how does research help the environment

How science can help to create a sustainable world

Science is critical to tackle complex challenges for humanity such as climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution and poverty reduction, as it lays the foundation for new approaches and solutions. How can science best fulfill this commitment to society? How can we create dynamic connections between knowledge and action? These concerns have led to a new approach: sustainability science. UNESCO, with the generous support of the Government of Japan, is bringing together key stakeholders from academia, the policy-making community, specialized institutions and the United Nations in order to better define and broaden the sustainability science approach in support of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This 2-year project was launched during a symposium held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris earlier in April.

“The 2030 Agenda is transformative, and it requires a multidisciplinary approach to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and targets, while ensuring policy coherence across the different interventions” explained Nada Al-Nashif, UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Social and Human Sciences. “This is a critical role for sustainability science - as it promotes cross-disciplinary approaches to advance the understanding of human-environment interactions and systems, and how these interactions affect the challenge of sustainability.”

The sustainability science approach is essential for effective decision-making with regard to global sustainability, since social, environmental and cultural systems are closely linked. UNESCO will continue, with its partners, to continue to support efforts to educate and advocate the development of this approach. This approach is a powerful reminder of the complexity of the challenges the world is facing, and the immense responsibilities this creates for international organizations like UNESCO.

“Resilience and adaptation are essential conditions in our quest for sustainability, and these must be informed by science and other knowledge” said Flavia Schlegel, UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for the Natural Sciences. “Sustainability science is an issue of a normative nature: it is an approach which will allow to capitalize on research as a tool to solve problems. It will assist in tackling complex problems related to sustainability, from disaster risk reduction to food, water and energy security, to societal decarbonized paths, by informing the design of integrated sectoral policies based on the best scientific knowledge available.”

H.E. Mrs Kuni Sato, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Delegate of Japan to UNESCO, confirmed that sustainability science in combination with education play a key role in sustainable development. She expressed her satisfaction at the fact that relevant UNESCO Programmes are working closely together to support this finding.

Any attempt to develop a shared global platform which aims to produce scientific evidence for policy-making on sustainability needs to take into account that Member States assess evidence in different manners, and employ different modes of reasoning in their decision-making processes. The support for sustainability science has a clear political dimension which requires the establishment of exchange platforms in UNESCO to facilitate a fluid conversation among all parties concerned.

Three Symposiums will be organized in the framework of the project, to bring together key experts and perspectives. The second symposium will take place in early 2017. The final outcome of the Project will be a set of policy guidelines defining sustainability science, setting the principles within which the approach should be undertaken, and providing guidance on its application at multiple levels.

Related items

• Science policy

More on this subject

Other recent news

Cross section of a Beech Leaf Disease infected leaf (left) and healthy leaf (right) chemically stained with bleach shows that the veins are wider and less dense in symptomatic regions of the leaf — photo courtesy of Craig Brodersen.  Read about the research

Research & Impact

Learned in the classroom, practiced in the field, impacting our world.

On This Page

Our faculty, students, and alumni are conducting innovative research that is changing how we understand and approach the environment, conservation, and sustainability. We’re turning wood into biodegradable plastics, re-imagining the urban tree lifecycle, and engineering plants to fight climate change — creating critical knowledge and new perspectives to solve environmental challenges across multiple disciplines and scales.

Paper in a Page

Quantifying change in agricultural soil carbon stocks.

Mark Bradford , Lisa Eash , Alexander Polussa , Fiona V. Jevon , Sara Kuebbing , Ashley Hammac, Steven Rosenzweig, Emily Oldfield

There has been significant economic, social, and political investment aimed at increasing soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks in agricultural soils through the adoption of regenerative cropland management practices. Yet, there is disagreement over the potential of these management practices to sequester sufficient SOC to meaningfully mitigate climate change. Measuring changes in SOC stocks within the extent of regional agriculture could help resolve this disagreement but sampling demands to quantify change are not considered feasible primarily because within-field variation in stock sizes is thought to obscure accurate quantification of management effects on incremental SOC accrual. The research team evaluated this infeasibility assumption. High-density within-field sampling data from 45 cropland fields were analyzed to evaluate the feasibility of accurately quantifying SOC stock changes due to management practices. 

The findings revealed that individual field estimates of SOC stock changes were often inaccurate and variable, even with increased sampling density. However, at the project level involving multiple fields, higher sampling densities and field numbers led to robust and accurate estimates of carbon accrual. Specifically, with increased sampling densities and field numbers, the study found it was feasible to accurately detect rates of SOC accrual meaningful for climate mitigation. With multiple fields, the results suggest it is feasible to make relatively robust and accurate, population-level, mean estimates of SOC accrual at the scale of agricultural projects and monitoring programs. The research underscores the importance of empirical evidence at the scale of agricultural landscapes for advancing the debate on the efficacy of regenerative practices in sequestering SOC.

Figure 1. The surest way to estimate whether soil carbon accrual is the result of a management intervention is to use a dynamic baseline which accounts for differences in SOC under both regenerative and conventional fields. Shown are these difference-in-difference means (with 95% confidence intervals), for 100 test iterations, in soil carbon change at a population level that includes 30 pairs of conventional and regenerative fields sampled at within-field densities of 1.2 ha sample -1 .

Yale School of the Environment faculty are a diverse group of field-defining scholars who continue to break new ground in the areas of biodiversity, climate change, energy, policy, business, industrial ecology and green chemistry, urban systems, and environmental justice, among other disciplines.

Research in the News

Climate Change Threatens Resilience of Sri Lankan Rainforests

An Inside Look at Beech Leaf Disease

Achieving Sustainable Urban Growth on a Global Scale

Explore our research, impact through centers, programs, and initiatives.

Students, faculty, and staff come together within more than 20 YSE-affiliated centers and programs, which provide collaborative research opportunities, relevant professional experience, and engaging conferences and outreach programs.

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (YPCCC)

YPCCC is a leader in climate change communication, tracking Americans’ perception of climate change at all scales and building public and political will for climate action.

Urban Resources Initiative (URI)

Making New Haven more resilient, URI works with local partners to plant trees, restore community green spaces, and build bioswales to filter stormwater runoff.

Environmental Leadership Training Initiative (ELTI)

In critical natural landscapes rich in biodiversity, ELTI empowers local leaders to design and implement land use practices and initiatives that protect tropical forests and the livelihoods of local landowners and their communities.

Yale Forests

Yale Forests manage 10,777 acres of forestland that provide educational, research, and professional opportunities to the Yale community and beyond.

The Forests Dialogue (TFD)

The Forests Dialogue provides a platform for ongoing, multi-stakeholder conversations focused on collaborative solutions to challenges in achieving sustainable forest management and forest conservation.

Tropical Resources Institute (TRI)

The Tropical Resources Institute supports student research and on-campus programming aimed at solutions to complex challenges within the conservation and management of tropical environments.

Affiliated: Yale Center for Natural Carbon Capture

Finding solutions to climate change through advances in natural carbon sequestration.

Center for Industrial Ecology (CIE)

Leading the way in an emerging field, the Center for Industrial Ecology focuses research, teaching, and outreach on how resources are converted to products, the pollution that comes from these processes, and opportunities to reduce resource use and pollution.

Stay YSE Current

Subscribe to YSE 3 for bi-weekly news and research updates.

ELM Certificate for Postdocs

The Environmental Leadership and Mentoring (ELM) Certificate is a nine-month transformative program that aims to empower environmentally focused postdoctoral scholars at Yale University with the vital skills and knowledge needed to excel as leaders and mentors in their respective fields.

Connect with us

• Request Information
• Register for Events

CERN Accelerating science

Environmentally responsible research

CERN is fully committed to environmental protection and transparent reporting . It is also committed to developing technologies that could help society to improve the health of the planet.

"I believe CERN should become a role model for an environmentally aware scientific laboratory."   – Fabiola Gianotti, Director-General of CERN

Over the decades, CERN has become a byword for excellence in research, establishing itself as a model for scientific collaboration across borders, technological innovation, training and education.

Today, environmental responsibility joins this list. Good environmental stewardship stands prominently among the Management’s objectives and is embedded in every corner of the Organization, with a strategic, proactive approach across the Laboratory and among CERN’s worldwide scientific community.

Contributing to the achievement of several of the environment-related UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is a natural continuum in this context, for example by improving our performance, forging partnerships with others and developing innovative solutions using CERN technologies .

Driven by this commitment to environmentally responsible research, CERN has implemented many initiatives over the years that have helped to reduce the impact of its activities on the environment. This page provides more information on these activities across different thematic areas.

CERN is fully committed to environmental protection and transparent reporting. CERN's public environment reports set out reporting frameworks, setting and monitoring concrete goals for constant improvement.

CERN and the environment (Video: CERN)

During the period covered by the latest environment report, 2021-2022, CERN saw the completion of the second long shutdown and the restart of the accelerator complex (Run 3) with a view to reaching the new collision energy of 13.6 TeV at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). In some domains environmental indicators may be very different during shutdown years compared to operation years, so they are shown for both years to highlight this, where relevant.

In 2021 and 2022, CERN consumed 991 and 1215 GWh of electricity and 67 and 51 GWh of energy generated from fossil fuels respectively.

The Laboratory is committed to increasing energy reuse and to limiting rises in electricity consumption to 5% up to the end of Run 3 (baseline year: 2018), while delivering significantly increased performance of its facilities.

184 173 tCO 2 e

In 2021 and 2022, CERN’s direct greenhouse gas emissions (scope 1) were 123 174 and 184 173 tonnes of CO 2 equivalent (tCO 2 e) respectively. Indirect emissions arising from electricity consumption (scope 2) were 56 382 and 63 161 tCO 2 e . In addition, indirect emissions from business travel, personnel commuting, catering, waste treatment and water purification (scope 3) amounted to 7813 and 8956 tCO 2 e . Emissions arising from procurement (scope 3), which are reported for the first time, amounted to 98 030 and 104 974 tCO 2 e .

CERN’s objective is to reduce direct emissions by 28% by the end of Run 3 (baseline year: 2018).

In 2021 and 2022, CERN used 2661 and 3234 megalitres of water respectively.

The Laboratory is committed to keeping its increase in water consumption below 5% up to the end of Run 3 (baseline year: 2018), despite a growing demand for water cooling at the upgraded facilities.

< 0.01 mSv

In 2021 and 2022, the actual dose received by any member of the public living near the Laboratory was less than 0.01 mSv , which is more than 100 times lower than the average annual dose received from medical exposure per person in Switzerland.

CERN is committed to keeping its contribution to no more than 0.3 mSv per year .

69% recycled

In 2021 and 2022 respectively, CERN disposed of 5111 and 8812 tonnes of non-hazardous waste, and of 1544 and 1295 tonnes of hazardous waste, including 307 and 519 tonnes of radioactive waste. The recycling rate rose from 56% (baseline year: 2018) to 69% .

CERN’s objective is to increase its recycling rate for non-hazardous waste.

45 dBA at night

In 2021 and 2022, average noise levels measured on the boundaries of CERN’s sites are typically around 50 dBA during the day and 45 dBA at night . CERN implemented measures to improve its noise management , including the installation of an online real-time monitoring system.

CERN is committed to restricting noise at its site perimeters to 70 dBA during the day and 60 dBA at night.

18 species of orchids

In 2022, a new species of orchid was discovered on CERN’s sites, bringing the total to 18 species , as well as 62 species of Lepidoptera and 32 species of Orthoptera.

8 environmental projects

In 2022, CERN launched the Innovation Programme on Environmental Applications (CIPEA) and eight projects were selected for implementation with the financial support of external partners or the Knowledge Transfer fund.

CIPEA spans four focus areas where CERN’s know-how can be of use, namely renewable and low-carbon energy ; clean transportation and future mobility ; climate change and pollution control ; and sustainability and green science.

Continue for more information on CERN's environment reports

Environment reports

Environmental domains at cern, protection of natural resources, air protection, water protection, soil protection, environmental noise, energy management, waste management, hazardous substances, ionising radiation, non-ionising radiation, prevention of environmental accidents, latest related news, you see an empty field we see an “open sky l..., abb and cern identify 17.4% energy-saving opp..., cern publishes its environment report for 202..., managing energy responsibly: cern is awarded ..., cern to implement additional energy-saving me..., environmental awareness: biodiversity at cern, promising start for future environmental appl..., environmental awareness: exploring cern’s bio..., environmental awareness: the importance of en....

View all related news

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

• While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history , the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.
• According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ), "Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact." 1
• Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate.
• From global temperature rise to melting ice sheets, the evidence of a warming planet abounds.

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is different because it is clearly the result of human activities since the mid-1800s, and is proceeding at a rate not seen over many recent millennia. 1 It is undeniable that human activities have produced the atmospheric gases that have trapped more of the Sun’s energy in the Earth system. This extra energy has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, and widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere have occurred.

Earth-orbiting satellites and new technologies have helped scientists see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate all over the world. These data, collected over many years, reveal the signs and patterns of a changing climate.

Scientists demonstrated the heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases in the mid-19th century. 2 Many of the science instruments NASA uses to study our climate focus on how these gases affect the movement of infrared radiation through the atmosphere. From the measured impacts of increases in these gases, there is no question that increased greenhouse gas levels warm Earth in response.

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age. 3

The Evidence for Rapid Climate Change Is Compelling:

Global Temperature Is Rising

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere and other human activities. 4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 40 years, with the seven most recent years being the warmest. The years 2016 and 2020 are tied for the warmest year on record. 5 Image credit: Ashwin Kumar, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic.

The Ocean Is Getting Warmer

The ocean has absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 100 meters (about 328 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit (0.33 degrees Celsius) since 1969. 6 Earth stores 90% of the extra energy in the ocean. Image credit: Kelsey Roberts/USGS

The Ice Sheets Are Shrinking

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 279 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2019, while Antarctica lost about 148 billion tons of ice per year. 7 Image: The Antarctic Peninsula, Credit: NASA

Glaciers Are Retreating

Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska, and Africa. 8 Image: Miles Glacier, Alaska Image credit: NASA

Snow Cover Is Decreasing

Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and the snow is melting earlier. 9 Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Sea Level Is Rising

Global sea level rose about 8 inches (20 centimeters) in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and accelerating slightly every year. 10 Image credit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District

Arctic Sea Ice Is Declining

Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades. 11 Credit: NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio

Extreme Events Are Increasing in Frequency

The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events. 12 Image credit: Régine Fabri,  CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Ocean Acidification Is Increasing

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30%. 13 , 14 This increase is due to humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the ocean. The ocean has absorbed between 20% and 30% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in recent decades (7.2 to 10.8 billion metric tons per year). 1 5 , 16 Image credit: NOAA

1. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, WGI, Technical Summary . B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.” Nature 382 (04 July 1996): 39-46. https://doi.org/10.1038/382039a0. Gabriele C. Hegerl et al., “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method.” Journal of Climate 9 (October 1996): 2281-2306. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1996)009<2281:DGGICC>2.0.CO;2. V. Ramaswamy, et al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling.” Science 311 (24 February 2006): 1138-1141. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1122587. B.D. Santer et al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes.” Science 301 (25 July 2003): 479-483. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1084123. T. Westerhold et al., "An astronomically dated record of Earth’s climate and its predictability over the last 66 million years." Science 369 (11 Sept. 2020): 1383-1387. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1094123

2. In 1824, Joseph Fourier calculated that an Earth-sized planet, at our distance from the Sun, ought to be much colder. He suggested something in the atmosphere must be acting like an insulating blanket. In 1856, Eunice Foote discovered that blanket, showing that carbon dioxide and water vapor in Earth's atmosphere trap escaping infrared (heat) radiation. In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth’s atmosphere to global warming. In 1941, Milutin Milankovic linked ice ages to Earth’s orbital characteristics. Gilbert Plass formulated the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change in 1956.

3. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, WG1, Chapter 2 Vostok ice core data; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record O. Gaffney, W. Steffen, "The Anthropocene Equation." The Anthropocene Review 4, issue 1 (April 2017): 53-61. https://doi.org/abs/10.1177/2053019616688022.

4. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

5. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/

6. S. Levitus, J. Antonov, T. Boyer, O Baranova, H. Garcia, R. Locarnini, A. Mishonov, J. Reagan, D. Seidov, E. Yarosh, M. Zweng, " NCEI ocean heat content, temperature anomalies, salinity anomalies, thermosteric sea level anomalies, halosteric sea level anomalies, and total steric sea level anomalies from 1955 to present calculated from in situ oceanographic subsurface profile data (NCEI Accession 0164586), Version 4.4. (2017) NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index3.html K. von Schuckmann, L. Cheng, L,. D. Palmer, J. Hansen, C. Tassone, V. Aich, S. Adusumilli, H. Beltrami, H., T. Boyer, F. Cuesta-Valero, D. Desbruyeres, C. Domingues, A. Garcia-Garcia, P. Gentine, J. Gilson, M. Gorfer, L. Haimberger, M. Ishii, M., G. Johnson, R. Killick, B. King, G. Kirchengast, N. Kolodziejczyk, J. Lyman, B. Marzeion, M. Mayer, M. Monier, D. Monselesan, S. Purkey, D. Roemmich, A. Schweiger, S. Seneviratne, A. Shepherd, D. Slater, A. Steiner, F. Straneo, M.L. Timmermans, S. Wijffels. "Heat stored in the Earth system: where does the energy go?" Earth System Science Data 12, Issue 3 (07 September 2020): 2013-2041. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2013-2020.

7. I. Velicogna, Yara Mohajerani, A. Geruo, F. Landerer, J. Mouginot, B. Noel, E. Rignot, T. Sutterly, M. van den Broeke, M. Wessem, D. Wiese, "Continuity of Ice Sheet Mass Loss in Greenland and Antarctica From the GRACE and GRACE Follow-On Missions." Geophysical Research Letters 47, Issue 8 (28 April 2020): e2020GL087291. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087291.

8. National Snow and Ice Data Center World Glacier Monitoring Service

9. National Snow and Ice Data Center D.A. Robinson, D. K. Hall, and T. L. Mote, "MEaSUREs Northern Hemisphere Terrestrial Snow Cover Extent Daily 25km EASE-Grid 2.0, Version 1 (2017). Boulder, Colorado USA. NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center. doi: https://doi.org/10.5067/MEASURES/CRYOSPHERE/nsidc-0530.001 . http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html Rutgers University Global Snow Lab. Data History

10. R.S. Nerem, B.D. Beckley, J. T. Fasullo, B.D. Hamlington, D. Masters, and G.T. Mitchum, "Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era." PNAS 15, no. 9 (12 Feb. 2018): 2022-2025. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717312115.

11. https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003) http://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/ http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/projections-of-an-ice-diminished-arctic-ocean/

12. USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, https://doi.org/10.7930/j0j964j6 .

13. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

14. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

15. C.L. Sabine, et al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2.” Science 305 (16 July 2004): 367-371. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097403.

16. Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate , Technical Summary, Chapter TS.5, Changing Ocean, Marine Ecosystems, and Dependent Communities, Section 5.2.2.3. https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/technical-summary/

Header image shows clouds imitating mountains as the sun sets after midnight as seen from Denali's backcountry Unit 13 on June 14, 2019. Credit: NPS/Emily Mesner Image credit in list of evidence: Ashwin Kumar, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic.

Discover More Topics From NASA

Explore Earth Science

Earth Science in Action

Earth Science Data

Facts About Earth

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley-Blackwell Online Open

What really matters for successful research environments? A realist synthesis

Rola ajjawi.

1 Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

Paul E S Crampton

2 Research Department of Medical Education, University College London, London, UK

3 Monash Centre for Scholarship in Health Education (MCSHE), Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

Charlotte E Rees

Associated data.

Table S2. MeSH terms and a selection of key terms utilised in the database searches.

Table S3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria with respect to topic, recentness and type of article.

Table S4. Refined inclusion and exclusion criteria to include contextual parameters.

Table S5. Studies by type: qualitative, quantitative and mixed‐methods.

Research environments, or cultures, are thought to be the most influential predictors of research productivity. Although several narrative and systematic reviews have begun to identify the characteristics of research‐favourable environments, these reviews have ignored the contextual complexities and multiplicity of environmental characteristics.

The current synthesis adopts a realist approach to explore what interventions work for whom and under what circumstances.

We conducted a realist synthesis of the international literature in medical education, education and medicine from 1992 to 2016, following five stages: (i) clarifying the scope; (ii) searching for evidence; (iii) assessing quality; (iv) extracting data, and (v) synthesising data.

We identified numerous interventions relating to research strategy, people, income, infrastructure and facilities (IIF), and collaboration. These interventions resulted in positive or negative outcomes depending on the context and mechanisms fired. We identified diverse contexts at the individual and institutional levels, but found that disciplinary contexts were less influential. There were a multiplicity of positive and negative mechanisms, along with three cross‐cutting mechanisms that regularly intersected: time; identity, and relationships. Outcomes varied widely and included both positive and negative outcomes across subjective (e.g. researcher identity) and objective (e.g. research quantity and quality) domains.

Conclusions

The interplay among mechanisms and contexts is central to understanding the outcomes of specific interventions, bringing novel insights to the literature. Researchers, research leaders and research organisations should prioritise the protection of time for research, enculturate researcher identities, and develop collaborative relationships to better foster successful research environments. Future research should further explore the interplay among time, identity and relationships.

Short abstract

This realist review shows when and why interventions related to research strategy; people; income, infrastructure and facilities; and collaboration result in positive or negative research environments. Findings indicate that protected time, researcher identities and collaborative relationships are important for fostering successful research environments.

