Pub Date : 2025-12-01DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104287
Benjamin K. Sovacool , Livia Fritz , Chad M. Baum , Lucilla Losi , Ramit Debnath , Hans Jakob Walnum , Finn Müller-Hansen , Elina Brutschin
Climate interventions such as carbon removal and solar radiation management are now being considered by researchers, policymakers, and the private sector to address climate change. We examine European public perceptions of these interventions through five nationally representative surveys: Austria (N = 1005), Germany (N = 1025), Italy (N = 1002), Norway (N = 1002) and the United Kingdom (N = 1028). We combine this quantitative data with qualitative data from a total of 10 focus groups, with one urban and one rural focus group in each country. We find that public concerns within the five countries can be organized into themes such as climate change attitudes, technology perceptions, and governance. We also offer a comparative assessment of public perceptions organized around the relational themes of familiarity, policy support, aversion to tampering with nature, environmental identity, trust in actors, and experiences of climate change. Stated knowledge and familiarity with carbon removal and solar radiation management influence attitudes towards climate interventions. The great variety of attitudes and preferences confounds attempts to push climate policy or oversight of climate interventions towards applying “one-size-fits-all” policy options. Engaging with these diverse views in the policy process is therefore crucial for equitable deployment and minimizing societal backlash.
{"title":"Social attitudes towards climate interventions: Are European publics uninformed about carbon removal and solar radiation management?","authors":"Benjamin K. Sovacool , Livia Fritz , Chad M. Baum , Lucilla Losi , Ramit Debnath , Hans Jakob Walnum , Finn Müller-Hansen , Elina Brutschin","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104287","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104287","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Climate interventions such as carbon removal and solar radiation management are now being considered by researchers, policymakers, and the private sector to address climate change. We examine European public perceptions of these interventions through five nationally representative surveys: Austria (N = 1005), Germany (N = 1025), Italy (N = 1002), Norway (N = 1002) and the United Kingdom (N = 1028). We combine this quantitative data with qualitative data from a total of 10 focus groups, with one urban and one rural focus group in each country. We find that public concerns within the five countries can be organized into themes such as climate change attitudes, technology perceptions, and governance. We also offer a comparative assessment of public perceptions organized around the relational themes of familiarity, policy support, aversion to tampering with nature, environmental identity, trust in actors, and experiences of climate change. Stated knowledge and familiarity with carbon removal and solar radiation management influence attitudes towards climate interventions. The great variety of attitudes and preferences confounds attempts to push climate policy or oversight of climate interventions towards applying “one-size-fits-all” policy options. Engaging with these diverse views in the policy process is therefore crucial for equitable deployment and minimizing societal backlash.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 104287"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145620810","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-22DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104279
Nikol Damato , Alex McInturff
At the science-policy interface for wildlife conservation, numerous barriers prevent the integration of science into policy, and decision-makers must make tradeoffs between investing in research and implementing management interventions based on existing but limited information. The consequences of these decisions are particularly high for “wicked” problems like endangered species management, where there is often urgency, uncertainty, conflict, and irreversible and potentially harmful outcomes for both wildlife and human communities. As a result, there is growing recognition about the need to strategically prioritize research that effectively reduces uncertainty, is relevant to decision-makers, and improves management outcomes. We conducted a narrative literature review of the wildlife conservation sciences, the decision sciences, and the policy sciences to synthesize insights and best practices for research prioritization and meet a critical need for integrating social dimensions into prioritization decisions. Our goal was to develop an accessible framework to help decision-makers and natural and social scientists make more effective, defensible, and just decisions about research priorities. We propose four categories of considerations scientists and decision-makers can take into account in prioritization decisions: (1) the source, reducibility, and relevance of uncertainties, (2) practical and socio-political feasibility, (3) conflict and contestation, and (4) direct and indirect risk perceptions. We offer strategies and tools to operationalize and adapt the framework across management contexts and needs. We draw on examples from endangered Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) to provide insight into how decision-makers and scientists can apply the framework’s considerations within their unique social-ecological systems.
