Interventions that promote collective climate action
image:
NYU students and faculty attending the 2023 “March to End Fossil Fuels” in New York City, NY.
view moreCredit: N/A
The risks of climate change to human wellbeing are serious. Appropriate mitigation and adaptation require structural changes that are only likely to occur as a result of collective climate action. Danielle Goldwert, Madalina Vlasceanu, and colleagues explored what causes people to take collective climate action in a megastudy capable of directly comparing 17 behavioral interventions. The 17 interventions were derived from an open call to behavioral scientists and advocacy experts and included various framings and arguments such as emphasizing the benefits of climate action on health and jobs or highlighting successful examples of collective action. Over 31,000 US residents, recruited through Connect by Cloud Research, an online data collection platform, were given one of the 17 interventions—or no intervention, for the control group. Participants were then given the opportunity to engage in collective climate action of various kinds. One of the most effective interventions was highlighting successful examples of collective action and emphasizing collective action’s emotional benefits to participants. This intervention increased public awareness advocacy, such as committing to attend a climate march, by ten percentage points and increased political advocacy, such as supporting political campaigns of climate-friendly representatives, by six percentage points. Appealing to the purity and sacredness of “America’s pristine nature” increased financial advocacy by six percentage points. The purity intervention was even efficacious among Republican participants. By contrast, drawing attention to the personal toll of climate disruptions was most effective in increasing personal lifestyle change commitments such as promising to fly less or eat less beef. Framing pro-environmental behavior as patriotic was the intervention most effective for nudging participants to real action: writing a letter to a representative that was actually delivered. According to the authors, the findings can help guide those who wish to galvanize the public to collective climate action.
Journal
PNAS Nexus
Article Title
A megastudy of behavioral interventions to catalyze public, political, and financial climate advocacy
Article Publication Date
27-Jan-2026
How to motivate collective action on climate
One of the most effective ways to move individuals to act together on climate involves showing them how past collective actions have delivered structural change, a new study finds
Stanford University
What does it take to spur individuals to act as a group with a shared purpose on climate change? According to a new Stanford-led study, the key is to show them how collective actions on climate have made a difference and often generate good vibes for participants.
A decade after nearly 200 world leaders agreed in Paris to limit climate change, solar power has become the fastest-growing source of new electricity and dozens of countries have cut emissions while growing their economies. Globally, emissions from burning fossil fuels – the largest contributor to human-caused climate change – have slowed but not declined.
“Structural change is truly what’s needed, but you can’t get structural change without individuals demanding it,” said Madalina Vlasceanu, an assistant professor of environmental social sciences in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and senior author of the study, which appears Jan. 27 in the journal PNAS Nexus.
Vlasceanu and her team recruited more than 30,000 U.S. residents to test 17 different psychology-backed interventions intended to encourage people to join a collective climate action, such as participating in a public demonstration or writing to a representative. The interventions featured videos, images, text, and interactive elements, such as prompts to write a short reflection.
The top intervention provided examples of past collective efforts on climate that have influenced public policy, showed a short video conveying the energy at climate marches, and invited participants to recall or imagine forming friendships through climate action. The intervention closed with a message that joining collective actions can boost happiness and build social connections.
“People really engage in collective action if they are made to feel that it will matter, that it will have an impact and create structural change, while also benefiting them personally,” said lead study author Danielle Goldwert, a PhD student at New York University.
Optimism over anger
After the intervention phase, participants had the opportunity to take or commit to any of three action types. The researchers grouped actions such as signing up for a climate organization’s newsletter, sharing a video calling for collective climate action, or committing to attend climate-related demonstrations into a “public awareness” bucket. They grouped political actions such as signing a petition, writing a letter to a representative, or committing to support “climate-friendly” politicians into a second bucket. Finally, they grouped financial actions such as donating to climate organizations or committing to divest from banks that invest in fossil fuels.
