Urban density is erroneously regarded as the main factor in the spread of COVID-19 in cities. A review of extant literature and findings from our case study of Karachi, Pakistan indicate that inequalities in income, healthcare, and living conditions play a key role in the spread of contagions along with government responsiveness to the pandemic. Moving forward, urban policies need to address these inequalities through changes in housing policies and decentralized governance systems. Cities must adapt to sustainable modes of travel, reduce digital inequalities, and encourage people friendly urban planning to become resilient in the face of pandemics.

COVID-19 has changed how urban residents relate to their cities. Urban centers have become epicenters of disease, which has raised questions about the long-term sustainability of high-density settlements and public transport usage. However, the spread of COVID-19 in cities is incorrectly attributed to urban density.

Using the case study of Karachi, Pakistan, we find that inequality of income, healthcare, and living conditions is a major contributing factor to the spread of COVID-19. Data on positive COVID-19 cases, density, and socioeconomic status were obtained at the Union Council level from administrative districts of Karachi, Pakistan between March 2020, and July 2020. Despite low population densities, low-to-middle income neighborhoods in Karachi had a higher proportion of positive cases. Further, the experience of dense cities such as Hanoi in Vietnam and New York in the US differs regarding the spread of COVID-19. Hence, the government's response to the pandemic is also a major factor in containing the outbreak.

Our findings suggest that a crisis in a city is exacerbated by its inability to take advantage of its density, inequality in the distribution of resources, lack of inclusiveness, and centralized governance mechanisms that make it difficult to respond quickly to situations. Thus, urban planning scholarship and practice should take an interdisciplinary approach to make cities equitable, inclusive, and adaptive.

Cities in the developing world have an opportunity for more resilient renewal in the post-COVID world.

Improving the flow of information between governments and local communities is paramount to achieving effective climate change mitigation and adaptation. We propose five pathways to deepen participation and improve community-based climate action. The pathways can be summarized as visualization, simulations to practice decision-making, participatory budgeting and planning, environmental civic service, and education and curriculum development. These pathways contribute to improving governance by consolidating in governments the practice of soliciting and incorporating community participation while simultaneously giving communities the tools and knowledge needed to become active contributors to climate change adaptation and mitigation measures.

Community participation is considered a key component in the design of responses to climate change. Substantial engagement of local communities is required to ensure information flow between governments and communities, but also because local communities are the primary sites of adaptation action. However, frontline communities are often excluded from decision-making and implementation processes due to political choices or failures to identify ways to make participatory frameworks more inclusive. Climate action requires the active engagement of communities in making consequential decisions, or what we term deepened participation. We propose five pathways to deepen participation: visualization, simulations to practice decision-making, participatory budgeting and planning, environmental civic service, and education and curriculum development. The five pathways identify strategies that can be incorporated into existing organizational and institutional frameworks or used to create new ones. Shortcomings related to each strategy are identified. Reflection by communities and governments is encouraged as they choose which participatory technique(s) to adopt.

Climate action requires the active engagement of communities. Learn five pathways to get started deepening participation.

A widely held belief is that once the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, especially by affluent populations, the necessary support for a politics prioritising ambitious emissions reductions will follow. But consideration of the indirect socioeconomic impacts of warming suggests this could be false hope.

There is some evidence to support the common intuition that, as the direct impacts of warming intensify – particularly in the affluent Global North – a politics ambitious enough to confront the climate emergency may finally find support. However, it seems at least equally likely that the opposite trend will prevail. This proposition can be understood by considering various indirect impacts of warming, including the widening of socioeconomic inequalities (within and between countries), increases in migration (intra- and inter-nationally) and heightened risk of conflict (from violence and war through to hate speech and crime). Compiling these impacts reveals a considerable and highly inconvenient overlap with key drivers of the authoritarian populism that has proliferated in the 21st century. It highlights the risk of a socio-ecological feedback loop where the consequences of warming create a political environment entirely at odds with that required to reduce emissions. Such a future is, of course, far from inevitable. Nonetheless, the risks highlight the urgent need to find public support for combined solutions to climate change and inequality, which go well beyond the status-quo. This is necessary not only for reasons of economic and climate justice, but in order to mitigate political barriers to carbon mitigation itself.

As the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, we may vote for precisely the wrong people.

Engaging with economic questions is crucial for sustainability science to maintain its transformative potential. By recognizing the impact of continuous economic growth on environmental problems, the concept of degrowth proposes a practical approach to achieving sustainability. It urges experts in sustainability to think carefully about the impacts of economic growth, echoing recent scientific findings that question the need for endless growth. Therefore, this article highlights the potential of degrowth as a transformative approach that can expand capacities necessary for socio-ecological sustainability.

This article highlights the potential of degrowth as a transformative approach that can expand capacities necessary for socio-ecological sustainability. By addressing economic growth as a fundamental driver of unsustainability, degrowth offers a concrete pathway toward achieving sustainable outcomes. It calls for sustainability scientists to explicitly consider the role of economic growth, aligning with recent scientific assessments that support a critical stance on growth. Although degrowth and sustainability share common goals such as respecting biocapacity and equitable distribution of ecological budgets, degrowth approaches differ by placing emphasis on national and local solutions and exploring aspects such as technology, time, work, commodity, and property. Engaging with economic questions is crucial for sustainability science to maintain its transformative potential. Growth-critical perspectives such as degrowth and post-growth have the potential to propel sustainability discourses into new, more impactful realms of development.

Engaging with economic questions is crucial for sustainability science to maintain its transformative potential. Degrowth proposes a practical approach for achieving sustainability.