{"title":"A multidisciplinary framework for research prioritization at the science-policy interface: Insights for wildlife conservation and management","authors":"Nikol Damato , Alex McInturff","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104279","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104279","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>At the science-policy interface for wildlife conservation, numerous barriers prevent the integration of science into policy, and decision-makers must make tradeoffs between investing in research and implementing management interventions based on existing but limited information. The consequences of these decisions are particularly high for “wicked” problems like endangered species management, where there is often urgency, uncertainty, conflict, and irreversible and potentially harmful outcomes for both wildlife and human communities. As a result, there is growing recognition about the need to strategically prioritize research that effectively reduces uncertainty, is relevant to decision-makers, and improves management outcomes. We conducted a narrative literature review of the wildlife conservation sciences, the decision sciences, and the policy sciences to synthesize insights and best practices for research prioritization and meet a critical need for integrating social dimensions into prioritization decisions. Our goal was to develop an accessible framework to help decision-makers and natural and social scientists make more effective, defensible, and just decisions about research priorities. We propose four categories of considerations scientists and decision-makers can take into account in prioritization decisions: (1) the source, reducibility, and relevance of uncertainties, (2) practical and socio-political feasibility, (3) conflict and contestation, and (4) direct and indirect risk perceptions. We offer strategies and tools to operationalize and adapt the framework across management contexts and needs. We draw on examples from endangered Southern Resident killer whales (<em>Orcinus orca</em>) to provide insight into how decision-makers and scientists can apply the framework’s considerations within their unique social-ecological systems.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 104279"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145577101","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-22DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104286
Julia Schegg , Rea Pärli , Manuel Fischer , Eva Lieberherr
Transdisciplinary research (TDR) targets societal challenges through equitable knowledge co-production with non-academic actors for a given case context. Frequently, results of TDR projects are harder to generalize compared to those of non-TD projects, primarily because TD projects are designed to address specific, context-dependent situations. Including context (factors, such as COVID-19, public discourse, and action resources of project actors) when assessing TDR projects is thus important for the transferability of effects of TDR projects to other contexts. This study investigates the influence of context factors on TDR projects and their effects. Empirically, we rely on interviews with 23 researchers and non-academic actors involved in 9 TDR projects in the field of natural resources in Switzerland. We find that, particularly, the effects of knowledge integration into practice and into politics are most affected by context factors. We find the context factors: action resources of political support, organisation and consensus, and the system conditions of private economy and external natural events to be most influential for the achievement of aspired effects in TDR projects.
{"title":"Research shaped through context: Lessons from transdisciplinary projects","authors":"Julia Schegg , Rea Pärli , Manuel Fischer , Eva Lieberherr","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104286","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104286","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Transdisciplinary research (TDR) targets societal challenges through equitable knowledge co-production with non-academic actors for a given case context. Frequently, results of TDR projects are harder to generalize compared to those of non-TD projects, primarily because TD projects are designed to address specific, context-dependent situations. Including context (factors, such as COVID-19, public discourse, and action resources of project actors) when assessing TDR projects is thus important for the transferability of effects of TDR projects to other contexts. This study investigates the influence of context factors on TDR projects and their effects. Empirically, we rely on interviews with 23 researchers and non-academic actors involved in 9 TDR projects in the field of natural resources in Switzerland. We find that, particularly, the effects of knowledge integration into practice and into politics are most affected by context factors. We find the context factors: action resources of political support, organisation and consensus, and the system conditions of private economy and external natural events to be most influential for the achievement of aspired effects in TDR projects.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 104286"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145577103","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-21DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104284
Ali Rhouma , Antonella Autino , Fabio Maria Montagnino , Anna Malagó , Davide Dallera , Giovanni Bidoglio , Gill José Maria
This study presents the application of a novel evaluation SDG-Tool to assess the contributions of 25 research and innovation projects funded by the PRIMA Partnership to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Designed for systematic and replicable assessment, the tool overcomes the current lack of suitable Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) tools with this specific aim, by combining a Key Performance Indicators questionnaire with a dual-matrix framework weight, and relevance matrices aligned with SDG targets. It enables the normalization of scores and comparative analysis across five thematic areas, considering the economic, environmental, social, governance, and scientific-technological dimensions. The results reveal strong contributions by 25 studied projects to SDG2, SDG6, SDG9, SDG 12 SDG 13 and SDG15, with scientific-technological performance scoring highest (44.2/100), while governance impacts remain underdeveloped (17.5/100). The integration of evidence from the IPBES Nexus Assessment within the tool allows the exploration of interlinkages across biodiversity, food, water, health, climate, and energy, confirming climate and food systems as central to SDG synergies. The tool enhances transparency, strategic alignment, and orientation towards the UN 2030 Agenda. The proposed interface is user-friendly and the overall flexible structure allows adaptation and fine-tuning of the matrices. These features make the tool suitable for further refinements and reuse across various Research & Innovation programmes. Nevertheless, the study is limited by its reliance on expert-based weighting procedures and its application to a single portfolio of projects; further validation with larger datasets and use cases will be essential to strengthen its robustness and generalizability.
