Powerful influences on societal knowledge, values, and behavior, artificial intelligence-infused media systems, new and old, currently reinforce the interlinked problems of inequality and unsustainable consumption. This problem is rarely discussed in environmental research and policy, and even less so how it might be overcome. Discussing this consequential blind spot and the power structures that underpin it, this article argues that sustainability researchers should centrally explore the need and possibilities for democratic reconfiguration of the political economies and charters of media systems to achieve sustainability and other broad, inclusive public goals.

Powerful influences on societal knowledge, values and behavior, artificial intelligence-infused media systems, new and old, currently tend to reinforce the interlinked problems of inequality and unsustainable consumption. This problem is rarely discussed in environmental research and policy, and even less so how it might be overcome. Discussing this consequential blind spot and the power structures that underpin it, this article argues that sustainability researchers should centrally explore the possibilities for democratic governance and reconfiguration of the political economies of media systems to foster human wellbeing and just transformations toward sustainability.

Sustainability transformations require ‘signification steering’ and interventions in media systems' configurations.

Nations across the world are concerned with environmental issues like forest loss. The majority of nations acknowledge the importance of reducing forest loss, and make commitments to do so. However, researchers often find that despite these commitments, and the work of non-governmental organizations, in many nations, forest loss is not declining. This research argues that institutional capacity, specifically a nations domestic autonomy may help explain the ineffectiveness of environmental international non-governmental organizations (EINGOs) at reducing forest loss. Specifically, I argue that nations with stronger domestic autonomy, measured as the extent to which a nation is free of the direct control of external political actors, improves the effectiveness of EINGOs at reaching their goals of reducing forest loss due to an autonomous state's relative strength and ability to integrate their version of environmentalism or reinterpret existing norms of environmentalism into EINGO ideologies and activities.

Previous research finds that environmental international non-governmental organizations (EINGOs) tend to have differential impacts on environmental factors cross-nationally, such as forest loss. More recent work argues that decoupling between stated environmental norms and actual environmental outcomes may be the result of a lack of institutional capacity. Using ordinary least squares regression for 91 low- and middle-income nations from 2001 to 2014, I find that EINGOs reduce forest loss more in nations with higher rather than lower levels of domestic autonomy. However, I find that EINGOs and domestic autonomy on their own do not significantly predict forest loss.

This research argues that a nations domestic autonomy may help explain the ineffectiveness EINGOs at reducing forest loss.

A substantial increase in wind energy deployment worldwide is required to help achieve international targets for decreasing global carbon emissions and limiting the impacts of climate change. In response to global concerns regarding the environmental effects of wind energy, the International Energy Agency Wind Technical Collaborative Program initiated Task 34 – Working Together to Resolve Environmental Effects of Wind Energy or WREN. As part of WREN, this study performed an international assessment with the global wind energy and environmental community to determine priority environmental issues over the next 5‒10 years and help support collaborative interactions among researchers, developers, regulators, and stakeholders.

A systematic assessment was performed using feedback from the international community to identify priority environmental issues for land-based and offshore wind energy development. Given the global nature of wind energy development, feedback was of interest from all countries where such development is underway or planned to help meet United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change targets. The assessment prioritized environmental issues over the next 5–10 years associated with wind energy development and received a total of 294 responses from 28 countries. For land-based wind, the highest-ranked issues included turbine collision risk for volant species (birds and bats), cumulative effects on species and ecosystems, and indirect effects such as avoidance and displacement. For offshore wind, the highest-ranked issues included cumulative effects, turbine collision risk, underwater noise (e.g. marine mammals and fish), and displacement. Emerging considerations for these priorities include potential application to future technologies (e.g. larger turbines and floating turbines), new stressors and species in frontier regions, and cumulative effects for multiple projects at a regional scale. For both land-based and offshore wind, effectiveness of minimization measures (e.g. detection and deterrence technologies) and costs for monitoring, minimization, and mitigation were identified as overarching challenges.

Turbine collisions and cumulative effects among the international environmental priorities for wind energy development.

Many of the most pressing issues of today, such as climate change, habitat destruction, and conflict, are linked to our growing economies and the increasing amount of natural resources needed to maintain them. Current resource management policies focus on using resources more efficiently while maintaining economic growth. However, these policies have been insufficient and alternatives are needed. Resource caps are one such alternative which would directly limit resource consumption and extraction. This first review on the topic covers existing research on resource caps, the practical issues of implementation, and suggests a way forward for future policy and research.