Introduction

Research environments matter. Environmental considerations such as robust cultures of research quality and support for researchers are thought to be the most influential predictors of research productivity. 1 , 2 Over 25 years ago, Bland and Ruffin 1 identified 12 characteristics of research‐favourable environments in the international academic medicine literature spanning the period from the mid‐1960s to 1990 (Box 1 ). Although these characteristics are aspirational in flavour, how they interplay to influence research productivity within increasingly complex institutional structures is not yet known. Indeed, although existing reviews have begun to help us better understand what makes for successful research environments, this research has typically ignored the contextual complexities and multiplicity of environmental characteristics 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 and has focused on narrow markers of productivity such as the quantity of research outputs (e.g. ref. 7 ) The current realist synthesis, therefore, aims to address this gap in the research literature by reviewing more recent literature ( 1992–2016 ) and exploring the features of successful research environments in terms of which interventions work, for whom, how and in what circumstances.

Characteristics of successful research environments 1

• Clear organisational research goals
• Research productivity as a priority and at least equal priority to other activities
• A robust research culture with shared research values
• A positive group climate
• Participative governance structures
• Non‐hierarchical and decentralised structures
• Good communication and professionally meaningful relationships between team members
• Decent resources such as people, funding, research facilities and time
• Larger group size, moderately established teams and diversity
• Rewards for research success
• Recruitment and selection of talented researchers
• Research‐oriented leaders with research expertise and skill

The contextual background for understanding successful research environments

Against a backdrop of the mass production of education, reduced government funding for research and ‘new managerialist’ cultures in higher education, 8 , 9 increased scrutiny of the quantity and quality of research, the research environments in which research is produced and the impacts of research has become inevitable. 10 Indeed, in higher education institutions (HEIs) globally, research productivity is being measured as part of individual researcher and research group key performance indicators. 7 In many countries, such as Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand and the UK, 11 HEI research is measured on a national scale through government‐led research assessments. Such research measurement has contributed to the allocation of funding to universities and differentiation of universities in the competitive marketplace, with some solidifying their institutional identities as ‘research‐intensive’ and others emphasising their relative ‘newcomer‐to‐research’ status (e.g. previously ‘teaching‐intensive’ universities). 9 , 12 , 13 Such institutional differentiation also parallels that of individual academics within universities, who are increasingly encouraged to take either ‘research‐active’ or ‘education‐focused’ career pathways. 8 , 9 It is these broader national and institutional constraints that inevitably impact on research environments at the level of units, centres, departments and schools within universities (the level of ‘research environment’ that we focus on in this paper). Table S1 provides definitions of key terms.

Key features of research environments identified in previous reviews

Evans defines a research environment as including: ‘shared values, assumptions, beliefs, rituals and other forms of behaviour whose central focus is the acceptance and recognition of research practice and output as valued, worthwhile and pre‐eminent activity.’ 14 Previous reviews have tended to focus on interventions aimed at individual researchers, such as research capacity building, 4 , 5 , 7 and with individual‐level outcomes, such as increased numbers of grants or publications. 4 , 5 , 7 These reviews have typically concluded that research capacity‐building interventions lead to positive research outcomes. 4 , 5 , 7 Furthermore, the reviews have identified both individual and institutional enablers to research. Individual enablers included researchers’ intrinsic motivation to conduct research. 6 , 7 Institutional enablers included peer support, encouragement and review, 7 mentoring and collaboration, 4 , 5 research leadership, 5 , 6 institutional structures, processes and systems supporting research, such as clear strategy, 5 , 6 protected time and financial support. 5 Although these reviews have begun to shed light on the features of successful research environments, they have significant limitations: (i) they either include studies of low to moderate quality 4 , 5 or fail to check the quality of studies included, 7 and (ii) they do not explore what works for whom and under what circumstances, but instead focus on what works and ignore the influence of the context in which interventions are implemented and ‘how’ outcomes come about. Indeed, Mazmanian et al. 4 concluded in their review: ‘…little is known about what works best and in what situations.’

Conceptual framework: a realist approach

Given the gaps in the research literature and the importance of promoting successful research environments for individuals’ careers, institutional prestige and the knowledge base of the community, we thought a realist synthesis would be most likely to elucidate how multiple complex interventions can influence success. Realism assumes the existence of an external reality (a real world), but one that is filtered (i.e. perceived, interpreted and responded to) through human senses, volitions, language and culture. 15 A realist approach enables the development and testing of theory for why interventions may or may not work, for whom and under what circumstances. 16 It does this through recognising that interventions do not directly cause outcomes; instead, participants’ reactions and responses to the opportunities provided by the intervention trigger outcomes. This approach can allow researchers to identify causal links in complex situations, such as those between interventions and the contexts in which they work, how they work (mechanisms) and their outcomes. 17 Although the context–mechanism–outcome (CMO) approach is not necessarily linear, it can help to provide explanations that privilege contextual variability. 18

Aligned with the goals of realist research, this synthesis aims to address the following research question: What are the features of successful research environments, for whom, how and in what circumstances?

We followed five stages of realist synthesis: (i) clarifying scope; (ii) searching for evidence; (iii) assessing quality; (iv) extracting data, and (v) synthesising data. 19 Our methods also follow the RAMESES ( r ealist a nd m eta‐narrative e vidence s ynthesis: e volving s tandards) reporting guidelines. 20

Clarifying the scope

We first clarified the scope of our realist synthesis by identifying relevant interventions based on the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 environment assessment criteria. The REF is a national exercise assessing the quality of research produced by UK HEIs, its impact beyond academia, and the environment that supports research. The assessment criteria indicated in the REF2014 environment template included the unit's research strategy , its people (including staffing strategy, staff development and research students), its income, infrastructure and facilities (IIF), as well as features of collaboration . 21 These guided our search terms (see stage 2 below). We chose to use these quality markers as they informed the UK national assessment exercise, upon which other national exercises are often based. In addition, these criteria were explicit, considered and implementable, and were developed through consensus. Like other realist syntheses, 18 , 22 , 23 ours considered a multiplicity of different interventions rather than just one and some of the papers we reviewed combined multiple interventions.

Based on previous reviews, 1 , 4 , 5 , 7 our initial programme theory speculated that interventions aligned to having an explicit research strategy, staff development opportunities, funding and establishing research networks would be effective for creating successful research environments (Fig. ​ (Fig.1 1 gives further details of our initial programme theory).

Initial programme theory

Searching for empirical evidence

We devised search terms as a team and refined these iteratively with the help of a health librarian experienced in searching. We split the research question into three key concepts: (i) research environment; (ii) discipline, and (iii) research indicator (i.e. positive or negative). We then used variations of these terms to search the most relevant databases including MEDLINE, ProQuest, Scopus, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and Web of Science. Table S2 illustrates the MeSH terms and provides a selection of key terms utilised in the database searches.

We were interested in comparing research cultures across the disciplines of medical education, education and medicine for two key reasons. Firstly, the discipline of medical education consists of a rich tapestry of epistemological approaches including biomedical sciences, social sciences and education, and medicine. 24 , 25 Secondly, there have been disciplinary arguments in the literature about whether medical education should be constructed as medicine or social science. 24 , 26

We agreed various inclusion and exclusion criteria with respect to topic, recentness and type of article (Table S3 ), as well as refined criteria to include contextual parameters (Table S4 ). We chose 1992 as the start date for our search period as 1992 saw the first published literature review about productive research environments in the academic medicine literature. 1

Study selection

The first top‐level search elicited 8527 journal articles across all databases. Once duplicate results had been removed, and ‘topic’ and ‘recentness’ study parameters reinforced, 420 articles remained. The searching and selection process is summarised in a PRISMA ( p referred r eporting i tems for s ystematic reviews and m eta‐ a nalyses) diagram (Fig. ​ (Fig.2). 2 ). Three research assistants and one of the authors (PESC) initially assessed relevance by reviewing abstracts using preliminary inclusion criteria. If any ambiguities were found by any of the reviewers, abstracts were checked by one of the other two researchers (RA and CER). Where divergent views existed, researchers discussed the reasons why and agreed on whether to include or exclude. A 10% sample of these 420 abstracts were double‐checked by an additional two researchers, including a number of articles previously excluded, for quality control purposes.

PRISMA flow diagram of the selection process

Assessment of quality

We assessed the journal articles for relevance and rigour. 20 We defined an article's relevance according to ‘whether it can contribute to theory building and/or testing’. 20 Following the relevance check and ‘type’ exclusions to original research papers, 100 articles remained, which were then assessed for rigour. Although we chose to narrow down to original research, we kept relevant articles such as systematic reviews and opinion pieces to inform the introduction and discussion sections of this paper.

We defined rigour as determining ‘whether the method used to generate the particular piece of data is credible and trustworthy’. 20 We used two pre‐validated tools to assess study quality: the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) to assess the quality of quantitative research, 27 , 28 and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist for qualitative and mixed‐method studies. 29 Both tools are used to consider the rigour of study design, sampling, type of data, data analysis and outcomes/findings, and have been employed in previous reviews. 23 , 30

Following the quality assessment, 47 articles remained and were then subjected to data extraction and synthesis. Five papers were excluded as they did not contribute to our theory building or lacked CMO configurations (CMOCs). We kept notes of the reasons for excluding studies and resolved doubts through discussion (Fig. ​ (Fig.2 2 ).

Data extraction

Two data‐rich articles containing multiple CMOCs were inductively and deductively (based on the initial programme theory) coded by all of us to ensure consistency. We then discussed any similarities and differences in our coding. As is inherent in the challenges of realist approaches, we found differences in our identifications of CMOCs, which often related to how one particular component (e.g. time) could be an outcome at one moment and a mechanism the next. This alerted us to overlapping constructs, which we then explored as we coded remaining papers. To collect data across all remaining papers, we extracted information relating to: study design, methods and sample size; study setting; intervention focus; contexts of the intervention; mechanisms generated in the results, and outcomes. The key CMOCs in all 42 articles were identified primarily from the results sections of the papers. The process of data extraction and analysis was iterative with repeated discussion among the researchers of the demi‐regularities (i.e. patterns of CMOCs) in relation to the initial programme theory and negotiations of any differences of opinion.

Data synthesis

Finally, we interrogated our data extraction to look for patterns across our data/papers. We used an interpretative approach to consider how our data compared with our initial programme theory in order to develop our modified programme theory.

Characteristics of the studies

The 42 papers represented the following disciplines: medical education ( n = 4, 10%); 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 education ( n = 18, 43%), 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 and medicine ( n = 20, 48%). 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 There were 26 (62%) qualitative studies, 11 (26%) quantitative studies and five (12%) mixed‐methods studies (Table S5 ). The studies were from countries across the globe, including Australia ( n = 10, 24%), the USA ( n = 7, 17%), the UK ( n = 6, 14%), Canada ( n = 4, 10%), South Africa ( n = 4, 10%), Denmark ( n = 2, 5%), Turkey ( n = 2, 5%) and others ( n = 7, 17%) (e.g. Belgium, China, Germany, New Zealand and the Philippines). The research designs varied but common approaches included qualitative interviews, surveys, documentary/bibliographic analysis, case studies and mixed‐methods studies. Study participants included academics, teachers, health care professionals, senior directors, PhD students, early‐career researchers (ECRs) and senior researchers. Table S6 lists the individual contexts, interventions, mechanisms and outcomes identified from individual papers.

Extending our initial programme theory

A key finding from our realist synthesis was that the same interventions fired either positive or negative mechanisms leading to positive or negative outcomes, respectively, depending on context. Surprisingly, the CMOCs were mostly consistent across the three disciplines (i.e. medical education, education and medicine) with local contexts seemingly interplaying more strongly with outcomes. Therefore, we present these disciplinary contexts here as merged, but we highlight any differences by disciplinary context where relevant.

Having a research strategy promoted a successful research environment when it enabled appropriate resources (including time) and valuing of research; however, it had negative consequences when it too narrowly focused on outputs, incentives and rewards. In terms of people , individual researchers needed to be internally motivated and to have a sense of belonging, and protected time and access to capacity‐building activities in order to produce research. Lack of knowledge, researcher identity, networks and time, plus limited leadership support, acted as mechanisms leading to negative research outcomes. The presence of IIF was overwhelmingly indicated as necessary for successful research environments and their absence was typically detrimental. Interestingly, a few papers reported that external funding could have negative consequences because short‐term contracts, reduced job security and the use of temporary junior staff can lead to weak research environments. 40 , 67 , 71 Finally, collaboration was crucial for successful research mediated through trusting respectful relationships, supportive leadership and belongingness. Poor communication and competitive cultures, however, worked to undermine collaboration, leading to isolation and low self‐esteem, plus decreased research engagement and productivity. Table ​ Table1 1 highlights illustrative CMOCs for each intervention extending our initial programme theory.

Positive and negative context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs) for each intervention

CMOCs indicated in bold highlight the three cross‐cutting themes of time, identity and relationships.

ECRs = early‐career researchers.

Key cross‐cutting mechanisms: time, identity and relationships

As Table ​ Table1 1 shows, the same intervention can lead to positive or negative outcomes depending on the particular contexts and mechanisms triggered. This highlights greater complexity than is evident at first glance. Cross‐cutting these four interventions were three mechanisms that were regularly identified as critical to the success (or not) of a research environment: time; researcher identities, and relationships. We now present key findings for each of these cross‐cutting mechanisms and discuss how their inter‐relations lead to our modified programme theory (Fig. ​ (Fig.3). 3 ). Note that although we have tried to separate these three mechanisms for ease of reading, they were often messily entangled. Table ​ Table2 2 presents quotes illustrating the way in which each mechanism mediates outcomes within particular circumstances.

Modified programme theory. ECR = early‐career researcher

Time, identity and relationships as cross‐cutting mechanisms mediating successful research environments

Time was identified as an important mechanism for mobilising research outcomes across our three disciplines. Time was conceptualised severally including as: protected time; workload pressures influencing time available; efficient use of time; flexible use of time; making time, and time in career. The two most commonly considered aspects were protected time and workload implications. Protected time was largely talked about in the negative across a variety of contexts and disciplines, with lack of protected time leading to lack of researcher engagement or inactivity and reduced research productivity. 32 , 35 , 37 , 41 , 44 , 47 , 49 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 67 Also across a variety of contexts and disciplines, and acting as a positive mechanism, available protected time was found to lead to increased research productivity and active research engagement. 31 , 36 , 40 , 48 , 49 , 63 , 65 With regard to workload, limitations on the time available for research imposed by excessive other workloads led to reduced research activity, lower research productivity, poor‐quality research and reduced opportunity to attend research training. 40 , 41 , 47 , 49 , 60 , 67 Juggling of multiple responsibilities, such as clinical, teaching, administrative and leadership roles, also inhibited research productivity by diminishing the time available for research. 35 , 40 , 49 The alignment of research with other non‐research work was described as driving efficiencies in the use of time leading to greater research productivity (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 1).

Identity was also an important mechanism for mobilising research outcomes across our three disciplines. Interpretations included personal identities (e.g. gender), professional identity (e.g. as a primary practitioner or a primary researcher), and social identity (e.g. sense of belongingness). Researcher identity was often referred to in relation to first‐career practitioners (and therefore second‐career researchers). Sharp et al. 48 defined these as participants recruited into higher education not directly from doctoral study but on the basis of their extensive ‘first‐order’ knowledge and pedagogical expertise. These were also practitioners conducting research in schools or hospitals. Identities were also referenced in relation to early, mid‐career or senior researchers. Academic staff working in academic institutions needed to develop a sense of researcher identity, belongingness, self‐efficacy for research and autonomy to increase their satisfaction, competence and research activity. 39 , 40 , 44 , 46 , 51 , 67 For first‐career practitioners (i.e. teachers, doctors), the research needed to be highly relevant and aligned to their primary identity work in order to motivate them. 53 , 59 , 62 , 65 This alignment was described as having a strong research–teaching nexus. 40 , 48 Linked to this concept was the need for first‐career practitioners to see the impact of research in relation to their primary work (e.g. patient‐ or student‐oriented) to facilitate motivation and to develop a researcher identity (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 2). 36 , 37 , 41 , 49 , 53 , 54 , 67 Where research was seen as irrelevant to primary identity work (e.g. English language teaching, general practice), there was research disengagement. 37 , 48 , 52 , 59 , 67

Relationships

For all researchers and across our three disciplines, relationships were important in the mediating of successful research environments. 31 , 34 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 44 , 57 , 60 , 66 , 67 Positive research relationships were characterised by mutual trust and respect, 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 54 , 66 , 72 whereas others described them as friendships that take time to develop. 51 Mutually supportive relationships seemed to be particularly relevant to ECRs in terms of developing confidence, self‐esteem and research capacity and making identity transitions. 35 , 43 , 48 , 58 , 67 Relationships in the form of networks were considered to improve the quality of research through multicentre research and improved collaboration. 33 , 60 Supportive leadership as a particular form of relationship was an important mechanism in promoting a successful research environment. Supportive leaders needed to monitor workloads, set the vision, raise awareness of the value of research, and provide positive role‐modelling, thereby leading to increased productivity, promoting researcher identities and creating thriving research environments (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 3). 31 , 34 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 53 , 55 , 62 Research leadership, however, could be influenced negatively by the context of compliance and counting in current university cultures damaging relationships, creating a loss of motivation, and raising feelings of devalue. Indeed, the failure of leaders to recognise researcher identities led to negative research productivity. 36 , 37 , 38 , 43 , 46 , 48 , 49

Intersections between time, identity and relationships within successful research environments

Time and identity.

Time and identity intersected in interesting ways. Firstly, time was a necessary enabler for the development of a researcher identity. 37 , 38 , 41 , 48 , 49 , 54 , 59 , 61 , 63 , 65 , 67 , 69 Secondly, those who identified as researchers (thus holding primary researcher identities) used their time efficiently to favour research activity outcomes despite a lack of protected time. 35 , 43 Conversely, for other professors who lacked personal determination and resilience for research, having protected time did not lead to better research activity. 43 This highlights the fact that time alone is insufficient to support a successful research environment, and that it is how time is utilised and prioritised by researchers that really matters (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 4).

Identity and relationships

Interventions aimed at developing researcher identity consistently focused on relationship building across the three disciplines. The interventions that supported identity transitions into research included formal research training, 44 , 48 , 52 , 68 mentoring, 41 , 48 , 57 , 65 , 72 writing groups, 72 and collaboration with peers and other researchers, 39 , 41 , 43 operating through multiple mechanisms including relationships. The mechanisms included self‐esteem/confidence, increased networks, external recognition as a researcher, belongingness, and self‐efficacy. 35 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 52 , 57 Furthermore, our data suggest that leadership can be an enabler to the development of a researcher identity. In particular, leadership enabled research autonomy, recognition and empowerment, and fostered supportive mentoring environments, leading to researcher identity development and research productivity (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 5). 34 , 38 , 46 , 48

Time and relationships

Relationships were developed and sustained over time (Table ​ (Table2, 2 , quote 6). Across the three disciplines, the role of leaders (managers, directors, deans) was to acknowledge and raise awareness of research, and then to prioritise time for research against competing demands, leading to effective research networks, cohesion and collaboration. 31 , 34 , 38 , 43 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 55 , 70 Second‐career PhD students who did not invest time in establishing relationships with researchers in their new disciplines (as they already had strong supportive networks in their original disciplines) found that they had limited research networks following graduation. 48

Summary of key findings

Our initial programme theory was based on previous literature reviews 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 and on the REF2014 criteria. 10 , 21 However, we were able to develop a modified programme theory on the basis of our realist synthesis, which highlights novel findings in terms of what really matters for successful research environments. Firstly, we found that key interventions led to both positive (subjective and objective) and negative (subjective and objective) outcomes in various contexts. Interestingly, we did not identify any outcomes relating to research impact despite impact nowadays being considered a prominent marker of research success, alongside quantitative metrics such as number of publications, grant income and h‐indices. 21 Secondly, we found that disciplinary contexts appeared to be less influential than individual, local and institutional contexts. Finally, our modified programme theory demonstrates a complex interplay among three cross‐cutting mechanisms (time, researcher identity and relationships) as mechanisms underpinning both successful and unsuccessful research environments.

Key findings and comparisons with the existing literature

Our research supports the findings of earlier reviews 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 regarding the importance of having a clear research strategy, an organisation that values research, research‐oriented leadership, access to resources (such as people, funding, research facilities and time), and meaningful relationships. However, our research extends these findings considerably by flagging up the indication that a clear linear relationship, whereby the presence of these interventions will necessarily result in a successful research environment, does not exist. For example, instituting a research strategy can have negative effects if the indicators are seen as overly narrow in focus or output‐oriented. 38 , 40 , 46 , 47 , 64 Similarly, project money can lead to the employment of more part‐time staff on fixed‐term contracts, which results in instability, turnover and lack of research team expertise. 40 , 67 , 71

Our findings indicate that the interplays among time, identity and relationships are important considerations when implementing interventions promoting research environments. Although time was identified as an important mechanism affecting research outcomes within the majority of papers, researcher identity positively affected research outcomes even in time‐poor situations. Indeed, we found that identity acted as a mechanism for research productivity that could overcome limited time through individuals efficiently finding time to prioritise research through their motivation and resilience. 35 , 43 Time was therefore more than just time spent doing research, but also included investment in developing a researcher identity and relationships with other researchers over time. 37 , 38 , 41 , 48 , 49 , 54 , 59 , 61 , 63 , 67 , 69 Relationship‐building interventions were also found to be effective in supporting difficult identity transitions into research faced by ECRs and those with first‐career practitioner backgrounds. Supportive leadership, as a particular form of relationship, could be seen as an enabler to the provision of protected time and a reasonable workload, allowing time for research and for researcher identity formation. 34 , 38 , 46 , 48 Indeed, our realist synthesis findings highlight the central importance of researcher identity and thus offer a novel explanation for why research environments may not flourish even in the presence of a research strategy, resources (e.g. time) and valuing of research.