{"title":"A novel tool for translating Research and Innovation project outputs into measurable contributions to the UN Sustainable Development Goals","authors":"Ali Rhouma , Antonella Autino , Fabio Maria Montagnino , Anna Malagó , Davide Dallera , Giovanni Bidoglio , Gill José Maria","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104284","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104284","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study presents the application of a novel evaluation SDG-Tool to assess the contributions of 25 research and innovation projects funded by the PRIMA Partnership to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Designed for systematic and replicable assessment, the tool overcomes the current lack of suitable Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) tools with this specific aim, by combining a Key Performance Indicators questionnaire with a dual-matrix framework weight, and relevance matrices aligned with SDG targets. It enables the normalization of scores and comparative analysis across five thematic areas, considering the economic, environmental, social, governance, and scientific-technological dimensions. The results reveal strong contributions by 25 studied projects to SDG2, SDG6, SDG9, SDG 12 SDG 13 and SDG15, with scientific-technological performance scoring highest (44.2/100), while governance impacts remain underdeveloped (17.5/100). The integration of evidence from the IPBES Nexus Assessment within the tool allows the exploration of interlinkages across biodiversity, food, water, health, climate, and energy, confirming climate and food systems as central to SDG synergies. The tool enhances transparency, strategic alignment, and orientation towards the UN 2030 Agenda. The proposed interface is user-friendly and the overall flexible structure allows adaptation and fine-tuning of the matrices. These features make the tool suitable for further refinements and reuse across various Research & Innovation programmes. Nevertheless, the study is limited by its reliance on expert-based weighting procedures and its application to a single portfolio of projects; further validation with larger datasets and use cases will be essential to strengthen its robustness and generalizability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 104284"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145577102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-20DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104282
Jiayu Li, Michael C.P. Sing
Fragmentation in energy sustainability (ES) research and potential academic-policy misalignment impede global ES progress. This dual challenge motivates the innovations of this work: to synthesize ES literature and examine the academic-policy alignment. Theoretically, it enriches academic discourse by integrating dispersed ES research and offering new perspectives on the academia–policy divide. Practically, it identifies opportunities to help researchers address critical gaps and supports policymakers in designing effective measures to bridge this divide. Methodologically, we combine bibliometric and content analyses to map the ES research landscape, and employ a coupling coordination degree (CCD) model to quantify academia–policy alignment. Key findings reveal: (1) ES research is geographically concentrated in China and Europe; (2) while the definition of ES has evolved from narrow focus on sustainability to include inclusivity, accessibility, affordability, and energy efficiency, resilience remains underrepresented despite its importance for reflecting dynamic nature of ES; (3) three primary assessment frameworks prevail: social–economic–environmental, energy security–equity–environmental sustainability, and SDG-based framework; (4) while MCDM is the most common evaluation tool, dynamic methods such as predictive modelling are urgently needed; (5) Drivers of ES span economic, technological, political, and environmental dimensions, with social factors often overlooked; (6) CCD analysis reveals a U-shaped pattern in China, indicating alternating leadership between academia and policy, whereas France and Poland demonstrate steady CCD growth led by academic research. Conversely, the U.S. presents fluctuating CCD, where academic research is frequently disrupted by policy volatility. These patterns inform context-specific recommendations for improving academia-policy alignment.
