is written clearly and appropriately for the nature of the study.
Authors were responsible for certifying adherence to IQA requirements by applying the process outlined in the Author’s Guidance documents (see Appendix 3: Report Requirements, Development Process, Review, and Approval ).
- 40 CFR Part 82, 2014: Request for Public Engagement in the Interagency Special Report on the Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of the United States Global Change Research Program. URL | Detail
- 80 FR 18619, 2015: Notice of Availability of Draft Scientific Assessment for Public Comment . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. URL | Detail
- Melillo, J. M., T. (T. C. ) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, eds. , 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment . U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2 | Detail
- NIEHS, 2012: National Climate Assessment Health Sector Literature Review and Bibliography. Technical Input for the Interagency Climate Change and Human Health Group . National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. URL | Detail
Confidence Level
Documenting Uncertainty: This assessment relies on two metrics to communicate the degree of certainty in Key Findings. See Appendix 4: Documenting Uncertainty for more on assessments of likelihood and confidence.
Information
- Author Services
Initiatives
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

- Active Journals
- Find a Journal
- Proceedings Series
- For Authors
- For Reviewers
- For Editors
- For Librarians
- For Publishers
- For Societies
- For Conference Organizers
- Open Access Policy
- Institutional Open Access Program
- Special Issues Guidelines
- Editorial Process
- Research and Publication Ethics
- Article Processing Charges
- Testimonials
- Preprints.org
- SciProfiles
- Encyclopedia