The most effective intervention overall – combining evidence of impact with social and emotional benefits – increased willingness to take public awareness actions by 30% and political actions by nearly 14%. Moral framing around purity and sanctity, emphasizing preservation of America’s pristine places and sacred national monuments, raised financial advocacy by about 13%. Interventions that relied on negative emotions like guilt and anger were less effective on average.
The researchers were surprised to find virtually no change in participants’ commitments to taking collective climate action when interventions emphasized co-benefits of addressing climate change, such as how reducing pollution improves human health or investing in renewable energy leads to economic growth.
“It feels intuitive that co-benefits should motivate people – why wouldn’t we solve climate change if it’s also going to solve health care and the economy? But we found null results in all categories when using this strategy,” Vlasceanu said.
Motivating long-term change
In previous research, Vlasceanu has examined what motivates people to take individual climate actions, such as recycling or eating less red meat. While there is some overlap, the primary motivating factors for individual actions center around how difficult they are to implement. The new study provides evidence that collective climate action may be more motivated by knowledge of how effective the action can be.
“When you want to do something about climate and it’s personal, you primarily do the things that are easy,” Vlasceanu said. “When you want to do something about climate and it’s collective, you definitely want to do the thing that will work.”
The interventions were fairly short – 10-15 minutes each – so the researchers expect they will only create short-term changes in participant behavior. But Vlasceanu and her team are working on creating and testing longer interventions. With support from the Doerr School of Sustainability’s Discovery Grant program, Vlasceanu and co-author Sara Constantino, assistant professor of environmental social sciences, are developing a documentary based on the principles of the most successful interventions. They intend to follow participants over several years to understand effects on behavior over time.
They’ve also created an interactive web tool to help other researchers explore their data. The tool allows users to see which interventions worked best for particular age groups, income levels, political ideologies, and other categories. Vlasceanu hopes it will be useful for her fellow scientists as well as for groups looking to increase climate engagement.
“Climate change is a collective problem and individual solutions alone are inadequate for addressing it,” Vlasceanu said. “This could help practitioners get a flavor of what kinds of messages resonate with their target audience to inspire collective action.”
Vlasceanu is also an assistant professor (by courtesy) of organizational behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business and a faculty fellow at Stanford Impact Labs and the Stanford Center for Affective Science.
Stanford co-authors include Robb Willer, professor of sociology in the School of Humanities and Sciences; Christoph Semken, a former postdoctoral scholar at the Stanford Environmental and Energy Policy Analysis Center who is now an assistant professor at the University of Toronto; Yash Patel, a PhD student in environmental social sciences in the Doerr School of Sustainability; and Ke Fang, a PhD student in psychology in the School of Humanities and Sciences.
Additional co-authors are affiliated with New York University, Princeton University, University of Amsterdam, University of Trento, University of Cambridge, University of Konstanz, Yale University, Copenhagen Business School, University of Canterbury, Global Citizen, Columbia University, London School of Economics and Political Science, University of Queensland, University of California San Diego, Science Po Paris, Slovak Academy of Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Platteville, University of California Los Angeles, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, European University Institute, Franhoufer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Leiden University, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Northeastern University, Polish Academy of Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, Pomona College, University of Bologna, Rochester Institute of Technology, José Luiz Egydio Setúbal Foundation, Boston College, Saarland University, University of Colorado Boulder, and University of North Carolina Wilmington.
This work was funded by the National Science Foundation, a Grantham Research Institute PhD Scholarship, a Cambridge Humanities Research Grant, the Keynes Fund, a CRASSH Research Grant, the Carlsberg Foundation, and an ERC Consolidator Grant.
