This article uses water to examine how the relationships of ethics to science are modified through the pursuit of Earth stewardship. Earth stewardship is often defined as the use of science to actively shape social–ecological relations by enhancing resilience. The changing relations of science to values are explored by considering how ideas of resilience operate to translate different ways of knowing water into the framework of Earth stewardship. This is not a neutral process, and Earth stewardship requires careful appraisal to ensure other ways of knowing water are not oppressed.

Scientific disclosures of anthropogenic impacts on the Earth system – the Anthropocene – increasingly come with ethical diagnoses for value transformation and, often, Earth stewardship. This article examines the changing relationship of science to values in calls for Earth stewardship with special attention to water resilience. The article begins by situating recent efforts to reconceptualize human–water relations in view of anthropogenic impacts on the global water system. It then traces some of the ways that Earth stewardship has been articulated, especially as a framework supporting the use of science to actively shape social–ecological relations by enhancing resilience. The shift in relations of ethics and science entailed by Earth stewardship is placed in historical context before the issues of water resilience are examined. Resilience, and critiques of it, are then discussed for how they operate to translate different ways of knowing water into the framework of Earth stewardship. The ethical stakes of such translations are a core concern of the conclusion. Rather than reducing different ways of knowing water to those amendable to the framework of Earth stewardship, the article advances a pluralized approach as needed to respect multiple practices for knowing and relating to water – and resilience.

Water resilience is key to Earth stewardship; Jeremy Schmidt examines how it changes relations of science and ethics.

The general public became familiar with the term and definition of zoonosis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of the pandemic, several responses to mitigate zoonotic risk has been put forward. Often cited are stricter biodiversity conservation and wildlife protection but there are also suggestions to educate people who traditionally consume wildlife for food. This implicit condemnation of culture also manifested explicitly in the form of racism especially against Asians during the height of the pandemic. If the world is to avoid a pandemic, it also needs to work against Orientalism and ensure research is inclusive, equitable, and just.

The COVID-19 pandemic widely introduced the term and definition of zoonosis to the general public. More than just a knee-jerk reaction, stricter biodiversity conservation and wildlife protection are now seen as essential strategies in mitigating zoonotic risks while some researchers have called for education campaigns that should discredit ingrained cultural practices such as wildlife consumption. This implicit condemnation of culture may have been initially confined to research papers but it eventually manifested as explicit racism in everyday life during the height of the pandemic, highlighting the need to decolonize Western scientific views on pandemic prevention and to refrain from Orientalism. This Intelligence Briefing makes the case for the inclusion of history and culture as necessary elements in zoonosis research alongside a critical reflection of transdisciplinary approaches. Emphasizing epistemic humility and authentic interest to learn from other actors such as Indigenous communities on the frontlines of human-wildlife interfaces, this Intelligence Briefing recommends the Future Earth Health Knowledge-Action Network to stay the course toward promoting approaches that are ‘transdisciplinary, multi-scalar, inclusive, equitable, and broadly communicated’ in zoonosis research.

History and culture are necessary elements of zoonosis research alongside transdisciplinary approaches.

Climate stabilization requires scaling-up technologies to capture and store carbon. Carbon removal could be very profitable, and some of the agents best placed to benefit are ‘carbon majors’, i.e. fossil fuel companies. We argue that in ordinary circumstances only agents without significant historical climate responsibilities would be entitled to the full benefits from carbon removal. Under non-ideal conditions, carbon majors might be entitled to benefit, provided that no other agent could remove similar quantities of carbon at similar costs. This burden of proof is only likely to be met in countries with poor governance capacities.

Climate stabilization requires scaling up technologies to capture and store carbon. Some of the agents best placed to profit from carbon removal are ‘carbon majors’, especially fossil fuel companies. Yet incentivizing carbon majors to undertake carbon removal poses an ethical dilemma: carbon majors have made significant historical contributions to climate change and have significantly benefitted from such contributions without being made to compensate for resulting climate harm. This is why it seems unfair to reward them with additional economic benefits. However, carbon majors possess the technological skills and infrastructure to upscale carbon removal efficiently. We argue that in ordinary circumstances, only agents without significant climate responsibilities would be morally entitled to fully benefit from carbon removal. Yet under non-ideal conditions, it might be permissible to reward carbon majors if no other agent were capable of removing as much carbon at similar costs and on similar timeframes. We believe this argument faces an imposing burden of proof that is only likely to be met in countries with poor governance capacities. In more favorable circumstances, including those of most OECD countries, rewarding carbon majors without having them pay for their historical climate responsibilities remains impermissible.