Article Menu

- Subscribe SciFeed
- Recommended Articles
- Google Scholar
- on Google Scholar
- Table of Contents
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
JSmol Viewer
Conflict-sensitive climate change adaptation: a review.
1. Climate Change Adaptation: Meaning and Scope
Article 7.2: Parties recognise that adaptation is a global challenge faced by all with local, subnational, national, regional and international dimensions, and that it is a key component of and makes a contribution to the long-term global response to climate change to protect people, livelihoods and ecosystems, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of those developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.
Article 7.5: Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate.
2. Conflict-Sensitive Climate Change Adaptation
3. methodology, 4. results and discussion, 4.1. geographical variation of climate change impact, 4.2. adaptation as a source of conflict: design of adaptation, 4.3. emancipatory participation and environmental justice.
Environmental knowledge production is framed, funded and publicised in widely different social arenas. The livestock herders, who arguably know the stretch of land in question best, are not even aware that their eventual exclusion from their pasture is because they have been identified as agents for its demise by research conducted halfway around the globe by scientists who have never set foot on the pasture or, in some cases, the region . [ 46 ] (p. 3)
4.4. Attribution to Climate Change
4.5. developing an adaptation decision, 5. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.
- Conflict Sensitivity Consortium (CSC). How to Guide to Conflict Sensitivity ; Conflict Sensitivity Consortium; UK Department for International Development: London, UK, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
- IPCC. Annex I: Glossary. Matthews, J.B.R., Ed. In Global Warming of 1.5 °C ; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., et al., Eds.; 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; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
- Scheffran, J.; Brzoska, M.; Kominek, J.; Link, P.M.; Schilling, J. Climate change and violent conflict. Science 2012 , 336 , 869–871. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
- Huq, S. Climate Change and Bangladesh. Science 2001 , 294 , 1617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ][ Green Version ]
- Paprocki, K.; Huq, S. Shrimp and coastal adaptation: On the politics of climate justice. Clim. Dev. 2018 , 10 , 1–3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Mostafa, M.; Nasir, N.; Rahman, M.F.; Huq, S. A Delta in Peril. Am. Sci. 2019 , 107 , 288–295. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Gioli, G.; Hugo, G.; Costa, M.M.; Scheffran, M. Human mobility, climate adaptation, and development. Migr. Dev. 2016 , 5 , 165–170. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Schilling, J.; Hertig, E.; Tramblay, Y.; Scheffran, J. Climate change vulnerability, water resources and social implications in North Africa. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2020 , 20 , 15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ][ Green Version ]
- IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ; Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
- Mach, K.J.; Kraan, C.M.; Adger, W.N.; Buhaug, H.; Burke, M.; Fearon, J.D.; Field, C.B.; Hendrix, C.S.; Maystadt, J.-F.; O’Loughlin, J.; et al. Climate as a risk factor for armed conflict. Nature 2019 , 571 , 193–197. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Babcicky, P.A. Conflict-Sensitive Approach to Climate Change Adaptation. Peace Rev. 2013 , 25 , 480–488. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Okpara, U.T.; Stringer, L.C.; Dougill, A.J. Using a novel climate–water conflict vulnerability index to capture double exposures in Lake Chad. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2017 , 17 , 351–366. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ][ Green Version ]
- O’Keefe, P.; Westgate, K.; Wisner, B. Taking the Natureness Out of Natural Disaster. Nature 1976 , 260 , 566–567. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ][ Green Version ]
- Sen, A. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation ; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1981. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Watts, M. Silent Violence: Food, Famine and Peasantry in Northern Nigeria ; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
- Basupi, L.V.; Quinn, C.H.; Dougill, A.J. Historical perspectives on pastoralism and land tenure transformation in Ngamiland, Botswana: What are the policy and institutional lessons? Pastoralism Res. Policy Pract. 2017 , 7 , 24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ][ Green Version ]
- Djoudi, H.; Locatelli, B.; Brockhaus, M. Once there was a lake: Vulnerability to environmental changes in northern Mali. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2013 , 13 , 493–508. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ][ Green Version ]
- Elagib, N.A.; Musa, A.; Sulieman, H. Socio-hydrological Framework of Farmer-Drought Feedback: Darfur as a Case Study. In Water Resources in Arid Areas: The Way Forward ; Abdalla, O., Kacimov, A., Chen, M., Al-Maktoumi, A., Al-Hosni, T., Clark, I., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 461–479. [ Google Scholar ]
- Füssel, H.-M. How inequitable is the global distribution of responsibility, capability, and vulnerability to climate change: A comprehensive indicator-based assessment. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010 , 20 , 597–611. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Tänzler, D.; Maas, A.; Carius, A. Climate change adaptation and peace. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2010 , 1 , 741–750. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Bob, U.; Bronkhorst, S. (Eds.) Conflict-Sensitive Adaptation to Climate Change in Africa ; Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag: Berlin, Germany, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
- Tänzler, D.; Scherer, N. Guidelines for Conflict-Sensitive Adaptation to Climate Change ; Adelphi Research: Berlin, Germany, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
- Abid, M.; Schilling, J.; Scheffran, J.; Zulfiqar, F. Climate change vulnerability, adaptation and risk perceptions at farm level in Punjab, Pakistan. Sci. Total Environ. 2016 , 547 , 447–460. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Premarathne, N.M.K.C.; Dissanayake, S.T.M.; De Silva, S.; Weerathunga, U.S.; Kumara, T.V.P. Impact of Changed Rainfall Patterns Due to Climate Change and Usage of Available Weather Information by Communities Who Face Human-Elephant Conflict (HEC) in Udawalawe, Sri Lanka. Proc. Int. Conf. Clim. Chang. 2017 , 1 , 40–50. [ Google Scholar ]
- Ndhlovu, N.; Saito, O.; Djalante, R.; Yagi, N. Assessing the Sensitivity of Small-Scale Fishery Groups to Climate Change in Lake Kariba, Zimbabwe. Sustainability 2017 , 9 , 2209. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ][ Green Version ]
- Chircop, A. Regional Cooperation in Marine Environmental Protection in the South China Sea: A Reflection on New Directions for Marine Conservation. Ocean Dev. Int. Law 2010 , 41 , 334–356. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Pinsky, M.L.; Fenichel, E.; Fogarty, M.; Levin, S.; Mccay, B.; St Martin, K.; Selden, R.L.; Young, T. Fish and fisheries in hot water: What is happening and how do we adapt? Popul. Ecol. 2021 , 63 , 17–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Mohmmed, A.; Zhang, K.; Kabenge, M.; Keesstra, S.; Cerdà, A.; Reuben, M.; Elbashier, M.M.A.; Dalson, T.; Ali, A.A.S. Analysis of drought and vulnerability in the North Darfur region of Sudan. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018 , 29 , 4424–4438. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Beniston, M.; Stoffel, M. Assessing the impacts of climatic change on mountain water resources. Sci. Total Environ. 2014 , 493 , 1129–1137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
- Bonzanigo, L.; Giupponi, C.; Balbi, S. Sustainable tourism planning and climate change adaptation in the Alps: A case study of winter tourism in mountain communities in the Dolomites. J. Sustain. Tour. 2016 , 24 , 637–652. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Franco-Torres, M.; Rogers, B.C.; Ugarelli, R.M. A framework to explain the role of boundary objects in sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2020 , 36 , 34–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Madsen, H.M.; Brown, R.; Elle, M.; Mikkelsen, P.S. Social construction of stormwater control measures in Melbourne and Copenhagen: A discourse analysis of technological change, embedded meanings and potential mainstreaming. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017 , 115 , 198–209. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ][ Green Version ]
- Weinstein, L.; Rumbach, A.; Sinha, S. Resilient Growth: Fantasy Plans and Unplanned Developments in India’s Flood-Prone Coastal Cities. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2019 , 43 , 273–291. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Kebede, A.S.; Dunford, R.; Mokrech, M.; Audsley, E.; Harrison, P.A.; Holman, I.P.; Nicholls, R.J.; Rickebusch, S.; Rounsevell, M.D.A.; Sabaté, S.; et al. Direct and indirect impacts of climate and socio-economic change in Europe: A sensitivity analysis for key land- and water-based sectors. Clim. Chang. 2015 , 128 , 261–277. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Füssel, H.-M. Ranking of national-level adaptation options: An editorial comment. Clim. Chang. 2009 , 95 , 47–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Karlstetter, N. Co-evolution and Co-management of Economic and Ecological Sustainability: A Semantic Approach to Modeling Climate Adapted Land Use Strategies in Northwestern Germany. In Information Technologies in Environmental Engineering ; Golinska, P., Fertsch, M., Marx-Gómez, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2011; Volume 3, pp. 213–227. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Gober, P.; Quay, R.; Larson, K.L. Outdoor Water Use as an Adaptation Problem: Insights from North American Cities. Water Resour. Manag. 2016 , 30 , 899–912. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Pelling, M.; Manuel-Navarrete, D. From Resilience to Transformation: The Adaptive Cycle in Two Mexican Urban Centres. Ecol. Soc. 2011 , 16 , 11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ][ Green Version ]
- Folke, C. Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social-Ecological Systems Analyses. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2006 , 16 , 253–267. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- UNCCS. 25 Years of Adaptation under the UNFCCC. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/AC_25%20Years%20of%20Adaptation%20Under%20the%20UNFCCC_2019.pdf (accessed on 19 December 2021).
- Brown, K. Sustainable adaptation: An oxymoron? Clim. Dev. 2011 , 3 , 21–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Froese, R.; Schilling, J. The Nexus of Climate Change, Land Use, and Conflicts. Curr. Clim. Chang. Rep. 2019 , 5 , 24–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ][ Green Version ]
- Lalthapersad-Pillay, P.; Oosthuizen, A.G. Perspectives on climate change and adaptation funding in developing countries. J. Transdiscipl. Res. South. Afr. 2011 , 7 , 351–366. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10500/18964 (accessed on 15 November 2021). [ CrossRef ]
- Garrick, D.E.; De Stefano, L. Adaptive capacity in federal rivers: Coordination challenges and institutional responses. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016 , 21 , 78–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Litre, G.; Bursztyn, M.; Filho, S.R.; Mesquita, P. Challenges of performing socio-environmental interdisciplinary research: The experience of the Brazilian Research Network on Climate Change (Rede CLIMA). Desenvolv. Meio Ambient. 2019 , 51 , 141–153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ][ Green Version ]
- Goldman, M.J.; Turner, M.D. Introduction. In Knowing Nature: Conversations at the Intersection of Political Ecology and Science Studies ; Goldman, M.J., Nadasdy, P., Turner, M.D., Eds.; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2011; pp. 1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
- Corbera, E.; Brown, K.; Adger, W.N. The Equity and Legitimacy of Markets for Ecosystem Services. Dev. Chang. 2007 , 38 , 587–613. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Jaggernath, J. Women, climate change and environmentally-induced conflicts in Africa. Agenda 2014 , 28 , 90–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Ravera, F.; Reyes-García, V.; Pascual, U.; Drucker, A.G.; Tarrasón, D.; Bellon, M.R. Gendered agrobiodiversity management and adaptation to climate change: Differentiated strategies in two marginal rural areas of India. Agric. Hum. Values 2019 , 36 , 455–474. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Robbins, P. Political Ecology , 2nd ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: West Sussex, UK, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
- Abid, M.; Scheffran, J.; Schneider, U.A.; Elahi, E. Farmer Perceptions of Climate Change, Observed Trends and Adaptation of Agriculture in Pakistan. Environ. Manag. 2019 , 63 , 110–123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Wisner, B.; Blaikie, P.; Cannon, T.; Davis, I. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters , 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
- Blaikie, P.; Brookfield, H. (Eds.) Land Degradation and Society ; Methuen: London, UK, 1987. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Leach, M.; Mearns, R. (Eds.) The Lie of the Land: Challenging Received Wisdom on the African Environment ; James Currey and Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
- McEwan, C. ‘Bringing government to the People’: Women, Local Governance and Community Participation in South Africa. Geoforum 2003 , 34 , 469–481. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ][ Green Version ]
- Elmhirst, R. Negotiating Land and Livelihood: Agency and Identities in Indonesia’s Transmigration Programme. In Gender Politics in the Asia-Pacific Region ; Yeoh, P.T., Huang, S., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2002; pp. 79–98. [ Google Scholar ]
- Ngaruiya, G.W.; Scheffran, J. Actors and networks in resource conflict resolution under climate change in rural Kenya. Earth Syst. Dyn. 2016 , 7 , 441–452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ][ Green Version ]
- Xu, J.; Hou, S.; Xie, H.; Lv, C.; Yao, L. Equilibrium approach towards water resource management and pollution control in coal chemical industrial park. J. Environ. Manag. 2018 , 219 , 56–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
- Zhang, T.; Bakar, S. The Implications of Local Perceptions, Knowledge, and Adaptive Strategies for Adaptation Planning in Coastal Communities of Zanzibar. Environ. Justice 2017 , 10 , 112–118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Lee, Y.-J.; Tung, C.-M.; Lin, S.-C. Carrying capacity and ecological footprint of Taiwan. In Advances in Energy and Environment Research ; Achour, B., Wu, Q., Eds.; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2017; pp. 207–218. [ Google Scholar ]
- Magrach, A.; Ghazoul, J. Climate and Pest-Driven Geographic Shifts in Global Coffee Production: Implications for Forest Cover, Biodiversity and Carbon Storage. PLoS ONE 2015 , 10 , e0133071. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
- Roggero, M. Adapting institutions: Exploring climate adaptation through institutional economics and set relations. Ecol. Econ. 2015 , 118 , 114–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Tirado, M.C.; Hunnes, D.; Cohen, M.J.; Lartey, A. Climate Change and Nutrition in Africa. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 2015 , 10 , 22–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Adger, W.N.; Paavola, J.; Huq, S.; Mace, M.J. (Eds.) Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change ; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
- Kirkby, P.; Williams, C.; Huq, S. Community-based adaptation (CBA): Adding conceptual clarity to the approach, and establishing its principles and challenges. Clim. Dev. 2018 , 10 , 577–589. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Share and Cite
Nadiruzzaman, M.; Scheffran, J.; Shewly, H.J.; Kley, S. Conflict-Sensitive Climate Change Adaptation: A Review. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 8060. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138060
Nadiruzzaman M, Scheffran J, Shewly HJ, Kley S. Conflict-Sensitive Climate Change Adaptation: A Review. Sustainability . 2022; 14(13):8060. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138060
Nadiruzzaman, Md, Jürgen Scheffran, Hosna J. Shewly, and Stefanie Kley. 2022. "Conflict-Sensitive Climate Change Adaptation: A Review" Sustainability 14, no. 13: 8060. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138060
Article Metrics
Article access statistics, supplementary material.
ZIP-Document (ZIP, 138 KiB)
Further Information
Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
Browse Econ Literature
- Working papers
- Software components
- Book chapters
- JEL classification
More features
- Subscribe to new research
RePEc Biblio
Author registration.
- Economics Virtual Seminar Calendar NEW!