Increasingly unsustainable rates of resource consumption and extraction have led to a growing discussion among researchers and environmental advocates on introducing caps on resource use. Research suggests that a reliance on efficiency-based approaches and a focus on decoupling are not sufficient to reduce ecosystem pressures, and instead alternatives such as resource caps may be needed. This article therefore provides the first comprehensive review of research on resource caps, linking them to major social science debates on resource scarcity, social metabolism, decoupling, and degrowth. Resource caps have been increasingly proposed in contemporary degrowth research, but this review found that resource caps are compatible with the agendas of those who endorse ‘green growth’ or ‘ecomodernist’ positions. Although resource caps are commonly proposed at a global level, it was found that enacting national or regional level caps is more viable, and that such caps should be developed through post-normal science and with democratic governance. However, current research does not show how resource caps can be implemented in practice, despite there being a detailed discussion on the political and social factors surrounding implementation. Future research will need to consider how, and even if, caps can function, and in what situations they are effective.

Capping consumption and extraction of natural resources is an alternative to current efficiency-based resource policies.

Plastic harms ecosystem health and human livelihood on land, in rivers, and in the sea. To prevent and reduce plastic pollution, we must know how plastics move through the environment. Extreme events, such as floods, bring large amounts of plastic into rivers around the world. This article summarizes how different flood types (excessive rainfall, high river flow, or floods from the sea) flush or deposit plastic pollution, and how this impacts the environment. Furthermore, this paper also discusses how improved resilience to floods is important to prevent and reduce plastic pollution.

Plastic pollution is ubiquitous in the environment and threatens terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems. Reducing plastic pollution requires a thorough understanding of its sources, sinks, abundance, and impact. The transport and retention dynamics of plastics are however complex, and assumed to be driven by natural factors, anthropogenic factors, and plastic item characteristics. Current literature shows diverging correlations between river discharge, wind speed, rainfall, and plastic transport. However, floods have been consistently demonstrated to impact plastic transport and dispersal. This paper presents a synthesis of the impact of floods on plastic pollution in the environment. For each specific flood type (fluvial, pluvial, coastal, and flash floods), we identified the driving transport mechanisms from the available literature. This paper introduces the plastic-flood nexus concept, which is the negative feedback loop between floods (mobilizing plastics), and plastic pollution (increasing flood risk through blockages). Moreover, the impact of flood-driven plastic transport was assessed, and it was argued that increasing flood resilience also reduces the impact of floods on plastic pollution. This paper provides a perspective on the importance of floods on global plastic pollution. Increasing flood resilience and breaking the plastic-flood nexus are crucial steps toward reducing environmental plastic pollution.

Floods have a large impact on plastic pollution transport, which can be reduced through improved flood resilience

This article uses water to examine how the relationships of ethics to science are modified through the pursuit of Earth stewardship. Earth stewardship is often defined as the use of science to actively shape social–ecological relations by enhancing resilience. The changing relations of science to values are explored by considering how ideas of resilience operate to translate different ways of knowing water into the framework of Earth stewardship. This is not a neutral process, and Earth stewardship requires careful appraisal to ensure other ways of knowing water are not oppressed.

Scientific disclosures of anthropogenic impacts on the Earth system – the Anthropocene – increasingly come with ethical diagnoses for value transformation and, often, Earth stewardship. This article examines the changing relationship of science to values in calls for Earth stewardship with special attention to water resilience. The article begins by situating recent efforts to reconceptualize human–water relations in view of anthropogenic impacts on the global water system. It then traces some of the ways that Earth stewardship has been articulated, especially as a framework supporting the use of science to actively shape social–ecological relations by enhancing resilience. The shift in relations of ethics and science entailed by Earth stewardship is placed in historical context before the issues of water resilience are examined. Resilience, and critiques of it, are then discussed for how they operate to translate different ways of knowing water into the framework of Earth stewardship. The ethical stakes of such translations are a core concern of the conclusion. Rather than reducing different ways of knowing water to those amendable to the framework of Earth stewardship, the article advances a pluralized approach as needed to respect multiple practices for knowing and relating to water – and resilience.