Environmental threats to shelter, livelihoods, and food security are often considered push factors for intra-African human migration. Research in this field is often fragmented into a myriad of case studies on specific subregions or events, thus preventing a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. This paper examines environmental drivers reported in the literature as push factors for human displacement across 32 sub-Saharan African countries between 1990 and 2021. Extensive consultation of past studies and reports with analytical methods shows that environmental migration is complex and influenced by multiple direct and indirect factors. Non-environmental drivers compound the effects of environmental change.

Intra-African environmental migration is a bleak reality. Warming trends, aridification, and the intensification of extreme climate events, combined with underlying non-environmental drivers, may set millions of people on the move. Despite previous studies and meta-analyses on environmental migration within sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), conclusive empirical evidence of the relationship between environmental change and migration is still missing. Here we draw on 87 case studies published in the scholarly literature (from fields ranging from the environmental sciences to development economics and migration research) or documented by research databases, reports, and international disaster datasets to develop a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between environmental changes and migration across SSA. A combination of quantitative, Qualitative Comparative Analyses (QCA), and statistical correlation methods are used to analyze the metadata and investigate the complex web of environmental drivers of environmental migration in SSA while highlighting subregional differences in the predominant environmental forcing. We develop a new conceptual framework for investigating the cascading flow of interdependences among environmental change drivers of human displacement while reconstructing the main migration patterns across SSA. We also present new insights into the way non-environmental factors are exposing communities in SSA to high vulnerability and reduced resilience to environmental change.

Human displacement in sub-Saharan Africa is often associated with the effects of climate change and environmental degradation.

High ambition needed at UN biodiversity and climate conferences to address pandemics, biodiversity, climate change, and health.

The question of how science can become a lever in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals permeates most recent sustainability research. Wide-ranging literature calling for a transformative approach has emerged in recent years. This ‘transformative turn’ is fueled by publications from fields such as sustainability science, social-ecological research, conservation science, sustainability transitions, or sustainability governance studies. However, there is a lack of a shared understanding specifically of what is meant for research to be transformative in this developing discourse around doing science differently to tackle sustainability problems. We aim to advance transformative research for sustainability. We define transformative research and outline six of its characteristics: (1) interventional nature and a theory of change focus; (2) collaborative modes of knowledge production, experimentation and learning; (3) systems thinking literacy and contextualization; (4) reflexivity, normative and inner dimensions; (5) local agency, decolonization, and reshaping power; (6) new quality criteria and rethinking impact. We highlight three tensions between transformative research and traditional paradigms of academic research: (1) process- and output-orientation; (2) accountability toward society and toward science; (3) methodologies rooted in scientific traditions and post-normal methodologies. We conclude with future directions on how academia could reconcile these tensions to support and promote transformative research.

Dominant ways of doing research are not enough to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The typical response of science to dealing with the current local and global sustainability crises is to produce and accumulate more knowledge. Transformative research seeks to couple knowledge production with co-creating change. This paper defines the transformative way of doing research to pro-actively support society's fight against pressing societal and environmental problems. We present six characteristics of transformative research. We reflect on the challenges related to implementing these characteristics in scientific practice and on how academia can play its part.

Sustainability transformation needs to be reflected in science, but what makes sustainability research transformative?

Integrated assessment models (IAMs) are important scientific tools for advising policymakers and the public on climate mitigation. Recent results of modeling exercises relied upon large amounts of techniques that can capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, undoing current and past emissions. I argue that the reliance on such techniques unduly shifts risk to future generations and away from current high emitting countries. From an ethical point of view, this is problematic. IAM studies need to be more explicit about the value positions that evidence of mitigation pathways depends upon and should represent a wider array of plausible value positions.

This paper analyzes the nonepistemic value judgments involved in modeling Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques. The comparably high uncertainty of these techniques gives rise to epistemic risk when large-scale CDR is relied upon in most scenario evidence. Technological assumptions on CDR are thus entangled with nonepistemic value judgments. In particular, the reliance on large-scale CDR implies shifting risk to future generations and thereby gives a one-sided answer to questions of intergenerational justice. This bias in integrated assessment modeling is problematic given the policy-advising role of integrated modeling. Modeling climate mitigation should focus on transforming these implicit value positions into explicit scenario parameters and should aim to provide scenario evidence on the complete array of value-laden mitigation strategies.

The ethics of mitigation pathways, for example in relation to CDR, must be made transparent and plural.

Coastal communities face environmental challenges that put food, energy, and water systems at risk. Although highly interdependent, it is unknown the extent to which coastal resilience research has considered interactions among food–energy–water systems. Twenty peer-reviewed articles were identified that focused on these systems and coastal resilience. Although a nexus approach was not employed universally, these studies most commonly addressed interactions among these systems related to acute hazards. They consistently acknowledged the influence of energy and transportation systems upon the others. As such, planners should incorporate linkages across all three systems during coastal resilience planning especially in relation to acute hazards.

Coastal communities strive for resilience in the face of an ever-growing suite of threats by planning and preparing for numerous uncertain futures. Food, energy, and water systems are highly interconnected and essential to the well-being of coastal communities. However, it is unknown the extent to which coastal resilience research has included food–energy–water nexus considerations. This study used a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed research articles and identified 20 studies that focused on food, energy, and water systems as related to coastal resilience. Results revealed four main findings: (1) the food–energy–water nexus approach was most commonly applied to coastal resilience in the study of US locations and in the context of acute hazards, (2) a direct food–energy–water or other nexus approach was directly employed by only half of the studies, however, all highlighted the relevance of systems interconnections in the context of coastal resilience, (3) the energy system was shown to impact every system to which it was connected, and (4) the transportation system was also shown to impact every system to which it was connected, which suggests that the food–energy–water nexus should be expanded to include transportation systems.

Coastal resilience and food–energy–water nexus literature synthesis finds interconnected systems considerations relevant to resilience.