Calls for more broad-based, integrated, useful knowledge now abound in the world of global environmental change science. They evidence many scientists' desire to help humanity confront the momentous biophysical implications of its own actions. But they also reveal a limited conception of social science and virtually ignore the humanities. They thereby endorse a stunted conception of 'human dimensions' at a time when the challenges posed by global environmental change are increasing in magnitude, scale and scope. Here, we make the case for a richer conception predicated on broader intellectual engagement and identify some preconditions for its practical fulfilment. Interdisciplinary dialogue, we suggest, should engender plural representations of Earth's present and future that are reflective of divergent human values and aspirations. In turn, this might insure publics and decision-makers against overly narrow conceptions of what is possible and desirable as they consider the profound questions raised by global environmental change.
This is a preview of subscription content
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Anderson, K. & Bows, A. A new paradigm for climate change. Nature Clim. Change 2, 639–40 (2012).
International Council for Science Earth System Science for Global Sustainability (ICSU, 2010).
DeFries, R. et al. Planetary opportunities: a social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. BioScience 62, 603–606 (2012).
United Nations Environment Programme 21 Issues for the 21st Century (UNEP, 2011).
Future Earth Future Earth Initial Design (ICSU, 2013); http://www.icsu.org/future-earth/media-centre/relevant_publications/future-earth-initial-design-report
ISSC and UNESCO World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments (OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing, 2013).
Responding to the Challenges of our Unstable Earth (RESCUE). Environ. Sci. Policy 28 (special issue), 1–91 (2013).
NASA Advisory Council Earth System Science: A Closer View (NASA, 1988).
Uhrqvist, O. & Lövbrand, E. Rendering global change problematic. Environ. Polit. 23, 339–356 (2013).
Stern, P. C. et al. Managing risk with climate vulnerability science. Nature Clim. Change 3, 607–609 (2013).
Linkov, I. et al. Changing the resilience paradigm. Nature Clim. Change 4, 407–409 (2014).
Brito, L. & Stafford Smith, M. State of the Planet Declaration (2012); http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/state_of_planet_declaration.pdf
Gillings, M. & Hagan-Lawson, E. The cost of living in the Anthropocene. Earth Perspect. 1, 1–11 (2014).
Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).
Seidl, R. et al. Science with society in the Anthropocene. Ambio 42, 5–12 (2013).
Kinzig, A. P. et al. Social norms and global environmental challenges: the complex interaction of behaviors, values, and policy. BioScience 63, 164–175 (2013).
Reid, W. et al. Earth system science for global sustainability: grand challenges. Science 330, 916–917 (2010).
Fischer, J. et al. Mind the sustainability gap. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 621–624 (2007).
Hulme, M. Meet the humanities. Nature Clim. Change 1, 177–179 (2011).
Habermas, J. Knowledge and Human Interests (trans. Shapiro, J. J.) (Beacon Books, 1971).
Arias-Maldonado, M. Rethinking sustainability in the Anthropocene. Environ. Polit. 22, 428–446 (2013).
Barry, J. The Politics of Actually Existing Unsustainability (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).
Ely, A. et al. Innovation politics post-Rio+20. Environ. Plann. C 31, 1063–1081 (2013).
Sarewitz, D. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ. Sci. Policy 7, 385–403 (2004).
Pielke, R. The Honest Broker (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
Corbera, E. & Pascual, U. Ecosystem services: Heed social goals. Science 335, 655–656 (2012).
Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 26, 152–158 (2014).
Pallett, H. & Chilvers, J. A decade of learning about publics, participation and climate change. Environ. Plann. A 45, 1162–1183 (2014).
Kagan, J. The Three Cultures: Natural Science, Social Science and the Humanities in the 21st Century (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).
Stirling, A. Keep it complex. Nature 468, 1029–1031 (2010).
Wynne, B. Uncertainty and environmental learning. Glob. Environ. Change 2, 111–127 (1992).
Brown, J. D. Knowledge, uncertainty and physical geography: towards the development of methodologies for questioning belief. Trans. Inst. Brit. Geogr. 29, 367–381 (2004).
Macnaghten, P. & Chilvers, J. The future of science governance. Environ. Plann. C 32, 530–548 (2014).
Shove, E. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ. Plann. A 42, 1273–1285 (2010).
Whitmarsh, L., O'Neill, S. & Lorenzoni, I. Climate change or social change? Debate within, amongst, and beyond disciplines. Environ. Plann. A 43, 258–261 (2011).
Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of socio-ecological systems. Science 325, 419–422 (2009).
Barnes, J. et al. Contribution of anthropology to the study of climate change. Nature Clim. Change 3, 541–544 (2012).
Spangenberg, J. Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environ. Conserv. 38, 275–287 (2011).
Cutter, S. The vulnerability of science and the science of vulnerability. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 93, 1–12 (2003).
Moss, R. H. et al. Hell and high water: practice-relevant adaptation science. Science 342, 696–698 (2013).
Leach, M. et al. Dynamic Sustainabilities (Earthscan, 2010).
Wilsdon, J. & Willis, R. See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (Demos, 2004).
Brown, M. Science in Democracy (MIT Press, 2009).
Fuller, S. The Governance of Science (Open Univ. Press, 2000).
Jasanoff, S. Science and Public Reason (Routledge, 2012).
Szerszynski, B. & Galagarra, M. Geoengineering knowledge. Environ. Plann. A 45, 2817–2824 (2013).
Meyer, R. The public values failures of climate science in the US. Minerva 49, 47–70 (2011).
Briggle, A. R. Opening the black box: the social outcomes of scientific research. Soc. Epistemol. 28, 153–166 (2014).
Verweij, M. et al. Clumsy solutions for a complex world: the case of climate change. Public Admin. 84, 817–843 (2006).
N.C. acknowledges the Australian Centre for Cultural Environmental Research (AUSCCER) for supporting the conception and completion of this article. D.B. acknowledges the Economic and Social Research Council (awards RES 070-27-0035 and RES 000-27-0174) for supporting research generative of some ideas contained in this article. Finally, the authors thank M. Hulme for his assistance.
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
About this article
Cite this article
Castree, N., Adams, W., Barry, J. et al. Changing the intellectual climate. Nature Clim Change 4, 763–768 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2339
Sustainability Science (2022)
Sustainability Science (2022)
Climate Action (2022)
Nature Climate Change (2021)
Climatic Change (2021)