Environmental Science & Policy最新文献

{"title":"Assessing potential implications of the EU's carbon dioxide removal strategy on Brazil's land ecosystems and local communities","authors":"Joana Portugal-Pereira ,&nbsp;Aline Cristina Soterroni ,&nbsp;Antonella Mazzone ,&nbsp;Jiesper Tristan","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104154","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104154","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The European Union (EU)'s commitment to achieving climate neutrality by 2050 relies significantly on Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) strategies, yet implications of such approaches for the Global South remain unclear. Here we reflect on how land-based CDR ambitions in the EU—particularly BECCS—may generate disproportionate pressures on ecosystems and communities in countries like Brazil, which have become a focal point for climate mitigation due to their biophysical potential and geopolitical ties. Although Brazil is not formally committed to providing land-based offsets to the EU, its significant potential to host large-scale afforestation and BECCS projects renders it a useful case study for exploring these dynamics. Under a stylised exploratory scenario in which Brazil accommodates the full external land demand for BECCS, we estimate that up to 10.2 million hectares (Mha) would be needed by 2030, and between 100.3 and 152.5 Mha by 2050. This level of land use could lead to substantial socioenvironmental risks, including deforestation, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, and the displacement of local and indigenous communities. Drawing on past experiences with extractive green initiatives, we identify risks associated with predatory green projects—such as land use conflicts, food insecurity, and the erosion of Indigenous rights and knowledge—which raise concerns aligned with notions of green neo-colonialism. Furthermore, this increased demand for land could jeopardise Brazil’s capacity to achieve its net-zero GHG pledge by 2050, which relies heavily on nature-based solutions, such as ending deforestation and promoting large-scale native vegetation restoration. We recommend a set of integrated and participatory policy approaches that prioritise procedural justice, ensure transparent international cooperation, and mitigate the unintended impacts of global CDR strategies on vulnerable ecosystems and communities. This work advances the conceptual understanding of the multi-layer environmental and social implications of the EU’s CDR strategy, highlighting its transboundary effects and potential tensions between Global North priorities and Global South equity considerations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"171 ","pages":"Article 104154"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144524033","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}

{"title":"Risk tolerance and climate change adaptation: A need for transparency in policy assumptions and implications","authors":"Iain Brown","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104150","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104150","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>To inform policy priorities, climate change risk assessments are often framed through an adaptation gap between current planned actions and those required to manage risk effectively. Residual risks remain to be managed through autonomous and reactive responses. Adaptation policies therefore assume a level of risk tolerance, but this is usually not made explicit. This lack of transparency can lead to a mismatch in expectations, especially when risk is increasing or perceived differently from experts. It also constrains wider engagement in adaptation decisions. These issues are explored both conceptually and through a UK case study referencing the third National Adaptation Programme whose generalised objectives demonstrate a policy delivery paradox that has also been subject to legal challenge. The paradox is exemplified by top-down objectives for resilience building or risk reduction that are ambiguous on assumed risk tolerance thresholds and implications for managing residual risks across all of society. A case is therefore made that both risk assessments and policy frameworks need explicit declarations on assumed risk tolerance and its implications, especially regarding those bearing the risks. This openness would be consistent with calls for an ‘honest conversation’ on expectations and viability of risk management outcomes between policy, stakeholders and public. Deliberation may involve difficult normative issues, especially to reconcile increasing risks against current resource constraint challenges. But it is ultimately necessary for wider societal adaptation engagement and increased adaptive capacity, including aspirations for enhanced collective resilience. Recommendations are hence provided to better explicate risk tolerance distinctions in adaptation research and policy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"171 ","pages":"Article 104150"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144524207","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}