Water resilience is key to Earth stewardship; Jeremy Schmidt examines how it changes relations of science and ethics.

To meet the UK's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) recommended to reduce current meat and dairy intake by 20% by 2030. In this study, we modelled the impact of potential dietary changes on GHG emissions and water use with the selected scenarios based on the trend of food purchase and meat and dairy reduction policy. We show that implementing fiscal measures and facilitating innovations in production of meat alternatives would accelerate existing positive trends, help the UK reach the CCC 2030 target of 20% meat and dairy reduction and increase fruit and vegetable intake.

We used 2001–2019 data from the Family Food module of the Living Costs and Food Survey (LCF), an annual UK survey of about 5,000 representative households recording quantities of all food and drink purchases, to model four 2030 dietary scenarios: Business as usual (BAU); two fiscal policy scenarios (‘fiscal 10%’ and ‘fiscal 20%’), combining either a 10% meat and dairy tax and a 10% fruit and vegetable subsidy, or a 20% tax and 20% subsidy on the same foods; and an ‘innovation scenario’ substituting traditionally-produced meat and dairy with plant-based analogues and animal proteins produced in laboratories. Compared to 2019 levels, we forecasted reductions in the range of 5–30% for meat and 8–32% for dairy across scenarios. Meat reductions could be up to 21.5% (fiscal20%) and 30.4% (innovation). For all scenarios we forecasted an increase in fruit and vegetables intake in the range of 3–13.5%; with the fiscal 20% scenario showing highest increases (13.5%). GHG emissions and water use reductions were highest for the innovation scenario (−19.8%, −16.2%) followed by fiscal 20% (−15.8%, −9.2%) fiscal 10% (−12.1%, 5.9%) and BAU (−8.3%, −2.6%) scenarios. Compared to average households, low-income households had similar patterns of change, but both past and predicted purchase of meat, fruit and vegetables and environmental footprints were lower.

Meat and dairy-reduction policies would help meet net zero targets and improve population health in the UK.

The general public became familiar with the term and definition of zoonosis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of the pandemic, several responses to mitigate zoonotic risk has been put forward. Often cited are stricter biodiversity conservation and wildlife protection but there are also suggestions to educate people who traditionally consume wildlife for food. This implicit condemnation of culture also manifested explicitly in the form of racism especially against Asians during the height of the pandemic. If the world is to avoid a pandemic, it also needs to work against Orientalism and ensure research is inclusive, equitable, and just.

The COVID-19 pandemic widely introduced the term and definition of zoonosis to the general public. More than just a knee-jerk reaction, stricter biodiversity conservation and wildlife protection are now seen as essential strategies in mitigating zoonotic risks while some researchers have called for education campaigns that should discredit ingrained cultural practices such as wildlife consumption. This implicit condemnation of culture may have been initially confined to research papers but it eventually manifested as explicit racism in everyday life during the height of the pandemic, highlighting the need to decolonize Western scientific views on pandemic prevention and to refrain from Orientalism. This Intelligence Briefing makes the case for the inclusion of history and culture as necessary elements in zoonosis research alongside a critical reflection of transdisciplinary approaches. Emphasizing epistemic humility and authentic interest to learn from other actors such as Indigenous communities on the frontlines of human-wildlife interfaces, this Intelligence Briefing recommends the Future Earth Health Knowledge-Action Network to stay the course toward promoting approaches that are ‘transdisciplinary, multi-scalar, inclusive, equitable, and broadly communicated’ in zoonosis research.

History and culture are necessary elements of zoonosis research alongside transdisciplinary approaches.

Information on social aspects of climate change intervention, such as behavioral choices and public acceptance, are often not included in global climate models. As a result, they have been critiqued for not adequately reflecting ‘real world’ conditions. At the same time, these models are important and influential policy tools. To improve these models, calls are being made for more interaction – or integration – between the social science and modelling research communities. Yet, it remains unclear how to achieve this. Responding to this gap, we explore what kind of integration is currently taking place, how, and opportunities for further development.

