preview

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

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

review literature of climate change

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Related Services

Student working on a laptop

Essay Writing Service

Student reading book

Student reading and using laptop to study

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!

Related Lectures

Study for free with our range of university lectures!

Academic Knowledge Logo

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!

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

U.S. flag

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.

Review of literature on climate change and forest diseases of western North America

review literature of climate change

U.S. flag

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.

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and sustainable mitigation measures

Affiliations.

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

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Miscellaneous

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.

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.

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.

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

Author Corner

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

People also looked at

Mini review article, farmers’ perception of climate change: a review of the literature for latin america.

www.frontiersin.org

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.

www.frontiersin.org

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.

Review Articles

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

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.

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

Quick links

review literature of climate change

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.

Elsevier

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.

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.

U.S. flag

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.

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

What is this?

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

NYU Scholars Logo

A review of climate change, mitigation and adaptation

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.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

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

review literature of climate change

MediaWell

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.

Welcome to the new home for FishWatch information!

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.  

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.  Upper chart shows the range of drivers affect salmon response to the environment, and lower chart shows the range of responses have been measured in salmon. All of these papers help explain their cumulative response to climate change.

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.

Dereka Chargualaf wading in a river, writing on a clipboard

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

Southern Resident killer whale jumping out of the water

Unsettled Pacific Ocean Offers Surprises as Climate Change Alters Ecosystem

Big Sur coastline

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

More On This Topic

review literature of climate change

2022 CalCOFI Summer Survey

2022 calcofi spring survey.

NOAA Ship Bell M. Shimada during 2010 Pacific Hake Inter-Vessel Calibration off Eureka, CA

Collecting Data on Diverse West Coast Waters

A cluster of pink salmon underwater

Salmon on the High Seas: Unlocking the Mystery of Salmon in the North Pacific

Climate change and health in North America: literature review protocol

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).

figure 1

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 ).

figure 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

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

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

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

Is this page 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

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:

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:

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 ).

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

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.

review literature of climate change

sustainability-logo

Article Menu

review literature of climate change

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.

review literature of climate change

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.

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.

MDPI

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Browse Econ Literature

More features

RePEc Biblio

Author registration.

IDEAS home

Systematic review of smart cities and climate change adaptation

Corrections

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

Risky feedback loops are accelerating climate change, scientists warn

thumbnail

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 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.

Renewable energy company discusses the 'full circle' of the planned transition to net-zero

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:

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.

review literature of 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.

Kamal Hossein, a professor of civil engineering at Carleton University in Ottawa, stand at the corner of Greenbank Road and Cappamore Drive in the city's south end.

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.

The Python 5000 first cleans out the hole in the pavement before it fills them with asphalt.

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

review literature of climate change

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]

Related Stories

Add some “good” to your morning and evening.

A variety of newsletters you'll love, delivered straight to you.

review literature of climate change

Climate change planning grants

UW researcher in the field completing a glacial survey

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:

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:

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:

Unallowable expenses include:

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:

Applications are encouraged, but not required, to include the following:

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:

Each application must contain the following sections:

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

WMTW News 8 and Weather

Search location by ZIP code

Forecasting our future: the impacts of maine's changing climate.

review literature of climate change

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:

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.

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 .

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."

Reid State Park

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.

review literature of climate change

Stephen Moore: America’s $100 billion climate change flop

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

review literature of climate change

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!

Stephen Moore

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.

review literature of climate change

IMAGES

  1. (PDF) The Economics of Global Climate Change: A Historical Literature Review

    review literature of climate change

  2. Climate Change Model

    review literature of climate change

  3. (PDF) Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change: A Literature Review

    review literature of climate change

  4. Literature as a Lens for Climate Change: Using Narratives to Prepare the Next Generation

    review literature of climate change

  5. Climate and Literature : Adeline Johns-Putra (editor) : 9781108422529 : Blackwell's

    review literature of climate change

  6. (PDF) Appendix A Climate Change Literature Review Summary Climate Change Handbook for Regional

    review literature of climate change

VIDEO

  1. About Climate Change

  2. Book reviews

  3. Sustainable Appetite

  4. Climate Change

  5. Climate Change: Historical Perspectives and the Current Debate

  6. World Snowboard Day (December 21), Activities and How to Celebrate World Snowboard Day

COMMENTS

  1. Literature Review On Climate Change

    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).

  2. Systematic Literature Review of Climate Change Governance Activities of

    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

  3. Literature Review: Impacts of Climate Change

    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.

  4. Review of literature on climate change and forest diseases of western

    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.

  5. A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and ...

    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.

  6. The Fed

    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 ...

  7. A Literature Review of Climate Change and Urban Sustainability

    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.

  8. Farmers' Perception of Climate Change: A Review of the Literature for

    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.

  9. Review Articles

    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,...

  10. Upscaling of climate services

    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.".

  11. PDF Displacement and climate change: Literature Review

    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

  12. Climate Change and Human Health Literature Portal A review of climate

    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.

  13. A review of climate change, mitigation and adaptation

    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.

  14. Climate Change Denial & Skepticism: A Review of the Literature

    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.

  15. Literature Review of Climate Change Impacts on Pacific Salmon and

    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.

  16. PDF Literature Review

    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.

  17. Climate change and health in North America: literature review protocol

    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.

  18. Literature review on the impact of climate change on economic

    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 ...

  19. Process for Literature Review

    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.

  20. How Different Tools Contribute to Climate Change Mitigation in a

    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.

  21. PDF Climate Literature Review 2011

    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 ...

  22. Conflict-Sensitive Climate Change Adaptation: A Review

    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.

  23. Systematic review of smart cities and climate change adaptation

    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 ...

  24. 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.

  25. The health benefits of tackling climate change

    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 ...

  26. Climate change and the rising cost of potholes

    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 ...

  27. Climate change planning grants

    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 ...

  28. Forecasting our Future: The impacts of Maine's changing climate

    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 ...

  29. Stephen Moore: America's $100 billion climate change flop

    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 ...

  30. PDF The United Republic of Tanzania Ministry of Health and Social Welfare

    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