Climate science is expected to provide usable information to policy‐makers, to support the resolution of climate change. The complex, multiply connected nature of climate change as a social problem is reviewed and contrasted with current modular and discipline‐bounded approaches in climate science. We argue that climate science retains much of its initial “physics‐first” orientation, and that it adheres to a problematic notion of objectivity as freedom from value judgments. Together, these undermine its ability to provide usable information. We develop the notion of usability using work from the literature on adaptation, but our argument applies to all of climate science. We illustrate the tension between usability and the objective, physics‐first orientation of climate science with an example about model development practices in climate science. For solutions, we draw on two frameworks for science which responds to societal challenges: post‐normal science and mandated science. We generate five recommendations for adapting the practice of climate science, to produce more usable information and thereby respond more directly to the social challenge of climate change. These are: (1) integrated cross‐disciplinarity, (2) wider involvement of stakeholders throughout the lifecycle of a climate study, (3) a new framing of the role of values in climate science, (4) new approaches to uncertainty management, and (5) new approaches to uncertainty communication.
{"title":"Usability of climate information: Toward a new scientific framework","authors":"J. Jebeile, J. Roussos","doi":"10.1002/wcc.833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.833","url":null,"abstract":"Climate science is expected to provide usable information to policy‐makers, to support the resolution of climate change. The complex, multiply connected nature of climate change as a social problem is reviewed and contrasted with current modular and discipline‐bounded approaches in climate science. We argue that climate science retains much of its initial “physics‐first” orientation, and that it adheres to a problematic notion of objectivity as freedom from value judgments. Together, these undermine its ability to provide usable information. We develop the notion of usability using work from the literature on adaptation, but our argument applies to all of climate science. We illustrate the tension between usability and the objective, physics‐first orientation of climate science with an example about model development practices in climate science. For solutions, we draw on two frameworks for science which responds to societal challenges: post‐normal science and mandated science. We generate five recommendations for adapting the practice of climate science, to produce more usable information and thereby respond more directly to the social challenge of climate change. These are: (1) integrated cross‐disciplinarity, (2) wider involvement of stakeholders throughout the lifecycle of a climate study, (3) a new framing of the role of values in climate science, (4) new approaches to uncertainty management, and (5) new approaches to uncertainty communication.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47602331","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kathleen A. Mar, Niko Schäpke, Carolin Fraude, T. Bruhn, C. Wamsler, D. Stasiak, Heike Schroeder, Mark G. Lawrence
The international UN Climate Change conferences known as “Conferences of the Parties (COPs)” have an enormous convening power and are attended annually by tens of thousands of actors working on climate change topics from a wide range of perspectives. In the COP spaces outside of the formal negotiations, the communication culture is dominated by “side events,” a format that relies heavily on conventional presentations and panels that can be informative, but is generally not conducive to mutual engagement, reflection, or dialogue. There is an urgent need for new dialogue formats that can better foster learning and community‐building and thereby harness the enormous latent potential for climate action represented by the diverse stakeholders that gather at the COP. Against this backdrop, and drawing on our experience with the development and implementation of the Co‐Creative Reflection and Dialogue Spaces at COP25, COP26, and COP27, we make recommendations for further developing the communication culture of the COPs. At the level of individual sessions, we provide recommendations for designing participatory dialogues that can better support reflection, interconnection, and action orientation. In addition, we offer guidance for scaling up these practices, for instance through networks and communities of practice to support a shift of the overall communication culture of the COPs. Our recommendations focus on interactions and exchanges that unfold outside of the formal negotiation sessions, with a view toward enabling and accelerating transformative action by non‐state actors.