Systematic review of smart cities and climate change adaptation
- Author & abstract
- Related works & more
Corrections
- Jo-Ting Huang-Lachmann
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher.
Follow serials, authors, keywords & more
New papers by email
Subscribe to new additions to RePEc
Public profiles for Economics researchers
Various research rankings in Economics
RePEc Genealogy
Who was a student of whom, using RePEc
Curated articles & papers on economics topics
Upload your paper to be listed on RePEc and IDEAS
EconAcademics
Blog aggregator for economics research
Cases of plagiarism in Economics
Job market papers
RePEc working paper series dedicated to the job market
Fantasy league
Pretend you are at the helm of an economics department
Services from the StL Fed
Data, research, apps & more from the St. Louis Fed
About RePEc
Initiative for open bibliographies in Economics
News about RePEc
Questions about IDEAS and RePEc
RePEc volunteers
Participating archives
Publishers indexing in RePEc
Privacy statement
Legal statement.
Found an error or omission?
Opportunities to help RePEc
Get papers listed
Have your research listed on RePEc
Open a RePEc archive
Have your institution's/publisher's output listed on RePEc
Get RePEc data
Use data assembled by RePEc
- Pre-Markets
- U.S. Markets
- Cryptocurrency
- Futures & Commodities
- Funds & ETFs
- Health & Science
- Real Estate
- Transportation
- Industrials
- Small Business
- Personal Finance
- Financial Advisors
- Options Action
- Buffett Archive
- Trader Talk
- Cybersecurity
- Social Media
- CNBC Disruptor 50
- White House
- Equity and Opportunity
- Business Day Shows
- Entertainment Shows
- Full Episodes
- Latest Video
- CEO Interviews
- CNBC Documentaries
- CNBC Podcasts
- Digital Originals
- Live TV Schedule
- Trust Portfolio
- Trade Alerts
- Homestretch
Risky feedback loops are accelerating climate change, scientists warn

