Strengthening the science–policy interface in the climate migration field

Abstract

The question of how climatic changes and hazards affect human mobility has increasingly gained prominence in public debates over the past decade. Despite improvements in the scientific understanding of the subject and advancements in policy, major gaps remain in addressing the humanitarian and socio‐economic challenges related to climate migration. In this perspectives article, we argue for a holistic approach and a closer integration of science and policy involving diverse stakeholders in the process of knowledge generation and implementation. We identify five key challenges characteristic for improving the science–policy interface: (i) conflictual political contexts and the securitization of human migration, (ii) simplistic narratives and framing of the subject, (iii) the uneven production and dissemination of knowledge, (iv) limited data and analytical capacities and (v) a selective topical and methodological focus. To address these diverse challenges, there is a need for more bridging initiatives at the science–policy interface that integrate diverse disciplines, approaches and stakeholders. A closer engagement of researchers and policymakers in the form of multi‐stakeholder exchanges, capacity‐building activities, co‐development and co‐implementation processes and integrative scientific assessments can help bridge the gap to support the inclusive generation of knowledge and the development of comprehensive policies.

A review of climate security risk assessment tools

“…In particular, consideration of local and/or indigenous perspective of the natural environment improves the climate security outcomes (Amador-Jimenez et al,2024; Nalbo, 2024). Thus, funders of CSRAs and related tools should prioritize diverse research partnerships, particularly including GS actors (Hoffmann et al, 2023).…”

“…Sustaining human security in a changing climate is a highly complex and uncertain policy issue with numerous interdependencies, affecting multiple temporal and spatial scales, governance levels, policy fields, and socio-economic contexts. Due to the numerous synergies and trade-offs, appropriate policy and programming choices to achieve the objective are not straightforward, requiring comprehensive assessments (Beaumont & de Coning, 2022; Hoffmann et al, 2023; Kowarsch et al, 2016). Over the past years, academia, think tanks, NGOs, international organizations, and government bodies have produced a wide variety of knowledge about the security challenges posed by climatic hazards.…”

Introduction: Environmental (im)mobilities: Improving the evidence base for effective policy making

“…They provide examples of new data sources and methodologies to address the data and research gaps, including the need for more precision in conceptualizing the problem to be studied (Guadagno & Yonetani, 2022), use of new data sources in early warning of displacement (Martin & Singh, 2022), the lessons of meta‐analyses for future data collection (Nicoletti et al, 2022), and the importance of developing new methodologies to study the relationship between environmental change and (im)mobilities (Fussell et al, 2022). The Special Section articles also address the dissemination and use of data and research to improve policy and practice, highlighting challenges and opportunities for translating scientific knowledge into policy action and effective practices (Hoffmann et al, 2023) and ways to bring the evidence to the attention of key actors (Rosengärtner et al, 2022). Furthermore, the articles identify topics that need to be researched in order to better understand the interconnections between climate change and different forms of (im)mobilities (see Oakes et al, 2023).…”