The importance of social drivers of climate change interventions, or social aspects, is currently underrepresented in computational modelling projections. These parameters are largely excluded from estimates of technical mitigation potential, feasibility, and tools like integrated assessment models (IAMs) and other large-scale models that influence the development of climate policies and notable bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This paper contributes to calls being made within the research community to address this gap and strengthen linkages between modelling practices and social science insights. Using nature-based solutions (NbS) as a framing, we present the results of a critical literature review and interviews with multidisciplinary experts reflecting on the current state of integration around IAMs and opportunities to better capture social aspects within large-scale modelling processes. Our findings confirm the need to incorporate social aspects in IAMs, but highlight that how this happens in practice may depend on context, project objectives, or pragmatic choices rather than conceptual notions about what ‘good’ integration is. Nevertheless, some integration strategies are better than others, and concerns about data limitations and low capacity of the IAM community for engaging in integration can be overcome with sufficient support and complementary efforts from the broader research community.

Integrating social aspects in large-scale models requires complementary efforts from the broader research community.

Agricultural research is vital for sustainable food production, amid changing challenges. To address these challenges effectively and achieve sustainable food systems, researchers and funding bodies have to prioritize research efforts. We conducted horizon scanning to determine how rice systems might change by 2050 and to identify key research gaps. The study involved 101 rice experts from 31 countries who rated the research gaps based on novelty and relevance. The top 25 research gaps encompass sustainability, agricultural development, rice crop science (including genetics, breeding, and physiology), and policies. Addressing these research gaps will contribute toward the sustainability of rice systems.

Agricultural research and development (AgR&D) is crucial for increasing productivity while preserving natural capital and ensuring sustainable food security. Traditional AgR&D approaches along monodisciplinary lines often have unintended consequences and trade-offs, which can be avoided through integrated and interdisciplinary approaches. One such approach is horizon scanning. We conducted a horizon-scanning activity to identify research gaps to be prioritized for sustainable rice systems by 2050. The horizon scan involved a global and diverse panel of rice experts (101 from 31 countries). The panel responded to questionnaires on the drivers, projections, and research needs for rice AgR&D. Afterward, research gaps were rated on their relevance and novelty to sustainable rice systems. We identified the top 25 research gaps under four themes: sustainability interactions, agricultural development, genetics, breeding and crop physiology, and governance and policies. These gaps highlight research that needs to be prioritized to achieve sustainable rice systems that enhance resilience, conserve biodiversity, and promote socio-economic well-being.

Rice experts select top rice research gaps for achieving sustainable rice systems by 2050.

DPV systems, typically small to medium-sized solar power installations on buildings, which primarily and directly supply electricity to industrial, commercial, or residential consumers in proximity. DPV is an advocated renewable substation for climate change and energy saving for merits of low installation costs, high energy efficiency, and the ability to provide decentralized power supply. Our research has theoretical significance in explaining and understanding the development and policy evolution of DPV in China and provide valuable suggestions for future industry policies during grid parity.

Since 2021, China has been phasing out its decade-long feed-in tariff policies, reducing the photovoltaic industry's dependency on subsidies. Despite the challenges posed by declining electricity prices and slowdown in economic growth, the authorities continue to prioritize the development of DPV due to its low investment costs, high energy efficiency, and decentralized power supply, and these technologies have already achieved demand-side parity. Driven by this phenomenon, this study examines the trajectory of DPV diffusion and the evolution of related policies over the last decade. It unravels the dynamic mechanism of DPV investment through theoretical analysis and develops a macro model to identify optimal installation strategies and renewable energy proportions. Our findings highlight the increasing role of green energy and suggest that green finance is crucial for stimulating DPV investment in the era of grid parity. The study concludes with practical recommendations for overcoming DPV challenges in China.

DPV has become a prominent renewable energy solution in other countries but not in China. We probe the system dynamics modeling to give explanation and solution during grid parity.

Greenhouse gas emissions and land use change – from deforestation, forest degradation, and agricultural intensification – are contributing to climate change and biodiversity loss. Important land-based strategies such as planting trees or growing bioenergy crops (with carbon capture and storage) are needed to achieve the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and to enhance biodiversity.

The integrated Land Ecosystems Atmospheric Processes Study (iLEAPS) is an international knowledge-exchange and capacity-building network, specializing in ecosystems and their role in controlling the exchange of water, energy and chemical compounds between the land surface and the atmosphere. We outline priority directions for land–atmosphere interaction research and its contribution to the sustainable development agenda.