Journal
PNAS Nexus
Article Title
A Megastudy of Behavioral Interventions to Catalyze Public, Political, and Financial Climate Advocacy
Article Publication Date
27-Jan-2026
New study proposes global framework to safeguard world’s most vulnerable regions amid climate crisis
Ecosystem Health and Sustainability
image:
Major socio-environmental processes in ecologically sensitive regions. Ecologically sensitive regionsare those which are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and humanactivities, most significantly industrialization and urbanization, while theirecosystem services are low or reduced
view moreCredit: Yonglong Lu, Xiamen University
The paper “Prioritizing Sustainable Development of Ecologically Sensitive Regions” was published recently in Ecosystem Health and Sustainability – A Science Partner Journal. The innovative research calls for merging AI with indigenous knowledge and targeting “tipping point” ecosystems to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
A groundbreaking new study urges a global priority shift toward sustainable development in four types of ecologically sensitive regions, warning they are at imminent risk of catastrophic “tipping points” due to climate change and human pressure. The research, lauded by expert reviewers as “timely,” “innovative,” and “forward-looking,” proposes a novel integration of artificial intelligence (AI) with Indigenous knowledge and a unified scientific framework to prevent systemic collapse and guide equitable resilience.
Global Significance: Averting Cascading Crises
The study identifies four critical region types - plateau/alpine systems, resource-depleted regions, super-fast-growing cities, and island/coastal states - as disproportionately vulnerable. Despite their diverse geographies, they share a common trait: high sensitivity to shocks that can trigger irreversible damage with global consequences.
“These are not just local problems,” the study emphasizes. “The Tibetan Plateau’s melting glaciers threaten water security for billions across Asia. The collapse of a resource-depleted city can destabilize entire regions. Coastal overtopping can create climate refugees. Protecting these regions is a linchpin for global stability and achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to water (SDG 6), cities (SDG 11), climate action (SDG 13), life under water (SDG 14), and life on land (SDG 15).”
Theoretical and Methodological Innovation: A Unified Lens and a Novel Fusion
The study’s core innovation is its unified social-ecological systems (SES) analytical framework, which allows policymakers to analyze disparate regions - from the Arctic permafrost to megacities like Shenzhen - through the same lens of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. This approach reveals how ecological fragility and social vulnerability intertwine to create systemic risk.
Its most pioneering proposal is the integration of AI-enhanced monitoring (using satellite data and IoT sensors) with Indigenous and local knowledge. While AI can detect large-scale environmental changes, local communities hold deep, place-based understanding of ecological rhythms and resilience strategies. The study argues that fusing these knowledge systems is essential for accurate early warning and culturally appropriate solutions.
“AI can spot a forest canopy change from orbit, but local knowledge can explain why it’s happening and what it means for the community,” the paper notes. “This synergy is the future of sustainability science.”
Implications for Global SDG Implementation: A Blueprint for Ethical Action
To translate science into action, the study makes concrete recommendations with profound implications for global SDG implementation:
1. Establish a Global Sensitivity Observatory Network: A proposed international network would standardize monitoring of these critical zones using the integrated AI/local knowledge model, providing real-time data for global assessments and local action.
2. Governance for Equity and Justice: The research strongly warns against a purely technological fix. It calls for adaptive governance that empowers local communities, resolves policy conflicts, and ensures long-term political and financial commitment. Success hinges on placing equity and environmental justice at the center of all interventions.
3. An Ethical Framework for Technology: The study directly addresses ethical pitfalls, advocating for clear policies on data sovereignty, the use of understandable “explainable AI,” and participatory design. It insists that communities must own their data and have the right to contest AI-driven decisions affecting their lives and lands.
4. Targeted, Resilient Development: By providing a clear typology of sensitive regions, the framework allows the international community to prioritize funding, technology transfer, and policy support to where it is most urgently needed, making SDG implementation more strategic and effective.
The anonymous reviewers unanimously praised the study's ambition and relevance. They highlighted its “valuable synthesis” of interdisciplinary science and its “commendable” call for knowledge integration. It provides not just a warning, but an actionable roadmap. It argues that safeguarding the world's most fragile socio-ecological systems is the ultimate test of our commitment to a sustainable and just global future.
Journal
Ecosystem Health and Sustainability
Method of Research
Case study
Subject of Research
Not applicable
Article Title
Prioritizing Sustainable Development of Ecologically Sensitive Regions
Article Publication Date
27-Jan-2026
No comments:
Post a Comment