{"title":"Mapping energy sustainability: An integrated analysis of research landscapes and policy alignment","authors":"Jiayu Li, Michael C.P. Sing","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104282","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104282","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Fragmentation in energy sustainability (ES) research and potential academic-policy misalignment impede global ES progress. This dual challenge motivates the innovations of this work: to synthesize ES literature and examine the academic-policy alignment. Theoretically, it enriches academic discourse by integrating dispersed ES research and offering new perspectives on the academia–policy divide. Practically, it identifies opportunities to help researchers address critical gaps and supports policymakers in designing effective measures to bridge this divide. Methodologically, we combine bibliometric and content analyses to map the ES research landscape, and employ a coupling coordination degree (CCD) model to quantify academia–policy alignment. Key findings reveal: (1) ES research is geographically concentrated in China and Europe; (2) while the definition of ES has evolved from narrow focus on sustainability to include inclusivity, accessibility, affordability, and energy efficiency, resilience remains underrepresented despite its importance for reflecting dynamic nature of ES; (3) three primary assessment frameworks prevail: social–economic–environmental, energy security–equity–environmental sustainability, and SDG-based framework; (4) while MCDM is the most common evaluation tool, dynamic methods such as predictive modelling are urgently needed; (5) Drivers of ES span economic, technological, political, and environmental dimensions, with social factors often overlooked; (6) CCD analysis reveals a U-shaped pattern in China, indicating alternating leadership between academia and policy, whereas France and Poland demonstrate steady CCD growth led by academic research. Conversely, the U.S. presents fluctuating CCD, where academic research is frequently disrupted by policy volatility. These patterns inform context-specific recommendations for improving academia-policy alignment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 104282"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145577100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-20DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104285
Obianuju Patience Ilo , Stephen Sunday Emmanuel , Ademidun Adeola Adesibikan , Odunayo T. Ore , Ajibola A. Bayode , Hamza Badamasi , Saheed O. Sanni , Mulala D. Simatele
The increasing frequency and severity of climate change-related disasters have made it a dominant issue in global public policy debates. In Africa, scholarly climate change research publications have gradually evolved, reflecting growing academic engagement with the continent’s unique climate challenges. This study makes a novel contribution by conducting a bibliometric analysis that not only maps the volume of scholarly output but also explores key trends, geographic distribution, keywords, leading researchers, collaboration networks, and research visibility. Using the VOSviewer visualisation tool, network maps were generated from a dataset of 662 research publications. The findings indicate that scholarly interest in this area gained momentum around 2016 and has continued to grow, with South Africa, Nigeria, and Ghana emerging as leading contributors. However, the analysis also highlights limited collaboration among authors and institutions, which may impede the coherence and impact of climate-related policy and practice. Moreover, the study identifies a disconnect between the production of climate knowledge and its practical application. To address this gap, the paper recommends that climate scientists reassess their approaches to collaboration and strengthen partnerships with media professionals to enhance the dissemination of accurate and actionable climate information.
{"title":"A bibliometric review of research on climate change in Africa","authors":"Obianuju Patience Ilo , Stephen Sunday Emmanuel , Ademidun Adeola Adesibikan , Odunayo T. Ore , Ajibola A. Bayode , Hamza Badamasi , Saheed O. Sanni , Mulala D. Simatele","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104285","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104285","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The increasing frequency and severity of climate change-related disasters have made it a dominant issue in global public policy debates. In Africa, scholarly climate change research publications have gradually evolved, reflecting growing academic engagement with the continent’s unique climate challenges. This study makes a novel contribution by conducting a bibliometric analysis that not only maps the volume of scholarly output but also explores key trends, geographic distribution, keywords, leading researchers, collaboration networks, and research visibility. Using the VOSviewer visualisation tool, network maps were generated from a dataset of 662 research publications. The findings indicate that scholarly interest in this area gained momentum around 2016 and has continued to grow, with South Africa, Nigeria, and Ghana emerging as leading contributors. However, the analysis also highlights limited collaboration among authors and institutions, which may impede the coherence and impact of climate-related policy and practice. Moreover, the study identifies a disconnect between the production of climate knowledge and its practical application. To address this gap, the paper recommends that climate scientists reassess their approaches to collaboration and strengthen partnerships with media professionals to enhance the dissemination of accurate and actionable climate information.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 104285"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145577164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-19DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104281
Layla Lomé van der Donk, Marcel Llavero-Pasquina
Emerging evidence on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination hotspots has put these persistent chemicals under growing scrutiny. However, chemical corporations’ deliberate efforts at veiling risks associated with PFAS have led regulatory bodies to give a slow response to this ominous environmental and public health threat. This article analyses 25 environmental conflicts over PFAS contamination using the Global Atlas of Environmental Justice, paying particular attention to the contestation of knowledge and the roles of PFAS’ chemical properties in shaping these conflicts. In doing so, it situates environmental justice struggles in the arena of post-normal science and adds to the empirical demonstration of manufactured uncertainty by PFAS-emitting industries. It highlights how the invisible nature of PFAS allows those responsible for contamination to keep the environmental threat under the radar, which supports the case for treating embodied experiences of people in affected communities as valuable sources of data informing timely policy interventions. The analysis contributes to environmental justice literature by pointing at the emergence of new environmental justice communities and sacrifice zones through what we liken to a “pollution trap” created by invisible yet persistent toxics. Our findings call for urgent preventive action, research, dissemination, and regulation, particularly out of concern over the expansion of toxic frontiers to the Global South.