Researcher identity is complex and intersects with other identities such as those of practitioner, teacher, leader and so on. Brew et al. 39 , 73 , 74 explored researcher identification and productivity by asking researchers if they considered themselves to be ‘research‐active’ and part of a research team. Those who identified as researchers prioritised their work differently: those who were highly productive prioritised research, whereas those in the low‐productivity group prioritised teaching. 73 Interestingly, highly productive researchers tended to view research as a social phenomenon with publications, presentations and grants being ‘traded’ in academic networks. Brew et al. 39 explain that: ‘…the trading view relates to a self‐generating researcher identity. Researcher identity develops in the act of publication, networks, collaborations and peer review. These activities support a person's identification as a researcher. They also, in turn, influence performance measures and metrics.’ Although the relationships among identity, identification and productivity are clearly complex, we explored a broader range of metrics in our realist synthesis than just productivity.

Methodological strengths and limitations

This is the first study to explore this important topic using realist synthesis to better understand the influence of context and how particular interventions lead to outcomes. We followed RAMESES 20 guidelines and adopted a rigorous team‐based approach to each analytic stage, conducting regular quality checks. The search was not exhaustive as we could have ‘exploded’ the interventions and performed a comprehensive review of each in its own right (e.g. mentoring). However, for pragmatic reasons and to answer our broad research questions, we chose not to do this, as suggested by Wong et al. 20 Although all members of the team had been involved in realist syntheses previously, the process remained messy as we dealt with complex phenomena. The messiness often lies in untangling CMOCs and identifying recurrent patterns in the large amounts of literature reviewed.

Implications for education and research

Our findings suggest that interventions related to research strategy, people, IIF and collaboration are supported under the ‘right’ conditions. We need to focus on time, identity and relationships (including leadership) in order to better mobilise the interventions to promote successful research environments.

Individuals need to reflect on how and why they identify as researchers, including their conceptions of research and their working towards the development of a researcher identity such that research is internally motivated rather than just externally driven. Those who are second‐career researchers or those with significant teaching or practitioner roles could seek to align research with their practice while they establish wider research networks.

We recommend that research leaders support individuals to develop their researcher identity, be seen to value research, recognise that research takes time, and provide access to opportunities promoting research capacity building, strong relationships and collaboration. Leaders, for example, may introduce interventions that promote researcher identities and build research relationships (e.g. collaborations, networking, mentoring, research groups etc.), paying attention to the ways in which competitive or collaborative cultures are fostered. Browne et al. 75 recently recommended discussions around four categories for promoting identity transition: reflection on self (values, experiences and expectations); consideration of the situation (circumstances, concerns); support (what is available and what is needed), and strategies (personal strategies to cope with change and thrive). With the professionalisation of medical education, 76 research units are increasingly likely to contain a mixture of first‐ and second‐career researchers, and our review suggests that discussions about conceptions of research and researcher identity would be valuable.

Finally, organisations need to value research and provide access to resources and research capacity‐building activities. Within the managerialist cultures of HEIs, compliance and counting have already become dominant discourses in terms of promotion and success. Policymakers should therefore consider ways in which HEIs recognise, incentivise and reward research in all its forms (including subjective and objective measures of quantity, quality and impact) to determine the full effects of their policies on research environments.

Future research would benefit from further exploration of the interplay among time, identities and relationships (including leadership) in different contexts using realist evaluation. 77 Specifically, as part of realist approaches, longitudinal audio‐diaries 78 could be employed to explore researcher identity transitions over time, particularly for first‐career practitioners transitioning into second‐career researchers.

Contributors

RA and CER were responsible for the conception of the synthesis. All authors contributed to the protocol development. RA and PESC carried out the database searches. All authors sifted for relevance and rigour, analysed the papers and contributed to the writing of the article. All authors approved the final manuscript for publication.

Conflicts of interest

Ethical approval.

not required.

Supporting information

Table S1. Definitions of key terms.

Table S6. Contexts, interventions, mechanisms and outcomes identified in individual studies.

Acknowledgements

we thank Andy Jackson, Learning and Teaching Librarian, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK, for his advice and help in developing our literature searches. We also thank Laura McDonald, Paul McLean and Eilidh Dear, who were medical students at the University of Dundee, for their help with database searches and with sifting papers for relevance and rigour. We would also like to thank Chau Khuong, Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, for her work in designing Figs ​ Figs1 1 and ​ and3 3 .

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER Q&A
• 26 March 2024

The beauty of what science can do when urgently needed

• Katherine Bourzac 0

Katherine Bourzac is a freelance journalist in San Francisco, California.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Cultivarium chief scientific officer Nili Ostrov works to make model organisms more useful and accessible for scientific research Credit: Donis Perkins

Nili Ostrov has always been passionate about finding ways to use biology for practical purposes. So perhaps it wasn’t surprising that, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit during her postdoctoral studies, she went in the opposite direction from most people, moving to New York City to work as the director of molecular diagnostics in the Pandemic Response Lab, providing COVID-19 tests and surveilling viral variants. She was inspired by seeing what scientists could accomplish and how much they could help when under pressure.

Now the chief scientific officer at Cultivarium in Watertown, Massachusetts, Ostrov is bringing that sense of urgency to fundamental problems in synthetic biology. Cultivarium is a non-profit focused research organization, a structure that comes with a finite amount of time and funding to pursue ‘moonshot’ scientific goals, which would usually be difficult for academic laboratories or start-up companies to achieve. Cultivarium has five years of funding, which started in 2022, to develop tools to make it possible for scientists to genetically engineer unconventional model organisms — a group that includes most microbes.

Typically, scientists are limited to working with yeast, the bacterium Escherichia coli and other common lab organisms, because the necessary conditions to grow and manipulate them are well understood. Ostrov wants to make it easier to engineer other microbes, such as soil bacteria or microorganisms that live in extreme conditions, for scientific purposes. This could open up new possibilities for biomanufacturing drugs or transportation fuels and solving environmental problems.

What is synthetic biology and what drew you to it?

Synthetic biology melds biology and engineering — it is the level at which you say, “I know how this part works. What can I do with it?” Synthetic biologists ask questions such as, what is this part useful for? How can it benefit people or the environment in some way?

During my PhD programme at Columbia University in New York City, my team worked with the yeast that is used for brewing beer — but we asked, can you use these yeast cells as sensors? Because yeast cells can sense their environment, we could engineer them to detect a pathogen in a water sample. In my postdoctoral work at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, we investigated a marine bacterium, Vibrio natriegens . A lot of time during research is spent waiting for cells to grow. V. natriegens doubles in number about every ten minutes — the fastest growth rate of any organism.

Could we use it to speed up research? But using V. natriegens and other uncommon research organisms is hard work. You have to develop the right genetic-engineering tools.

How did the COVID-19 pandemic alter your career trajectory?

It pushed me to do something that I otherwise would not have done. During my postdoctoral programme, I met Jef Boeke, a synthetic biologist at New York University. In 2020, he asked me whether I wanted to help with the city’s Pandemic Response Lab, because of my expertise in DNA technology. I’m probably one of the only people with a newborn baby who moved into Manhattan when COVID-19 hit.

That was an amazing experience: I took my science and skills and used them for something essential and urgent. In a couple of months, we set up a lab that supported the city’s health system. We monitored for new variants of the virus using genomic sequencing and ran diagnostic tests.

Seeing what science can do when needed — it was beautiful. It showed me how effective science can be, and how fast science can move with the right set-up.

How did that influence what you’re doing now with Cultivarium?

COVID-19 showed me how urgently needed science can be done. It’s about bringing together the right people from different disciplines. Cultivarium is addressing fundamental problems in science, which is usually done in academic settings, with the fast pace and the dynamic of a start-up company.

We need to make progress on finding ways to use unconventional microbes to advance science. A lot of bioproduction of industrial and therapeutic molecules is done in a few model organisms, such as E. coli and yeast. Imagine what you could achieve if you had 100 different organisms. If you’re looking to produce a protein that needs to be made in high temperatures or at an extreme pH, you can’t use E. coli , because it won’t grow.

How is Cultivarium making unconventional microbes research-friendly?

It took my postdoctoral lab team six years to get to the point where we could take V. natriegens , which we initially didn’t know how to grow well or engineer, and knock out every gene in its genome.

At Cultivarium, we’re taking a more systematic approach to provide those culturing and engineering tools for researchers to use in their organism of choice. This kind of topic gets less funding, because it’s foundational science.

So, we develop and distribute the tools to reproducibly culture microorganisms, introduce DNA into them and genetically engineer them. Only then can the organism be used in research and engineering.

Developing these tools takes many years and a lot of money and skills. It takes a lot of people in the room: a biologist, a microbiologist, an automation person, a computational biologist, an engineer. As a non-profit company, we try to make our tools available to all scientists to help them to use their organism of choice for a given application.

We have funding for five years from Schmidt Futures, a non-profit organization in New York City. We’re already releasing and distributing tools and information online. We’re building a portal where all data for non-standard model organisms will be available.

Which appeals to you more — academic research or the private sector?

I like the fast pace of start-up companies. I like the accessibility of expertise: you can bring the engineer into the room with the biologists. I like that you can build a team of people who all work for the same goal with the same motivation and urgency.

Academia is wonderful, and I think it’s very important for people to get rigorous training. But I think we should also showcase other career options for early-career researchers. Before the pandemic, I didn’t know what it was like to work in a non-academic set-up. And once I got a taste of it, I found that it worked well for me.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00928-6

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Related Articles

• Synthetic biology
• Research management

Africa’s postdoc workforce is on the rise — but at what cost?

Career Feature 02 APR 24

Impact factors are outdated, but new research assessments still fail scientists

World View 02 APR 24

How scientists are making the most of Reddit

Career Feature 01 APR 24

More than 4,000 plastic chemicals are hazardous, report finds

News 14 MAR 24

‘This is my calling’: building point-of-care diagnostic tools to fight tuberculosis

Career Q&A 01 MAR 24

How co-working labs reduce costs and accelerate progress for biotech start-ups

Career Feature 29 JAN 24

Proteome-scale discovery of protein degradation and stabilization effectors

Article 20 MAR 24

Mammalian cells repress random DNA that yeast transcribes

News & Views 06 MAR 24

Synthetic reversed sequences reveal default genomic states

Article 06 MAR 24

Research Associate - Neuroscience and Respiratory Physiology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Histology Laboratory Manager

Postdoctoral scholar - research-pediatrics.

Memphis, Tennessee

The University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC)

Postdoctoral Scholar

Postdoctoral Scholar - PHAST Investigate Novel Roles of Linear Deubiquitinase Otulin In NeuroDegenerato

Memphis, Tennessee (US)

Postdoctoral Scholar - Pharmacology

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

How Science Can Save the Environment: The Most Promising Areas

• Environment

Research shows that the natural world is disappearing faster than ever before, and the effects can be felt in every corner of the world. Global warming and shortage of natural resources are a few among others. Scientists worldwide are working day and night, trying to restore what has been lost over the years./p>

Science creates new paths that can be used to protect the remaining resources and restore the weather changes. Here are the most promising areas of science that are fighting for nature.

Boosting energy efficiency

Statistics show that the global energy intensity dipped by 0.4% in 2020. This was much lower than the historical trends. Some areas where research is being conducted to increase energy efficiency are the buildings, transportation, and industrial sectors.

Science students worldwide are carrying various projects on green building technologies to increase energy efficiency. Most of the research and innovations for saving the environment worldwide are either by students or professors. Most of the projects for the science students are recently being built with higher energy efficiency.

While working on the projects, science students need to have maximum concentration due to their complexity. When faced with the challenges of writing an essay about saving the environment, they can use various writing tools, revise papers and visit any relevant, helpful sit. College students can also use the samplius collected many essays on science to maintain high-quality education grades. It will also make their work easier and give them ample time to deal with their science projects for benefiting the environment.

Decarbonizing power generation

The effects of carbon emissions on the Earth’s surface are rampant and affect the whole planet’s climate. Components of carbon are responsible for the global warming effects that are being felt almost everywhere globally. Scientists are working on different projects that can be used to decarbonize power generation.

This area of science focuses on increasing the share of low-carbon energy sources. The main focus is on the effective use of renewable resources and reducing the usage of fossil fuels. As a result, electricity is progressively becoming a low-carbon fuel and one of the most cost-attractive measures to combat climate change.

Predicting biodiversity trends

There are various higher levels of biodiversity that keep the ecosystems running effectively. They also provide the world with valuable natural resources used to run most industrial processes. Forecasting biodiversity trends is the first step to conserving the environment.

In this case, the scientists clearly know what is expected in the next phase of life and advise the people to adjust accordingly. The online database of the research conducted from different parts of the world paves the way for assessing global biodiversity. Through the reports, scientists can track the water levels on the oceans and the pollution rates then advise the governments to take the necessary action.

Protecting the polar life

Research shows that polar ice caps are melting due to the devastating effects of climate change. The ice loss rate at the Arctic Sea has been at 13% per decade over the past thirty years. Polar regions are the most extreme places on Earth where scientists study the life form of various bacteria.

The study helps to understand how the rest of the bacteria on the planet thrives. As a result, they shed light on how life started and evolved. Climate change has hampered this research, leading scientists to find solutions to the melting ice. Today, there is a lot of influence among scientists to have those places conserved for the sake of studies.

Monitoring mining

Uncontrolled mining pollutes the environment making it hard for a different organism to thrive. Science has helped develop sustainable ways of locating, extracting, and the process of the mineral. As a result, miners do not have to dig huge pits trying to mine a few minerals under the surface of the Earth.

Through science, technologies that are useful in land reclamation have been developed to help recover derelict land affected by mining activities. Also, a lot of research is being conducted on the species of trees planted in these areas to recover the natural beauty of the environment.

There are various ways through which science has been used to save the environment. Most of these ways involve extensive research and the use of technology in developing sophisticated mechanisms that can help restore the Earth’s biodiversity. Even though saving the environment is still to be achieved, efforts are still being made daily in different areas of science to ensure that life is well-sustained.

• 8 Ways Going Green Can Improve Your Mental and Physical Health
• Eco-Friendly Biking: Sustainable Practices in the UAE
• Why Concrete Is a Sustainable Building Material
• Sustainable Materials for Packaging and Industrial Bags: Following USA Guidelines
• Exploring Air Source Heat Pumps: An Introduction to Their Function and Operation

Disclaimer: Greenjournal aims to provide information to users about sustainability and sustainable products. The content found on Greenjournal is free for all users. We may, however, earn a small commission when you buy something using the links in our articles. In order to offer the service of Greenjournal free of charge to our users some of our articles are sponsored by our partnes. These articles will be marked with a sponsored label.

We use cookies to give you the best browsing experience.

We and our partners use cookies on our website to improve your browsing experience, personalise content, and analyse our traffic. If you continue interacting, we assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on this website. Read more about our cookie policy .

Match Expires at Midnight  GIVE NOW

interstitialRedirectModalTitle

interstitialRedirectModalMessage

• Show search

The Nature Conservancy

Earth Day 2024

Join us in celebrating the inspiring work of young changemakers. See how you can act for Planet Earth today.

Stepping Up Progress in this Defining Decade

Alongside communities, we’re urgently clearing obstacles and finding solutions to the climate and biodiversity crises.

We are dedicated staff, scientists and members advancing effective, lasting conservation in more than 70 countries and territories.

To make the highest possible impact on the climate and biodiversity crises between now and 2030, we’re developing breakthrough ideas, amplifying local leaders and influencing policy.

There are so many ways to make positive change for our planet. Volunteer with us. Learn how to reduce your carbon footprint. Donate to conservation work.

Dense rainforests, remote coral reefs and the hearts of major cities. Our strategies are as diverse as the habitats and geographies in which we work.

Our Mission

Conserving the lands and waters on which all life depends.

Every acre we protect and every river mile we restore begins with you. Your support helps us take on the dual threats of climate change and biodiversity loss across 70+ countries and territories.

Get our latest conservation news and see how we’re protecting our natural world.

Please provide a valid email address

You’ve already signed up with this email address. To review your email preferences, please visit nature.org/emailpreferences

We may have detected a typo. Please enter a valid email address (formatted as [email protected]). Did you mean to type ?

We are sorry, but there was a problem processing the reCAPTCHA response. Please contact us at [email protected] or try again later.

Our Goals for 2030

We’re racing to hit these targets to help the world reverse climate change and biodiversity loss. Together, we find the paths to make change possible.

Avoid or sequester 3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually—the same as taking 650 million cars off the road every year.

Help 100 million people at severe risk of climate-related emergencies by safeguarding habitats that protect communities.

Conserve 650 million hectares—a land area twice the size of India—of biodiverse habitats such as forests, grasslands and desert.

Conserve 4 billion hectares of marine habitat—more than 10% of the world’s oceans—through protected areas, sustainable fishing and more.

Conserve 1 million kilometers of rivers—enough to stretch 25 times around the globe—plus 30 million hectares of lakes and wetlands.

Support the leadership of 45 million people from Indigenous and local communities in stewarding their environment and securing rights.

What’s New in Nature

Recent updates, immersive stories and relevant explainer articles from around The Nature Conservancy.

Enduring Earth

Collaborating for lasting conservation at scale.

A Festival for the Future

In one of the world’s most biodiverse places, a young leader is using education as a tool for change.

Nature Conservancy Magazine

Growth Potential

The National Geographic Society and The Nature Conservancy are remaking the stereotypical internship experience to better equip young adults from underrepresented communities with the tools they need to become conservation leaders.

Earth Month

Creating Space for Youth in Conservation

Since 2016, TNC has been working with Groundwork Ohio River Valley, an environmental justice non-profit organization based in Cincinnati, to help advance their work of building equity in conservation.

Learning Exchange Enables Tribal Youth to Focus on Future

A first-of-its-kind learning exchange in Utah connects tribal youth to scientists, ranchers and Indigenous scholars. The students share their cultural traditions and engage in restoration projects.

Women and Girls: The Solution for a Healthier Environment

Ensuring women and girls have equal access to knowledge and resources is becoming an integral component of TNC Africa’s conservation work.

Youth Engagement

The Youth Engagement team works to expand the current conservation movement by ensuring that young people from all backgrounds gain necessary skills to become a force for nature.

Nature Needs You

There are so many ways you can get involved and do your part to support a world where people and nature thrive together.

Find a Local Chapter

Dive into your local chapter and explore what The Nature Conservancy has been doing in your community.

We personalize nature.org for you

This website uses cookies to enhance your experience and analyze performance and traffic on our website.

To manage or opt-out of receiving cookies, please visit our

Final Match Opportunity

Donate by midnight and every $1 becomes $2 for nature.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Agriculture and the Environment
• Case Studies
• Chemistry and Toxicology
• Environment and Human Health
• Environmental Biology
• Environmental Economics
• Environmental Engineering
• Environmental Ethics and Philosophy
• Environmental History
• Environmental Issues and Problems
• Environmental Processes and Systems
• Environmental Sociology and Psychology
• Environments
• Framing Concepts in Environmental Science
• Management and Planning
• Policy, Governance, and Law
• Quantitative Analysis and Tools
• Sustainability and Solutions
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

The environment in health and well-being.

• George Morris George Morris European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Truro, United Kingdom
•  and  Patrick Saunders Patrick Saunders University of Staffordshire, University of Birmingham, and WHO Collaborating Centre
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.101
• Published online: 29 March 2017

Most people today readily accept that their health and disease are products of personal characteristics such as their age, gender, and genetic inheritance; the choices they make; and, of course, a complex array of factors operating at the level of society. Individuals frequently have little or no control over the cultural, economic, and social influences that shape their lives and their health and well-being. The environment that forms the physical context for their lives is one such influence and comprises the places where people live, learn work, play, and socialize, the air they breathe, and the food and water they consume. Interest in the physical environment as a component of human health goes back many thousands of years and when, around two and a half millennia ago, humans started to write down ideas about health, disease, and their determinants, many of these ideas centered on the physical environment.

The modern public health movement came into existence in the 19th century as a response to the dreadful unsanitary conditions endured by the urban poor of the Industrial Revolution. These conditions nurtured disease, dramatically shortening life. Thus, a public health movement that was ultimately to change the health and prosperity of millions of people across the world was launched on an “environmental conceptualization” of health. Yet, although the physical environment, especially in towns and cities, has changed dramatically in the 200 years since the Industrial Revolution, so too has our understanding of the relationship between the environment and human health and the importance we attach to it.

The decades immediately following World War II were distinguished by declining influence for public health as a discipline. Health and disease were increasingly “individualized”—a trend that served to further diminish interest in the environment, which was no longer seen as an important component in the health concerns of the day. Yet, as the 20th century wore on, a range of factors emerged to r-establish a belief in the environment as a key issue in the health of Western society. These included new toxic and infectious threats acting at the population level but also the renaissance of a “socioecological model” of public health that demanded a much richer and often more subtle understanding of how local surroundings might act to both improve and damage human health and well-being.

