Search for: All records

While equity in climate adaptation is increasingly recognized, university-based research can inadvertently reinforce inequities. This paper examines a partnership between Homies Helping Homies, a South Philadelphia mutual aid organization, and university researchers to document climate impacts on low-income and marginalized communities. Inequities often arise when research fails to engage communities, overlooks relevant concerns, lacks trust, or misinterprets responses due to insufficient cultural understanding. Mutual aid organizations, inherently community-based, foster resilience and solidarity, addressing unmet needs while building collective trust. Anchored in Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR), we adopt a reflexive, co-produced approach that foregrounds positionality, reciprocity, and shared decision-making. This approach transformed the researcher-community relationships, leveled hierarchies, and addressed the gaps in familiarity among researchers and other actors. By centering everyday experiences of heat, flooding, and resource scarcity, the collaboration revealed how local knowledge and trust networks shape risk perception and adaptive behavior. The case demonstrates how mutual aid organizations can serve as both community resilience infrastructure and methodological partners in producing usable, justice-oriented climate knowledge. We argue that embedding research within reciprocal, care-centered relationships enhances the legitimacy, ethics, and transformative potential of climate risk management, particularly in urban contexts marked by systemic inequity. 

Tipping points have gained substantial traction in climate change discourses. Here we critique the ‘tipping point’ framing for oversimplifying the diverse dynamics of complex natural and human systems and for conveying urgency without fostering a meaningful basis for climate action. Multiple social scientific frameworks suggest that the deep uncertainty and perceived abstractness of climate tipping points render them ineffective for triggering action and setting governance goals. The framing also promotes confusion between temperature-based policy benchmarks and properties of the climate system. In both natural and human systems, we advocate for clearer, more specific language to describe the phenomena labelled as tipping points and for critical evaluation of whether, how and why different framings can support scientific understanding and climate risk management. 

Sea‐level rise sits at the frontier of usable climate climate change research, because it involves natural and human systems with long lags, irreversible losses, and deep uncertainty. For example, many of the measures to adapt to sea‐level rise involve infrastructure and land‐use decisions, which can have multigenerational lifetimes and will further influence responses in both natural and human systems. Thus, sea‐level science has increasingly grappled with the implications of (1) deep uncertainty in future climate system projections, particularly of human emissions and ice sheet dynamics; (2) the overlay of slow trends and high‐frequency variability (e.g., tides and storms) that give rise to many of the most relevant impacts; (3) the effects of changing sea level on the physical exposure and vulnerability of ecological and socioeconomic systems; and (4) the challenges of engaging stakeholder communities with the scientific process in a way that genuinely increases the utility of the science for adaptation decision making. Much fundamental climate system research remains to be done, but many of the most critical issues sit at the intersection of natural sciences, social sciences, engineering, decision science, and political economy. Addressing these issues demands a better understanding of the coupled interactions of mean and extreme sea levels, coastal geomorphology, economics, and migration; decision‐first approaches that identify and focus research upon those scientific uncertainties most relevant to concrete adaptation choices; and a political economy that allows usable science to become used science.