{"title":"PFAS and the pollution trap: contested knowledge in environmental justice struggles","authors":"Layla Lomé van der Donk, Marcel Llavero-Pasquina","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104281","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104281","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Emerging evidence on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination hotspots has put these persistent chemicals under growing scrutiny. However, chemical corporations’ deliberate efforts at veiling risks associated with PFAS have led regulatory bodies to give a slow response to this ominous environmental and public health threat. This article analyses 25 environmental conflicts over PFAS contamination using the Global Atlas of Environmental Justice, paying particular attention to the contestation of knowledge and the roles of PFAS’ chemical properties in shaping these conflicts. In doing so, it situates environmental justice struggles in the arena of post-normal science and adds to the empirical demonstration of manufactured uncertainty by PFAS-emitting industries. It highlights how the invisible nature of PFAS allows those responsible for contamination to keep the environmental threat under the radar, which supports the case for treating embodied experiences of people in affected communities as valuable sources of data informing timely policy interventions. The analysis contributes to environmental justice literature by pointing at the emergence of new environmental justice communities and sacrifice zones through what we liken to a “pollution trap” created by invisible yet persistent toxics. Our findings call for urgent preventive action, research, dissemination, and regulation, particularly out of concern over the expansion of toxic frontiers to the Global South.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 104281"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145577165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-17DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104280
Dowon Kim , Wonbeen Park , Taeyoung Jin
This study analyzes the impact of carbon-neutral policies on the global climate and economy using a RICE-2010 model, reflecting climate actions of 184 countries. We investigate scenarios including business-as-usual, nationally determined contributions (NDCs), net zero emissions, and 1.5°C compliance. Our findings show that current emission reduction targets, while significant, fall short of limiting global temperature rise to 2°C by 2300, resulting in a projected warming of approximately 2.48°C, or about 0.48°C above the 2°C target. The analysis reveals that an additional 5 GtCO2e reduction is needed by 2030 to align with the 2°C pathway, with major emitters like China, the US, and India requiring the largest additional efforts. The study highlights that climate change impacts and resilience vary based on the timing and degree of emission reductions. Importantly, the costs and difficulties of achieving carbon neutrality differ among countries, potentially leading to free-rider issues. To address this, we emphasize the need for stricter, cooperative global governance on carbon neutrality. While current policies represent substantial progress, enhanced international cooperation and more ambitious targets are crucial to fully achieve the 2°C goal. This study provides insights for policymakers on the scale of necessary adjustments and the importance of equitable burden-sharing in global climate action.
{"title":"Evaluating global carbon neutrality commitments: An integrated assessment model approach to the 2°C target","authors":"Dowon Kim , Wonbeen Park , Taeyoung Jin","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104280","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104280","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study analyzes the impact of carbon-neutral policies on the global climate and economy using a RICE-2010 model, reflecting climate actions of 184 countries. We investigate scenarios including business-as-usual, nationally determined contributions (NDCs), net zero emissions, and 1.5°C compliance. Our findings show that current emission reduction targets, while significant, fall short of limiting global temperature rise to 2°C by 2300, resulting in a projected warming of approximately 2.48°C, or about 0.48°C above the 2°C target. The analysis reveals that an additional 5 GtCO2e reduction is needed by 2030 to align with the 2°C pathway, with major emitters like China, the US, and India requiring the largest additional efforts. The study highlights that climate change impacts and resilience vary based on the timing and degree of emission reductions. Importantly, the costs and difficulties of achieving carbon neutrality differ among countries, potentially leading to free-rider issues. To address this, we emphasize the need for stricter, cooperative global governance on carbon neutrality. While current policies represent substantial progress, enhanced international cooperation and more ambitious targets are crucial to fully achieve the 2°C goal. This study provides insights for policymakers on the scale of necessary adjustments and the importance of equitable burden-sharing in global climate action.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 104280"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145577163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-14DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104275
Olasunkanmi Dosunmu , Rob Whiting , Avtar Matharu , Nigel Watson , Andrew J. Sweetman
As we approach a century since their discovery, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have become integral in various applications, from medical devices and electronics to home and personal care products, due to their unique properties. However, PFAS are now recognised for their persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, and mobility (PBTM), posing significant risks to human health, and the environment. Regulating complex chemicals has historically been challenging, which is exemplified with the case of PFAS and the regrettable substitutions of one PFAS with another. As a response to changing regulations, the chemical industry has introduced a plethora of replacement substances, often with shorter chains, which are still persistent and mobile. We highlight the inadequacies in regulatory responses to global spread of PFAS, revealing an unintentional role that the approach to chemical management can create in regrettable substitution. To improve chemical regulation, we propose evaluating substances prior to issuance of registration numbers, comprehensive evaluation of policy impacts, such as the universal PFAS restriction, the need to harmonise the fragmented regulatory frameworks and encourage integration and communication both nationally and globally.