Rewarding carbon majors to undertake carbon dioxide removal is unjust due to their historical climate responsibilities. Where possible, governments should empower other agents to remove CO2.

Individuals and institutions seeking to delay climate action use a variety of new discursive strategies, emphasizing the downsides, spreading fatalism, or betting on technological fixes. This commentary highlights the importance of context when investigating discourses of climate delay. Depending on who holds them and why, some discourses can take on different meanings, hinder or enhance climate action.

In this commentary, we propose a review of ‘Discourses of climate delay’ by Lamb et al. (2020). While we agree that discursive strategies of climate delay are taking new forms, we argue that such analysis should go beyond discourses and investigate the context in which they are enunciated to avoid oversimplifying the complexity of the debate about climate (in)action. Discourses, and the context in which they are enacted, hold an important place in climate deliberations and should be carefully analyzed from a multicultural perspective, open to social diversity.

Are all discourses of climate delay discourses of delay? Context matters when debating whether a discourse promotes (in)action.

Greenhouse gas emissions and land use change – from deforestation, forest degradation, and agricultural intensification – are contributing to climate change and biodiversity loss. Important land-based strategies such as planting trees or growing bioenergy crops (with carbon capture and storage) are needed to achieve the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and to enhance biodiversity.

The integrated Land Ecosystems Atmospheric Processes Study (iLEAPS) is an international knowledge-exchange and capacity-building network, specializing in ecosystems and their role in controlling the exchange of water, energy and chemical compounds between the land surface and the atmosphere. We outline priority directions for land–atmosphere interaction research and its contribution to the sustainable development agenda.

Greenhouse-gas emissions from human activities and land use change (from deforestation, forest degradation, and agricultural intensification) are contributing to climate change and biodiversity loss. Afforestation, reforestation, or growing bioenergy crops (with carbon capture and storage) are important land-based strategies to achieve the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and to enhance biodiversity. The effectiveness of these actions depends on terrestrial ecosystems and their role in controlling or moderating the exchange of water, heat, and chemical compounds between the land surface and the atmosphere.

The integrated Land Ecosystems Atmospheric Processes Study (iLEAPS), a global research network of Future Earth, enables the international community to communicate and remain up to date with developments and concepts about terrestrial ecosystems and their role in global water, energy, and biogeochemical cycles. Covering critically important topics such as fire, forestry, wetlands, methane emissions, urban areas, pollution, and climate change, the iLEAPS Global Research Programme sits center stage for some of the most important environmental questions facing humanity. In this paper, we outline the new challenges and opportunities for land–atmosphere interaction research and its role in supporting the broader sustainable development agenda.

Future directions for research into land–atmosphere interactions that supports the sustainable development agenda

While environmental infrastructure is commonly understood as important, there are concerns about issues such as air, noise, and visual pollution, causing ‘Not In My Backyard’ (NIMBY) attitudes. NIMBY-ism can be overcome by minimizing or removing pollution and inviting residents and other stakeholders to enjoy multifaceted benefits of such environmental infrastructure projects. This can foster a new maxim coined as ‘W-NIMBY’ (Why Not In My Backyard?), which manifests in new infrastructure shaped by community needs and supports sustainability agendas. The present intelligence brief provides insights from Japanese cases into how to promote W-NIMBY-ism.

Environmental infrastructure is essential for the common good. Addressing sustainability crises and fostering environmental movements require accelerated deployment of environmental infrastructure. While such infrastructure is necessary, Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) attitudes have remained due to concerns such as air, water, and noise pollution. We present insights from three atypical cases in Japan and argue for the reimagination of the connection between affected residents and environmental infrastructure. The three facilities were designed to be multifunctional and open for the surrounding community to enjoy. We call for participatory approaches and multifunctional use of space that can account for the interests of affected and concerned citizens. Such a conceptualization can lead to ‘W-NIMBY’ (Why Not In My Backyard), manifesting new infrastructure that is shaped by community needs and supports sustainability agendas. Through such approaches, citizens may accept and even take pride in hosting the infrastructure. In this intelligence brief, we argue that refashioning environmental infrastructure provides broader access for local stakeholders and helps in building a connection between citizens and the environmental infrastructure. Through design approaches that foster W-NIMBY, implementation of environmental infrastructure could be accelerated while supporting community needs and the broader sustainability agenda.