{"title":"Learning and community building in support of collective action: Toward a new climate of communication at the COP","authors":"Kathleen A. Mar, Niko Schäpke, Carolin Fraude, T. Bruhn, C. Wamsler, D. Stasiak, Heike Schroeder, Mark G. Lawrence","doi":"10.1002/wcc.832","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.832","url":null,"abstract":"The international UN Climate Change conferences known as “Conferences of the Parties (COPs)” have an enormous convening power and are attended annually by tens of thousands of actors working on climate change topics from a wide range of perspectives. In the COP spaces outside of the formal negotiations, the communication culture is dominated by “side events,” a format that relies heavily on conventional presentations and panels that can be informative, but is generally not conducive to mutual engagement, reflection, or dialogue. There is an urgent need for new dialogue formats that can better foster learning and community‐building and thereby harness the enormous latent potential for climate action represented by the diverse stakeholders that gather at the COP. Against this backdrop, and drawing on our experience with the development and implementation of the Co‐Creative Reflection and Dialogue Spaces at COP25, COP26, and COP27, we make recommendations for further developing the communication culture of the COPs. At the level of individual sessions, we provide recommendations for designing participatory dialogues that can better support reflection, interconnection, and action orientation. In addition, we offer guidance for scaling up these practices, for instance through networks and communities of practice to support a shift of the overall communication culture of the COPs. Our recommendations focus on interactions and exchanges that unfold outside of the formal negotiation sessions, with a view toward enabling and accelerating transformative action by non‐state actors.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45837776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Soviet science contributed significantly to our understanding of anthropogenic climate change and, as part of this, played a central role in the emerging science underpinning climate modification and geoengineering initiatives. A key focus of discussion was the use of stratospheric aerosols linked to the innovative ideas of Mikhail Budyko and colleagues. This work had its origins in what has been termed the theory of aerosol climatic catastrophe, which gained prominence in the Soviet context during the early 1970s. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, the ideas of Budyko concerning the use of stratospheric aerosols were advanced by Yuri Izrael and his collaborators. The associated body of work gained traction during the 2000s and engendered a wider debate concerning the efficacy of geoengineering solutions amongst Russia's climate scientists. The legacies of this scientific discussion are also evident in recent high‐level international debates such as those linked to the activities of the IPCC. While significant geopolitical obstacles remain in the way of an international agreement linked to the possible deployment of geoengineering measures, interest continues to grow. The maturity of Russian science in the area of geoengineering and climate modification ensures that it remains an important voice within the broader scientific debate. At the same time, the progressive isolation of Russian science from the international scene due to wider geopolitical events risks deflecting attention away from contemporary popular and political debate in this area and alienating this rich scientific tradition at a critical juncture.
{"title":"Soviet and Russian perspectives on geoengineering and climate management","authors":"J. Oldfield, Marianna Poberezhskaya","doi":"10.1002/wcc.829","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.829","url":null,"abstract":"Soviet science contributed significantly to our understanding of anthropogenic climate change and, as part of this, played a central role in the emerging science underpinning climate modification and geoengineering initiatives. A key focus of discussion was the use of stratospheric aerosols linked to the innovative ideas of Mikhail Budyko and colleagues. This work had its origins in what has been termed the theory of aerosol climatic catastrophe, which gained prominence in the Soviet context during the early 1970s. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, the ideas of Budyko concerning the use of stratospheric aerosols were advanced by Yuri Izrael and his collaborators. The associated body of work gained traction during the 2000s and engendered a wider debate concerning the efficacy of geoengineering solutions amongst Russia's climate scientists. The legacies of this scientific discussion are also evident in recent high‐level international debates such as those linked to the activities of the IPCC. While significant geopolitical obstacles remain in the way of an international agreement linked to the possible deployment of geoengineering measures, interest continues to grow. The maturity of Russian science in the area of geoengineering and climate modification ensures that it remains an important voice within the broader scientific debate. At the same time, the progressive isolation of Russian science from the international scene due to wider geopolitical events risks deflecting attention away from contemporary popular and political debate in this area and alienating this rich scientific tradition at a critical juncture.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42497705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Climate activism, and ethical reflection on it, is expanding in line with increased awareness of global warming's destructive effects. The ethics of climate activism has focused on two main questions. First, is there a duty to engage in climate activism? Answers to this question differ regarding how the duty is grounded, how demanding it is, and whether people in certain social roles have special duties to engage in climate activism. The second question is whether certain forms of climate activism are morally permissible, given certain frequently voiced concerns. Prominently, concerns about climate activism being ineffective, uninclusive, undemocratic, and violent. The review ends by pointing to other issues that the ethics of climate activism is likely to address in the near future.