Risky feedback loops that are accelerating global climate change may not be fully accounted for in current climate models, according to a recent study published in the scientific journal One Earth.
- A group of international scientists reviewed climate literature to identify 41 climate feedback loops, 27 of which are accelerating global warming.
- One instance of a positive feedback loop is that warming in the Arctic has led to melting sea ice, which has prompted even more warming because water has a darker surface than ice and therefore absorbs more heat.
A group of international scientists from institutions like Oregon State University, Exeter University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, identified 41 climate feedback loops in what they called "the most extensive list available of climate feedback loops." Of these, they discovered 27 amplifying feedback loops that are accelerating global warming and only seven that are slowing it.
A feedback loop is a cyclical chain reaction that either speeds up or slows down warming. An amplifying, or positive, feedback loop is the process in which an initial change that prompts temperature rise triggers another change that causes even more temperature rise.
These positive feedback loops, which can be large and difficult to quantify, threaten to cause a permanent shift away from Earth's current global climate, researchers warned. For instance, warming in the Arctic has led to melting sea ice, which has prompted even more warming because water has a darker surface than ice and therefore absorbs more heat.
Another example involves the impact of wildfires, which are becoming more frequent as the Earth warms and drought conditions intensify. Combustion of the vegetation during wildfires releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which then contributes to the greenhouse effect and triggers even higher temperatures.
"There are many such amplifying feedbacks, including some that are not fully accounted for in climate models," said Christopher Wolf, a postdoctoral scholar at Oregon State University and a lead author of the study.
"Consequently, the effects of greenhouse gas emissions could be underestimated and strong climate mitigation policies are needed," Wolf added.
Other dangerous feedback loops include the thawing of permafrost, or the frozen ground that underlies much of the Arctic and contains plant and animal remains. As temperature rise accelerates the thaw of permafrost, the organic matter in the frozen layer breaks down and releases carbon dioxide and methane gas into the atmosphere.
Tim Lenton, an Earth systems scientist at the University of Exeter and one of the study co-authors, said the results suggest that the amplification of climate change could be greater than expected.
"That is yet another reason to accelerate action to limit global warming – because that also limits how much it is going to get amplified by the feedbacks in the climate system," Lenton said.
Some feedback loops may also be associated with key climate tipping points that could significantly disrupt the global climate system, researchers said. For example, feedback loops that are driving ice melt in the Arctic could ultimately trigger the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet.
"In the worst case, if positive feedbacks are sufficiently strong, this could result in tragic climate change outside the control of humans," researchers wrote.
"It is too late to fully prevent the pain of climate change as severe impacts are already being felt, but if we can have a much better understanding of feedback loops and make the needed transformative changes soon while prioritizing basic human needs, there might still be time to limit the harm," they wrote.

- All topics »
- Fact sheets
- Facts in pictures
- Publications
- Questions & answers
- Tools and toolkits
- Air pollution
- Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
- All countries »
- South-East Asia
- Eastern Mediterranean
- Western Pacific
- Cooperation strategies
- Ukraine emergency
- News releases
- Commentaries
- Feature stories
- Newsletters
- Photo library
- Media distribution list
- Headlines »
- Afghanistan crisis
- COVID-19 pandemic
- Northern Ethiopia crisis
- Syria crisis
- Monkeypox outbreak
- Greater Horn of Africa crisis
- Disease Outbreak News
- Travel advice
- Situation reports
- Weekly Epidemiological Record
- Surveillance
- Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
- WHO's Health Emergency Appeal 2023
- Global Health Estimates
- Health SDGs
- Mortality Database
- Data collections
- COVID-19 Dashboard
- Triple Billion Dashboard
- Health Inequality Monitor
- Global Health Observatory
- Insights and visualizations
- Data collection tools
- World Health Statistics 2022
- COVID excess deaths
- DDI IN FOCUS: 2022
- Partnerships and collaboration
- Collaborating centres
- Networks, committees and advisory groups
- Transformation
- General Programme of Work
- WHO Academy
- Initiatives
- Investment case
- WHO Foundation
- Programme Budget
- Financial statements
- Programme Budget Portal
- Results Report
- World Health Assembly
- Executive Board
- Election of Director-General
- Governing Bodies website
- Member States Portal
- Publications /
The health benefits of tackling climate change
An Executive Summary for The Lancet Series
Climate change will harm human health, and successful strategies to mitigate the extent of the change will restrict that harm. But new studies show that appropriate mitigation strategies will themselves have additional and independent effects on health, most of them beneficial. The potential value of these co-benefits has not so far been given sufficient prominence in international negotiations.
This executive summary, part of the Lancet Series, puts forward 3 key messages:
- Measures to restrict our output of greenhouse gases may also result in benefits to public health
- These co-benefits will offset at least some of the costs of climate change mitigation, and should be taken into account in international negotiations
- The co-benefits to health arising from action on climate change are not widely appreciated. A greater awareness might sweeten the otherwise bitter taste of some climate change policies
COP24 Special Report on Climate Change and Health
Did you know: by taking action on climate change you can strengthen public health
Climate change and the rising cost of potholes
Social sharing, experts say pothole problems will only get worse with climate change.

After a snowy winter paired with temperatures that kept the Rideau Canal Skateway closed for the first time ever, people in Ottawa are beginning to see signs of spring.
Rising temperatures also lead to crumbling roads that can resemble the surface of the moon. Driving your car feels like riding a mechanical bull.
Anyone who lives in Ottawa knows spring is better known as pothole season.
Fluctuating temperatures create a destructive cycle of expansion and contraction of brittle, frozen asphalt, and more powerful rays of sunshine melt ice that has, for weeks, concealed cavities in the road.
Ottawa has 6,000 kilometres of roadway, each one subject to the nearly 80 freeze-thaw cycles the city sees on average each year. Crews fill hundreds of thousands of potholes every spring, 17,435 so far this year, according to city staff.
Roads built without considering climate change
Some experts say the problem is only going to get worse.
"We built these roads many years ago without considering the climate change scenario," said Kamal Hossain, a professor of civil engineering at Carleton University.