Yet, just as society has begun to shape a much more sophisticated response to reunite health with place and, with this, shape new policies to address complex contemporary challenges, such as obesity, diminished mental health, and well-being and inequities, a new challenge has emerged. In its simplest terms, human activity now seriously threatens the planetary processes and systems on which humankind depends for health and well-being and, ultimately, survival. Ecological public health—the need to build health and well-being, henceforth on ecological principles—may be seen as the society’s greatest 21st-century imperative. Success will involve nothing less than a fundamental rethink of the interplay between society, the economy, and the environment. Importantly, it will demand an environmental conceptualization of the public health as no less radical than the environmental conceptualization that launched modern public health in the 19th century, only now the challenge presents on a vastly extended temporal and spatial scale.

• environmental and human health
• environment
• environmental epidemiology
• environmental health inequalities
• ecological public health

Introduction

This article traces the development of ideas about the environment in human health and well-being over time. Our primary focus is the period since the early 19th century , sometimes termed the “modern public health era.” This has been not only a time of unprecedented scientific, technological, and societal transition but also a time during which perspectives on the relationship of humans to their environment, and its implications for their health and well-being, have undergone significant change.

Curiosity about the environment as a factor in human health and well-being, and indeed health-motivated interventions to manage the physical context for life, substantially predate the modern public health era. The archaeological record provides evidence of sewer lines, primitive toilets, and water-supply arrangements in settlements in Asia, the Middle East, South America, and Southern Europe, dating back many thousands of years (Rosen, 1993 ). Some religious traditions also imply recognition of the importance of environmental factors in health. For example, restrictions on the consumption of certain foods probably derive from a belief that these foods carried risks to health; a passage in the book of Leviticus conveys the existence of a belief in the relationship between the internal state of a house and the health of its occupants (Leviticus [14:33–45], quoted in Frumkin, 2005 ).

The sixty-two books of the “Hippocratic Corpus” dating from 430–330 bc are the accepted bedrock of Western medicine (Lloyd, 1983 ), not least because they departed from the purely supernatural explanations for health and disease which hitherto held sway. For the first time, ideas about medicine, diseases, and their causes were being written down. Among these were ideas about the environment and its relationship to mental and physical health (Lloyd, 1983 ; Rosen, 1993 ; Kessel, 2006 ). While scarcely a template for how societies would come to think about environment and health in the modern era, one Hippocratic text in particular, On Airs, Waters and Places , introduces several ideas that do retain currency. For example, the simple message that good health is unlikely to be achieved and maintained in poor environmental conditions is enduring. Also, through specific reference to the health relevance of changes in water, soil, vegetation, sunlight, winds, climate, and seasonality, On Airs, Waters and Places conceives an environment made up of distinct compartments and spatial scales from local to global, recognizing that perturbations in these compartments, and on these scales, may result in disease. Such thinking remains conceptually and operationally relevant today. Hazardous agents are still frequently addressed in “environmental compartments” such as water, soil, air, and food or by developing and applying environmental standards for the different categories of place where people work, live, learn, and socialize. In parts, the Hippocratic Corpus also presages the ecological perspectives now coloring 21st-century public health thinking. These include an understanding of the potential for human activity to impact negatively on the natural world and the importance of viewing the body within its environment as a composite whole.

Environment and Health in the Modern Public Health Era

Epidemiology is the basic science of public health and is concerned with the distribution of health and disease in populations across time and spaces, together with the determinants of that distribution. Environmental epidemiology is a subspecialty dealing with the effects of environmental exposures on health and disease, again, in populations. Since the early 19th century , the outputs of epidemiology have been key components of a “mixed economy of evidence” that has shaped and reshaped priorities and informed the decisions society takes to protect and improve population health (Petticrew et al., 2004 ; Baker & Nieuwenhuijsen, 2008 ).

In a classic paper from the 1990s, the respected epidemiologists, Mervyn and Ezra Susser, helpfully described different “epidemiological eras” in modern public health, each driven by a dominant paradigm concerning the causes of disease and supported by a particular analytical approach (Susser & Susser, 1996 ). This differentiation offers a useful framework within which to consider changing perspectives on the role of environment in health since the early 1900s.

The Environment in an “Era of Sanitary Statistics”

The Industrial Revolution came first to 19th-century Britain driven by technological innovation, abundant coal supplies, and supportive political/economic conditions. Also influential was a post-Reformation philosophy that extolled the work ethic and self-sufficiency. The events were to resonate throughout the world, bringing great prosperity to some, but others, especially the urban poor, endured poor housing, severe overcrowding, and an absence of wholesome water or sanitation. The growing industrial cities became crucibles of squalor, disease, and severely reduced life expectancy as their citizens suffered the ravages of typhus, tuberculosis, and successive cholera epidemics. Unhealthy working conditions and grossly polluted air also damaged health and compounded the misery of urban life at this time. Such challenges were common to all locations touched by the Industrial Revolution and became the catalyst for a new public health movement across Europe and North America (Rayner & Lang, 2012 ; Rosen, 1993 ).

Using the new science of medical statistics, investigators quickly established the locations with the poorest living conditions to be also those where disease and early death were most prevalent (Chadwick, 1842 ), fueling an ultimately transformational societal response—a “sanitary revolution” (Rosen, 1993 ). Such was the impact of this mix of slum clearance with the introduction of waterborne sewerage and piped water supplies that readers of the British Medical Journal , voting almost two centuries later, still chose it, from a shortlist of 15, as the most important medical milestone since the Journal was first published in 1840 . The 11,300 readers who voted even placed it above the discovery of antibiotics and the development of anaesthesia (Ferriman, 2007 ).

Despite its impact, the “sanitary revolution” was famously initiated and sustained on a biologically flawed paradigm regarding the mechanistic causes of disease. Yet “miasma” (the transmission of disease through noxious vapors), because it served as a metaphor for squalid insanitary conditions, still drove effective intervention (Morris et al., 2006 ; Nash, 2006 ). During this time, however, the emergence of epidemiology as the primary mode of inquiry of public health was also pivotal to success. Endorsing this view, Susser and Susser labeled the first half of the 19th century an “Era of Sanitary Statistics,” citing the frequent use of district-level data to link disease to, for example: filthy and degraded urban environments; overcrowding and poor housing and working conditions; and social factors like infant care (Susser & Susser, 1996 )).

Thus, recognition that the environment (physical and social) mattered for health and notions of a “permeable” human body in close connection with other organisms and the abiotic environment were embedded at the launch of the 19th-century public health movement. It is notable that the perspective of the reformers was quite properly “proximal,” that is, rooted in an acceptance of the importance of the local environment, physical and social. While the term “ecology” would not be coined until 1866 (Haekel, 1866 ) and “social ecology” much later still (Bookchin, 1990 ), the public health pioneers embraced what, in today’s terms, we would understand as a broadly socioecological perspective and discerned no conflict in this with their efforts to understand the immediate causes of disease and intervene in a focused way to prevent it (Nash, 2006 ).

Especially through the efforts to stop cholera, the sanitarians affirmed the pathogenic potential of unsanitary conditions and pioneered the epidemiological approach, initially as “environmental epidemiology” (Baker & Nieuwenhuijsen, 2008 ). Other legacies of the Era of Sanitary Statistics have been less enduring. Despite recent advocacy of a “precautionary principle” (see, e.g., Martuzzi, 2007 ; European Environment Agency, 2013 ), the willingness to act on the basis of strong suspicion of a societal-level environmental threat to population health has diminished, perhaps an inevitable casualty of increasing sophistication and “evidence-based” approaches in medicine and policy (Kessel, 2006 ; Brownson et al., 2009 ). Many of public health’s greatest triumphs have flowed from interventions that would have struggled to satisfy today’s evidential criteria. Also, despite a recent reconnection with such arguments, the inherent logic of seeing and tackling disease in its social and environmental context, so obvious to the pioneers of public health, has periodically been less visible in the rhetoric and actions of their successors.

It is appropriate at this point to emphasize the international character of the 19th-century public health movement. This movement can all too easily be presented as a British phenomenon, with seminal contributions from John Snow ( 1813–1858 ) on the investigation of cholera (Vinten-Johansen et al., 2003 ); William Farr ( 1807–1883 ), also on cholera but more widely on medical statistics (Susser & Adelstein,, 1975 ); Edward Jenner ( 1749–1823 ) on vaccination (Baxby, 2004 ), and Edwin Chadwick ( 1800–1890 ) on the assembly of data relating disease to the filth and squalor that came with poverty (Chadwick, 1842 ). In reality, public health, then as now, advanced through the contribution of many individuals in many nations. For example, the German pioneer of cellular biology, Rudolf Virchow ( 1821–1902 ), and his fellow countryman, the hygienist Johan Peter Frank ( 1745–1821 ), were hugely important (Rather, 1985 ). In France, Louis-Rene Vilerme ( 1782–1863 ), the doctor and pioneer of social epidemiology, highlighted links between poverty and death rates (Rosen, 1993 ) and, in the United States, the meticulous work of Lemuel Shattuck ( 1793–1859 ) bears direct comparison with that of Chadwick (Rayner & Lang, 2012 ).

It might be supposed that the consolidated outputs of European laboratories, especially in the decades between 1830 and 1870 , would have quickly expunged the miasmic paradigm from 19th-century medicine and public health. Yet, the concept of miasma was so inculcated in Western thought that, for many, it retained significant explanatory power. Thus, for much of the 19th century there was not a single settled view on disease contagion (e.g., see Kokayeff, 2013 ). Indeed, as late as 1869 some distinguished Medical Officers of Health in England still attributed diseases such as typhoid to “the insidious miasma of sewer gases” and dismissed germs as “pure nonsense.”

The Environment in an “Era of Infectious Disease Epidemiology”

Increasingly contested, the miasmic theory of disease was effectively supplanted in the 1880s by broad acceptance of the germ theory, ushering a new “Era of Infectious Disease Epidemiology” (Susser & Susser, 1996 ). In 1882 , Louis Pasteur’s techniques for growing organisms made it possible for Robert Koch ( 1843–1910 ) to demonstrate that a mycobacterium was the cause of tuberculosis and, shortly thereafter, to provide scientific proof that cholera was waterborne (Foster, 1970 ; Collard, 1976 ; Brock, 1999 ). In so doing, Koch established, what had been hypothesized by his teacher, Jacob Henle ( 1809–1885 ), some 40 years earlier that disease was microbial. Henle, Snow, Koch, and the biologist Ferdinand Cohn ( 1828–1898 ) are rightly seen as fathers of the science of medical microbiology that for a time would come to dominate thinking in medicine and public health (Rayner & Lang, 2012 ).

Initially at least, the germ theory did little to diminish interest in the environment as a determinant of health. Indeed, by revealing causal linkages between organisms isolated from their environmental carriers and specific diseases, it conferred scientific coherence on the established sanitary model and vindicated efforts to secure hygienic water, food, and housing. As Lesley Nash has observed, the germ theorists were initially content to meld the insights of bacteriology with longstanding environmental beliefs. Notions of a body in constant interaction with, and closely dependent on, its local social and physical context (in today’s terms a socioecological perspective) did not conflict with the narrower perspectives of laboratory science (Nash, 2006 ).

While relative contributions may be debated, over a short timeframe medical microbiology, isolation, immunization, and improving social/environmental conditions combined to sharply reduce the burden of infectious disease for Western society. Yet, by the early years of the 20th century , the capacity to examine disease at the microscopic level, which was the engine of diagnostics and therapeutics, was beginning to act on the very foundations that support public health. Medical science gradually made its focus the pathogenic agents of disease, moving attention away from the environment and eroding socioecological perspectives. Doctors seemed quite content to express health as an absence of disease, and medical science to project its role as the maintenance and reinforcement of “self-contained” human bodies (Nash, 2006 ). Through a growing tendency to see health, disease, and their determinants as attributes of individuals rather than characteristics of communities, wider society seemed almost complicit in an ‘individualization’ of health status. One implication of this blunting of a social/environmental thrust of public health was to divorce health from place, a development that would have profound implications in the very different epidemiological context that emerged following World War II.

The Environment in an Era of Chronic Disease Epidemiology

The dramatic reduction in infectious disease was certainly one reason why the epidemiological climate in Western society changed substantially in the mid- 20th century . But just as important was the emergence of a quite disparate set of pathologies believed to be of noncommunicable etiology. Coronary heart disease, cancers, and peptic ulcers, which became the targets in a new “Era of Chronic Disease Epidemiology” (Susser & Susser, 1996 ), were thought rather unlikely to have origins in exposure to what was an increasingly regulated and ostensibly improving physical environment. While the outputs of much postwar epidemiology seemed to endorse this view, it is useful, with hindsight, to recognize the influence of what might be seen as “fashions” in epidemiological inquiry. These fashions would influence how medical science and the wider society would come to regard diseases and their causes for a generation.

The response of the public health community to the new and alarming “noncommunicable” threats was, logically, to deploy descriptive epidemiology to reveal those most likely to be affected. Perhaps surprisingly, those who traditionally were most vulnerable to disease (the young, the old, the immunocompromised, etc.) did not appear to be at increased risk. Rather, the new epidemics disproportionately affected men in their middle years (Nabel & Braunwald, 2012 ). Supported by enhanced computing power and methodological advance (Susser & Susser, 1996 ), researchers began to converge on specific risk factors that correlated with diseases of greatest concern. Many, it seemed, were aspects of individual lifestyle and behaviors, ostensibly freely chosen. A particular attraction for the proponents of what was to become known as “risk factor epidemiology” was its capacity to represent, mathematically, the “relative risk” of contracting a disease between people exposed to a putative risk and those who were not. Some have dubbed this epidemiological approach to noncommunicable or chronic disease “black box epidemiology” because it can relate exposure to outcomes “without any necessary obligation to interpolate either intervening factors or even pathogenesis” (Susser & Susser, 1996 ). Another unfortunate characteristic of this approach to epidemiology is that, despite its laudable intent to understand and address disease in populations , its focus is on individuals within those populations. As a result, it fails to elucidate the societal forces whose influence and interplay shape the health and health-relevant choices of those individuals. When viewed through a policy lens, this mitigates in favor of simplistic solutions that target individuals divorced from context and that lack the traction to produce meaningful change.

In summary, the desire to create a mathematical measure of relative risk for a specific factor is understandable. However, risk factor epidemiology uses an approach that is much more flexible than material reality. In the real world, many different factors coexist and interact to create and destroy health. This is not, however, to deny risk factor epidemiology’s capacity, particularly in synergy with laboratory-based research, to break new ground. Notably, these methodologically driven approaches were key to elucidating links between smoking and lung cancer, heart disease and serum cholesterol, and between levels of prenatal folic acid intake and neural tube defects (Susser & Susser, 1996 ; Kessel, 2006 ; Perry, 1997 ).

The same basic criticism is voiced where similar “black box” epidemiological approaches are used to explore the contribution of a specific environmental agent, as in the case of much recent air pollution epidemiology (see below) (Kessel, 2006 ). Any specific pollutant under epidemiological investigation inevitably coexists with other pollutants and in a specific exposure context (e.g., prevailing climatic conditions). These coexisting factors may be critical in determining the health outcomes from exposure to the pollutant under investigation. Because the outputs of black box epidemiology are abstractions, the relative risk calculation represents an abstraction that can be limited in its capacity to inform policy.

The decades following World War II were a time of declining influence for public health and population perspectives, largely for reasons we have outlined. Yet, in its rhetoric and activities, the discipline of public health seemed at times almost complicit. Even its defining science of epidemiology seemed for a time more concerned to reinforce the insights of clinical medicine than to play the exploratory role on which its reputation had been founded (Susser & Susser, 1996 ). On the face of it, academic public health and the wider public health discipline had little to say about environment, no longer presenting it as an active component in the then current health challenges for Western society. As Nash has observed, physical environments were “recast as homogenous spaces which were traversed by pathogenic agents.” Nevertheless, divorced from the prevailing rhetoric, in many locations there was a parallel narrative depicting a workforce that continued to work at a local level, within established legal and administrative frameworks, to protect and maintain health-relevant environmental quality standards. However, the environmental health function was often set in the narrow, hazard-focused, and compartmentalized terms framed for it by laboratory science. The task was largely confined to identifying, monitoring, and controlling a limited set of toxic or infectious threats in their environmental carriers. Only when pathogenic organisms or toxic agents demonstrably escaped their industrial, agricultural, or marine confines to damage health and reinforce the porosity of the human body did environment briefly assume a higher profile.

Against this backdrop, it was not necessarily predictable or inevitable that environment would regain a central place in public health. Yet, by the end of the 20th century , a much richer understanding of the environmental contribution to human health and well-being had indeed emerged. This change cannot be attributed to a single factor in isolation. Some point to the key influence of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 (Carson, 1962 ), which expressed grave concern for the ecosystem effects of DDT, the linkage to potential human health effects, and the implications of a growing disconnect between humankind and nature. We do not deny the status of Carson’s work as a seminal text of a modern “environmentalism” that would rapidly gather pace and influence (Nash, 2006 ). However, we submit that it is only now, in the 21st century , when the reality of unprecedented anthropogenic damage to global processes and systems and its health implications is self-evident, that the health sector has fully made common cause with the environmentalist movement (e.g., see Butler et al., 2005 ; Butler & Harley, 2010 ) (We discuss this development later in this article under Ecological Public Health.

However, for reasons that are distinct from a mounting concern over anthropogenic threats to global environmental systems and processes, we argue that the closing decades of the 20th century and the early years of this century did see a rekindling of public health and societal interest in the local or proximal environment. This interest has continued into the 21st century . Developing interest in well-being as a concept, the belief that it is important and that it might be enhanced through the organized efforts of society, continues to engage the attention of academics and policymakers. Although well-being demonstrably impacts health and vice versa, well-being is about much more than health. Rather, it is a measure of what matters to people in every sphere of their lives. Despite its importance, well-being has proved a challenging target for policy. Some of its components are beyond the reach of policy. However, others, including aspects of the built and natural environment and people’s connection to it, are amenable to manipulation. Accordingly, research has been especially concerned to identify the qualities of their environment that are important for different people’s well-being, quality of life, and health at various life stages (Royal College of Physicians, 2016 ). Also, on a practical level, integrating the various well-being frameworks and indices that continue to emerge is an ongoing challenge. However, it is sufficient at this point simply to recognize that elevated concern for well-being and its connection to environment can only broaden and deepen concern for the environment in public health. It will continue to drive renewed interest in matters such as landscape, natural beauty and scenery; crime free, clean places; green, blue, and natural environments; and so on.

Reconnecting Health with Place

Five issues/developments merit particular mention for their role in reestablishing the local environment as a mainstream consideration in health in the developed world in the late 20th century . While recognizing that there is an interrelationship among some of the factors discussed, for simplicity, we discuss them separately here.

Air Pollution

In citing air pollution as a key factor in a late- 20th-century resurgence of interest in the environment, we recognize its much longer history as a contributor to ill health (Evelyn, 1661 ; Lloyd, 1983 ). We acknowledge, too, that accounts of the modern public health era since its inception have been suffused with references to air pollution events, their health implications, and the political and professional campaigns that have sought to mitigate risk (Kessel, 2006 ). However, despite a compelling case for action, the need for urgent intervention was only fully accepted after a number of high-profile air pollution episodes in the 20th century . In 1930 , a severe smog incident in Belgium’s Meuse Valley resulted in the death of sixty people. Prophetically, investigators were quick to highlight the potential for many more deaths, were such an incident to be repeated in a more highly populated area (Bell & Samet, 2005 ). In 1948 , a further twenty people were to die and many more suffer injury after an industrial pollution incident in Donora, Pennsylvania (Hamil, 2008 ), but the tipping point came four years later, with the London Smog of 1952 .

Between December 5 and December 9, a dense fog descended on London where it mixed with air, polluted by domestic and industrial emissions. The resulting thick smog was familiar to many urban dwellers, but in this case, a combination of cold weather and stagnant atmospheric conditions caused sulfur dioxide and smoke concentrations to reach and maintain extremely high levels for a sustained period. The smog had a paralyzing effect on the city’s transport system, and many other aspects of daily life were severely disrupted. But the most dramatic effects were on health. Death rates were to reach three times the normal level for the time of year, and demand for hospital beds far exceeded supply (Baker & Nieuwenhuijsen, 2008 ). While the smog dissipated after a few days, deaths rates remained high for several months thereafter. Subsequent analysis has revealed that, rather than the 3,000–4,000 deaths linked to the episode in at the time, a figure of 10,000–12,000 deaths is more probable (Bell et al., 2004 ).

The London smog is historically important, obviously because of the distressing toll in morbidity and mortality and because it catalyzed long-overdue legislative intervention in the UK in the form of the Clean Air Act of 1956 and the U.S. Clean Air Act 1963 . Critically, however, it reminded the public and politicians of the reality that, given the right conditions, population-level environmental exposures were still entirely capable of producing significant morbidity and mortality.

In combination with other factors, the clean air legislation that emerged in the wake of the smog reduced domestic and industrial fossil fuel emissions, and helped to secure significant reductions in background concentrations of smoke and sulfur dioxide (Royal College of Physicians, 2016 ). However, by the late 1980s, a new, more insidious, urban air pollution threat had begun to emerge. This pollution had its origins not in fixed-point emissions, but in the rapidly increasing numbers of motor vehicles and other fossil fuel-driven forms of transport in towns and cities. The pollutants of concern here, which lacked the visibility of the earlier sulfurous smogs, were fine particles, oxides of nitrogen, and ozone. So-called time-series analyses, using data on the temporal variation in environmental exposure and in health, aggregated over the same time period, were now applied to explore the issue of urban air pollution and health (e.g., see Pope et al., 1995 ; Dockery & Pope, 1996 ; Kessel, 2006 ). The studies revealed the cardiopulmonary effects of long-term exposure to much lower levels of ambient air pollution and, later, following further investigation, the absence of a threshold level for causing health effects. Recent outputs of ‘life-course’ epidemiology have also shown that air pollution affects health, not only through the exacerbation of symptoms in the elderly, but through various processes that have impacts from the womb, through childhood to adolescence, early adulthood, and on into middle and older age (Royal College of Physicians, 2016 ). Also, appreciation that air pollutants can be resident in the air for days or even weeks makes air pollution not simply a local problem, but one that demands source control at city, regional, and international levels. In the UK, for example, the equivalent of around 40,000 deaths every year can be attributed to fine particulates and NO 2 exposure from outdoor air (Royal College of Physicians, 2016 ).