{"title":"Adaptive capacity and climate resilience of mountain pastoralist communities under extreme weather stress","authors":"Ayat Ullah,&nbsp;Miroslava Bavorova","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104153","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104153","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Pastoralism plays a vital role in Pakistan's agricultural sector, yet the impact of climate change and climate-related extreme weather events on pastoralists' land use decisions and adaptation strategies remains underexplored. This study investigates livelihood impacts, adaptive capacity, and local adaptation responses of high-altitude pastoral communities to extreme weather in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Pakistan. Six focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with pastoralist communities using participatory research methods to explore their perceptions and responses to climate stressors. Thematic analysis revealed that snow-related climate risks —extreme colds, avalanches, wildfires, floods, and storms—led to significant livestock and crop losses, limiting access to resources, and disruption of seasonal movement patterns. Key adaptation strategies included genetic selection of livestock, temporary sheltering, migration, stock feeding, livestock reduction, and temporary cessation of farming. Barriers to adaptation included high illiteracy rates, limited access to information and early warning systems, under-representation of youth in decision-making, ethnic conflict, and poor infrastructure. Financial support, improved infrastructure, access to information, and the inclusion of marginalized groups are critical for enhancing community resilience. Policy recommendations emphasize the need to resolve land tenure conflicts, promote youth participation in decision-making, and support inter-ethnic peace-building initiatives to reduce vulnerability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"171 ","pages":"Article 104153"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144518200","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}

{"title":"Finnish experts’ perceptions of IPBES operating principles – Synergies and tensions between the multiple evidence base and credibility, policy relevance and legitimacy","authors":"Anna Salomaa","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104149","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104149","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Intergovernmental science policy organizations assess and mediate knowledge for decision makers, especially their member governments. IPBES is known as a trailblazer in acknowledging plural knowledge systems because of the multiple evidence base approach it has adopted, which has challenged the older operating principles of credibility, policy relevance, and legitimacy. In this paper, I juxtapose those principles and the multiple evidence base to study their context-sensitive synergies and tensions, based on experts’ perceptions of IPBES operations. I qualitatively analyze interviews with the Finnish delegation to the IPBES-7 Plenary and Finland-affiliated assessment authors in 2019. Both synergies and tensions emerged between all the examined principles. While major synergies were found in the knowledge synthesis processes, especially relating to the added value of more plural knowledge sources, several tensions were also present relating to the superior position of natural science, to undeveloped processes of using other knowledge types, to languages, and to country- and sector-specific interests, with many of these tensions illustrated by the case of nature’s contributions to people. Finnish experts valued credibility highly. Policy relevance and political interests interacted, revealing the need to elaborate the principle of policy relevance. Multiple evidence base and legitimacy were largely overlapping, but that was not so in the case of the nature’s contributions to people. The results show the complexity of balancing different operating principles that can be interpreted differently in different contexts. I further discuss why and how IPBES should elaborate on policy relevance and its relation to societal actors.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"171 ","pages":"Article 104149"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144501263","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}

{"title":"Reconciling wildlife governance in a changing climate: A systematic review of mule deer management in St’át’imc Territory","authors":"Nina Andrascik,&nbsp;Jennifer Grenz","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104136","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104136","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In the wake of intensifying climate events—such as the increasing frequency and severity of wildfires—colonial legislation continues to hinder the advancement of ecological and food systems reconciliation. This paper presents a systematic review of mule deer (<em>Odocoileus hemionus</em>) management in St’át’imc Territory, a species vital to Indigenous food systems in British Columbia. The goal was to assess the extent to which provincial legislation responds to contemporary climate realities and upholds Indigenous rights. We conducted a deductive legislative review using the BC Laws database in combination with a systematic literature review following PRISMA protocols. Categorization of documents revealed five discrepancies between the legislation and evidence-based priorities in the literature: (1) the absence of climate-adaptive measures in ungulate winter range protections; (2) salvage logging practices that compromise post-wildfire ecological recovery and Indigenous stewardship; (3) hunting regulations that fail to account for Indigenous sustenance needs; (4) insufficient access management in fire-affected landscapes; and (5) the exclusion of Indigenous knowledge systems from legislative processes. Despite British Columbia’s adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) through the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), existing statutes—such as the Wildlife Act and Forest and Range Practices Act—remain misaligned with its principles. Without substantive reform, the province’s commitments to reconciliation risk remaining symbolic. This review highlights the urgent need to restructure wildlife legislation to support co-governance, uphold Indigenous food sovereignty, and foster climate resilience in the era of mega-wildfires.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"171 ","pages":"Article 104136"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144489869","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}