Crews have traditionally used a specific glue for asphalt but that material is highly sensitive to heat. As Ottawa experiences hotter temperatures, it softens the asphalt and ultimately weakens the road further, he said.
The City of Ottawa is well aware of this. Staff produced a comprehensive report last spring listing the many risks to city infrastructure and to people's health as the weather becomes warmer, wetter and stormier . High up on the list: Ottawa's roadways.
"Road materials are not rated for the extent and duration of the heat events projected," the city's report on climate change vulnerabilities states. Winter freeze-thaw events "are particularly damaging" to roads and sidewalks, it said, because it causes cracking, heaving, potholes and rutting.
Pothole price tag growing
Crews already fill hundreds of thousands of potholes every year, more than 1.1 million in total since 2018. As the cost of labour, materials and the expansion of Ottawa's road network grows, so too does the cost of repairs.
The city's budget for asphalt repairs and maintenance has steadily climbed over the last five years, and that doesn't even include the more costly jobs where entire roads are repaved .
Road users absorb costs, too, especially those who hang onto older vehicles to save money, which are more prone to damage, said Julie Bowen of the Canadian Automobile Association (CAA) division for northern and eastern Ontario.
Whether it's a blown tire or damaged (possibly dislodged) bumper, potholes can cost a vehicle owner up to $6,000 to repair.
"We've got like 34,000 kilometres of what we've deemed as poor or very poor roads in Ontario, and so somebody's going to come to grief no matter how they move," said Bowen.
Solutions are too expensive, says city
The solution — changing the way roads are built — requires significant investment, Hossain explained.
Some jurisdictions, including Canada's three territories, use concrete to enhance the durability of roads, but it is more costly than laying down asphalt.
The U.S., which has a Federal Highway Administration, spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year on researching road construction and sustainability. That is "a very unfortunate part that it is missing in Canada," said Hossain.
For the City of Ottawa, the last 10 years has been a period of trial and error for road building.
In 2018, contracts to asphalt suppliers were cancelled after a 2017 audit found the materials fell short of required standards for fixing roads and potholes.
The city continues to search for a fiscally responsible way to fix the issue in the long term, according to Coun. Tim Tierney, who chairs the city's transportation committee.
Tierney, who has been on city council for more than 12 years, recalled a time when crews tried using beet juice to improve road traction — unsuccessfully.
There is no room in the budget for concrete, he said.

Still, he acknowledges the city already spends a lot of time and money maintaining its roads. In 2019 Ottawa bought two Python 5000s — $400,000 machines that automatically clean potholes, fill them with asphalt, and tamp them down.
Tierney said there will be four Pythons as part of Ottawa's repair fleet as of late March.
"As industry and technology gets better, hopefully we'll have a better solution," Tierney said.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Nicole Williams is a journalist for CBC News based in Ottawa. She has also worked in P.E.I. and Toronto. She is part of the team that won a 2021 Canadian Association of Journalists national award for investigative journalism. Write in confidence to [email protected]
- Follow Nicole Williams on Twitter
Related Stories
- Ottawa's weather to get warmer, wetter and wilder: study
- City of Ottawa ends asphalt contracts after failed tests
- Long, bumpy ride to smoother roads nears end for Ottawa's 'Professor of Pavement'
Add some “good” to your morning and evening.
A variety of newsletters you'll love, delivered straight to you.
Climate change planning grants