Why Not In My Backyard? (W-NIMBY): the potential of design-driven environmental infrastructure to foster greater acceptance among host communities.

To address increasingly pressing social–environmental challenges, the transformative strand of sustainability science seeks to move beyond a descriptive-analytical stance in order to explore and contribute to the implementation of radical alternatives to dominant and unsustainable paradigms, norms, and values. However, in many cases, academia is not currently structured to support and reward inter-/trans-disciplinary and transformative endeavors. This paper introduces a theory of change for the Future Earth Pathways Initiative, and similar initiatives, to help leverage the capacity of sustainability scientists to engage in transformative research.

The increasing body of descriptive-analytical knowledge produced by sustainability science over the last two decades has largely failed to trigger the transformation of policies, norms, and behaviors it was aiming to inform. The emergent transformative strand of sustainability science is a proactive alternative approach seeking to play an active role in processes of societal change by developing knowledge about options, solutions, and pathways, and by participating in their implementation. In principle, scientists can enhance their contribution to more sustainable futures by engaging in transformative research. However, a lack of skills and competencies, relatively unmatured transformative methods and concepts, and an institutional landscape still geared toward disciplinary and descriptive-analytical research, still hinders the sustainability science community from engaging more widely in transformative research. In this paper, the Future Earth Pathways Initiative introduces a theory of change (ToC) for increasing the capacity of sustainability scientists to engage in this type of research. This ToC ultimately aims to build a growing community of practitioners engaged in transformative research, to advance concepts, methods, and paradigms to foster ‘fit-for-purpose transformative research’, and to shape institutions to nurture transformative research-friendly contexts.

What would a theory of change for leveraging the transformative capacity of sustainability science look like?

In this paper, we explore how critically important ecosystems on the land provide evaporation to the atmosphere, which will later fall as precipitation elsewhere. Using a model-based analysis that tracks water flowing through the atmosphere, we find that more than two-thirds of the precipitation over critically important ecosystem areas is supplied by evaporation from other land. Likewise, more than 40% of the evaporation from critically important ecosystems falls as precipitation on other land. We conclude our work by discussing the policy implications for how these critically important ecosystems connect spatially distant wild and working lands via the atmospheric water cycle.

Global ecosystems are interconnected via atmospheric water vapor flows. Land use change can modify evaporation from land, altering atmospheric moisture recycling and potentially leading to significant changes in downwind precipitation and associated ecological impacts. We combine insights on global ecosystem-regulated moisture recycling with an analysis of critical natural assets (CNA, the 30% of global land providing most of nature's contributions to people) to reveal the sources and sinks of atmospheric water cycle regulation. We find that 65% of the precipitation over CNA is supplied by evaporation from other land areas. Likewise, CNA regions supply critical moisture as precipitation to terrestrial natural ecosystems and production systems worldwide, with 44% of CNA evaporation falling on terrestrial surfaces. Specifically, the Congo River basin emerges as a hotspot of overlap between local atmospheric water cycle maintenance and concentration of nature's contributions to people. Our results suggest global priority areas for conservation efforts beyond and in support of CNA, emphasizing the importance of sparsely populated managed forests and rangelands, along with wild forests, for fostering moisture recycling to and within CNA. This work also underlines the manifold benefits associated with achieving United Nations Sustainable Development Goal #15, to sustainably manage terrestrial life and conserve biodiversity.

Critically important ecosystems are essential for connecting distant landscapes via the atmospheric water cycle.

Agricultural research is vital for sustainable food production, amid changing challenges. To address these challenges effectively and achieve sustainable food systems, researchers and funding bodies have to prioritize research efforts. We conducted horizon scanning to determine how rice systems might change by 2050 and to identify key research gaps. The study involved 101 rice experts from 31 countries who rated the research gaps based on novelty and relevance. The top 25 research gaps encompass sustainability, agricultural development, rice crop science (including genetics, breeding, and physiology), and policies. Addressing these research gaps will contribute toward the sustainability of rice systems.

Agricultural research and development (AgR&D) is crucial for increasing productivity while preserving natural capital and ensuring sustainable food security. Traditional AgR&D approaches along monodisciplinary lines often have unintended consequences and trade-offs, which can be avoided through integrated and interdisciplinary approaches. One such approach is horizon scanning. We conducted a horizon-scanning activity to identify research gaps to be prioritized for sustainable rice systems by 2050. The horizon scan involved a global and diverse panel of rice experts (101 from 31 countries). The panel responded to questionnaires on the drivers, projections, and research needs for rice AgR&D. Afterward, research gaps were rated on their relevance and novelty to sustainable rice systems. We identified the top 25 research gaps under four themes: sustainability interactions, agricultural development, genetics, breeding and crop physiology, and governance and policies. These gaps highlight research that needs to be prioritized to achieve sustainable rice systems that enhance resilience, conserve biodiversity, and promote socio-economic well-being.

Rice experts select top rice research gaps for achieving sustainable rice systems by 2050.

Powerful influences on societal knowledge, values, and behavior, artificial intelligence-infused media systems, new and old, currently reinforce the interlinked problems of inequality and unsustainable consumption. This problem is rarely discussed in environmental research and policy, and even less so how it might be overcome. Discussing this consequential blind spot and the power structures that underpin it, this article argues that sustainability researchers should centrally explore the need and possibilities for democratic reconfiguration of the political economies and charters of media systems to achieve sustainability and other broad, inclusive public goals.

Powerful influences on societal knowledge, values and behavior, artificial intelligence-infused media systems, new and old, currently tend to reinforce the interlinked problems of inequality and unsustainable consumption. This problem is rarely discussed in environmental research and policy, and even less so how it might be overcome. Discussing this consequential blind spot and the power structures that underpin it, this article argues that sustainability researchers should centrally explore the possibilities for democratic governance and reconfiguration of the political economies of media systems to foster human wellbeing and just transformations toward sustainability.

Sustainability transformations require ‘signification steering’ and interventions in media systems' configurations.

Information on social aspects of climate change intervention, such as behavioral choices and public acceptance, are often not included in global climate models. As a result, they have been critiqued for not adequately reflecting ‘real world’ conditions. At the same time, these models are important and influential policy tools. To improve these models, calls are being made for more interaction – or integration – between the social science and modelling research communities. Yet, it remains unclear how to achieve this. Responding to this gap, we explore what kind of integration is currently taking place, how, and opportunities for further development.

The importance of social drivers of climate change interventions, or social aspects, is currently underrepresented in computational modelling projections. These parameters are largely excluded from estimates of technical mitigation potential, feasibility, and tools like integrated assessment models (IAMs) and other large-scale models that influence the development of climate policies and notable bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This paper contributes to calls being made within the research community to address this gap and strengthen linkages between modelling practices and social science insights. Using nature-based solutions (NbS) as a framing, we present the results of a critical literature review and interviews with multidisciplinary experts reflecting on the current state of integration around IAMs and opportunities to better capture social aspects within large-scale modelling processes. Our findings confirm the need to incorporate social aspects in IAMs, but highlight that how this happens in practice may depend on context, project objectives, or pragmatic choices rather than conceptual notions about what ‘good’ integration is. Nevertheless, some integration strategies are better than others, and concerns about data limitations and low capacity of the IAM community for engaging in integration can be overcome with sufficient support and complementary efforts from the broader research community.

Integrating social aspects in large-scale models requires complementary efforts from the broader research community.

Enabling local adoption of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) is important to accelerate global efforts to achieve sustainable development. However, local governments have plural perspectives on how to engage with the SDGs. In this paper, we identify three perspectives on how to enable local SDGs based on cases of nine local governments in Australia. We emphasize the need for seeing local SDG adoption as contextualized and actor-driven processes.

Local governments worldwide are taking the initiative to engage with sustainable development goals (SDGs) despite the absence of a globally coordinated guideline on local SDGs actions. With less than a decade until its 2030 deadline, a more targeted and nuanced approach to enabling local SDG actions is needed. In this paper, we argue that there is a need to look at local SDG actions as an actor-driven process where agency, contexts, purpose, and dynamics co-evolve and shape the outcome of the process. Using Q-methodology, we explore different perspectives on what enables local SDGs actions in nine local governments in Australia. Three perspectives in enabling local SDG actions emerged from the study: (1) ‘Enablers should support institutional embeddedness of the SDGs’, (2) ‘Enablers should support stakeholder coordination for the SDGs’, and (3) ‘Enablers should support community engagement for the SDGs’. Each perspective has preferred enablers, contextualized within certain ways of engaging with the SDGs, certain views of the SDGs, and specific local contexts and capacities. This study provides insights to contextualize knowledge in current literature to enable local SDG actions.

Many understand that the local adoption of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) is not a one-shoe-fits-all process, but what are some of the plurality in local SDG adoptions? In this paper, we identify three perspectives on enabling the SDGs based on nine local governments in Australia.

There is increasing evidence of extreme events and irreversible damage occurring faster than expected. Despite inescapable evidence of intersecting crises facing the Earth system and numerous efforts and agreements, global society is not on track to achieve its sustainability objectives. The 10 ‘Must Haves’ initiative aims to identify the pathways of accelerated systemic transformations needed across the globe toward a sustainable and just future where all can thrive on a healthy planet. In this Intelligence Briefing, the authors lay out the rationale for the project, the proposed targets, and set the stage for forthcoming work on action.

This Intelligence Briefing recognizes the urgent need for global-scale transformations to overcome the crises facing humanity. The ‘10 Must Haves Initiative’, conceptualized by The Earth League and the participants of the Global Futures Conference, aims to provide a framework for accelerated transformations to bridge the gap between pledges and action related to global challenges to stay within planetary boundaries and ensure a safe and just future for all. Each ‘Must Have’ represents targets within which a forthcoming report outlines the specific ‘must-do’ actions, relevant actors and considerations for successful implementation. The authors put forth that we must have a limit of global warming as close to 1.5°C as possible by 2050; an immediate halt and reversal of the loss of nature's functions and diversity; just economies that operate within planetary boundaries; equitable access to resources needed for human well-being; governance transformations to stay within planetary boundaries; healthy, safe, and secure food for the global population; the reconnection of human well-being to planetary health; an ethical digital world providing for human security and, a resilient global society ready to respond to planetary crises.

10 ‘Must Haves’ toward thriving future 4 all: global contingency plan toward transformation of unsustainable trajectory.

In decision-making, especially for sustainability, choosing the right assessment tools is crucial but challenging due to the abundance of options. A new method is introduced to streamline this process, aiding policymakers and managers. This method involves four phases: scoping, cataloging, selection, and validation, combining data analysis with stakeholder engagement. Using the food system as an example, the approach demonstrates how practitioners can select tools effectively based on input variables and desired outcomes to address sustainability risks. This method can be applied across various sectors, offering a systematic way to enhance decision-making and manage sustainability effectively.

Decision making frequently entails the selection and application of assessment tools. For sustainability decisions there are a plethora of tools available for environmental assessment, yet no established and clear approach to determine which tools are appropriate and resource efficient for application. Here we present an extensive inventory of tools and a novel taxonomic method which enables efficient, effective tool selection to improve decision making for policymakers and managers. The tool selection methodology follows four main phases based on the divergence-convergence logic; a scoping phase, cataloging phase, selection phase and validation phase. This approach combines elements of data-driven analysis with participatory techniques for stakeholder engagement to achieve buy-in and to ensure efficient management of progress and agile course correction when needed. It builds on the current limited range and scope of approaches to tool selection, and is flexible and Artificial Intelligence-ready in order to facilitate more rapid integration and uptake. Using the food system as a case study, we demonstrate how practitioners can use available input variables and desired output metrics to select the most appropriate tools to manage sustainability risks, with the approach having wide applicability to other sectors.

New method simplifies tool selection for sustainable decisions, aiding policymakers & managers. #Sustainability #DecisionMaking

The popularity of the term polycrisis suggests a growing demand for new thinking about the world's intersecting crises, but loose and haphazard uses of the concept impede knowledge generation. The special issue, ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’, aims to close the gap. This introductory comment first elaborates upon three key contributions of the lead article ‘Global Polycrisis: The Causal mechanisms of Crisis Entanglement’: a conceptualization of crisis as systemic disequilibrium; the distinction between the slow-moving stresses and the fast-moving trigger events that interact to generate a crisis; and a grammar with which to map the causality of crisis interactions. The commentary then explores three key debates around the polycrisis concept: Are we in a polycrisis, at risk of a polycrisis, or neither? Is the present polycrisis truly unique and unprecedented? And where are power and agency in a systemic approach to polycrisis? These ongoing debates suggest promising directions for polycrisis research that could feature in this special issue and advance the field of polycrisis analysis.

This commentary introduces the special issue ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’ by elaborating upon three major contributions of its lead article, ‘Global Polycrisis: The Causal Mechanisms of Crisis Entanglement’, and exploring three key debates surrounding the polycrisis concept. It invites others to contribute to the special issue in order to advance polycrisis analysis, build a community of knowledge and practice, and generate new insights and strategies with which to address the world's worsening crises.

The popularity of the term polycrisis suggests a growing demand for new thinking about the world's intersecting crises, but loose and haphazard uses of the concept impede knowledge generation. The special issue, ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’, aims to close the gap. This introductory comment first elaborates upon three key contributions of the lead article ‘Global Polycrisis: The Causal mechanisms of Crisis Entanglement’: a conceptualization of crisis as systemic disequilibrium; the distinction between the slow-moving stresses and the fast-moving trigger events that interact to generate a crisis; and a grammar with which to map the causality of crisis interactions. The commentary then explores three key debates around the polycrisis concept: Are we in a polycrisis, at risk of a polycrisis, or neither? Is the present polycrisis truly unique and unprecedented? And where are power and agency in a systemic approach to polycrisis? These ongoing debates suggest promising directions for polycrisis research that could feature in this special issue and advance the field of polycrisis analysis.

Inviting contributions and debates to Global Sustainability journal's special issue ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’.

Despite 50 years of good science showing the urgency for action on remedying climate change, the business and political worlds have been exceedingly slow in actualizing climate solutions. Now excess climate-related deaths have mounted to more than 5 million people per year. In this Intelligence Briefing, we identify a few targeted driving actions through economic taxation, ending subsidies, and pursuit of legal cases for climate homicide, among many others. Scientists can play a vital role in providing supporting scientific evidence for policies and prosecutions, and model climate behaviors in their personal and professional lives.

Based on our analysis of the current global situation regarding carbon (CO2) in the atmosphere, we note that the earth has reached a dangerous 420 ppm, compared to staying under the 350 ppm necessary for human sustainability; and carbon concentration in the atmosphere is still climbing, as fossil fuel firms are continuing to delay and dilute regulatory efforts. This paper suggests action on several fronts. Governments can impose improved taxation regimes that involve unitary, windfall, and luxury taxes on carbon and the consumption of natural assets. Cutting subsidies to fossil fuel firms via COP actions can reduce carbon, by making renewable energy more competitive. We suggest recognizing the excess deaths by carbon pollution as homicide and charging responsible companies as was done in the case of asbestos and tobacco. If timely action is not taken, we caution about the potential rise of climate violence of emerging ‘new politics’ and increased global population displacement. Science, government, and business sectors need to collaborate in transdisciplinary ways to produce further actionable knowledge. Scientists can lead by example by reducing their own carbon footprints.

Fund climate action by taxing billionaires, eliminating subsidies, and suing fossil companies for climate homicide. The science community is focused on and committed to systems changes – seeking both natural systems, and social and economic systems to be sustainable. Yet systems that are in-place now producing carbon dioxide (herein aka carbon), are not taking adequate scientifically recommended actions; or worse, they are changing in the wrong directions. How can we move from producing more scientific knowledge to science-based actions, and what can scientists do to support such actions? In this Intelligence Briefing, we suggest some pathways for action.

Plastic harms ecosystem health and human livelihood on land, in rivers, and in the sea. To prevent and reduce plastic pollution, we must know how plastics move through the environment. Extreme events, such as floods, bring large amounts of plastic into rivers around the world. This article summarizes how different flood types (excessive rainfall, high river flow, or floods from the sea) flush or deposit plastic pollution, and how this impacts the environment. Furthermore, this paper also discusses how improved resilience to floods is important to prevent and reduce plastic pollution.

Plastic pollution is ubiquitous in the environment and threatens terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems. Reducing plastic pollution requires a thorough understanding of its sources, sinks, abundance, and impact. The transport and retention dynamics of plastics are however complex, and assumed to be driven by natural factors, anthropogenic factors, and plastic item characteristics. Current literature shows diverging correlations between river discharge, wind speed, rainfall, and plastic transport. However, floods have been consistently demonstrated to impact plastic transport and dispersal. This paper presents a synthesis of the impact of floods on plastic pollution in the environment. For each specific flood type (fluvial, pluvial, coastal, and flash floods), we identified the driving transport mechanisms from the available literature. This paper introduces the plastic-flood nexus concept, which is the negative feedback loop between floods (mobilizing plastics), and plastic pollution (increasing flood risk through blockages). Moreover, the impact of flood-driven plastic transport was assessed, and it was argued that increasing flood resilience also reduces the impact of floods on plastic pollution. This paper provides a perspective on the importance of floods on global plastic pollution. Increasing flood resilience and breaking the plastic-flood nexus are crucial steps toward reducing environmental plastic pollution.

Floods have a large impact on plastic pollution transport, which can be reduced through improved flood resilience