Role of Science in Climate and Social Crises

Where Is Behavioral Science in the Global Health Response to Climate Change? The World Health Organization has just released its draft Global Action Plan on Climate Change and Health. It’s a big step: a formal strategy to guide countries in adapting their health systems to climate threats. The plan is wide-ranging and ambitious. It calls for integrating health into climate policy and climate into health systems. It lays out bold goals for climate-resilient facilities, early warning systems, and cross-sector coordination. But here’s what’s missing: the role for behavioral science. In the 20+ pages, there isn't an explicit reference to the science of behavior—the field that tells us how people actually make decisions under stress, uncertainty, and environmental threat. And yet, so much of what the plan aims to achieve depends on people changing behavior. Let’s take a few examples: - Caregivers adopting new heat-avoidance routines to protect children. - Households adjusting water usage during drought. - Health workers adopting clean energy technologies in clinics. - Communities trusting and responding to climate-related health alerts. These aren’t just policy or infrastructure problems. They’re behavioral challenges. And that means we need behavioral tools—like social norms diagnostics, risk framing, behavioral nudges, and participatory co-design—to address them effectively. Behavioral science can help people adapt to a changing climate. Here’s what I’d like to see in the next iteration of the WHO plan: -A clear role for behavioral science in capacity building and program design. -Indicators that track not just health outcomes, but behavioral readiness and uptake. -Guidance on how to integrate behavioral insights into communication, infrastructure, and service delivery strategies. There’s precedent for this. WHO’s WHA76.7 resolution already calls on countries to institutionalize behavioral science in their health systems. This new climate-health plan should build on that momentum. Climate change is already altering how people live, work, migrate, and care for their families. Lets designing health interventions for a climate future with full understanding how people will respond. Here is a great example of behavior change intervention that enables mothers to respond to climate change: https://lnkd.in/gHZkHHYu. We need more such excellent examples of interventions illustrating how behavioral science can contribute to climate change adaptation. #BehavioralScience #ClimateHealth #GlobalHealth #HealthPolicy #BehaviorChange #SocialNorms #WHO #HealthSystems #ClimateAdaptation #ImplementationScience #Equity #ClimateResilience #CommunityHealth Temina Lalani-Shariff

Make deforestation newsworthy. That’s a core principle behind much of the work we do at Mongabay. We're not as eye-catching as Greenpeace (pictured), but we doggedly report on it. I highlighted this as one of our key strategies during a talk on Friday at the International Society of Tropical Foresters (ISTF) conference hosted at the Yale School of the Environment. My talk covered 5 main themes, including the role of science communication in tropical forest governance. One of the biggest gaps in forest governance is communication. Policy change is nearly impossible if the right information doesn’t reach the right people at the right time. And let’s be honest—many of the conversations happening in expert circles aren’t resonating with the decision-makers and communities who matter most. Good communication isn’t a footnote in conservation. It’s fundamental to progress. Here are 7 ways science communication can strengthen forest governance: Raise awareness & drive engagement ↳ Well-communicated science makes deforestation, degradation, and ecosystem services more accessible. 🌳 e.g. Forests don’t just store carbon—they regulate the water cycle. Water security is tangible to people in ways CO₂ isn’t. Making that connection can shift priorities. Broaden the constituency for forests ↳ Messaging tailored to local contexts builds public demand for better governance. 🔥 e.g. Environmental crises are becoming personal for more people. When science is clear and credible, it expands the base of those who care. Shape policy & promote transparency ↳ Translating scientific data into actionable insights helps leaders make informed decisions. 📉 e.g. Satellite imagery in the Amazon helped drive policies that contributed to a sharp drop in deforestation in Brazil. Foster cross-sector collaboration ↳ Effective communication aligns scientists, policymakers, businesses, and NGOs toward shared goals. 🐘 e.g. Emerging research links biodiversity loss to reduced carbon storage in forests—bringing two historically separate fields together. Build trust & navigate complexities ↳ Accessible, transparent communication increases public buy-in for science-based policies. 🤝 e.g. People are more likely to support solutions when they understand the science behind them. Facilitate behavioral change ↳ Science can influence consumer and corporate decisions by showing the real-world impact of unsustainable practices. 🌴 e.g. Data on deforestation for palm oil fueled campaigns that led to corporate zero-deforestation commitments—and a significant decline in forest clearing for the crop in Indonesia 🇮🇩. Inspire new ideas & innovation ↳ Stories of success empower people. Solutions can give them something to act on. 🌈 e.g. “Bad news drains me. Solutions make me feel like I can do something.” This shift in framing fuels creativity and action. The takeaway? If we want better forest governance, we need better science communication.

🎉 Climate change engagement of scientists paper published! 🎉 In our new paper, which has just been published in Nature Climate Change, we explored scientists’ beliefs about their role and the role of scientific institutions in the context of climate change as well as their engagement in climate actions. These actions include forms of advocacy and activism ranging from signing petitions to engaging in civil disobedience and high-impact lifestyle changes such as reducing flying or adopting a plant-rich diet. Surveying N = 9,220 scientists from 115 countries, all disciplines, and all career stages we find, for example, that 91% of surveyed scientists believe that fundamental changes to social, political, and economic systems are needed to address climate change; that a large majority of scientists feel a responsibility as scientists to address climate change; that more scientists agree than disagree that scientists should become more involved in advocacy and protest; and that the proportion of scientists who say they are willing to engage in these actions is substantial, suggesting that there is great potential for increased engagement by scientists on climate change beyond research. Based on the quantitative and qualitative responses to our survey, we propose a two-stage model of engagement in advocacy and protest: First, in order for scientists to be willing to engage, they need to overcome mostly intellectual barriers such as a lack of belief in the effectiveness of the actions, lack of identification with activists, lack of knowledge, fear of losing credibility, and fear of repercussions. Second, to actually engage they need to overcome mostly practical barriers such as a perceived lack of skills, lack of time, lack of opportunities, and not knowing any groups involved in climate action. In the paper, we discuss a number of ways to increase the engagement of scientists with climate change. You can find the published version of the paper at https://lnkd.in/dTRwb_QJ and an open access version at https://lnkd.in/ddErKKnS. Finally, thanks to my fantastic co-authors Maien Sachisthal Jonas Haslbeck Viktoria Cologna Noel Strahm Nana-Maria Grüning Anna Bosshard Alison Green Cameron Brick Adam Aron!

In this review article, we examine the challenges of navigating sustainability transitions in a resource-constrained world. As the Triple Planetary Crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution converges, it’s clear that efficiency gains and technological fixes alone won’t get us to a sustainable future. In our paper, “Navigating Sustainability Transitions: A Science for Policy Approach”, we argue for systemic change: rethinking how we produce, consume, and govern. This work builds on intellectual contributions from industrial ecology, ecological economics, environmental policy, and sustainability science, weaving them together into a framework for co-producing knowledge and supporting adaptive governance. We outline five key shifts in industry, cities, energy, land, and culture that can help chart pathways toward equitable, resilient futures within planetary boundaries. This work is about more than science; it’s about building the relationships, institutions, and narratives needed for a just transition. I hope it sparks ideas for collaboration across disciplines, sectors, and communities. The article is open source.