{"title":"The ethics of climate activism","authors":"Francisco Garcia‐Gibson","doi":"10.1002/wcc.831","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.831","url":null,"abstract":"Climate activism, and ethical reflection on it, is expanding in line with increased awareness of global warming's destructive effects. The ethics of climate activism has focused on two main questions. First, is there a duty to engage in climate activism? Answers to this question differ regarding how the duty is grounded, how demanding it is, and whether people in certain social roles have special duties to engage in climate activism. The second question is whether certain forms of climate activism are morally permissible, given certain frequently voiced concerns. Prominently, concerns about climate activism being ineffective, uninclusive, undemocratic, and violent. The review ends by pointing to other issues that the ethics of climate activism is likely to address in the near future.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48048849","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Climate change can be construed as a question of collective responsibility from two different viewpoints: climate change being inherently a collective problem, or collective entities bearing responsibility for climate change. When discussing collective responsibility for climate change, “collective” can thus refer to the problem of climate change itself, or to the entity causing the harm and/or bearing responsibility for it. The first viewpoint focuses on how climate change is a harm that has been caused collectively. Collective action problem refers to an aggregation of individual actions which together produce an outcome that is not intended at the level of an individual action. It cannot be solved by any one agent acting unilaterally. Instead, climate change action must be enacted and supported by numerous agents. The second way to conceptualize climate change as a question of collective responsibility focuses on the collective entities that bear responsibility for climate change. As a global problem, climate change is linked to the realm of international politics, where states, governments, and intergovernmental organizations are the main collective entities. Other important agential collectives in terms of climate responsibility are corporations, including carbon majors who have produced the bulk of emissions. Climate change has also been theorized as a structural injustice, which combines elements from both the viewpoints on what is collective about responsibility for climate change.
{"title":"Collective responsibility for climate change","authors":"Säde Hormio","doi":"10.1002/wcc.830","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.830","url":null,"abstract":"Climate change can be construed as a question of collective responsibility from two different viewpoints: climate change being inherently a collective problem, or collective entities bearing responsibility for climate change. When discussing collective responsibility for climate change, “collective” can thus refer to the problem of climate change itself, or to the entity causing the harm and/or bearing responsibility for it. The first viewpoint focuses on how climate change is a harm that has been caused collectively. Collective action problem refers to an aggregation of individual actions which together produce an outcome that is not intended at the level of an individual action. It cannot be solved by any one agent acting unilaterally. Instead, climate change action must be enacted and supported by numerous agents. The second way to conceptualize climate change as a question of collective responsibility focuses on the collective entities that bear responsibility for climate change. As a global problem, climate change is linked to the realm of international politics, where states, governments, and intergovernmental organizations are the main collective entities. Other important agential collectives in terms of climate responsibility are corporations, including carbon majors who have produced the bulk of emissions. Climate change has also been theorized as a structural injustice, which combines elements from both the viewpoints on what is collective about responsibility for climate change.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41262908","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Emily C. Nabong, Lauren Hocking, A. Opdyke, J. Walters
Global migration and mobility dynamics are expected to shift in the coming decades as a result of climate change. However, the extent to which migration is caused by climate hazards, in contrast or addition to other intervening factors, is a point of debate in literature. In this study, we conducted a systematic literature review to identify and consolidate factors which directly and indirectly influence climate change migration. In our review of the literature, we found a total of 21 economic, environmental, demographic, political, social, and personal intervening decision‐making factors which affect climate migration. Causal interactions between these factors were identified using an axial qualitative coding technique called purposive text analysis. By combining causal links, a semi‐quantitative causal loop diagram was created that represented factor interaction and feedback within the “climate migration system.” Using this model, we highlight influential feedback loops and point to how intervention strategies may cause downstream effects. This research helps to address calls for a better understanding of the complex decision‐making dynamics in climate migration. In particular, results from our causal feedback loops show that intervention strategies targeted toward economic factors such as financial capital and livelihoods, as well as food security, would have the greatest impact in assisting climate‐affected communities. These results help inform climate migration policy and aid planners in the future to better understand the interconnected system of factors that lead to the emergent outcome of climate migration.
