Skip to main content

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.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Telecoupled systems are rewired by risks

Nature Sustainability volume 7, pages 247–254 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Risks in globally interconnected socio-environmental systems are complex: trade, migration, climate phenomena such as El Niño, and other processes can both redistribute and modulate risks. Here we argue that risk must be investigated not only as a product of these systems but also as a force that rewires them through, for example, supply diversification, trade policy, insurance and other contracting, or cooperation. Two key questions arise: how do individuals and institutions perceive risks in these global, complex systems, and how do attempts to govern risks change how the systems function? We identify several areas for interdisciplinary research to address these questions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Risk governance can modify connectivity in telecoupled systems.
Fig. 2: Diversification and re-concentration of wheat import shares in Egypt.
Fig. 3: Challenges for risk perception in telecoupled systems.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. IPCC The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022); https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964

  2. Adger, W. N., Barnett, J., Heath, S. & Jarillo, S. Climate change affects multiple dimensions of well-being through impacts, information and policy responses. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1465–1473 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van der Ploeg, F. & Poelhekke, S. Volatility and the natural resource curse. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 61, 727–760 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Holling, C. S. & Meffe, G. K. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv. Biol. 10, 328–337 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nyström, M. et al. Anatomy and resilience of the global production ecosystem. Nature 575, 98–108 (2019).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu, J. et al. Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol. Soc. 18, 26 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu, J. Integration across a metacoupled world. Ecol. Soc. 22, 29 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Grothe, P. R. et al. Enhanced El Niño–Southern Oscillation variability in recent decades. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL083906 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hulme, P. E. Trade, transport and trouble: managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 10–18 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Meyfroidt, P., Rudel, T. K. & Lambin, E. F. Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement of land use. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 20917–20922 (2010).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Pelling, M. & Uitto, J. I. Small island developing states: natural disaster vulnerability and global change. Environ. Hazards 3, 49–62 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Almunia, M., Antràs, P., Lopez-Rodriguez, D. & Morales, E. Venting out: exports during a domestic slump. Am. Econ. Rev. 111, 3611–3662 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Claessens, S., Tong, H. & Wei, S.-J. From the financial crisis to the real economy: using firm-level data to identify transmission channels. J. Int. Econ. 88, 375–387 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Farrell, H. & Newman, A. L. Weak links in finance and supply chains are easily weaponized. Nature 605, 219–222 (2022).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schweitzer, F. et al. Economic networks: the new challenges. Science 325, 422–425 (2009).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kasperski, S. & Holland, D. S. Income diversification and risk for fishermen. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 2076–2081 (2013).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Deines, J. M., Liu, X. & Liu, J. Telecoupling in urban water systems: an examination of Beijing’s imported water supply. Water Int. 41, 251–270 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hoekstra, A. Y. & Mekonnen, M. M. Imported water risk: the case of the UK. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 055002 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Simpson, N. P. et al. A framework for complex climate change risk assessment. One Earth 4, 489–501 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. Keys, P. W. et al. Anthropocene risk. Nat. Sustain. 2, 667–673 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chaves, L. S. M. et al. Global consumption and international trade in deforestation-associated commodities could influence malaria risk. Nat. Commun. 11, 1258 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Qin, Y. et al. Snowmelt risk telecouplings for irrigated agriculture. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 1007–1015 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gephart, J. A., Rovenskaya, E., Dieckmann, U., Pace, M. L. & Brännström, Å. Vulnerability to shocks in the global seafood trade network. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 035008 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. Davis, K. F., Downs, S. & Gephart, J. A. Towards food supply chain resilience to environmental shocks. Nat. Food 2, 54–65 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Centeno, M. A., Nag, M., Patterson, T. S., Shaver, A. & Windawi, A. J. The emergence of global systemic risk. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 41, 65–85 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Helbing, D. Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature 497, 51–59 (2013).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Walker, B. et al. Response diversity as a sustainability strategy. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01048-7 (2023).