{"title":"Anticipating ecological transformation in the Coorong, Australia: Capacities and knowledge for upstream engagement","authors":"Carla Alexandra","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104147","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104147","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Climate change and other anthropogenic stressors are leading to directional changes in ecosystems, making ecological transformations more likely. The need to anticipate and proactively plan for ecological transformation is increasingly recognised. Yet, how change is anticipated and who is involved in foresight processes can shape how ecological transformation is governed and managed. Research has proposed foresight processes to engage stakeholders about ecological transformation. However, empirical research is needed to provide insights into the opportunities and challenges of using foresight in contexts of ecological transformation. This research develops insights on <em>anticipatory capacities</em> and <em>futures knowledge</em> for decision-making about adapting to prospective ecological transformation, drawing on a case study from the Ramsar-listed Coorong region (<em>Yarluwar-Ruwe</em>) in South Australia. It builds on anticipatory governance literature and the Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) climate adaptation framework, to understand anticipatory capacities required for <em>upstream engagement</em> on prospective ecological transformation. Findings highlight key anticipatory capacities are a) accepting transformative change is inevitable, b) addressing emotional responses, c) navigating changing values, and d) navigating the politics of anticipation. Anticipatory governance of ecological transformation requires capacities to engage stakeholders on social, political, and emotional dimensions of change. This research highlights the paradoxical nature of futures knowledge, balancing credibility with subjectivity. It underscores the vital role of emotional dimensions in responding to ecological transformation. Upstream engagement that applies foresight to anticipate ecological transformation is needed to support people through anticipatory loss and grief, towards facilitating agency in a changed future. The findings offer insights into anticipatory governance in Australia and internationally.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"171 ","pages":"Article 104147"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144471950","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}

{"title":"Science advice and policy influence: Views of practitioners in the Swedish Climate Policy Council","authors":"Linnéa Aarthun,&nbsp;Göran Sundqvist","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104143","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104143","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Today, many nations have established climate councils to support the national implementation of the Paris Agreement. Previous research has shown that a successful council should be science-based and politically independent, but it should also be in close contact with the government it is reviewing and advising. This ambiguous position of being both politically-independent and politically-dependent forms the basis of this article. We present results from the first interview-based empirical study on how the Swedish Climate Policy Council balances this seemingly paradoxical situation of opposing ambitions. Our analysis utilizes approaches from the field of science and technology studies (STS) that can deepen our understanding of how science advice is (and should be) entangled with <em>both</em> science and politics. From this perspective, the supposed paradox could be dissolved. We find that the Swedish Council has become a point of reference in the national climate policy conversation. However, our findings also highlight the Council’s overall approach, which means avoiding both scientific and political details as an effort to not intervene in party politics. We conclude that advice from the Swedish Climate Policy Council is not sufficiently embedded in the political processes it serves, nor does the strong focus on autonomy and independence support these efforts. Hence, we argue that there is a need to re-think climate councils as political actors, both in practice and social science studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"171 ","pages":"Article 104143"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144471422","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}

{"title":"The reflexive process in sustainability science: A short critical review","authors":"Julien Vanhulst ,&nbsp;Patricio Padilla-Navarro ,&nbsp;Alejandro Espinosa-Rada ,&nbsp;Roberto Cantillan ,&nbsp;Roberto Velásquez ,&nbsp;Karla González Tapia","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104145","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104145","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Sustainability science has grown significantly as an interdisciplinary field in terms of publications and institutional relevance, yet continues to face substantial epistemological and methodological challenges. This article focuses on the critical self-reflection processes within sustainability science—defined as the systematic examination by scientists of their own knowledge production practices, methodologies, and epistemic foundations—as researchers actively construct this emerging field. This reflexive process, through which scientists critically assess both what they know and how they know it, plays a crucial role in consolidating sustainability science as a new scientific specialty. Through review of articles indexed in Web of Science (WoS) and SCOPUS up to July 2023 using key concepts of “science” and “sustainability” we identified 46 articles for analyzing these reflexive processes. Our analysis reveals four cross-cutting dimensions structuring the field: 1) thematic delimitation, characterized by diversity yet fragmentation; 2) inter- and trans-disciplinary knowledge generation modes that, while widely endorsed, face significant implementation challenges; 3) the public and decisive character of knowledge; and 4) institutional configurations that both enable and constrain the field's development. The findings emphasize that sustainability science's reflexive process not only contributes to its own maturation as a scientific specialty but also offers valuable insights for broader societal questions regarding the production of relevant and public knowledge in the face of complex socio-ecological challenges. This reflexivity represents a distinctive feature that enables sustainability science to bridge disciplinary boundaries while fostering more participatory and transformative approaches to knowledge creation that can address pressing sustainability issues worldwide.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"171 ","pages":"Article 104145"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144471949","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}