{"title":"Decision‐making factor interactions influencing climate migration: A systems‐based systematic review","authors":"Emily C. Nabong, Lauren Hocking, A. Opdyke, J. Walters","doi":"10.1002/wcc.828","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.828","url":null,"abstract":"Global migration and mobility dynamics are expected to shift in the coming decades as a result of climate change. However, the extent to which migration is caused by climate hazards, in contrast or addition to other intervening factors, is a point of debate in literature. In this study, we conducted a systematic literature review to identify and consolidate factors which directly and indirectly influence climate change migration. In our review of the literature, we found a total of 21 economic, environmental, demographic, political, social, and personal intervening decision‐making factors which affect climate migration. Causal interactions between these factors were identified using an axial qualitative coding technique called purposive text analysis. By combining causal links, a semi‐quantitative causal loop diagram was created that represented factor interaction and feedback within the “climate migration system.” Using this model, we highlight influential feedback loops and point to how intervention strategies may cause downstream effects. This research helps to address calls for a better understanding of the complex decision‐making dynamics in climate migration. In particular, results from our causal feedback loops show that intervention strategies targeted toward economic factors such as financial capital and livelihoods, as well as food security, would have the greatest impact in assisting climate‐affected communities. These results help inform climate migration policy and aid planners in the future to better understand the interconnected system of factors that lead to the emergent outcome of climate migration.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46102961","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The polluter pays principle (PPP) has the form of a reparative principle. It holds that since some countries have historically contributed more to global warming than others, these countries have the follow‐up responsibility now to do more to address climate change. Yet in the climate justice debate, PPP is often rejected for two reasons. First, so the objection goes, it wrongly burdens present‐day individuals because the actions of their predecessors. This is the unfairness objection. The second objection is that early polluters were not aware of the harm that they were doing, and so ought not to be held culpable. This is the objection from excusable ignorance. In this commentary, I defend PPP against these two objections. The aim of this short reflection is not to provide a full justification of PPP, or to respond to all objections that have been made against it. My more limited but, I hope, important goal is to show that PPP is neither immediately unfair (in making innocent parties pay) nor immediately unreasonable (in making excusably ignorant parties pay) as is commonly noted, and is therefore worthy of further consideration as a principle of climate justice.
{"title":"Climate reparations: Why the polluter pays principle is neither unfair nor unreasonable","authors":"K. Tan","doi":"10.1002/wcc.827","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.827","url":null,"abstract":"The polluter pays principle (PPP) has the form of a reparative principle. It holds that since some countries have historically contributed more to global warming than others, these countries have the follow‐up responsibility now to do more to address climate change. Yet in the climate justice debate, PPP is often rejected for two reasons. First, so the objection goes, it wrongly burdens present‐day individuals because the actions of their predecessors. This is the unfairness objection. The second objection is that early polluters were not aware of the harm that they were doing, and so ought not to be held culpable. This is the objection from excusable ignorance. In this commentary, I defend PPP against these two objections. The aim of this short reflection is not to provide a full justification of PPP, or to respond to all objections that have been made against it. My more limited but, I hope, important goal is to show that PPP is neither immediately unfair (in making innocent parties pay) nor immediately unreasonable (in making excusably ignorant parties pay) as is commonly noted, and is therefore worthy of further consideration as a principle of climate justice.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48950704","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Wim Carton, Inge-Merete Hougaard, Nils Markusson, J. Lund
Carbon dioxide removal is rapidly becoming a key focus in climate research and politics. This is raising concerns of “moral hazard” or “mitigation deterrence,” that is, the risk that promises of and/or efforts to pursue carbon removal end up reducing or delaying near‐term mitigation efforts. Some, however, contest this risk, arguing that it is overstated or lacking evidence. In this review, we explore the reasons behind the disagreement in the literature. We unpack the different ways in which moral hazard/mitigation deterrence (MH/MD) is conceptualized and examine how these conceptualizations inform assessments of MH/MD risks. We find that MH/MD is a commonly recognized feature of modeled mitigation pathways but that conclusions as to the real‐world existence of MH/MD diverge on individualistic versus structural approaches to examining it. Individualistic approaches favor narrow conceptualizations of MH/MD, which tend to exclude the wider political‐economic contexts in which carbon removal emerges. This exclusion limits the value and relevance of such approaches. We argue for a broader understanding of what counts as evidence of delaying practices and propose a research agenda that complements theoretical accounts of MH/MD with empirical studies of the political‐economic structures that may drive mitigation deterrence dynamics.