This funding call is being offered in response to the overwhelming level of interest that EarthLab received for its Sparking Climate Connections Lightning Talks , which was held in December 2022 and hosted by the EarthLab Advisory Board of Deans.
The hope is that these planning grants will lead to the pursuit of larger funding opportunities, including but not limited to internal awards from the Population Health Initiative, EarthLab, Office of Global Affairs, [email protected] and others, as well as extramural opportunities from state, federal and foundation funders. Upon completion of their planning grant, all awardees will also be automatically qualified to apply for a special autumn 2023 funding call for climate change-focused Population Health Initiative pilot grants. The structure of the special autumn funding call will be informed by the proposed outcomes of funded planning grants.
Purpose of grant
The purpose of this funding call is to support new collaborators in laying the groundwork for successful partnerships that address key facets of climate change. Our call is broad in scope, so applications can propose planning projects with foci that include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Creating shared norms, expectations, nomenclature, and so forth for a large interdisciplinary team
- Exploring a basic or applied research study design
- Engaging community stakeholders to scope a project around community-identified research needs
- Completing necessary analyses to inform study design
- Testing feasibility of proposed study methodologies
- Exploring new directions for existing research
- Planning for and/or submission of a grant application
Applicants are required to propose projects involving new interdisciplinary collaborations as the initiative views such partnerships as being critical to advancing the university’s vision for healthy people and a healthy planet.
Eligibility
Open to faculty members and PI-eligible research scientists from all three University of Washington campuses (Bothell, Seattle, Tacoma) are encouraged to apply for these planning grants.
To encourage interdisciplinary collaboration, applications will only be accepted from project teams that consist of a minimum of two UW principal investigators (PIs), with each holding primary appointments in different and distinct academic departments. Additional PIs or co-PIs beyond this minimum are welcome and encouraged. We also strongly encourage teams to engage community-based partners as PIs and co-PIs for these planning grants.
These planning grants are intended to advance new interdisciplinary collaborations. To apply, a project team must include at least one individual with no previous working relationship with the other member(s) of the team. We define a prior working relationship as having: (1) appeared as co-authors together on a peer-reviewed journal article, and/or (2) appeared together on the personnel list for an extramural grant application. You can search for potential collaborators through EarthLab’s virtual showcase of lightning talks on climate change, the Initiative’s database of climate change experts and/or attend an April 11, 2023 Open Space-style collaborative dialogue and networking session.
Funds will be disbursed to the department of a designated lead UW PI for day-to-day administration. Budgets must be able to accept non-discretionary gift funds. Departments that are not accustomed to working with community-based partners can seek administrative support from the Population Health Initiative.
If awarded, applicants will be required to submit a final report detailing project accomplishments and final budget reconciliation within 15 calendar days following the end of the funding period. Submission of the final report will trigger release to the team of the Request for Application for the special autumn 2023 funding call for climate change-focused Population Health Initiative pilot grants.
The timeline for this funding opportunity is:
- Application Due: May 1, 2023 (11:59 p.m. Pacific)
- Award Notification Made: mid-May, 2023
- Period of Performance: June 20 – August 18, 2023
All awardees will be automatically qualified to apply for a special autumn 2023 funding call for climate change-focused Population Health Initiative pilot grants. Those applications will be due on October 1, 2023, allowing successful awardees to begin work on their proposed projects during this calendar year.
Awards of up to $10,000 in total expenses per project are available from the Population Health Initiative. We encourage applicants to request no more than is required to complete the proposed work to maximize the number of projects supported by this funding.
School, college and/or departmental matching funds are encouraged but not required. Matching funds can take the form of either discretionary/non-discretionary monies or in-kind support. Other sponsored research projects cannot be counted as matching funds.
Funds will be disbursed to the department of the lead UW PI for day-to-day administration. Budgets must be able to accept non-discretionary gift funds. Departments that are not accustomed to working with community-based partners can seek administrative support from the Population Health Initiative.
Allowed expenses include:
- Personnel (i.e., salaries and benefits for faculty and students as well as staff at the UW or a community-based organization)
- Equipment, materials and supplies
- Travel, including airfare, transportation, and per diem (lodging, meals and expenses)
- Tuition for graduate students
- Other direct costs related to the project (must detail the expense and include rationale)
Unallowable expenses include:
- Indirect/overhead costs
- Publication and patent cost
- Office supplies
- Administrative support
- Marketing efforts
All allowable expenses must adhere to applicable University of Washington policies. Please engage your department’s finance contact with questions regarding such expenses. In addition, an Office of Sponsored Programs review is not needed prior to submitting an application.
Review criteria
Successful planning grant applications should:
- Demonstrate how the proposed project will position the team for future collaboration;
- Propose a planning project that is feasible during summer quarter 2023;
- Demonstrate how the work is innovative and feasible;
- Detail an evaluation plan that clearly describes the outcome the project team is seeking (i.e., how it will measure the success of the planning project).
Applications are encouraged, but not required, to include the following:
- Partial or full funding match (in funds or in kind) from the Co-PIs’ schools/colleges/departments; and,
- Lays the foundation for a project that will take place in a community within the State of Washington, which is a priority for the Population Health Initiative.
Awards will be granted to the highest-scoring applications. Applications that include matching funds will receive priority in the event that two proposals receive the same review score.
Application format
Applications must meet the following standards:
- Submitted as a single PDF file
- Paper size no larger than standard letter (i.e., 8 ½” x 11”)
- Margins of at least 0.5 inch (top, bottom, left, and right)
- Single-spaced
- Eleven-point font or larger using either Arial, Calibri or Times New Roman
- We do not require a specific citation format
Each application must contain the following sections:
- Completed cover sheet (project title, total budget, applicant names)
- Why should your proposed team be considered a new collaboration? Limit of 100 words.
- Please describe the scope of the work / the key activities you are proposing to complete if you receive a planning grant. Limit of 200 words
- How will you know if your planning project was successful? Limit of 100 words.
- How will you spend these funds (i.e., a brief budget justification)? Limit of 200 words.
- Please provide verification of matching funds if a cost share is proposed. A .pdf of an email from the individual making the commitment is sufficient.
- Letters of support are not required but will be accepted. Limit of two.
Download application template
Submit an application
All applications are due by 11:59 p.m. (Pacific) on Monday, May 1, 2023.
The application must be submitted as a single .pdf file through the following online submission portal.
Review by the Office of Sponsored Programs is not needed.
Submit an Application
Please contact us with any questions regarding this pilot grant program or the application process.
What is population health?
Population health is a broad concept encompassing not only the elimination of diseases and injuries, but also the intersecting and overlapping factors that influence health.
Population Health Twitter
Events calendar, be boundless, connect with us:.
© 2023 University of Washington | Seattle, WA

- Weather
Search location by ZIP code
Forecasting our future: the impacts of maine's changing climate.
- Copy Link Copy {copyShortcut} to copy Link copied!

GET LOCAL BREAKING NEWS ALERTS
The latest breaking updates, delivered straight to your email inbox.
The impacts of climate change are all around us.
Every day, Maine's Total Weather team brings you a forecast, letting you know everything from when the best time to hit the slopes is or if the weather may be too extreme to head outdoors.
Winter in Maine has become the state's fastest changing season with more severe storms, battering our infrastructure.
Our team explored the impacts of what that change means, including what we can do to adjust to the altering conditions.
'There has been a warming': Tracking climate on Mt. Washington
The higher summits of New Hampshire’s White Mountains are not only known for their views and rather harsh conditions – they are also a perfect hub for unique research that can show us how sensitive our planet is to the changes that are occurring with our climate.
A frigid and windy overlook may not be the first place one may think of looking when it comes to global warming, but we have to keep in mind it is all relative in nature.
"There has been a warming-- more specifically, since about 2000, the warming has occurred."
On Mount Washington, we are not only tracking the most extreme weather on Earth but also crucial data here on the summit that will help determine how we forecast our future.
Click here to read the full story.
MORE CONTENT:
- See the equipment developed at Mt. Washington being used on Mt. Everest
- Warmer winters put the winter sports economy in jeopardy
From hotels to Hannford: Maine businesses work on energy efficiency
When it comes to climate change, the old environmentalist motto applies: "Think globally, act locally.”
In that spirit, Maine businesses, large and small, are trying to improve their energy efficiency.
“Build for efficiency. It will pay you back enormously over time.”
From hotels to supermarkets, they are increasingly putting their concerns about climate change into action.
- Tick population grows in Maine as we see milder winters
- Warming climate presents challenges for Maine’s logging industry
Antarctic Peninsula warming at 5x the global average: How it also effects Maine
The western region of Antarctica is warming at five times the global average. That warming will continue to impact sea ice, the ecology of the region and the ocean circulations around the globe.
"Polar regions in the Arctic and the Antarctic are fragile and they are critical to the circulation and overall ecology of marine life on our planet," Dr. Janet Duffy-Anderson said.
The warming of our poles will continue to impact lives here in the Gulf of Maine.
There's a feature called a global ocean circulation that the Antarctic Peninsula and the Antarctic continent itself are very important to.
Click here to read the full story .
- Mainers are building energy efficient homes that retain heat
- Maine's midwinter thaws: How they effect droughts during summer
Pipelines unable to carry enough natural gas to New England to meet demand
As we look to the future, there are increasing concerns about the power grid here in New England.
Mainers are already seeing higher power prices on their bills this winter due, in part, to limited natural gas in the region.
On a cold January day, the international cargo ship Cadiz Knutsen was seen in Boston Harbor delivering a load of liquefied natural gas (LNG) for the New England grid.
The extra fuel is needed to help make power for heating and cooling during periods of extreme weather.
"We're putting a Band-Aid on the problem."
- Meet Maine's 92-year-old weather observer: Arlene Cole
- Teaching on an Island: How 2 teachers use their unique location to help students learn