  28. Ciullo, A., Strobl, E., Meiler, S., Martius, O. & Bresch, D. N. Increasing countries’ financial resilience through global catastrophe risk pooling. Nat. Commun. 14, 922 (2023).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Cole, S., Giné, X. & Vickery, J. How does risk management influence production decisions? Evidence from a field experiment. Rev. Financ. Stud. 30, 1935–1970 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Butsic, V., Kelly, M. & Moritz, M. A. Land use and wildfire: a review of local interactions and teleconnections. Land 4, 140–156 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Muhammad, A. Source diversification and import price risk. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 94, 801–814 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Atreya, A., Ferreira, S. & Michel-Kerjan, E. What drives households to buy flood insurance? New evidence from Georgia. Ecol. Econ. 117, 153–161 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rueda, X., Garrett, R. D. & Lambin, E. F. Corporate investments in supply chain sustainability: selecting instruments in the agri-food industry. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2480–2492 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Handley, K. & Limão, N. Policy uncertainty, trade, and welfare: theory and evidence for China and the United States. Am. Econ. Rev. 107, 2731–2783 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Headey, D. & Fan, S. Anatomy of a crisis: the causes and consequences of surging food prices. Agric. Econ. 39, 375–391 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Liberman, N. & Trope, Y. The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science 322, 1201–1205 (2008).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Spence, A., Poortinga, W. & Pidgeon, N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 32, 957–972 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Akerlof, K., Maibach, E. W., Fitzgerald, D., Cedeno, A. Y. & Neuman, A. Do people ‘personally experience’ global warming, and if so how, and does it matter? Glob. Environ. Change 23, 81–91 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. McDonald, R. I., Chai, H. Y. & Newell, B. R. Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: an integrative review. J. Environ. Psychol. 44, 109–118 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Demski, C., Capstick, S., Pidgeon, N., Sposato, R. G. & Spence, A. Experience of extreme weather affects climate change mitigation and adaptation responses. Climatic Change 140, 149–164 (2017).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Earle, T. C. Trust in risk management: a model-based review of empirical research. Risk Anal. 30, 541–574 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Siegrist, M. Trust and risk perception: a critical review of the literature. Risk Anal. 41, 480–490 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Boin, A., ‘t Hart, P., Stern, E. & Sundelius, B. The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership under Pressure (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016); https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339756

  44. Fridman, A., Gershon, R. & Gneezy, A. COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy: a longitudinal study. PLoS ONE 16, e0250123 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Sisco, M. R. et al. Examining evidence for the finite pool of worry and finite pool of attention hypotheses. Glob. Environ. Change 78, 102622 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mrkva, K., Cole, J. C. & Van Boven, L. Attention increases environmental risk perception. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 150, 83–102 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Blaywais, R. & Rosenboim, M. The effect of cognitive load on economic decisions. Manag. Decis. Econ. 40, 993–999 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hinson, J. M., Jameson, T. L. & Whitney, P. Impulsive decision making and working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 29, 298–306 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Enke, B. What you see is all there is. Q. J. Econ. 135, 1363–1398 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Carlson, A. K., Taylor, W. W., Liu, J. & Orlic, I. Peruvian anchoveta as a telecoupled fisheries system. Ecol. Soc. 23, 35 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Jarrett, U., Mohaddes, K. & Mohtadi, H. Oil price volatility, financial institutions and economic growth. Energy Policy 126, 131–144 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Marshal, I. & Solomon, I. D. Nigeria economy and the politics of recession: a critique. J. Adv. Econ. Financ. 2, 258–267 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Klein, C. T. F. & Helweg-Larsen, M. Perceived control and the optimistic bias: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Health 17, 437–446 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Chuang, Y. & Schechter, L. Stability of experimental and survey measures of risk, time, and social preferences: a review and some new results. J. Dev. Econ. 117, 151–170 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Shum, M. & Xin, Y. Time-varying risk aversion? Evidence from near-miss accidents. Rev. Econ. Stat. 104, 1317–1328 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Coibion, O., Gorodnichenko, Y., Kumar, S. & Ryngaert, J. Do you know that i know that you know…? Higher-order beliefs in survey data. Q. J. Econ. 136, 1387–1446 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Dingel, J. I., Meng, K. C. & Hsiang, S. M. Spatial Correlation, Trade, and Inequality: Evidence from the Global Climate Working Paper (NBER, 2019); https://doi.org/10.3386/w25447

  58. Blommestein, H. J. Difficulties in the pricing of risks in a fast-moving financial landscape (a methodological perspective). J. Financ. Transform. 22, 23–32 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Eckel, C. C. & Grossman, P. J. in Handbook of Experimental Economics Results Vol. 1 (eds Plott, C. R. & Smith, V. L.) 1061–1073 (Elsevier, 2008).