Air pollution is probably the most thoroughly investigated of all environmental threats to health and well-being. Revelations about the true extent of its impact on health keep the issue in the headlines and emphasize the centrality of the physical environment within the public health project. Despite being a focus for academic interest and research fundings, the problem of urban air pollution is a very long way from resolution and is one factor that demands a fundamental reappraisal of how, as a species, we live, consume, and travel. (We discuss a wider, global dimension of the air pollution challenge later in this article.)

Everything Matters: The Environment as an Ingredient in Social Complexity

Another important and often overlooked reason for the late- 20th-century rekindling of interest in the environment and human health can be traced to developments within the wider discipline of public health. Ironically, the thinking behind what, by the 1990s, was being termed the “new public health” had its origins in much older ideas that gave prominence to the social structures in which health is created and destroyed (Baum, 1998 ; Awefeso, 2004 ). If we accept that health, disease, and social patterning in these matters are products of a complex interaction of influences at the level of society with the characteristics of individuals, then such complexity ought to be reflected in the policies and partnerships formed to address them. A growing number of analyses, beginning in the 1970s, would turn a spotlight on this complexity and fundamentally challenge the dominance of the biomedical/health care model and its capacity to solve the problems that beset public. These problems included the intractable burden of noncommunicable disease; growing levels of obesity; diminished psychological well-being; and, not least, stubborn and widening inequalities in the health and well-being of different social groups. Concern also mounted over containing rising, and potentially bankrupting, health care costs.

“A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians,” more commonly referred to as the Lalonde Report, after Canada’s then health minister Marc Lalonde, was published in 1974 (Lalonde, 1974 ). Despite its national focus, the report assumed wider relevance because of its analysis of one of public health’s greatest generic challenges, that of navigating among the many complex and interacting determinants of health to identify effective policies and actions. Implicitly offering a socioecological perspective, the Lalonde Report spoke of a “Health Field,” which included all matters that affect health and comprised four core elements: human biology, environment, lifestyle, and health care organization. Any issue, it was proposed, could be traced to one, or a combination, of these elements, allowing the creation of a “map of the health territory” for any problem (Lalonde, 1974 ). In this way, the contribution and interaction of the elements could be assessed. The analysis affirmed the health relevance of a complex environment comprising interacting physical and social dimensions in interaction with the human body. Lalonde’s message was logical and important, yet more than just an echo of an earlier, more inclusive, understanding of the determinants of health and disease. It recast these largely abandoned perspectives for a more scientific and sophisticated era. The proposal that thousands of “pieces” relevant to health and its determinants could be organized in “an orderly pattern” was alluring and progressive, as was the notion that the exercise alone would allow all contributors to more fully appreciate their roles and influence (Morris et al., 2006 ). In the ensuing years, Lalonde’s proposals for understanding and addressing complexity in the determinants of health have been refined and given greater policy relevance by others. In part, this has been through the development of conceptual models of the socioecological determinants of health. These models have been promoted as tools for presenting evidence that can make their implications more apparent (Evans & Stoddart, 1990 ; Dahlgren & Whitehead, 1991 ). In most of these representations, the local environment is accepted as a key driver of health and well-being (Morris et al., 2006 ).

Despite its inherent logic, the socioecological perspectives that emerged in the closing decades of the 20th century created scientific and policy challenges for all constituencies concerned with public health. There were obvious generic challenges, for example, around which of the models (each, necessarily, a gross simplification of a complex reality) might point to solutions (Morris et al., 2006 ; Evans & Stoddart, 1990 ; Reis et al., 2015 ); around the nature of evidence and its interpretation (Petticrew et al., 2004 ; Tannahill, 2008 ); and how, in practice, to traverse professional and policy silos to produce the interdisciplinary approaches that are inevitably required. In this connection, the task of motivating, supporting, and delivering effective intersectoral working, an abiding challenge for public health policy and practice, assumed a much higher profile in the late 20th century with the emergence of the socioecological model of health.

We emphasize that the continuing failure to adequately confront this challenge has the gravest implications for global public health. As Prüss-Üstün et al. recently observed, “Tackling environmental risks requires intersectoral collaboration. After nearly 50 years of actively promoting this concept, whether referred to as intersectoral action, breaking down silos or the nexus approach, it remains elusive as ever. The statement ‘intersectoral collaboration: loved by all, funded by no-one’ points to obstacles, mainly vested interests, that have burdened this approach ever since it was included as part of the WHO/UNICEF Alma Ata Declaration on Primary Health Care in 1978 . Environmental health, quintessentially intersectoral, has suffered most from this lack of progress” (Prüss-Üstün et al., 2016a ).

With specific reference to the role of the local environment, the recognition of socioecological complexity as the determinant of health meant that strict adherence to narrow hazard-focused and compartmentalized approaches became intellectually unsustainable. Yet, acceptance of the dynamic interaction of environment with other determinants of health demands a richer understanding of the environmental contribution than can be provided by toxicology or microbiology in isolation.

The Role of the Environment in Health Inequalities

The fact that the poorest, most degraded urban neighborhoods were those most blighted by disease and reduced life expectancy was clear even to the public health pioneers of the 19th century . Indeed, throughout much of the modern public health era, an acceptance of the importance of the environment for health and well-being has been accompanied by a recognition of the interplay between sociodemographic, economic, and physical factors in creating and sustaining health inequalities.

The term “health inequalities” refers to general differences in health, however caused. Where the differences in health are unfair, unjust, and avoidable, as they often are when linked to social variables, they should more properly be termed “health inequities.” However, in the extensive literature on the topic and in common usage, inequities are termed inequalities, and we adopt this convention here. Despite their importance, the emphasis on tackling health inequalities has varied considerably over time and according to place.

In 2008 , the final report of the Commission on the Social Determinants of Health (CSDH, 2008 ) elevated the global profile of health inequalities and emphasized the interplay of many societal-level factors in their creation in the 21st century . The significant achievements in public health across the world over nearly two centuries have not been shared equally between countries or by all social groups within countries. An important component has been the health-relevant differences in the physical context for people’s lives—the quality of the physical environment. Sometimes expressed in terms of environmental justice , or elsewhere as environmental health inequalities, attention to this area is key to tackling health inequalities across the world (CSDH, 2008 ; Morris & Braubach, 2012 ).

Estimates of the impact of environmental quality on health and well-being vary widely, depending on the definition of environment used. However, that impact is undeniable. Over a billion people in developing countries, for example, have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation . The World Health Organization estimates that environmental factors were responsible for 12.6 million deaths worldwide in 2012 , 23 percent of all deaths, and 22 percent of the total burden of disease. Addressing environmental risks could prevent 26 percent of all deaths of children under the age of 5 (Prüss-Üstün et al., 2016b ).

In addition, there is clear evidence that a “good” environment empowers health through access to environmental assets such as green spaces, access to a healthy diet, and safe environments in which to walk, cycle, play, and socialize. However, as these data suggest, there is also a fundamental equity dimension to the distribution of both the cause and distribution of environmental stressors, the susceptibility to exposure, and the adverse effects of those exposures. Deprived communities almost invariably live in poorer quality environments, with higher levels of indoor and outdoor air pollution, contaminated land, polluting industrial processes, overcrowded and poor quality housing, and lower levels of environmental assets (Prüss-Üstün et al., 2016a ; 2016b ; Royal College of Physicians, 2016 ; The Marmot Review Team, 2010 ). Populations in developed countries, including the former communist states of eastern Europe living in areas of high air pollution, are disproportionately deprived, for example (Kriger et al, 2014 ; Bell & Ebisu, 2012 ; Branis & Linhartova, 2012 ; Goodman et al., 2011 ). Poor indoor air quality is associated with unfit or inadequate housing standards, conditions that overwhelmingly affect the deprived (The Marmot Review Team, 2010 ). There is evidence that deprived communities are not only more exposed to environmental hazards but are also more susceptible to the effects of those exposures (Goodman et al., 2011 ; Carder et al., 2008 ; Richardson et al., 2011 ; 2013 ; Vinikoor-Imler et al., 2012 ). There are also concerns that stress, at both the individual and community level, can weaken the body’s defenses against external insult and influence the internal dose of toxicants (Gee & Payne-Sturges, 2004 ).

This effect is also seen in social and physical environments. An adequate and nutritious diet is essential to a healthy, productive, and fulfilling life, and it is a fundamental right predicated by a range of factors including personal knowledge, choice, convenience, availability, quality, cost, and social norms. The evidence is clear that deprivation compounds all these factors, with poorer people buying more unhealthy foods with fewer healthy components while being exposed to circumstances that make such “choices” inevitable (Rudge et al., 2013 ). The proportion of adults considered overweight or obese in 2008 in the 19 EU member states for which data were available ranged between 37 and 57 percent for women and between 51 and 69 percent for men ( EUROSTAT ). English children from deprived areas are almost twice as likely to be obese than those in affluent areas, and adult obesity is also associated with deprivation, particularly in women (Public Health England, 2016 ; National Obesity Observatory, 2013 ).

The poor in developed countries are adept at sourcing cheap calories and are exposed to a large numbers of local outlets selling cheap, calorie-dense takeaway food (Saunders et al., 2015 ). These meals are often super-sized and contain high levels of fats, sugar, and salt. At the same time, many of these areas provide limited access to healthy food options, creating a highly compromised public health environment (Saunders et al., 2015 ).

In addition, environmental stressors seem to have a cumulative impact, exacerbating this inequality. It is evident that poorer people have multiple health, social, and environmental stressors. It is entirely plausible that these stressors modify the effect of exposure to pollutants, as is reflected in the increased vulnerability of obese people to the effects of exposure to air pollutants, including increased risk of diseases such as cardiovascular events and respiratory symptoms (WHO, 2013 ; Jung et al., 2014 ). Long-term exposure to airborne pollutants has also been reported to increase the risk of obesity, and being overweight or obese is associated with an increased susceptibility to indoor air pollution in urban children with asthma (Lu et al., 2013 ).

The responsibility for, and relative benefits and costs of, environmental contamination are also important components of inequality. Environmental contamination may be tolerated by communities living in the vicinity of dirty industrial processes if they perceive a benefit in terms of local employment, although that trade-off has largely broken down in developed countries as those industries have declined in the 20th and 21st centuries. On a wider scale, the environmental consequences of contemporary affluent nations’ fuel economies are borne by those populations least able to bear them and with little or no responsibility for their causation (Patz et al., 2005 ). UNICEF has projected that 75–250 million Africans will be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change by 2020 (UNICEF, 2008 ), a phenomenon overwhelmingly caused by the First World. This is a gross injustice. These are also the same people with limited powers to prevent the dumping of rich countries’ waste in their communities. One appalling example is that of the “disposal” of 500 tons of toxic waste in and around Abidjan, the capital of Cote D’Ivoire, in 2006 . This poisonous cocktail of waste oil and contaminants was the result of the trading in, and processing of, hydrocarbon fuels by multinational commodity and shipping companies, criminal levels of cost cutting, and local political corruption, which led to 17 deaths and over 30,000 injuries in one of the poorest communities in the world (Bohand et al., 2007 ) There are many other examples, including the export, often illegally, of hundreds of thousands of tons of e-waste from Western countries to Africa, China, and Asia for recycling or disposal—transferring the costs and dangerous consequences of exposure to workers, including children, and local communities in these countries that do not have the technical or regulatory systems to deal safely with these toxic materials (ILO, 2012 ). Inuit mothers in northern Canada have elevated levels of chemicals such as PCBs—generated many hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away—in their breast milk (Johansen, 2002 ).

The redistribution of the environmental injustices historically endured by the poor also perversely appears to be affecting more affluent communities in the West. The huge expansion of “fracking” in North America, for example, may be leading to an export of risks from traditional “national sacrifice zones” to areas with no previous experience of such industry, creating “profound social, cultural, and economic shocks for middle class communities losing control over their environments” (Lave & Lutz, 2014 ). Despite their relative affluence, this would nonetheless be an injustice given the constraints on local democratic input and highly questionable direct economic benefits to those communities (Kinnaman, 2011 ; Lave & Lutz, 2014 ; Sovacool, 2014 ).

During a period when environmental catalysts for distress migrations are becoming more frequent (Thomas-Hope, 2011 ), there is a moral as well as a professional duty for the Environmental Health community to tackle these inequalities, which otherwise are likely to both widen and deepen.

The Health-Promoting Environment: Green, Blue, and Natural Spaces

While human communities have long valued access to natural resources such as green spaces, the industrialization of the 19th and early 20th centuries saw millions of people deprived of this access. This era did witness some far-sighted philanthropic gifting of areas of open recreational space for the working classes driven by a moral rather than evidence-based imperative. Though welcome, the distribution of, and access to, such resources was limited, inconsistent, unplanned, and vulnerable to the insecurities of voluntary funding. Subsequent local municipal development of parks and other open spaces increased access, and a greater understanding of the benefits of such access blossomed during the late 20th century as research demonstrated and quantified the public health dividends. Access to good-quality green spaces not only makes the places in which we live, work, and play more attractive, but also has a demonstrable effect on improving health and well-being. Green space is linked to lower levels of several diseases and conditions, including lower rates of mortality (Villeneuve et al., 2012 ), increased longevity in older people (Faculty of Public Health, 2011 ), improved mental health (Faculty of Public Health, 2011 ), better outcomes in disease treatment, and reduced medication (Faculty of Public Health, 2011 ), and it also helps reduce health inequalities (Mitchell & Popham, 2008 ; CABE, 2010 ). Plausible mechanisms for these benefits include the provision of a venue for physical activity, promotion of social contact, and the direct impacts of green spaces on psychological and physical health. Natural spaces also promote greater community cohesion and reduce social isolation, providing a platform for community activities, social interaction, physical activity, and recreation (Public Health England, 2014 ). Research from the United States has identified powerful associations between green space and major reductions in aggressive behavior, domestic abuse, and other crime in deprived urban areas (Kuo et al., 2001a , 2001b ).

And yet, there remain great inequalities in the distribution, use, and quality of this empowering resource. People living in the most deprived areas are less likely to live in the greenest areas and therefore have less opportunity to gain the health benefits of green space compared with people living in the least deprived areas (Public Health England, 2014 ). Children living in poor areas, for example, are nine times less likely than those living in affluent areas to have access to green space and places to play (National Children’s Bureau, 2013 ). It is entirely plausible that that this contributes to the sobering reality that children from deprived communities are up to three times as likely to be obese than those children growing up in affluent areas (National Children’s Bureau, 2013 ).

Accessibility, however, is not the same as availability or utility, nor is it simply a function of proximity. It is strongly impacted by the cost of access, whether it is actually physically available, opening times, and the ease of being able to get to it, for example, walking and good public transport. Deprived communities in particular appreciate the value of such spaces, but they tend to underuse them due to concerns about the safety and quality of the spaces (CABE, 2010 ). Experience has shown that quality of the green space is just as important, if not more so, than its size. Post-World War II urban developments in many countries have included large grassy areas, and substantially derelict former industrial sites have often been entirely grassed over. The sterility and sheer size of these sites, the cost of maintenance, and the lack of facilities have often led to misuse and subsequent abandonment by both communities and local municipalities.

The provision, maintenance, and promotion of good-quality and safe , publicly available spaces is not a subsidy; it is an investment delivering economic, health, and regeneration benefits . Research on Philadelphia estimated that maintaining city parks could achieve huge annual savings in health care costs, stormwater management, air pollution mitigation, and social cohesion benefits (The Trust for Public Land, 2008 ). The improved social cohesion associated with natural spaces also has economic benefits. A 2009 Scottish study estimated a £7.36 dividend for every £1 invested in conservation volunteering projects (Greenspace Scotland, 2009 ). It is clear from the evidence that increasing the use of good-quality green space for all social groups is likely to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequalities.

The Reemergence of the Infectious Threat

Among the developments that, for Western societies, consigned environment to the periphery of medical and public health interest in the post–World War II era, we highlighted the epidemiological transition in the mid- 20th century . Indeed, for a period in the 1960s and 1970s it seemed that infectious disease in the developed world had effectively been conquered (Fauci, 2001 ). It was even tempting to suggest that the developing world might eventually follow suit. Yet, within a relatively few years, the twin threats of emerging infectious disease and antibiotic resistance would shatter the earlier confidence and reestablish infection as a live threat to individuals, communities, and populations and one that presented, increasingly, on a global scale.

The term “emerging infectious disease” (EID) denotes an infectious disease, newly recognized as occurring in humans; one that has been previously recognized but is appearing for the first time in a new population or a different geographic area; one that now affects many more people; and/or one that is displaying new attributes, for example, in terms of its resistance or virulence ( adapted from The US Government & Global Emerging Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response ). Although the return of infection was not necessarily anticipated by a confident global community, many predisposing factors were clearly present. Changes in land use, growth and movement of populations, contacts between people and animals, international trade and travel, and, often, an absence of a public health infrastructure all played a part. Where such influences coincided, as in sub-Saharan Africa or parts of Asia, hotspots were created that were conducive to the emergence of infectious disease. Several hundred new infectious diseases appeared across the globe in the period between 1940 and 2004 , with the greatest number emerging in the 1980s (Jones et al., 2008 ). The 1980s was also the decade that notoriously witnessed the late 20th century ’s most sentinel infection event, the first reported cases of Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS). By 2014 , AIDS alone would result in approximately 78 million cases worldwide . Although HIV/AIDS engendered particular alarm, the list of late- 20th-century EIDs of medical and public health significance is extensive. Variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (vCJD), H5N1 Influenza and Ebola Virus Disease, the Northern Hemisphere debut of the mosquito-borne zoonotic viral disease, and West Nile Fever in New York City in 1999 were all public health and media events. The process continues unabated in the 21st century with the arrival of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), H1N1 Influenza (“swine flu”), H7N9 Influenza (“bird flu”), and, despite having surfaced some 40 years earlier, Ebola revealed its potential as a global threat with the West African Outbreak of 2014–2015 . More recently still, the distressing incidence of microcephaly in South America putatively linked to the Zika virus simply emphasizes the abiding challenge posed by infection for public health and global economics (European Centre for Disease Control, 2016 ).

Antibiotic resistance has been a developing public health horror story over, perhaps, 50 years. The therapeutic use of antimicrobials and especially antibiotics was a key factor in slashing the burden of illness from infection in Western countries in the latter half of the 20th century . Yet all classes of organisms—fungi, protozoa, viruses, and bacteria—can develop antimicrobial resistance. Through their genetic processes, bacteria have derived multiple resistance mechanisms to antibiotics used in medicine and agriculture. The threat renders humankind vulnerable to a host of infections, notably in hospital settings where treatment options for many infections are now severely limited. As a consequence, even at the dawn of the 21st century , drug resistance was already being perceived as an increasing threat to global public health, involving all major microbial pathogens and antimicrobial drugs (Levy & Marshall, 2004 )

The challenges of EIDs and antimicrobial resistance are, unquestionably, game changers for medicine and public health in the 21st century . Importantly, they are among the factors that have revealed the true limitations of the biomedical model of health and disease in the 20th century and rekindled interest in the socioeconomic and environmental determinants of disease. HIV/AIDS merits special mention in this regard. Although it is believed to have origins in nonhuman primates in West Africa, it is not an environmental disease in the sense that there is a specific environmental reservoir. Medical sciences and epidemiology have shown transmission of the virus via unprotected sex, contaminated blood transfusions, hypodermic needles, and mother to child transmission during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding. HIV (the infection) and AIDS (the disease) have shown the capacity to extend beyond the initially identified high-risk groups, potentially placing whole populations at risk. In some areas of sub-Saharan Africa where the infection is widespread, it impacts negatively on almost every aspect of society and the economy.

Over 30 years after it first emerged and despite concerted efforts, there is still no cure. In addition to banishing complacency, the infection and the disease call for a much wider perspective than that which took root in the postwar era of scientific positivism and medical paternalism. The failure to manage the threat stems in part from an incapacity to understand where to intervene to change behaviors and to see the disease in its social and environmental context.

Ecological Public Health

Earlier in this article, we identified five issues that helped reestablish awareness of the environment as a key component in the production of human health and well-being in the late 20th century . These issues, and our understanding of them, continue to evolve to challenge the public health community and wider society in the 21st century . In the most general terms, progress seems most likely where issues and challenges are framed with reference to a much wider range of pertinent factors by developing new approaches to evidence and its synthesis; by aligning institutional, physical, and educational infrastructures to the task; and by building governance structures in which all players are accountable and yet are encouraged to unite in common cause.