{"title":"The unintentional role of chemical regulation in regrettable substitution: The case of PFAS","authors":"Olasunkanmi Dosunmu , Rob Whiting , Avtar Matharu , Nigel Watson , Andrew J. Sweetman","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104275","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104275","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As we approach a century since their discovery, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have become integral in various applications, from medical devices and electronics to home and personal care products, due to their unique properties. However, PFAS are now recognised for their persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, and mobility (PBTM), posing significant risks to human health, and the environment. Regulating complex chemicals has historically been challenging, which is exemplified with the case of PFAS and the regrettable substitutions of one PFAS with another. As a response to changing regulations, the chemical industry has introduced a plethora of replacement substances, often with shorter chains, which are still persistent and mobile. We highlight the inadequacies in regulatory responses to global spread of PFAS, revealing an unintentional role that the approach to chemical management can create in regrettable substitution. To improve chemical regulation, we propose evaluating substances prior to issuance of registration numbers, comprehensive evaluation of policy impacts, such as the universal PFAS restriction, the need to harmonise the fragmented regulatory frameworks and encourage integration and communication both nationally and globally.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 104275"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145526802","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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}
Pub Date : 2025-11-12DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104274
Richard Kwame Adom, Takalani Malivhadza, Mulala Danny Simatele
The climate change adaptation framework in South Africa encapsulates multi-layered and dimensional strategies encompassing policies, stakeholder engagements, institutional capacity building, resource allocation, research and knowledge sharing. The framework integrates localised planning, resistant infrastructure development, conservation strategies, disaster mitigation, technological innovation and resilient infrastructure. Despite this well-thought-out framework, the adaptation measures do not address the vulnerabilities of risk communities. Using a mixed-method of qualitative and quantitative approach this paper explores the influence of leadership styles in South Africa’s climate change adaptation process, identifies gaps in leadership, structural and institutional barriers hindering the implementation of framework, and explores alternative strategies to enhance its effective execution. The findings established that climate change adaptation frameworks in South Africa face significant weaknesses that include fragmented leadership across government levels, weak accountability mechanisms, constrained capacity and expertise, inadequate community involvement, insufficient funding, a short-term focus, bureaucratic delays, and poor integration of science into policy. This paper suggests that enhancing the implementation of the framework will require a multifaceted and concerted strategy that incorporates various stakeholders, strong political will and commitments, effective governance structures, and capacity building.
{"title":"Transforming climate change adaptation in South Africa: Addressing leadership, governance, and community vulnerability through inclusive strategies and effective leadership","authors":"Richard Kwame Adom, Takalani Malivhadza, Mulala Danny Simatele","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104274","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104274","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The climate change adaptation framework in South Africa encapsulates multi-layered and dimensional strategies encompassing policies, stakeholder engagements, institutional capacity building, resource allocation, research and knowledge sharing. The framework integrates localised planning, resistant infrastructure development, conservation strategies, disaster mitigation, technological innovation and resilient infrastructure. Despite this well-thought-out framework, the adaptation measures do not address the vulnerabilities of risk communities. Using a mixed-method of qualitative and quantitative approach this paper explores the influence of leadership styles in South Africa’s climate change adaptation process, identifies gaps in leadership, structural and institutional barriers hindering the implementation of framework, and explores alternative strategies to enhance its effective execution. The findings established that climate change adaptation frameworks in South Africa face significant weaknesses that include fragmented leadership across government levels, weak accountability mechanisms, constrained capacity and expertise, inadequate community involvement, insufficient funding, a short-term focus, bureaucratic delays, and poor integration of science into policy. This paper suggests that enhancing the implementation of the framework will require a multifaceted and concerted strategy that incorporates various stakeholders, strong political will and commitments, effective governance structures, and capacity building.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 104274"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2,"publicationDate":"2025-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145526782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号