Good Housekeeping
Shop the best deals we've found on amazon in march, this carry-on suitcase from one of our favorite luggage brands is just $99 on amazon, the best pi day deals and freebies of 2023 on pizza, pies and more, saatva mattress review: our pick for the best overall bed of 2023.

Stephen Moore: America’s $100 billion climate change flop
Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

For at least the last 20 years, politicians in Washington, at the behest of green energy groups, have spent some $100 billion of taxpayer money to fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How is that going for us so far?
A recent Associated Press story, based on the latest data on global carbon emissions, provides a pretty accurate report card: “Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reached a Record High in 2022.”
The article tells us: “Communities around the world emitted more carbon dioxide in 2022 than in any other year on records dating to 1900, a result of air travel rebounding from the pandemic and more cities turning to coal as a low-cost source of power. Emissions of the climate-warming gas that were caused by energy production grew 0.9% to reach 36.8 gigatons in 2022, the International Energy Agency reported Thursday. (The mass of one gigaton is equivalent to about 10,000 fully loaded aircraft carriers, according to NASA.)”
You’ve got to almost shriek out loud when you read this line: “Thursday’s (IEA) report was described as disconcerting by climate scientists.”
“Disconcerting”? That’s putting it lightly. We are the furthest thing from being climate change alarmists, but when you spend $100 billion of taxpayer money and achieve absolutely nothing, President Joe Biden and his green allies should be arrested for criminal fraud.
Where did all the money go? Tens of billions of dollars have lined the pockets of left-wing environmental and social justice groups that have been emitting a lot of hot air but no results. Green energy companies have milked taxpayers of tens of billions more, even as wind and solar only produce about 12% of our energy.
Is this the greatest ripoff of U.S. taxpayers in history?
I’ve often said that I doubt all the doomsday predictions of global warming are accurate, but if they are, we are goners. Because nothing the Left is doing on climate change is making even the tiniest bit of difference, as the new report shows. What it is doing is giving politicians and activists a chance to virtue-signal. Does it even matter to them that none of their schemes are working?
The most obvious flaw in the green strategy is that few, if any, of the big polluters are cooperating despite the assurances from Biden’s climate change ambassador John Kerry. For the umpteenth time: The United States is not the problem — China is. Its pollution levels are three times higher than ours. Soon India will surpass the U.S. in carbon emissions.
Even the top scientists who study climate change admit that without progress from China, nothing America does to reduce emissions will reverse the global trends. The U.S. has reduced our emissions more than any other nation, and the problem continues to get worse. And yet, the rest of the world blames the U.S.
All we are accomplishing in the Biden war on fossil fuels is kneecapping our own domestic energy industry while the rest of the world consumes more fossil fuels than ever before. Instead of the oil and gas produced in Texas or North Dakota, it’s coming from Russia, Iran and OPEC. The energy source that is growing the fastest now is coal.
The only way to combat climate change is not through more command-and-control government action. That never works. The COVID-19 crisis and the incompetent government response should have taught us that lesson. We need more growth and better technology to deal with a changing climate. The leftists want less growth and have even been backing “degrowth.” Since when is making America poorer the solution to any problem?
In the wake of this epic policy failure, the Democrats aren’t backing off. Biden’s latest budget calls for $500 billion more for climate change over the next decade. Talk about throwing good money after bad. We shouldn’t be too surprised because, as Milton Friedman used to remind us, anytime a government program isn’t working, the politicians’ response is: “We aren’t spending enough money.”
If congressional Republicans are smart (a big if), they will not appropriate one penny more for this epic public policy flop. If we want to save our country’s future for our children, the first step is to stop adding to our $32 trillion national debt.
Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an economist with FreedomWorks. His latest book is “Govzilla: How the Relentless Growth of Government is Devouring our Economy.”
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Recent Posts

- Stephen Moore: America’s $100 billion climate change flop - March 7, 2023
- Stephen Moore: Scholars rank biggest spending presidents as the greatest - February 28, 2023
- Stephen Moore: It’s now or never for school choice everywhere - February 21, 2023
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.
Latest Articles
BizPac Review is under attack by progressive Silicon Valley zealots.
They are taking away our advertising revenue, censoring our content, and threatening to de-platform us.
We will no longer be beholden to them… but we need your help.
Support our commitment to credible conservative news.