However, society must now embrace an additional and potentially more devastating threat to health and well-being. Human activity, including economic activity, is now directly and indirectly driving changes to the ecosystems and planetary processes on which we rely for health, well-being, and existence. For too long, human beings have lived, moved, consumed, and pursued health and well-being as if humankind is distinct and separate from nature rather than integral to it. The consequences of this disconnect for the natural world were graphically expressed by Rachel Carson in the 1960s and many others in the ensuing years (e.g., see Rockström et al., 2009 ; Steffen et al., 2015 ). However, developments in science and technology now reveal the true extent of the crisis, its accelerating nature, and its consequences both now and in the medium and longer term.

The term “ecological public health” is increasingly being used to encapsulate a need to build health and well-being, henceforth, on ecological principles. Rayner and Lang ( 2012 ) observe that, despite appearing difficult and complex, Ecological public health “is now the 21st century ’s unavoidable task.” Thus, the already complex challenge of navigating human social complexity to deliver health, well-being, and greater equity, which has defined public health in Western society for several decades, is made more challenging still. The relationship of the environment and human health and well-being must be understood and addressed on vastly extended temporal and spatial scales.

The notion that the planet is a finite resource on which human activity can place intolerable pressure and that the consequences of doing so are potentially catastrophic has been around for some time (e.g., see Carson, 1962 ; Meadows et al., 1972 ). A contemporary evolution of this thinking is expressed by Rockstrom and colleagues. Their sentinel paper, first published in 2009 (Rockström et al., 2009 ) and updated in 2015 (Steffen et al., 2015 ), lists the large earth system processes that are urgently in need of stewardship if humanity is to remain safe into the future. Where applicable, it proposes thresholds beyond which nonlinear, abrupt, and potentially catastrophic changes in these systems might be expected. This thinking is used as a basis for defining a “safe operating space for humanity.” The authors propose nine “planetary boundaries.” Three of these—climate change, ocean acidification, and stratospheric ozone depletion—are major planetary systems where evidence exists of large-scale thresholds in the history of the planet history of the planet. Also included are systems of a rather different sort. These are the slow variables that buffer and regulate planetary resilience. These slow variables comprise interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles; land-use change; rate of biodiversity loss; and freshwater use. Two parameters, air pollution and chemical pollution, are especially difficult to quantify, meaning that thresholds cannot yet be defined. It is emphasized that, while for understandable reasons, the nine systems are often discussed independently, they are interrelated in ways meaning that changes in one system have profound implications for the others. Rockstrom and colleagues observe that in the preindustrial era, all nine parameters were within the safe operating boundaries, and yet by the 1950s, change was underway, most evidently in the nitrogen cycle. By 2009 , according to their analysis, three planetary boundaries had been transgressed: climate change; rate of biodiversity loss; and the nitrogen cycle.

An implicit challenge in limiting global ecosystem damage and its multiple implications is how to achieve recognition among the public and policymakers that the choices they make either directly or indirectly cause ecosystem damage and related environmental change (Morris et al., 2015 ). Climate change is simply the most striking example, but comparable challenges over communication exist in relation to other planetary process and systems. The fundamental rethink of society, the economy, and the environment, which is necessary if health and well-being are to be built on ecological principles, will happen only if the true implications for health and well-being of a “business as usual” approach are understood, communicated, and challenged. For any population, the environmental changes that may ultimately have profound implications may take place in countries and regions well beyond their borders or may not occur for some time, conferring a temporal and/or spatial remoteness that diminishes the sense of urgency. Appreciating the importance of these “distal” pathways of ecosystem damage to human health and well-being demands a greater understanding of ecosystem services (the benefits human beings get from the natural environment) and of why they matter. It also demands a much fuller appreciation of the global connectivity of social, economic, and ecological systems (Morris et al., 2015 ; Adger et al., 2009 ).

When initiating our discussion of the role of environment in health, we observed that the modern public health era was built on an environmental conceptualization of public health. It is now inconceivable that health, well-being, health care, and equity in any of these domains can be delivered without rediscovering an environmental conceptualization of public health for the 21st century .

For Western society, ecological public health is likely to require a rethink of society, the economy, and our stewardship of the natural environment (Rayner & Lang, 2012 ). At the very least, it will demand pursuit, through policy and action, of outcomes that recognize a ‘quadruple bottom line’ measured in health and well-being, environmental quality, equity, and sustainability. The extent to which we embrace ecological principles will be evidenced in policies that address how we live (for example, the energy efficiency of our homes), how we move (particularly our reluctance to substitute travel in fossil-fueled cars with more active forms of travel); how we consume (notably how we source and produce food) and, of course how we obtain and conserve energy.

Taking Stock

Despite being necessarily selective, this article has sought to illustrate how perspectives on the role of the environment in human health and well-being have evolved over the course of the modern public health era. Perspectives can be seen to shift owing to changes in the nature of environmental hazards and risks that are themselves products of the evolution of how societies live, move around, consume, source their energy, and so on. Our understanding of the health relevance of the built and natural environments is also shaped by advances in scientific understanding and technology and a much wider economic, social, cultural, and even political context. In structuring our account, we have adopted a loose framework based on the “epidemiological eras,” elegantly articulated by two of the 20th century ’s leading epidemiologists (Susser & Susser, 1996 ). These eras are differentiated according to the dominant paradigm of the time concerning the causes of disease, each underpinned by analytical approaches to understand and prioritize risk.

The importance accorded to the environment as a mainstream public health issue arguably reached its lowest point in the decades following World War II when the tendency to regard health and disease as characteristics of individuals, rather than communities or populations, gained prominence. This approach diverted attention from social and environmental factors, divorcing health from place. Notions that humans are self-contained and impervious to context have now been largely swept away, not least because denial of a socioecological perspective hugely undermined attempts to address the most serious contemporary health challenges. Also instrumental in challenging the notion of the self-contained body has been an environmentalist movement with a particular interest in pesticide and other chemical contamination of the biosphere. The toxic effects of chemical contamination reinforce the reality of a body that is permeable and invariably in a state of intimate exchange with its surroundings. As Nash ( 2006 ) has observed, “ the singular and self-contained body of the early 20th century came, by the end of that century to seem distressingly porous and vulnerable to the modern landscape” (p. 13). We would simply add that humans exhibit comparable porosity and vulnerability to the social and economic context in which they exist.

We recognize that our account contains only limited reference to the regulatory context that has been so central to controlling the environment for public health. We consider it appropriate to sound a warning in this regard. The processes through which environment is monitored and regulated to protect human health and well-being are sometimes taken for granted. Yet, since the 1980s, pressures have mounted in most Western nations to ‘deregulate’ markets to maximize profit. These pressures have led to environmental and public health regulation being increasingly perceived by governments and markets as “red tape” and a barrier to economic enterprise. Pressure to loosen or even abandon aspects of environmental regulation has weakened formal controls, leaving society vulnerable to corporate excess and irresponsibility, with often serious impacts on public health (Oldenkamp et al., 2016 ). This is not to argue that regulation should be static. Rather, it should adapt to changing technological, social, and economic circumstances and should be appropriately funded whether it relates to the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the buildings we live, learn, and work in, or the nutritional aspects of the food we eat. Neither do we deny the potential to exploit citizen science and the power of new technology to supplement conventional regulation (e.g., enabling vulnerable individuals to avoid hazardous exposures and the opportunities for personal pollution monitoring to improve research).

Mainly anthropogenic damage to planetary resources and ecosystems demands that, wherever we are in the world, public health agencies must understand not just the proximal threats to health and well-being that have been the targets of public health intervention throughout the modern public health era. They must also understand and move to prevent, counteract, and contain more distal threats to health and well-being. The distal threats derive from changes to environments that appear remote in space or time or involve a complex interaction of social, environmental, and economic influences. These are no longer abstract considerations. The unprecedented global connectivity of economic and social systems and the growing understanding of ecosystem interdependencies demand that the implications of human activity for health and well-being be recognized, understood, and addressed on a vastly extended temporal and spatial scale.

Only by build health and well-being on ecological principles (Ecological Public Health) will society effectively address the more distal threats to health and well-being from global ecosystem damage; the socioecological complexity of the proximal environment and the interconnections between these.

Conclusions

In this necessarily brief and artificially linear account, our intention has been to reinforce the enduring importance of the environment for health and well-being. Along the way, we have identified three factors that have marginalized the environment as a component of health and disease. We suggest that they continue to represent clear and present threats, undermining public health and, in the case of the latter, an existential threat to humankind.

The Threat from Medical Reductionism

This tendency to think of disease almost exclusively in terms of pathogenic agents and organic dysfunction marginalizes any influence outside the crucible of the laboratory. This trend was most evident in the decades following World War II but remains an ever-present threat.

The Separation of Health from Place

Closely related to medical reductionism is the tendency to downplay the importance of local context for life. The idea that if local environment matters, it does not matter much and, that when it comes to health and disease, the real action is not out there in the neighborhood and among the community but “over here” in the laboratory and at the level of the individual. Such perspectives are divisive. They create artificial barriers between many academic disciplines, including some medical specialties, and those working to manage and improve the local social and environmental context within which “permeable” human beings live out their lives.

The Denial of Ecology

Science now permits humans to understand the true extent to which their activities are plundering natural resources and harming the planetary systems and processes on which they depend. The pace of change is such that health, well-being, heath care, or anything approaching equity in these things will not be sustained in the medium to longer term without radically rethinking society, the environment, and the economy. The global connectivity of social, economic, and environmental systems means, ultimately, that no one is insulated from the threat whether by distance or socioeconomic circumstance. Ecological public health, the pursuit of health and well-being on ecological principles, has been described as the 21st century ’s unavoidable task. It demands recognition of the dynamic interconnections between people and their environment. Manifestly, we depend on the environment we inhabit, and we powerfully affect it. Among the clearest impediments to delivering ecological public health and preserving a viable environment for future generations are the belief that we can manipulate and conquer the natural environment without consequence, and the irresponsible capitalist imperative that subverts regulatory standards and damages and exploits the environment for profit. Both are revealed as transparent absurdities by an ecological understanding and analysis.

• Adger, W. N. , Eakin, H. , & Winkels, A. (2009). Nested and teleconnected vulnerabilities to environmental change . Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , 7 (3), 150–157.
• Awefeso, N. (2004). What’s new about the new public health? American Journal of Public Health , 94 , 705–709.
• Baker, D. , & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (Eds.). (2008). Environmental epidemiology: Study methods and application . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Baum, F. (1998). The new public health: An Australian perspective . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Baxby, D. (2004). Jenner, Edward (1749–1823). In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/14749 .
• Bell, M. L. , & Davis D. L. (2001). Reassessment of the lethal London fog of 1952: Novel indicators of acute and chronic consequences of acute exposure to air pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives , 109 (Suppl. 3), 389–394.
• Bell, M. L. , Davis, D. L. , & Fletcher, T. (2004). A retrospective assessment of mortality from the London smog episode of 1952: The role of influenza and pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives , 112 , 6–8.
• Bell, M. L. , & Ebisu, K. (2012). Environmental inequality in exposures to airborne particulate matter components in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives , 120 , 1699–1704.
• Bell, M. L. , & Samet, M. J. (2005). Air pollution in environmental health. In H. Frumkin (Ed.), From Global to Local (pp. 387–415). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Bohand, X. , Monpeurt, C. , Bohand, S. , et al. (2007). Toxic waste and health effects in Abidjan City, Ivory Coast. Medecine Tropicale , 67 , 620–624.
• Bookchin, M. (1990). The philosophy of social ecology: Essays on dialectical naturalism . Montreal: Black Rose Books.
• Branis, M. , & Linhartova, M. (2012). Association between unemployment, income, education level, population size and air pollution in Czech cities: evidence for environmental inequality? A pilot national scale analysis. Health and Place , 18 , 1110–1114.
• Brock, T. D. (1999). Robert Koch: A life in medicine and bacteriology . Washington, DC: ASM Press.
• Brownson, R. C , Fielding, J. E. , & Maylahn, C. M. (2009). Evidence-based public health: A fundamental concept for public health practice. Annual Review of Public Health , 30 , 175–201.
• Butler, C. D. , Corvalán, C. F. , & Koren, H. S. (2005): Human health and well-being in global ecological scenarios . Ecosystems , 8 (2), 153–164.
• Butler, C. D. , & Harley, D. (2010) Primary, secondary and tertiary effects of eco-climatic change: The medical response . Postgraduate Medical Journal , 86 : 230–234.
• CABE . (2010). Community green: Using local spaces to tackle inequality and improve health . London: CABE.
• Carder, M. , McNamee, R. , Beverland, I. , et al. (2008). Does deprivation index modify the acute effect of black smoke on cardiorespiratory mortality? Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 67 , 104–110.
• Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Chadwick, E. (1842). Report to her majesty’s principal secretary of state for the Home Department from the Poor Law commissioners on an inquiry into the sanitary conditions of the labouring classes of Great Britain. London: HMSO.
• Collard, P. (1976). The development of microbiology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Commission on Social Determinants of Health . (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241563703_eng.pdf .
• Dahlgren, G. , & Whitehead, M. (1991). Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health . Institute of Futures Studies. Department for Education and Skills, Stockholm.
• Dockery, D. , & Pope, A. (1996). Epidemiology of acute health effects: Summary of time-series studies. In R. Wilson & J. D. Spengler (Eds.), Particles in our air. Concentration and health effects (pp. 123–147). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• EPA . Environmental justice . (2016). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice .
• EPA . Next generation air measuring research . (2016). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/epas-next-generation-air-measuring-research .
• European Centre for Disease Control . (2016). Zika outbreak in the Americas and the Pacific . Retrieved from http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopics/zika_virus_infection/zika-outbreak/Pages/zika-outbreak.aspx .
• European Environment Agency . (2013). Late lessons from early warnings: Science, precaution, innovation . Copenhagen: EEA.
• Eurostat . Overweight and obesity BMI statistics . Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Overweight_and_obesity_-_BMI_statistics .
• Evans, R. , & Stoddart, G. (1990). Producing health, consuming health care. Social Science and Medicine , 31 , 1347–1363.
• Evelyn, J. (1661). Fumifugium, or the inconvenience of aer or the smoake of London dissipated . London: Dorset Press for the National Society of Clean Air.
• Faculty of Public Health and Natural England . (2011). Great outdoors: How our natural health service uses green space to improve wellbeing briefing statement . London: FPH.
• Fauci A. S. (2001). Infectious diseases: considerations for the 21st century. Clinical Infectious Diseases , 32 , 675–685.
• Ferriman, A. (2007). BMJ readers choose the “sanitary revolution” as greatest medical advance since 1840. British Medical Journal , 334 , 111.
• Foster, W. D. (1970). A history of medical bacteriology and immunology . London: Heinemann.
• Frumkin, H. (Ed.). (2005). Environmental health: From global to local . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Gee, G. C. , & Payne-Sturges, D. C. (2004). Environmental health disparities: A framework integrating psychosocial and environmental concepts. Environmental Health Perspectives , 112 , 1645–1653.
• Goodman, A. , Wilkinson, P. , Stafford, M. , & Tonne, C. (2011). Characterising socio-economic inequalities in exposure to air pollution: a comparison of socio-economic markers and scales of measurement. Health and Place , 17 , 767–774.
• Greenspace Scotland . (2009). Social return on investment (SROI) analysis of the Greenlink, A partnership project managed by the Central Scotland Forest Trust (CSFT). Retrieved from http://1068899683.n263075.test.prositehosting.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Greenlink-SROI-Final-report-5-October-2009.pdf .
• Haekel, E. (1866). Generelle morphologie der organismen . Berlin: Georg Reimer.
• Hamil, S. D. (2008, November 1). Unveiling a museum, A Pennsylvania town remembers the smog that killed 20. New York Times . Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/us/02smog.html?_r=0 .
• International Labour Office . (2012). The global impact of e-waste: Addressing the challenge . Geneva: ILO.
• James Hutton Institute . Greenhealth. Contribution of green and open space to public health and wellbeing. Retrieved from http://www.hutton.ac.uk/sites/default/files/files/projects/GreenHealth-Final-Report.pdf .
• Johansen, B. E. (2002). The Inuit’s struggle with dioxins and other organic pollutants. American Indian Quarterly , 26 , 479–490.
• Jones, K. E. , Patel, G. N. , Levy, M. A. , et al. (2008). Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature , 451 , 990–993.
• Levy, S. B. , & Marshall, B. (2004). Antimicrobial resistance worldwide: Cause. Challenges and responses. Natural Medicine , 12 (Suppl.), S122–S129).
• Lloyd, G. E. R. (Ed.). (1983). Hippocratic writings (trans. J. Chadwick . & W. N. Mann ). London: Penguin.
• Jung, K. H. , Perzanowski, M. , Rundle, A. , et al. (2014). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure, obesity and childhood asthma in an urban cohort. Environmental Research , 128 , 35–41.
• Kessel, A. (2006). Air, the environment and public health. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kinnaman, T. C. (2011). The economic impact of shale gas extraction: A review of existing studies. Ecological Economics , 70 , 1243–1249.
• Kokayeff, N. (2013). Dying to be discovered: Miasma vs germ theory. ESSAI , 10: Article 24. Retrieved from http://dc.cod.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1416&context=essai .
• Kriger, N. , Waterman, P. D. , Gryparis, A. , et al. (2014). Black carbon exposure more strongly associated with census tract poverty compared to household income among US black, white, and Latino working class adults in Boston, MA (2003–2010). Environmental Pollution , 190 , 36–42.
• Kuo, F. , & Sullivan, W. C. (2001a). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime. Environmental Behavior , 33 , 343–367.
• Kuo, F. E. , & Sullivan, W. C. (2001b). Aggression and violence in the inner city: Effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environmental Behavior , 33 , 543–571.
• Lalonde, M. (1974). A new perspective on the health of Canadians. Ministry of Supply and Services Canada. Retrieved from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/pube-pubf/perintrod-eng.php .
• Lave, R. , & Lutz, B. (2014). Hydraulic fracturing: A critical physical geography review. Geography Compass , 8 , 739–754.
• Leviticus [14:33–45] quoted in Frumkin, 2005.
• Lu, K. D. , Breysse, P. N. , Diette, G. B. , et al. (2013). Being overweight increases susceptibility to indoor pollutants among urban children with asthma. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology , 131 , 1017–1023.
• Martuzzi, M. (2007). The precautionary principle: in action for public health. Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 64 , 569–570.
• Meadows, D. H. , Meadows, D. L. , Randers, J. , et al. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind . New York: Universe Books.
• Mitchell, R. , & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: An observational population study. The Lancet ; 372 , 1655–1660.
• Morris, G. P. , Beck, S. A. , Hanlon, P , et al. (2006). Getting strategic about the environment and health. Public Health , 120 , 889–907.
• Morris, G. P. , & Braubach, M. (2012). Environmental health inequalities in Europe. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241563703_eng.pdf .
• Morris, G. P. , Reis, S. , Beck, S. , Fleming, L. E. , Adger, W. D. , Benton, T. G. , & Depledge, M. H. (2015). Climate change and health in the UK. Scoping and communicating the longer-term “distal” dimensions. In S. Kovats (Eds.), Health Climate Change Impacts Summary Report Card, Living With Environmental Change . Retrieved from http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/lwec/report-cards/health-source10/ .
• Nabel, E. G. , & Braunwald, E. M. (2012). A tale of coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine , 366 , 54–63.
• Nash, L. (2006). Inescapable ecologies: A history of environment, disease and knowledge . Berkeley, CA: California University Press.
• National Children’s Bureau . (2013). Greater expectations: Raising aspirations for our children . London: NCB.
• National Obesity Observatory . (2013). National Child Measurement Programme changes in children’s body mass index between 2006/07 and 2011/12. Retrieved from http://www.noo.org.uk/uploads/doc/vid_17929_NCMP_Changes_children.pdf .
• Oldenkamp, R. , van Zelm, R. , & Huijbregts, A. J. (2016). Valuing the human health damage caused by the fraud of Volkswagen. Environmental Pollution , 212 , 121–127.
• Patz, J. A. , Campbell-Lendrum, D. , Holloway, T. , et al. (2005). Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature , 438 , 310–317.
• Perry, I. J. (1997). Risk factor epidemiology. The Lancet , 350 , 1256.
• Petticrew, M. , Whitehead, M. , Macintyre, S. , et al. (2004). Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 1: The reality according to policymakers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , 58 , 811–816.
• Pope, C. A. , Dockery, D. W. , & Schwartz, J. (1995). Review of epidemiological evidence of health effects of particulate air pollution . Inhalation Toxicology , 47 , 1–18.
• Prüss-Üstün, A. , Wolf, J. , Corvalan, C. , Neville, T. , Bos, R. , & Neira, M. (2016a). Diseases due to unhealthy environments: An updated estimate of the global burden of disease attributable to environmental determinants of health . Journal of Public Health . Retrieved from http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/09/12/pubmed.fdw085.full .
• Prüss-Üstün, A. , et al. (2016b). Preventing disease through healthy environments: A global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks . Geneva: World Health Organization.
• Public Health England . (2016). Health Inequalities. Retrieved from http://www.noo.org.uk/NOO_about_obesity/inequalities .
• Public Health England and UCL Institute of Health Equity . (2014). Local action on health inequalities: Improving access to green spaces . London: PHE.
• Rather, L. J. (1985). Rudolf Virchow: Collected essays on public health and epidemiology . Canton, MA: Science History Publications.
• Rayner, G. , & Lang, T. (2012). Ecological public health: Reshaping the conditions for good health . Oxford: Routledge.
• Reis, S. , Morris, G. , Fleming, L. E. , et al. (2015). “Integrating Health and Environmental Impact Analysis.” Public Health , 129 , 1383–1389.
• Richardson, E. A. , Pearce, J. , & Kingham, S. (2011). Is particulate air pollution associated with health and health inequalities in New Zealand? Health and Place , 17 , 1137–1143.
• Richardson, E. A. , Pearce, J. , Tunstall, H. , et al. (2013). Particulate air pollution and health inequalities: A Europe-wide ecological analysis. International Journal of Health Geographics , 12 , 34.
• Rockström, J. , Steffen, W. , Noone, K. , et al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity . Ecology and Society 14 , 32.
• Rosen, G. A. (1993). History of public health (Expanded ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Originally published 1958.
• Royal College of Physicians . (2016). Every breath we take: The lifelong impact of air pollution . Report of a working party. London: RCP.
• Rudge, G. , Suglani, N. , Jenkinson, D. , et al. (2013). Are fast food outlets concentrated in more deprived areas? A geo-statistical analysis of an urban area in central England. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , 67 (Suppl. 1), A14.
• Saunders, P. , Saunders, A. , & Middleton, J. (2015). Living in a ‘fat swamp’: exposure to multiple sources of accessible, cheap, energy-dense fast foods in a deprived community. British Journal of Nutrition , 113 , 1828–1834.
• Sovacool, B. K. (2014). Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 37 , 249–264.
• Steffen, W. , et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science , 349 , 1286–1287.
• Susser, M. , & Adelstein, A. (1975). An introduction to the work of William Farr. American Journal of Epidemiology , 101 , 469–476.
• Susser, M. , & Susser, E. (1996). Choosing a future for epidemiology: I. Eras and paradigms. American Journal of Public Health , 86 , 668–673.
• Tannahill, A. (2008). Beyond evidence to ethics: A decision-making framework for health promotion, public health and health improvement. Health Promotion International , 23 , 380–390.
• The Marmot Review Team . (2010). Fair society, healthy lives: Strategic review of health inequalities in England post-2010 . Marmot Review Team, London.
• The Trust for Public Land . (2008). How much value does the city of Philadelphia receive from its park and recreation system? Retrieved from http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/ccpe_PhilaParkValueReport.pdf .
• Thomas-Hope E. (2011). People on the move. Managing migration in today’s commonwealth . The second report of the Ramphal Commission on Migration and Development.
• UNICEF . (2008). Our climate, our children, our responsibility. The implications of climate change for the world’s children . Retrieved from https://www.crin.org/en/docs/climate-change.pdf .
• Villeneuve, P. J. , Jerrett, M. , Su, J. G. , et al. (2012). A cohort study relating urban green space with mortality in Ontario, Canada. Environmental Research , 115 , 51–58.
• Vinikoor-Imler, L C. , Gray, S. C. , Edwards, S. E. , et al. (2012). The effects of exposure to particulate matter and neighbourhood deprivation on gestational hypertension. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology , 26 , 91–100.
• Vinten-Johansen, P. , Brody, H. , Paneth, N. , et al. (2003). Cholera, chloroform and the science of medicine: A life of John Snow . New York: Oxford University Press.
• World Health Organization . (2013). Review of evidence on health aspects of air pollution—REVIHAAP Project . Bonn: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/193108/REVIHAAP-Final-technical-report-final-version.pdf .
• World Health Organization . (2016). Water sanitation and health . Retrieved from http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/en/ .
• World Health Organization . (2016). Global Health Observatory (GHO) data: HIV/AIDS . Retrieved from http://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en .
• World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe . (2012). Environmental health inequalities in Europe Assessment Report . Copenhagen: WHO.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Environmental Science. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 04 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.136]
• 81.177.182.136