{"title":"Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?","authors":"Wim Carton, Inge-Merete Hougaard, Nils Markusson, J. Lund","doi":"10.1002/wcc.826","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.826","url":null,"abstract":"Carbon dioxide removal is rapidly becoming a key focus in climate research and politics. This is raising concerns of “moral hazard” or “mitigation deterrence,” that is, the risk that promises of and/or efforts to pursue carbon removal end up reducing or delaying near‐term mitigation efforts. Some, however, contest this risk, arguing that it is overstated or lacking evidence. In this review, we explore the reasons behind the disagreement in the literature. We unpack the different ways in which moral hazard/mitigation deterrence (MH/MD) is conceptualized and examine how these conceptualizations inform assessments of MH/MD risks. We find that MH/MD is a commonly recognized feature of modeled mitigation pathways but that conclusions as to the real‐world existence of MH/MD diverge on individualistic versus structural approaches to examining it. Individualistic approaches favor narrow conceptualizations of MH/MD, which tend to exclude the wider political‐economic contexts in which carbon removal emerges. This exclusion limits the value and relevance of such approaches. We argue for a broader understanding of what counts as evidence of delaying practices and propose a research agenda that complements theoretical accounts of MH/MD with empirical studies of the political‐economic structures that may drive mitigation deterrence dynamics.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46992818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
T. Shrum, Natalie S. Platt, E. Markowitz, Stylianos Syropoulos
We review the existing literature on the role of parenthood as a motivator of environmental engagement (the green parenthood effect), focusing particularly on climate change. We find that parenthood is severely understudied as a mechanism that may influence climate change‐relevant behavior. The literature on the role of parenthood in driving environmental engagement is mixed, due in part to the role of baseline individual and group characteristics that lead to different impacts of parenthood on environmental engagement as well as to the countervailing impact of intense time and budget constraints imposed by parenthood. Some studies suggest that parenthood increases pro‐environmental engagements, while others find no effects or negative effects. We theorize that potential mediators and moderators need to be taken into account to get a clearer picture of how parenthood influences pro‐environmental engagement. We highlight underlying proposed mechanisms that might be activated during the transition to parenthood (i.e., legacy motives, generativity, perceived responsibility), potential moderators of the green parenthood effect, and insights for public engagement.
{"title":"A scoping review of the green parenthood effect on environmental and climate engagement","authors":"T. Shrum, Natalie S. Platt, E. Markowitz, Stylianos Syropoulos","doi":"10.1002/wcc.818","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.818","url":null,"abstract":"We review the existing literature on the role of parenthood as a motivator of environmental engagement (the green parenthood effect), focusing particularly on climate change. We find that parenthood is severely understudied as a mechanism that may influence climate change‐relevant behavior. The literature on the role of parenthood in driving environmental engagement is mixed, due in part to the role of baseline individual and group characteristics that lead to different impacts of parenthood on environmental engagement as well as to the countervailing impact of intense time and budget constraints imposed by parenthood. Some studies suggest that parenthood increases pro‐environmental engagements, while others find no effects or negative effects. We theorize that potential mediators and moderators need to be taken into account to get a clearer picture of how parenthood influences pro‐environmental engagement. We highlight underlying proposed mechanisms that might be activated during the transition to parenthood (i.e., legacy motives, generativity, perceived responsibility), potential moderators of the green parenthood effect, and insights for public engagement.","PeriodicalId":23695,"journal":{"name":"Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47367000","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：