- job opportunities
- privacy policy
- BPR BREAKROOM
- * NEW * WE THE PEOPLE WINE
- * NEW * WE THE PEOPLE STORE

IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Chapter 3: Literature Review on Climate Change Climate change can be defined as a significant change in the "average weather" of any given region sustained in the long-term and can be caused by Earth 's dynamic processes, external forces including variations in sunlight intensity, and also by human activities (USEPA, 2014).
Systematic Literature Review of Climate Change Governance Activities of Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations in Southeast Asia . 2020 Nov;66 (5):816-825. doi: 10.1007/s00267-020-01355-9. Epub 2020 Sep 6. Authors Siti Melinda Haris 1 2 , Firuza Begham Mustafa 3 , Raja Noriza Raja Ariffin 4 5 Affiliations
CLIMATE CHANGE DEFINITION Climate change is the periodic modification of Earth's climate brought about as the result of changes in the atmosphere as well as the interactions between the atmosphere and various other geologic, chemical, biological and geographical factors within the Earth system.
Abstract A summary of the literature on relationships between climate and various types of tree diseases, and the potential effects of climate change on pathogens in western North American forests is provided. Climate change generally will lead to reductions in tree health and will improve conditions for some highly damaging pathogens.
Climate change is a long-lasting change in the weather arrays across tropics to polls. It is a global threat that has embarked on to put stress on various sectors. This study is aimed to conceptually engineer how climate variability is deteriorating the sustainability of diverse sectors worldwide.
Abstract: This article reviews the rapidly proliferating economic literature on climate change and financial policy. We find: (1) enduring challenges in estimating the statistical properties of a changed climate; (2) emerging evidence of financial markets pricing in climate-related risks; and (3) a range of significant institutional distortions ...
The paper has three key goals: (1) to examine how climate change is affecting urban areas; (2) to assess how cities can enhance urban sustainability by addressing climate change; (3) to discuss resources available for city leaders wanting to transition to a sustainable city.
During the last two decades, the literature that examines farmers' perception of climate change has gained ground, but it is still scant. This is particularly true for Latin America, which is highly vulnerable to climate change.
This Review examines the pathways through which humans are impacted by climate change and shows that by 2100 the world's population will be simultaneously exposed to at least three hazards,...
Definitions of upscaling from the literature. "replication, spread, or adaptation of techniques, ideas, approaches, and concepts (the means)," and aims at achieving an "increased scale of impact (the ends).". Purpose: "to efficiently increase the socioeconomic impact from a small to a large scale of coverage.".
1 Displacement and climate change: Literature Review Irene Petraroli and Jane Singer Vocabulary of climate-induced mobility Climate-related mobility is an emerging field of study and discourse, and many of the terms of
This paper reviews assessing of such climate change impacts on various components of the ecosystem such as air, water, plants, animals and human beings, with special emphasis on economy. The most daunting problem of global warming is also discussed.
This paper reviews assessing of such climate change impacts on various components of the ecosystem such as air, water, plants, animals and human beings, with special emphasis on economy. The most daunting problem of global warming is also discussed.
This literature review traces the development of climate change denial from its beginnings in conservative organizations and the energy industry in the mid-20th century, and shows how the initial denialists' work has been refined by contemporary actors to spread climate dis- and misinformation online.
To clarify what is known, we conduct annual literature reviews of studies addressing climate impacts on salmon, particularly salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Bar charts show the percentage of papers in the scientific literature that address some of these topics from about 2,000 relevant papers published during 2010‑2019.
climate change (and responses to climate change) can impact people's ability to enjoy their human rights at varying degrees. The report also describes adaptation processes, decision-making in the context of climate change, resilience building processes, and future risks and adaptation opportunities by region and sector.
Climate-health literature reviews using systematic methods will be increasingly critical in the health sector, given the depth and breadth of the growing body of climate change and health literature, as well as the urgent need for evidence to inform climate-health adaptation and mitigation strategies.
Abstract. The purpose of this study is to identify existing evidence on risks and opportunities associated with climate change with regards to economic development, and in particular agricultural ...
The systematic literature review included a comprehensive search of the literature, collection and incorporation of information submitted by the public, screening and assessment of the eligibility of the collected literature, and synthesis of the collected literature.
Via a systematic literature review, this study evaluated how different tools are used to support decision making and thereby select circular economy (CE) strategies that can contribute to mitigating climate change in terms of GHG emissions reduction in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry.
Climate Literature Review page 8 3 Goals and methods of this review The goal of this review was to identify the literature published in 2010 that is most relevant to predicting impacts of climate change on Columbia River salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act. A large amount of literature related to this topic is not included, because ...
Climate change adaptation (CCA) evolved in the global policy framework in the early 1990s. However, it began to flourish about a decade later through a subsequent development of institutions, policies and supporting financial mechanisms. Various adaptation approaches and development practices have been evolving over the last couple of decades through a process of scrutiny, debates, and critiques.
Downloadable (with restrictions)! Purpose - Understanding policy consequences for cities is very important in an urban setting, especially in this era of developing solutions for grand challenges. Climate change adaptation and smart cities are emerging topics in the climate change and sustainability domain. Therefore, this paper aims to achieve a better understanding of policy consequences and ...
Risky feedback loops that are accelerating global climate change may not be fully accounted for in current climate models, according to a recent study published in the scientific journal One Earth.
Climate change will harm human health, and successful strategies to mitigate the extent of the change will restrict that harm. But new studies show that appropriate mitigation strategies will themselves have additional and independent effects on health, most of them beneficial. The potential value of these co-benefits has not so far been given ...
Whether it's a blown tire or damaged (possibly dislodged) bumper, potholes can cost a vehicle owner up to $6,000 to repair. "We've got like 34,000 kilometres of what we've deemed as poor or very ...
Climate change planning grants. The Population Health Initiative is seeking planning grant applications from the University of Washington research community to support investigators in launching new collaborations that will take on pressing climate-related challenges. Awards of up to $10,000 each are available with a project period of no more ...
MAINE —. The impacts of climate change are all around us. Every day, Maine's Total Weather team brings you a forecast, letting you know everything from when the best time to hit the slopes is or ...
Stephen Moore: America's $100 billion climate change flop. Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author. For at least the last 20 years, politicians in Washington, at the ...
climate change. Findings of the review as well as those of the V&A study will inform the review or development of existing policies and strategic plans for the health and water sectors. For example: Findings of the review will inform the on-going process of development of the 5-year Health Sector Strategic