{"title":"Strategic foresight analysis for the management of land-sea interface in a climate change context: A comprehensive literature review","authors":"Gea Grassi ,&nbsp;Federica Zennaro ,&nbsp;Gianluca Ferraro ,&nbsp;Raoul Beunen ,&nbsp;Jean-Marc Douguet ,&nbsp;Elisa Furlan","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104111","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104111","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Land-Sea Interface (LSI) is a dynamic zone where terrestrial and marine ecosystems interact, supporting critical economic activities and providing essential ecological benefits. However, these areas face the multiple land- and sea-based challenges of climate change and multi-level governance fragmentation.</div><div>In this context, innovative methodologies are needed to explore future scenarios and support decisions. Strategic foresight analysis has emerged as a proactive approach to address complex issues, helping anticipate and prepare for future challenges. This article summarizes the current literature on strategic foresight analysis for managing LSIs. Through a scoping assessment, the fundamental concepts and theoretical frameworks are identified. This step provides the foundation for conducting a scientometric analysis, providing insights into the evolution and areas of interest of this approach. Next, a systematic review examines peer-reviewed publications that apply strategic foresight at the LSI, emphasizing aspects such as focus topics, stakeholder engagement, and tools utilized.</div><div>Review results reveal some main advantages, including its interdisciplinarity and capacity to facilitate transdisciplinary collaborative exercises to anticipate threats, and inform adaptive decision-making processes.</div><div>Tools such as horizon scanning and scenario planning are widely explored; however, other methods, including backcasting and road mapping, remain unexploited.</div><div>Trends evidence increasing climate change considerations, although most studies emphasize qualitative approaches instead of data-based quantitative analysis.</div><div>Finally, many foresight studies emphasize participatory approaches. However, local communities and Indigenous populations perspectives, remain insufficient.</div><div>The future of LSI governance relies on inclusive and adaptive approaches, where strategic foresight empowers societies to navigate, adapt, and shape the future.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"171 ","pages":"Article 104111"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144364663","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}

{"title":"Mainstreaming citizen science in policy: Adaptations needed in policy and how to achieve them in five European countries","authors":"Katharina Hölscher ,&nbsp;Julia M. Wittmayer ,&nbsp;V. Igno Notermans ,&nbsp;Madeleine Cléa Montanari ,&nbsp;Antonella Passani ,&nbsp;Annelli Janssen","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104148","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104148","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The potential of citizen science remains underutilised in conventional policy practice for various reasons – a compelling one being that the policy system itself must adapt to leverage this potential. This paper aims to explore what mainstreaming citizen science in policy entails and how it can be realised. We define mainstreaming as the ongoing, incremental processes of creating and re-forming the institutional conditions that enable policy-making to operationalise and incorporate citizen science. We focus on identifying 1) the contributions of citizen science to policy-making and the challenges for leveraging these contributions, and 2) mainstreaming strategies to create the institutional conditions that enable the uptake of citizen science in environmental policy. Through case studies conducted in five European countries (Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, United Kingdom), we generate contextualised and synthesised insights across different policy contexts. Our findings highlight the potential of mainstreaming citizen science to enhance environmental policy-making, enabling it to address complex societal challenges more effectively and equitably. Citizen science marks new modalities of public engagement, which change the roles and relations between policy-makers, scientists and citizens, shifting these towards becoming collaborators and co-creators. This requires also changing the processes by which policy problems and solutions are defined, implemented and monitored, as well as the underlying structures and resources that support the uptake of such processes by policy-makers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"171 ","pages":"Article 104148"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144364664","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}