Character limit 500 /500

Waldo Swiegers/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Technicians conduct Covid-19 antibody neutralisation testing in a laboratory at the African Health Research Institute (AHRI) in Durban, South Africa.

Research environment: people, culture and openness

Research to solve the urgent health challenges facing everyone depends on thriving research environments that are open, engaged, equitable, ethical and efficient.

• Share with Facebook
• Share with X
• Share with LinkedIn
• Share with Email

We believe that excellent research happens in environments where people from all backgrounds are treated with respect, supported and enabled to thrive.  

Solving the planet’s most urgent health challenges requires creative and high-quality ideas, that must be open and accessible to everyone, to achieve the greatest impact and save lives more quickly. It also requires ethically sound research that is engaged with the needs of the communities it is addressing.  

We see these as fundamental and necessary changes to the way that research usually happens and they are at the heart of the positive and inclusive research cultures we want to encourage. Only when these approaches are considered can we say that the research we fund is truly for the health challenges facing everyone.

By taking a holistic view of the environmental factors that impact research outcomes, Wellcome can achieve its ambition to be an inclusive funder of research to improve health for everyone.

Hannah Hope

Open Research Lead

What we're doing  

Our work cuts across Wellcome’s funding teams, supporting them to deliver their programmes of work on discovery research , climate and health , infectious disease  and mental health . 

Our ambition is that the research we fund and the processes by which we do this are open, engaged, ethical and efficient.  

In addition to our internally focused work, we aim to contribute to the wider research ecosystem to ensure that Wellcome researchers have access to the tools and skills to maximise the impact of their work. This includes convening community events, policy work, supporting infrastructure and occasionally, offering funding for relevant activities.

What do we mean by 'research environment'?

Typically, the strength of a ‘research environment’ is judged by the excellence of the infrastructure it provides for the research taking place.

Wellcome’s definition of the research environment goes beyond this to consider the culture and behaviours that create excellent research practice. For us, this includes research that is inclusive in design and practice, ethical and engaged with relevant community stakeholders. An open and transparent research process is a tool to enable these practices and to enable the outputs of the research to have the maximum impact.

Examples of our work  

• Europe PMC (PubMed Central) – an online database offering free access to published biomedical research
• Investigating the effects of open sharing commitments
• Global Infectious Disease Ethics Collaborative (GLIDE) – a platform for identifying and analysing ethical issues in infectious disease
• Emerging Cultures – a grant for a sociological and anthropological study of emerging research cultures in Wellcome’s 4-Year PhD Programmes
• In2Research – a social mobility programme that supports people from low socio-economic backgrounds to progress to postgraduate research

How this applies to your research  

As part of our goal to become a more inclusive funder and support research that is inclusive in design and practice, we made commitments to foster positive and inclusive research cultures as part of the application criteria on most of our awards.  

As part of this, our Discovery Award applications feature elements of the Resume for Research and Innovation (R4RI) , otherwise known as the Narrative CV. This gives researchers more flexibility in how they demonstrate their diverse skills and contributions to research.  

Wellcome has a number of research policies related to open and ethical research and we recommend that researchers consult these when designing funding applications and delivering successful awards. 

Appropriate engagement with key stakeholders throughout the research lifecycle supports the production of high-quality research that is rooted within the needs of those most affected. Wellcome will consider the costs of delivering engaged research within funding applications.

Looking for research funding?

Wellcome does not have a Research Environment funding scheme, however, it is a theme within all research grant funding and may be a criterion within other procurement processes.

Dan O’Connor

Head of Research Environment

Carleigh Krubiner

Bioethics Lead

Shomari Lewis-Wilson

Senior Manager, Research Culture and Communities

If you have general enquiries or ideas related to our Research Environment work, please contact us on

[email protected]

Related content  

Diversity and inclusion: helping more ideas thrive

Let's reimagine how we work together

Open research

Groundbreaking research in groundwater's role in ecosystem sustainability

Until now, groundwater -- a critical water resource around the globe, especially in dry regions -- has been largely unstudied in its importance and role in sustaining ecosystems. A new groundbreaking research effort led by the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF) in partnership with University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB), Cardiff University, and Desert Research Institute (DRI) examines the relationship between groundwater and ecosystems across California. Their innovative findings are featured in Nature Water .

Led by Dr. Melissa Rohde, who completed the study as part of her doctoral research in Dr. John Stella's Riparian Echohydrology Lab at ESF, the team used satellite imagery and groundwater monitoring data to identify thresholds of groundwater depth and seasonal change that can support sensitive ecosystems throughout California under the state's Sustainable Groundwater Management Act framework.

"A vast majority of our planet's freshwater is groundwater, but we don't acknowledge or manage it sustainably, resulting in serious consequences for humans and natural ecosystems," said Dr. Rohde, now Principal at Rohde Environmental Consulting, LLC. "Groundwater is critical for many ecosystems, but their water requirements are rarely accounted for by water agencies and conservationists. To reconcile that, our study provides a simple and practical approach to detect ecological thresholds and targets that can be used by practitioners to allocate and manage water resources."

Utilizing 38 years of Landsat satellite images (1985-2022) and statewide groundwater well data, the study examined impacts on key plant communities. A major challenge was to develop standardized metrics that can be applied across diverse ecosystems with site-specific water conditions. The team applied a common data transformation method in a new way to identify thresholds of vegetation greenness and groundwater depth over time that can determine groundwater needs for ecosystems, helping to inform decisions about water use and planning.

"Groundwater-dependent ecosystems such as wetlands, floodplains, and riparian zones have a very outsized importance on biodiversity. Upwards of 80 to 90 percent of species in a general region may be dependent on these ecosystems in some form or another," said Dr. Stella, study co-author and Vice President for Research at ESF. "We applied a simple statistical approach to very large data sets to identify warning signs and conservation targets for a great diversity of ecosystem types."

The vast geographic scope and long timeline covered by the study, allowed the team to evaluate how large-scale systems respond to major climate shocks such as the historical California drought that occurred from 2012 -- 2016, as well as where individual groundwater-dependent ecosystems can serve as resilient drought refugia.

"This type of study, covering the entire state of California over close to 40 years, has really only become possible in the past few years and shows the promise for similar studies over a much larger geographic area using the approach pioneered by Dr. Rohde," remarked co-author, Dr. Dar Roberts from UCSB.

It was discovered that during drought events, groundwater-dependent vegetation that maintains a connection to groundwater can serve as critical drought refugia for associated species, such as riparian birds or fish. However, when groundwater levels deepen beyond plants' rooting zones during drought, these safe havens can be lost.

"A key takeaway from this study is that we can use what we know about how deep the roots of different types of plants tend to be to approximate what groundwater levels are needed to maintain ecosystem health," said co-author Dr. Christine Albano from DRI. "We found that vegetation was healthier where groundwater levels were within about 1 meter of maximum root depth, as compared to where groundwater was deeper."

The research team is hopeful that their approach and findings can help inform water management decisions in California and beyond.

"This study arms groundwater managers with an intuitive, site-specific measure that can provide a data-driven foundation to guide water allocation and ecosystem restoration efforts," said co-author and professor Kelly Caylor from UCSB.

"Globally, there are increasing efforts to manage groundwater resources for multiple purposes, not only to support drinking water needs or high-value agriculture. Our work provides a sound basis on which to develop clear guidelines for how to manage groundwater to support a wide range of needs within drainage basins in California and beyond," said co-author Prof. Michael Singer from Cardiff University.

• Ecology Research
• Endangered Plants
• Drought Research
• Marine conservation
• Groundwater
• Remediation
• Hydrogeology
• Eutrophication

Story Source:

Materials provided by SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Melissa M. Rohde, John C. Stella, Michael Bliss Singer, Dar A. Roberts, Kelly K. Caylor, Christine M. Albano. Establishing ecological thresholds and targets for groundwater management . Nature Water , 2024; DOI: 10.1038/s44221-024-00221-w

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Tiny Robot Swarms Inspired by Herd Mentality
• How the Brain Regulates Emotions
• Evolution in Action? Nitrogen-Fixing Organelles
• Plastic-Free Vegan Leather That Dyes Itself
• Early Mesozoic Animals: High Growth Rates
• Virus to Save Amphibians from Deadly Fungus?
• 100 Kilometers of Quantum-Encrypted Transfer
• Intelligent Liquid
• New Approach to Searching for Dark Matter
• We've Had Bird Evolution All Wrong

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

On a climate rollercoaster: how Australia’s environment fared in the world’s hottest year

Professor, Water and Landscape Dynamics, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University

Research Assistant, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University

Project Manager, Threatened Species Index, The University of Queensland

Disclosure statement

Australia’s Environment is produced by the ANU Fenner School for Environment & Society and the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), an NCRIS-enabled National Research Infrastructure. Albert Van Dijk receives or has previously received funding from several government-funded agencies, grant schemes and programmes.

Tayla Lawrie is a current employee of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), funded by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy.

Shoshana Rapley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Queensland and Australian National University provide funding as members of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Global climate records were shattered in 2023, from air and sea temperatures to sea-level rise and sea-ice extent. Scores of countries recorded their hottest year and numerous weather disasters occurred as climate change reared its head.

How did Australia’s environment fare against this onslaught? In short, 2023 was a year of opposites.

For the past nine years, we have trawled through huge volumes of data collected by satellites, measurement stations and surveys by individuals and agencies. We include data on global change, oceans, people, weather, water, soils, vegetation, fire and biodiversity.

Each year, we analyse those data, summarising them in an annual report that includes an overall Environmental Condition Score and regional scorecards . These scores provide a relative measure of conditions for agriculture and ecosystems. Scores declined across the country, except in the Northern Territory, but were still relatively good.

However, the updated Threatened Species Index shows the abundance of listed bird, mammal and plant species has continued to decline at a rate of about 3% a year since the turn of the century.

Read more: How 2023's record heat worsened droughts, floods and bushfires around the world

Riding a climate rollercoaster in 2023

Worldwide, 77 countries broke temperature records . Australia was not one of them. Our annual average temperature was 0.53°C below the horror year 2019. Temperatures in the seas around us were below the records of 2022.

Even so, 2023 was among Australia’s eight warmest years in both cases. All eight came after 2005.

However, those numbers are averaged over the year. Dig a bit deeper and it becomes clear 2023 was a climate rollercoaster.

The year started as wet as the previous year ended, but dry and unseasonably warm weather set in from May to October. Soils and wetlands across much of the country started drying rapidly. In the eastern states, the fire season started as early as August.

Nonetheless, there was generally still enough water to support good vegetation growth throughout the unusually warm and sunny winter months.

Fears of a severe fire season were not realised as El Niño’s influence waned in November and rainfall returned, in part due to the warm oceans. Combined with relatively high temperatures, it made for a hot and humid summer. A tropical cyclone and several severe storms caused flooding in Queensland and Victoria in December.

As always, there were regional differences. Northern Australia experienced the best rainfall and growth conditions in several years. This contributed to more grass fires than average during the dry season. On the other hand, the rain did not return to Western Australia and Tasmania, which ended the year dry.

So how did scores change?

Every year we calculate an Environmental Condition Score that combines weather, water and vegetation data.

The national score was 7.5 (out of 10). That was 1.2 points lower than for 2022, but still the second-highest score since 2011.

Scores declined across the country except for the Northern Territory, which chalked up a score of 8.8 thanks to a strong monsoon season. With signs of drought developing in parts of Western Australia, it had the lowest score of 5.5.

The Environmental Condition Score reflects environmental conditions, but does not measure the long-term health of natural ecosystems and biodiversity.

Firstly, it relates only to the land and not our oceans. Marine heatwaves damaged ecosystems along the eastern coast. Surveys in the first half of 2023 suggested the recovery of the Great Barrier Reef plateaued.

However, a cyclone and rising ocean temperatures occurred later in the year. In early 2024, another mass coral bleaching event developed.

Secondly, the score does not capture important processes affecting our many threatened species. Among the greatest dangers are invasive pests and diseases, habitat destruction and damage from severe weather events such as heatwaves and megafires.

Read more: New ecosystems, unprecedented climates: more Australian species than ever are struggling to survive

Threatened species’ declines continued

The Threatened Species Index captures data from long-term threatened species monitoring. The index is updated annually with a three-year lag, largely due to delays in data processing and sharing. This means the 2023 index includes data up to 2020.

The index showed an unrelenting decline of about 3% in the abundance of Australia’s threatened bird, mammal and plant species each year. This amounts to an overall decline of 61% from 2000 to 2020.

The index for birds in 2023 revealed declines were most severe for terrestrial birds (62%), followed by migratory shorebirds (47%) and marine birds (24%).

A record 130 species were added to Australia’s threatened species lists in 2023. That’s many more than the annual average of 29 species over previous years. The 2019–2020 Black Summer bushfires had direct impacts on half the newly listed species.

Population boom adds to pressures

Australia’s population passed 27 million in 2023, a stunning increase of 8 million, or 41%, since 2000. Those extra people all needed living space, food, electricity and transport.

Read more: Our population is expected to double in 80 years. We asked Australians where they want all these people to live

Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen by 18% since 2000 . Despite small declines in the previous four years, emissions increased again in 2023, mostly due to air travel rebounding after COVID-19.

Our emissions per person are the tenth-highest in the world and more than three times those of the average global citizen. The main reasons are our coal-fired power stations, inefficient road vehicles and large cattle herd .

Nonetheless, there are reasons to be optimistic. Many other countries have dramatically reduced emissions without compromising economic growth or quality of life. All we have to do is to finally follow their lead.

Our governments have an obvious role to play, but we can do a lot as individuals. We can even save money, by switching to renewable energy and electric vehicles and by eating less beef.

Changing our behaviour will not stop climate change in its tracks, but will slow it down over the next decades and ultimately reverse it. We cannot reverse or even stop all damage to our environment, but we can certainly do much better.

Read more: As Australia's net zero transition threatens to stall, rooftop solar could help provide the power we need

• Climate change
• Environmental assessment
• Global warming
• Population growth
• Australian environment
• Endangered species
• Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Communications and Events Officer

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

School of Social Sciences – Public Policy and International Relations opportunities

Human Impacts on the Environment

Humans impact the physical environment in many ways: overpopulation, pollution, burning fossil fuels, and deforestation. Changes like these have triggered climate change, soil erosion, poor air quality, and undrinkable water. These negative impacts can affect human behavior and can prompt mass migrations or battles over clean water.

Help your students understand the impact humans have on the physical environment with these classroom resources.

Earth Science, Geology, Geography, Physical Geography

Knowledge is power

Stay in the know about climate impacts and solutions. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time.

Yale Climate Connections

Does recycling actually help the climate?

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)

Has the phrase “reduce, reuse, recycle” grabbed your attention? The concept of recycling seems to be at the heart of every conversation around climate action. But a lot of misconceptions hover around the recycling process, which may lead you to believe you’re making a bigger positive impact on the environment than you truly are. Here, we debunk five common misconceptions about recycling, starting from the belief that plastic can be recycled indefinitely to the assumption that any item bearing the three-arrow symbol is recyclable where you live. Our goal is to guide you toward better decision-making both as a consumer and a voter.

Myth: If you dispose of recyclables properly, they will be recycled.

Many people believe that disposing of items in recycling bins guarantees their recycling, but this isn’t always the case.

It’s not uncommon for items placed in recycling bins to end up directly in garbage trucks, making many recycling bins a mirage for environmentalists. In 2023, a landfill in Georgia was filmed mixing recycling with trash. In the face of misleading information and perceived powerlessness, some U.S. residents are growing apathetic  to recycling and, by extension, climate policy.

Ever noticed the iconic triangular recycling symbol? You’d be surprised to know it isn’t trademarked, enabling anyone to print it on their products — regardless of whether they are recyclable. So the symbol can tempt consumers into believing all recyclable products are eco-friendly. As Stanford professor Michael Wara notes, such practices could be considered consumer fraud.

One way to combat this issue is by making conscious buying decisions. Consider checking for credible eco-labels while shopping, such as Energy Star logos on appliances or the Fair Trade certifications on coffee or chocolate. However, double-check that any certifications are from third-party agencies and not producers themselves. That can help assure you that the products meet stringent environmental and ethical standards.

But there’s only so much consumers can do alone. To truly hold these large companies accountable, we need the government in on this, too. California laws SB 343 and AB 1201 are models for potential federal regulations. These two laws establish standards for labeling products as “recyclable” and “compostable,” reducing false claims about a product’s environmental impact.

In the future, the Federal Trade Commission could mandate clear standards for packaging labels, specifying which locations the material can be recycled. These regulations could be enforced with civil penalties like fines to ensure compliance.

Though misinformation plays a significant role in confusion about recycling, environmental educator Kristy Drutman says there’s also another factor at play: language barriers. “I think also being able to translate recycling information into different languages is really important moving forward,” she said.

Myth: Recycling is the best thing you can do to fight against climate change.

Many people believe recycling is the ultimate antidote to climate change. But is it?

Not really. According to research at the University of Leeds , recycling ranked low on a list of effective actions that an individual could take to fight climate change. Higher-ranked actions included living car-free, avoiding long-haul air travel, and reducing consumption of red meat.

You might also choose to vote in every election for climate-friendly leaders or join a climate-focused organization.

Of course, recycling matters, yet we can’t lose sight of the larger climate challenges and strike a balance between individual and corporate responsibility.

Myth: “Reduce,” “reuse,” and “recycle” are equally beneficial.

Plastics can only be recycled a finite number of times at best, sometimes only once, due to structural and composition breakdowns during the recycling process. This process involves melting, during which the material loses its integrity and gathers contaminants. And several plastic types, especially those in electronic devices or those stained by food, often bypass recycling altogether. These problems underline the necessity of advancing our recycling technologies while curtailing overall plastic use.

In situations where plastic is nonnegotiable, you can make a positive impact by choosing products made with recyclable plastics such as Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) found in beverage bottles or High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) used for jugs and detergent bottles. You can also advocate for policies that favor their usage.