  60. Adegbite, O. O. & Machethe, C. L. Bridging the financial inclusion gender gap in smallholder agriculture in Nigeria: an untapped potential for sustainable development. World Dev. 127, 104755 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. The Status of Women in Agrifood Systems (FAO, 2023); https://doi.org/10.4060/cc5343en

  62. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E. & Slovic, P. The Social Amplification of Risk (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).

  63. Wolf, J., Adger, W. N., Lorenzoni, I., Abrahamson, V. & Raine, R. Social capital, individual responses to heat waves and climate change adaptation: an empirical study of two UK cities. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 44–52 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Calvo, G. A. & Mendoza, E. G. Rational contagion and the globalization of securities markets. J. Int. Econ. 51, 79–113 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Lynham, J. Identifying peer effects using gold rushers. Land Econ. 93, 527–548 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Grimm, V. & Mengel, F. Experiments on belief formation in networks. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 18, 49–82 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Vitale, C. Understanding the shift toward a risk-based approach in flood risk management, a comparative case study of three Italian rivers. Environ. Sci. Policy 146, 13–23 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Huang, L. et al. Effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the risk perception of residents near a nuclear power plant in China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 19742–19747 (2013).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Comola, M. & Prina, S. Treatment effect accounting for network changes. Rev. Econ. Stat. 103, 597–604 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Allen, T. & Atkin, D. Volatility and the gains from trade. Econometrica 90, 2053–2092 (2022).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  71. Lamperti, F., Dosi, G., Napoletano, M., Roventini, A. & Sapio, A. Faraway, so close: coupled climate and economic dynamics in an agent-based integrated assessment model. Ecol. Econ. 150, 315–339 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Dou, Y. et al. Land-use changes in distant places: implementation of a telecoupled agent-based model. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 23, 11 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. O’Sullivan, D. et al. Strategic directions for agent-based modeling: avoiding the YAAWN syndrome. J. Land Use Sci. 11, 177–187 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Schaffer-Smith, D. et al. Network analysis as a tool for quantifying the dynamics of metacoupled systems: an example using global soybean trade. Ecol. Soc. 23, 3 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Carlson, A. K., Young, T., Centeno, M. A., Levin, S. A. & Rubenstein, D. I. Boat to bowl: resilience through network rewiring of a community-supported fishery amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 034054 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  76. Lucas, R. E. Econometric policy evaluation: a critique. Carnegie Rochester Conf. Ser. Public Policy 1, 19–46 (1976).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Beckage, B., Moore, F. C. & Lacasse, K. Incorporating human behaviour into Earth system modelling. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 1493–1502 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

S.J.M., L.E.D. and M.T.H. acknowledge support from the University of Colorado Research and Innovation Office. S.J.M. and U.J. acknowledge support from the United States National Science Foundation, Award #2314999.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Studies, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

    Steve J. Miller & Amanda R. Carrico

  2. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

    Laura E. Dee & Meghan T. Hayden

  3. Department of Economics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

    Uchechukwu Jarrett

  4. Global Water Security Center, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA

    Kate A. Brauman

  5. School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Eréndira Aceves-Bueno

Authors
  1. Steve J. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura E. Dee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meghan T. Hayden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Uchechukwu Jarrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amanda R. Carrico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kate A. Brauman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eréndira Aceves-Bueno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.J.M., L.E.D. and E.A.-B. identified the initial concept. M.T.H. conducted the initial literature review. S.J.M. led paper writing and revisions. L.E.D., M.T.H., U.J., A.R.C., K.A.B. and E.A.-B. contributed to writing and revision according to their areas of expertise.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve J. Miller.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miller, S.J., Dee, L.E., Hayden, M.T. et al. Telecoupled systems are rewired by risks. Nat Sustain 7, 247–254 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01273-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01273-2

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

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

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing