ERL特刊精选|Focus on Evidence Synthesis for Climate Solutions

20 6月 2024 gabriels



  • Jan Minx,英国利兹大学
  • Lea Berrang Ford,英国利兹大学
  • James Ford,英国利兹大学
  • Neal Haddaway,瑞典斯德哥尔摩环境研究所
  • Felix Creutzig,德国柏林工业大学
  • Robbert Biesbroek,荷兰瓦格宁根大学
  • Biljana Macura,瑞典斯德哥尔摩环境研究所



With the establishment of the Paris Agreement on climate change the world has entered a new era of climate solutions. Political battlegrounds have shifted from debates around the existence and relevance of anthropogenic climate change to how to solve the problem. Yet, our scientific understanding of solutions remains patchy. While climate change assessments as undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been successful in understanding the physical science basis of anthropogenic climate change, learning on climate solutions has remained limited over the last three decades. We still do not really know what climate policies work well under what conditions and why (Minx et al 2017, Berrang-Ford et al 2015) and how to track progress over time and across contexts (Ford et al 2015, Lesnikowski et al 2016).
This is caused by the different structure, organization and scientific practices across the social sciences and humanities that prohibit systematic learning (Ringquist 2013). Above all, there is a lack of a synthetic research culture understood as formal research on research results, including meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Consequently, research results are not accumulated into discrete bodies of knowledge. IPCC authors are confronted with scattered evidence across publications and fields. In fact, for AR6 we expect at least about 300,000 new publications only in the peer-reviewed literature covered by the Web of Science (Minx et al 2017, Minx 2018). In the absence synthetic evidence on mitigation and adaptation options they lack adequate building blocks for their assessment and systematic learning over time. Performing systematic review work is also crucial in times of big literature where the body of scientific publications on climate change is vast and fast growing as selection bias in scientific assessment becomes a growing concern (Sutherland and Wordley 2018, Donnelly 2018, Minx 2018, Haddaway and Macura 2018).

Find out more at the Learning on Climate Solutions workshop( being held from October 15 – 17, 2018 in Berlin.



This focus collection intends to catalyze synthetic evidence on climate solutions for key topics relevant for IPCC AR6. It aims to commission a whole series of reviews using systematic methods for an enhanced understanding of mitigation and adaptation options, i.e. what mitigation and adaptation policies and measures work well under what conditions and why. Submissions should focus on key topic areas from the AR6 outlines of Working Group 2 and Working Group 3 including:

  • Energy demand reductions and lifestyle change
  • Climate and non-climate policies at different scales and their political economy
  • Innovation and technological breakthroughs
  • Long-lived infrastructures and committed carbon
  • Climate finance
  • Tracking adaptation and mitigation progress

Here, “systematic review” refers to a whole suite of formal methods to aggregate evidence into discrete bodies of knowledge by reconciling evidence and understanding sources of variation in a rigorous way. Guided by the principles of reproducibility and transparency they include formal quantitative methods for aggregating statistical and experimental research (such as meta-analysis), methods to review qualitative theory and evidence (such as meta-ethnographies), as well as methods to compile mixed quantitative and qualitative evidence (such as realist reviews). Yet, all approaches share the feature that they follow a clear methodological protocol that involves the following steps: 1) clearly defining the research question; 2) systematically searching defined literature databases for a defined time period; 3) justifying and making transparent sources and selection of the literature; 4) systematically assessing the quality of the selected evidence; 5) justifying and making transparent methods used to synthesize the evidence based; and 6) appraising confidence in the results (Berrang-Ford et al 2015).



Berrang-Ford L, Pearce T and Ford J D 2015 Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research Reg. Environ. Chang.

Donnelly C A 2018 Four principles for synthesizing evidence Nature 558, 361–4

Ford J D, Berrang-Ford L, Biesbroek R, Araos M, Austin S E and Lesnikowski A 2015 Adaptation tracking for a post-2015 climate agreement Nat. Clim. Chang.

Haddaway N R and Macura B 2018 The role of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews Nat. Clim. Chang.

Lesnikowski A, Ford J, Biesbroek R, Berrang-Ford L and Heymann S J National level progress on adaptation 2016 Nat. Clim. Change

Minx J C 2018 A How can climate policy stay on top of a growing mountain of data? The Guardian Guard. Online

Minx J C J C, Callaghan M, Lamb W F W F, Garard J and Edenhofer O 2017 Learning about climate change solutions in the IPCC and beyond Environ. Sci. Policy 77 252–9

Ringquist E 2013 Meta-Analysis for Public Management and Policy (John Wiley & Sons Inc.)

Sutherland W J and Wordley C F R 2018 A fresh approach to evidence synthesis Nature 558, 364–5


Topical Reviews

Climate change mitigation through dietary change: a systematic review of empirical and modelling studies on the environmental footprints and health effects of ‘sustainable diets’

Stephanie Jarmul et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 123014


Framing climate change for effective communication: a systematic map

N Badullovich et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 123002


Indigenous knowledge on climate change adaptation: a global evidence map of academic literature

Jan Petzold et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 113007


Climate implications of electrification projects in the developing world: a systematic review

Marc Jeuland et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 103010


Mapping the evidence of climate change adaptation policy instruments in Europe

Robbert Biesbroek and Aogan Delaney 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 083005


Pathways for resilience to climate change in African cities

Buyana Kareem et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett.15 073002


The impact of environmental changes on the yield and nutritional quality of fruits, nuts and seeds: a systematic review

Carmelia Alae-Carew et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 023002


Climate change induced socio-economic tipping points: review and stakeholder consultation for policy relevant research

Kees C H van Ginkel et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 023001


Perspectives on transformational change in climate risk management and adaptation

Teresa Maria Deubelli and Reinhard Mechler 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 053002


A review of trends and drivers of greenhouse gas emissions by sector from 1990 to 2018

William F Lamb et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 073005


Progress in climate change adaptation research

Anne J Sietsma et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 054038


Communications about uncertainty in scientific climate-related findings: a qualitative systematic review

Astrid Kause et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 053005


Health and migration in the context of a changing climate: a systematic literature assessment

Patricia Nayna Schwerdtle et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 103006


A systematic map of responses to climate impacts in urban Africa

NB Hunter et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 103005


Is the Paris Agreement effective? A systematic map of the evidence

Kilian Raiser et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 083006


Are biodiversity losses valued differently when they are caused by human activities? A meta-analysis of the non-use valuation literature

Anne Nobel et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 073003


Evidence map: topics, trends, and policy in the energy transitions literature

Jiaqi Lu and Gregory F Nemet 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 123003


What are the social outcomes of climate policies? A systematic map and review of the ex-post literature

William F Lamb et al 2020 Environ. Res. Lett. 15 113006


Induced innovation in energy technologies and systems: a review of evidence and potential implications for CO2 mitigation

Michael Grubb et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 043007


The effects on public health of climate change adaptation responses: a systematic review of evidence from low- and middle-income countries

Pauline F D Scheelbeek et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 073001


Coal transitions—part 1: a systematic map and review of case study learnings from regional, national, and local coal phase-out experiences

Francesca Diluiso et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 113003


Systematic map of the literature on carbon lock-in induced by long-lived capital

Vivien Fisch-Romito et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 053004


Coal transitions—part 2: phase-out dynamics in global long-term mitigation scenarios

Jan C Minx et al 2024 Environ. Res. Lett. 19 033002


When adaptation increases energy demand: A systematic map of the literature

V Viguié et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. 16 033004


Environmental Research Letters

  • 2022年影响因子:6.7  Citescore: 10.1
  • Environmental Research Letters(ERL)以金色开放获取模式出版,作者可选择将原始数据作为补充资料与文章一起发表。所有研究人员可以免费获取这些研究成果。ERL汇聚了关注环境变化及其应对的研究团体和政策制定团体的意见,涵盖了环境科学的所有方面,出版研究快报、综述文章、观点和社论。ERL顺应了环境科学的跨学科发表的趋势,反映了该领域相关的方法、工具和评估战略,得到了来自不同领域的广泛贡献。