But fundamentally, recycling isn’t as beneficial as reduction and reuse. Again, the onus lies more heavily on corporations, whose environmental footprints vastly overshadow individual consumers. Several companies have been found to unduly overemphasize the impact of minor consumer actions (like choosing metal straws over plastic ones), to divert attention from their failure to minimize waste. In fact, in 2022, California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta launched an investigation into ExxonMobil, looking at whether the oil giant had oversold the promise of recycling.

Myth: Anyone can recycle.

Low-income and minority communities often  lack  recycling infrastructure. And oftentimes, advocacy in these communities is primarily directed toward bigger concerns — like making sure oil pipelines are not being built straight through their land.

Indigenous organizer Jade Begay pointed out that promoting recycling literacy in such communities might be tone-deaf, as recycling isn’t the main priority.

“We’re engaged in environmental justice issues because we have to be,” Begay said. “To fight to protect our lands is to automatically engage in environmental and climate justice work.”

Reality: Recycling education could be more than just trash talk.

Recycling education is often limited to helping people master the art of waste segregation. In reality, it could become a critical weapon in our arsenal against climate change.

Better recycling education could help students grasp environmental justice issues, such as the disproportionate siting of landfills in low-income Black and Brown communities. Such programs could weave in civic engagement opportunities, such as voter registration or extra credit for attending a town hall meeting. As part of the syllabus, students could learn the ropes of local and national environmental legislation and grapple with how their political decisions influence our battle for the planet.

Understanding recycling and responsible waste handling could also help students learn to challenge large companies about their environmental footprints — and advocate for more rigorous regulations for the big players. This form of recycling literacy could help young people break through the fog of greenwashing and individual action to see the power that grows from collective action.

Cameron Sabet is a medical student at Georgetown University and COO at educational nonprofit Ivy League Mentoring. His writing has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, The Hill, Smithsonian Magazine, the Lancet, and BMJ.

Alessandro Hammond is a student at Harvard University and researcher at the Boston Children’s Hospital whose writing has appeared in Nature, The Washington Post, and Frontiers in Public Health.

Sophia Kianni is an Iranian-American social entrepreneur and climate activist at Stanford University. She is the founder of Climate Cardinals, a Yale Climate Connections partner. In addition, she is a United Nations adviser and serves on the EPA’s National Youth Advisory Council.

Tom Toro  is a cartoonist and writer who has published over 200 cartoons in The New Yorker since 2010.

More like this

How can I make my retirement plan climate-friendly?

Inside my quest for a climate-friendly bank

Is a Category 6 hurricane possible? (our first short)

• Clean Energy Jobs
• Funding Opportunities
• Myth Busting with EERE
• Diversity in STEM & Clean Energy
• Domestic Manufacturing & Competitiveness
• Energy Accessibility & Affordability
• Energy Equity & Environmental Justice
• Energy Independence & Security
• Energy Reliability
• Energy Resilience
• Environmental Impacts
• Health & Safety
• Job Creation & Growth
• Energy Transitions Initiative Partnership Project
• Energy Transitions Initiative
• Clean Energy to Communities Program

As the United States rapidly scales up its renewable energy generating capabilities to reach the nation’s climate goals, we must consider how these systems interact with the natural environment. 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) plays a leading role in developing new technologies and procedures that reduce the environmental impacts of renewable energy. 

DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) supports responsible clean energy development by funding research that protects wildlife from not only the impacts of climate change but also the clean energy infrastructure we need to address it.

How Does Clean Energy Help the Environment?

Overall, clean energy is considered better for the environment than traditional fossil-fuel–based resources, generally resulting in less air and water pollution than combustible fuels, such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum oil. Power generated by renewable sources, such as wind, water, and sunlight, does not produce harmful carbon dioxide emissions that lead to climate change, which causes drought, wildfires, flooding, poverty, health risks, species loss, and more. 

Even though both renewable and nonrenewable energy sources require land for infrastructure, renewable energy systems often have a smaller footprint. For example, solar panels can be installed on existing structures, and wind turbines are well suited for agricultural land without displacing crops.

Did you know? 

Collisions with land-based wind turbines kill fewer birds than other factors like automobiles, electrical lines, antenna towers, pesticides, and cats. 

Clean Energy and Environmental Safety

Despite these benefits, clean energy technologies can have environmental consequences before, during, and after their useful lifespans. EERE supports a wide range of projects that help reduce impacts on our ecosystem. 

From projects that use machine learning to automatically detect and identify  bird interactions with solar facilities to others that use  cameras with artificial intelligence to help site operators know what wildlife is nearby, EERE is invested in a future where clean energy benefits outweigh the costs.

That’s why DOE:

• Takes steps to ensure that clean energy projects address potential environmental concerns before projects begin . This includes considering the land at the project site, the safety of materials used, whether the materials are obtained sustainably, and the safety of fish and other wildlife. 
• Focuses on ensuring that natural habitats and wildlife are safe from any harmful consequences . This means funding research into deterrent and mitigation technologies, like those that  minimize bird and bat interactions with wind turbines and provide  safe passage for fish through hydropower dams . 
• Funds research to reduce environmental impacts after a project’s lifetime . This includes recycling, repurposing, and upcycling materials, such as  batteries ,  wind turbine blades , and  solar panels , that have reached the end of their useful lives.

Learn How EERE Works to Reduce Environmental Impacts of Clean Energy

Environmental impacts news.

The Weekly Jolt is a digest of the top clean energy news, tips, events, and information from DOE and EERE.

Sign-up to receive the latest information about EERE’s clean energy funding, prize, and competition opportunities.

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Environmental Science and Pollution Research (ESPR) serves the international community in all broad areas of environmental science and related subjects with emphasis on chemical compounds.

• Covers all areas of Environmental Science and related subjects.
• Publishes on the natural sciences, but also includes the impacts of legislation, regulation, and the economy on pollution control.
• Safeguards international and interdisciplinary character through a global network of editorial board members.
• Official publication of the EuCheMS Division of Chemistry and the Environment.
• Authors from participating institutions can publish Open Choice at no cost.
• Philippe Garrigues

Societies and partnerships

Latest issue

Volume 31, Issue 14

Latest articles

Evaluation of water resources security in anhui province based on ga-bp model.

• Shuhang Zhao
• Xiaodong Wang

Composting of recovered rock wool from hydroponics for the production of soil amendment

• Darja Istenič
• Franja Prosenc
• Rok Mihelič

Synthesis of surface-modified porous polysulfides from soybean oil by inverse vulcanization and its sorption behavior for Pb(II), Cu(II), and Cr(III)

• Zurina Zainal Abidin
• Mohamad Faiz Mukhtar Gunam Resul

New zeolite made from Tunisian raw clay: study and modeling for C 3 H 6 breakthrough dynamic adsorption onto zeolite material

• Nadim Fakhfakh
• Olfa Ouled Ltaief
• Mourad Benzina

Considering product life cycle characteristics and industry background in environmental impact analysis and application: a case study of a television

• Junkai Huang

Journal updates

Meet the editors.

Learn more about the ESPR editors!

Special Issues

We invite you to browse through recently published special issues of Environmental Science and Pollution Research: Click here to get an overview of ESPR issues! All manuscripts will be  peer reviewed as usual  and following the  journal's policies , with final decisions made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Special Issue Proposal Form

Call for Papers: Special Issue on “The Green Revolt: Building Sustainable Solutions” (SI: TGRBS23)

Journal information.

• Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
• Biological Abstracts
• CAB Abstracts
• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)
• Current Contents/Agriculture, Biology & Environmental Sciences
• Engineering Village – GEOBASE
• Google Scholar
• INIS Atomindex
• Japanese Science and Technology Agency (JST)
• OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service
• Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)
• Semantic Scholar
• TD Net Discovery Service
• UGC-CARE List (India)

Rights and permissions

Springer policies

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

U.s. public views on climate and energy, democrats mostly agree the federal government should do more on climate, while republicans differ by ideology, age and gender.

A majority of U.S. adults say they are taking at least some specific action in their daily lives to protect the environment, though Democrats and Republicans remain at ideological odds over the causes of climate change and the effects of policies to address it, according to the survey of 3,627 U.S. adults conducted Oct. 1 to Oct. 13, 2019, using the Center’s American Trends Panel.

These findings come amid the Trump administration’s intention to officially withdraw from the 2016 Paris climate accord and ongoing efforts to roll back domestic environmental protection regulations , including relaxing limits on methane and carbon emissions.

About two-thirds of U.S. adults (67%) say the federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change, and similar shares say the same about government efforts to protect air (67%) and water quality (68%) – findings that are consistent with results from a 2018 Center survey .

While there is strong consensus among Democrats (90%, including independents who lean to the Democratic Party) on the need for more government efforts to reduce the effects of climate change, Republican views are divided along ideological, generational and gender lines. A majority of moderate or liberal Republicans (65%, including GOP-leaning independents) say the federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change. In contrast, only about one-quarter of conservative Republicans (24%) say the same, while about half (48%) think the government is doing about the right amount and another 26% say it is doing too much.

There are also divides by age. Among younger Republicans – adults in the Millennial generation and Generation Z , ages 18 to 38 in 2019 – 52% think the government is doing too little on climate. By comparison, 41% among Generation X and 31% of Baby Boomer and older Americans say this. Republican women (46%) also are more inclined than GOP men (34%) to think the government’s efforts on climate are insufficient.

Views about government efforts to protect the environment in areas such as water or air quality show similar differences among Republicans by ideology, generation and gender.

The vast majority of Democrats (90%) believe the U.S. should prioritize alternative energy development over expanded oil, coal and natural gas exploration and production. While generally supportive of prioritizing alternative energy sources, Republicans differ by ideology and generation, and more modestly by gender, in their views of U.S. energy supply priorities.

Most moderate or liberal Republicans (82%) say the U.S. should prioritize alternative energy sources. But conservative Republicans, who represent the party majority, are evenly divided over whether to prioritize alternative energy (49%) or expand fossil fuel production (49%). (Roughly two-thirds of Republicans and Republican leaners – 65% – describe themselves as conservative, while 34% are moderate or liberal, according to an average across four Center surveys conducted this year.)

In addition, a strong majority of younger Republicans (78% of Millennial and Gen Z adults, i.e., those ages 18 to 38) say the U.S. should prioritize alternative energies, compared with 61% of Gen X Republicans and about half of Baby Boomer and older Republicans (53%). GOP women tend to prioritize alternative energy development over expanding fossil fuels (66% to 32%). A smaller share of Republican men prioritize alternative energy development (58%) over fossil fuel expansion (42%).

Compared with 2017, support for prioritizing alternative energy development appears to be up among both Democrats and Republicans. However, in the 2017 survey, which was conducted by telephone, 5% of the public volunteered that both alternative energy and fossil fuels should be equal priorities. These methodological differences could account for the differences in findings over time. ( See the Appendix for details).

How Americans view the impact of climate change depends on where they live

The vast majority of this group says long periods of unusually hot weather (79% of those asked or 49% of all U.S. adults) represent a major local impact of climate change. They also say major effects include severe weather such as floods and intense storms (70%), harm to animal wildlife and their habitats (69%), damage to forests and plant life (67%) or droughts and water shortages (64%). More frequent wildfires and rising sea levels that erode beaches and shorelines also are cited by equal percentages (56% of those asked) as major impacts to their local communities.

Large shares of Americans nationwide who report at least some local impact of climate change cite long periods of unusually hot weather as occurring where they live. Other major effects of climate change, however, tend to vary by region.

Those living in Western states stand out as particularly likely to report increasing frequency of wildfires or droughts/water shortages as local effects of climate change. For example, those who see climate effects locally in Pacific and Mountain states say more frequent wildfires are a major effect of climate change in their area (83% and 78%, respectively), compared with 52% of those in the South, 46% in the Northeast and 40% in the Midwest who say the same.

Proximity to coastline also makes a difference, the survey shows. Respondents living within 25 miles of a coastline anywhere in the U.S. are modestly more inclined to say that climate change is having at least some effect in their community; 67% of this group says this, compared with 60% of those living between 25 and 300 miles inland and 59% of those living 300 miles inland or more.

About seven-in-ten (72%) of those who live within 25 miles of a coastline nationwide – and who also report at least some local climate change effects – cite rising sea levels as a major impact. That experience is reported by fewer than half (45%) of those who live at least 300 miles inland and see at least some local effects of climate change.

A partisan lens also plays a role in these perceptions. Democrats and Democratic leaners (82%) are more likely than Republicans (38%, including leaners) to report at least some effects of climate change on their local communities. 1

Political groups remain divided over climate change causes and policies

Survey respondents also were asked to rate the degree to which they believe natural patterns (such as regular warming and cooling cycles) contribute to climate change.

Roughly a third of adults (35%) say natural patterns in the Earth’s environment contribute a great deal to climate change, and another 44% say natural patterns contribute to some extent.

How surveys ask about climate change matters

The new Pew Research Center survey takes a different approach to measuring people’s beliefs about the causes of global climate change and thus is not directly comparable to past Center surveys . The new questions allow respondents to rate how much human activity and natural patterns in the Earth’s climate cycles contribute to climate change. Past surveys have looked at beliefs about the cause of climate change in three broad categories: those who say climate change is mostly due to human activity, those who say it is mostly due to natural patterns in the Earth’s atmosphere and those saying there is no solid evidence that climate change is occurring, reflecting a prominent position in public discourse more than a decade ago.

Of the two-in-ten who think human activity has little or no role in climate change, most say that natural patterns contribute to climate change either a great deal or some. Just 4% of Americans say that neither human activity nor natural patterns contribute to global climate change at least some.

The findings underscore the degree to which Americans remain divided along party and ideological lines when it comes to their beliefs about the causes of climate change.

A strong majority of liberal Democrats (84%) say human activity contributes a great deal to climate change, with near consensus among them that human activity contributes at least some amount to climate change (96%). In contrast, about half of conservative Republicans (53%) say human activity contributes a great deal (14%) or some (39%) to climate change. Another 45% of this group says humans play not too much or no role in climate change.

Partisan divisions remain when it comes to how Americans perceive the effects of climate change policies on the environment and the economy. (These core differences also were evident in a 2018 Center survey .)

An overwhelming majority of liberal Democrats (81%) say climate policies result in net benefits for the environment, while just 7% say such policies do more harm than good and 11% think they have no effect on the environment. Also, most liberal Democrats (90%) think climate policies either help or have no effect on the economy.

A greater percentage of Millennial and Gen Z Republicans (40%) than those who are Baby Boomers and older (29%) view climate policies as doing more good than harm for the environment, but sizable shares in both generations believe such policies hurt the economy.

Republican men (23%), meanwhile, are about as likely as GOP women (20%) to think that climate policies bring net harm to the environment but are significantly more likely than GOP women (63% vs. 39%) to say that such policies hurt the economy.

Two-thirds of Americans say using fewer single-use plastics makes a big difference for the environment

The survey asked respondents whether they engage in any of five specific actions in their everyday life for environmental reasons. Survey respondents also rated the efficacy of each of these five actions when it comes to helping the environment. (Half of the respondents, selected at random, were asked about their potential actions and half were asked about the efficacy of each action.)

Eight-in-ten Americans (80%) report that they reduce their food waste for environmental reasons. Large shares of the public (72%) say they use fewer plastics that cannot be reused such as plastic bags, straws, cups or reduce their water consumption (68%) to help the environment.

About half (51%) of Americans say they are driving less or using carpools, while about four-in-ten (41%) say they are eating less meat for environmental reasons.

When assessing their overall behavior, one-quarter of U.S. adults (25%) say they make an effort to live in ways that help protect the environment “all the time,” up modestly from 20% in 2016. Another 63% report they live in environmentally conscious ways some of the time. Just 11% say they do not try at all to live in environmentally conscious ways or do so not too often.

Baby Boomer and older Americans are more likely than Millennial and Gen Z adults to report that they try to live in environmentally conscious ways all the time (32% vs. 18%, respectively).

When Americans think about the impact of five types of individual actions, two-thirds (67%) say that using fewer single-use plastics makes a big difference in helping protect the environment. About half of Americans say the same about reducing use of personal vehicles (52%), food waste (52%) or water use (50%). About a quarter of U.S. adults (24%) say that eating less meat makes a big difference for the environment, while 38% say this makes a small difference and another 38% think this makes almost no difference for the environment.

For instance, about the same percentage of Americans who say using fewer single-use plastics makes a big difference for the environment (67%) report using fewer plastics in their daily lives (72%).

But in another example, while four-in-ten Americans (41%) say they eat less meat for environmental reasons, only a quarter (24%) believe doing so makes a big difference to the environment.

The quarter of Americans who say they always try to live in environmentally conscious ways are particularly likely to take these five specific actions to protect the environment.

Altogether, those who see themselves as environmentally conscious perform an average of 3.9 of these actions in their everyday lives, and more than one-third (37%) take all five actions.

This stands in contrast to the small percentage of Americans (11%) who describe themselves as doing either nothing or not too much to live in ways that protect the environment. Among this group, about half (51%) say they reduce their food waste. Fewer than half are using fewer disposable plastics (33%) or reducing their water use (35%), while even fewer are driving less (15%) or eating less meat (18%) for environmental reasons. On average, this group does 1.5 actions to help the environment and just 3% perform all five.

Gender and political affiliations are associated to some extent with whether Americans are changing their daily behaviors for the sake of the environment.

On the other hand, Republican and Democratic women as well as Democratic men are about equally likely to make these efforts to protect the environment, overall.

For example, 54% of Republican men report using fewer single-use plastics for environmental reasons, compared with roughly three-quarters or more of Republican women (74%), Democratic men (75%) and Democratic women (81%). (These figures include Republican- and Democratic-leaning independents.)

A relatively small percentage of Republican men (16%) say they eat less meat in an effort to help the environment, compared with about two and half times as many Republican women (42%). A more modest gender gap exists among Democrats, with closer percentages of men (43%) and women (57%) saying they eat less meat for environmental reasons.

Most Americans favor expanding renewable energy sources, but divides remain over expanding offshore drilling, nuclear power

These findings are broadly in line with previous Center surveys , which found strong majorities in favor of increasing solar or wind power and more mixed views about expanding other energy sources. Support for more nuclear power plants has inched up 6 percentage points since 2016 (from 43% to 49% today). Support for coal mining has declined from 41% to 35% in the same period.

Sizable majorities of both Republicans and Democrats – including those who lean to each party – favor more solar panel farms (86% and 96%, respectively) or wind turbine farms (77% and 92%). More Republicans (59%) than Democrats (41%) support expanding nuclear power plants; support for nuclear power is stronger among conservative Republicans (63%) than among moderate or liberal Republicans (51%).

Long-standing political and ideological divides remain over support for expanding fossil fuel energy sources, including offshore oil drilling, hydraulic fracturing and coal mining. Majorities of Republicans favor expanding these sources, while most Democrats remain opposed. Though, there are some differences within each party. Three-quarters of conservative Republicans (76%) favor expanding offshore oil and gas drilling, as do about half of moderate or liberal Republicans (53%). In contrast, about three-in-ten moderate or conservative Democrats (28%) and just 12% of liberal Democrats support more offshore drilling.

Democrats are largely opposed to expanding either source. For example, a small fraction of liberal Democrats (9%) and about a quarter (23%) of moderate or conservative Democrats favor more coal mining. Support for offshore drilling and for hydraulic fracturing has declined among Democrats in recent years. (Support for coal mining has gone down among both parties since 2016. See the Appendix for details.)

While Democratic views about these energy sources tend to be fairly consistent across generational and gender lines, Republican views are not. GOP Baby Boomer and older generations are more supportive of expanding offshore drilling, coal mining and hydraulic fracturing than are Millennial and Gen Z Republicans. In addition, Republican men are more likely to favor expanding fossil fuel energy sources, especially hydraulic fracturing, than women who identify with or lean toward the GOP. ( See the Appendix for details.)

• The share of Democrats living in Pacific states is higher than the share of Democrats in Mountain states. However, in a logistic regression model controlling for political party, people in the Pacific region are significantly more likely than those in the Mountain region to say they are experiencing at least some local effects of climate change. ↩

Facts are more important than ever

In times of uncertainty, good decisions demand good data. Please support our research with a financial contribution.

Report Materials

Table of contents, how americans view electric vehicles, fast facts about international views of climate change as biden attends un cop26 conference, 67% of americans perceive a rise in extreme weather, but partisans differ over government efforts to address it, most u.s. latinos say global climate change and other environmental issues impact their local communities, on climate change, republicans are open to some policy approaches, even as they assign the issue low priority, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Vegan diet can benefit both health and the environment

There is strong evidence that a plant-based diet is the optimal diet for living a long and healthy life, according to Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health nutrition expert Walter Willett .

In a January 7, 2019 interview on the NPR show “1A,” Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition, said that it’s not necessary to be 100% vegan in order to reap the benefits of a plant-based diet, which has been linked with lower risk of type 2 diabetes , heart disease , and overall mortality. Diets with modest amounts of dairy and fish, and even some poultry and meat, can also be healthy, as long as people steer clear of refined starches and sugar and focus on vegetables , fruits , nuts , seeds, and whole grains.

Willett also said that veganism is good for the planet. That’s because cattle grazing generates massive amounts of methane and carbon dioxide, both of which are potent greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change .

“I think if we really care about the world our children and grandchildren will inherit, we do need to shift toward [a vegan diet],” said Willett. “And the good news is that it’s not just our planet that will be more healthy, but we will be more healthy as well.”

Listen to the 1A interview: Planting A Seed: The Vegan Diet in 2019

Healthy plant-based diet linked with substantially lower type 2 diabetes risk ( Harvard Chan School release )

Vegetarian Recipes for a Healthy Eating Plate ( The Nutrition Source )