Greenhouse-gas emissions from human activities and land use change (from deforestation, forest degradation, and agricultural intensification) are contributing to climate change and biodiversity loss. Afforestation, reforestation, or growing bioenergy crops (with carbon capture and storage) are important land-based strategies to achieve the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and to enhance biodiversity. The effectiveness of these actions depends on terrestrial ecosystems and their role in controlling or moderating the exchange of water, heat, and chemical compounds between the land surface and the atmosphere.

The integrated Land Ecosystems Atmospheric Processes Study (iLEAPS), a global research network of Future Earth, enables the international community to communicate and remain up to date with developments and concepts about terrestrial ecosystems and their role in global water, energy, and biogeochemical cycles. Covering critically important topics such as fire, forestry, wetlands, methane emissions, urban areas, pollution, and climate change, the iLEAPS Global Research Programme sits center stage for some of the most important environmental questions facing humanity. In this paper, we outline the new challenges and opportunities for land–atmosphere interaction research and its role in supporting the broader sustainable development agenda.

Future directions for research into land–atmosphere interactions that supports the sustainable development agenda

To address increasingly pressing social–environmental challenges, the transformative strand of sustainability science seeks to move beyond a descriptive-analytical stance in order to explore and contribute to the implementation of radical alternatives to dominant and unsustainable paradigms, norms, and values. However, in many cases, academia is not currently structured to support and reward inter-/trans-disciplinary and transformative endeavors. This paper introduces a theory of change for the Future Earth Pathways Initiative, and similar initiatives, to help leverage the capacity of sustainability scientists to engage in transformative research.

The increasing body of descriptive-analytical knowledge produced by sustainability science over the last two decades has largely failed to trigger the transformation of policies, norms, and behaviors it was aiming to inform. The emergent transformative strand of sustainability science is a proactive alternative approach seeking to play an active role in processes of societal change by developing knowledge about options, solutions, and pathways, and by participating in their implementation. In principle, scientists can enhance their contribution to more sustainable futures by engaging in transformative research. However, a lack of skills and competencies, relatively unmatured transformative methods and concepts, and an institutional landscape still geared toward disciplinary and descriptive-analytical research, still hinders the sustainability science community from engaging more widely in transformative research. In this paper, the Future Earth Pathways Initiative introduces a theory of change (ToC) for increasing the capacity of sustainability scientists to engage in this type of research. This ToC ultimately aims to build a growing community of practitioners engaged in transformative research, to advance concepts, methods, and paradigms to foster ‘fit-for-purpose transformative research’, and to shape institutions to nurture transformative research-friendly contexts.

What would a theory of change for leveraging the transformative capacity of sustainability science look like?

While environmental infrastructure is commonly understood as important, there are concerns about issues such as air, noise, and visual pollution, causing ‘Not In My Backyard’ (NIMBY) attitudes. NIMBY-ism can be overcome by minimizing or removing pollution and inviting residents and other stakeholders to enjoy multifaceted benefits of such environmental infrastructure projects. This can foster a new maxim coined as ‘W-NIMBY’ (Why Not In My Backyard?), which manifests in new infrastructure shaped by community needs and supports sustainability agendas. The present intelligence brief provides insights from Japanese cases into how to promote W-NIMBY-ism.

Environmental infrastructure is essential for the common good. Addressing sustainability crises and fostering environmental movements require accelerated deployment of environmental infrastructure. While such infrastructure is necessary, Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) attitudes have remained due to concerns such as air, water, and noise pollution. We present insights from three atypical cases in Japan and argue for the reimagination of the connection between affected residents and environmental infrastructure. The three facilities were designed to be multifunctional and open for the surrounding community to enjoy. We call for participatory approaches and multifunctional use of space that can account for the interests of affected and concerned citizens. Such a conceptualization can lead to ‘W-NIMBY’ (Why Not In My Backyard), manifesting new infrastructure that is shaped by community needs and supports sustainability agendas. Through such approaches, citizens may accept and even take pride in hosting the infrastructure. In this intelligence brief, we argue that refashioning environmental infrastructure provides broader access for local stakeholders and helps in building a connection between citizens and the environmental infrastructure. Through design approaches that foster W-NIMBY, implementation of environmental infrastructure could be accelerated while supporting community needs and the broader sustainability agenda.

Why Not In My Backyard? (W-NIMBY): the potential of design-driven environmental infrastructure to foster greater acceptance among host communities.