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. 

Abstract Harnessing scientific research to address societal challenges requires careful alignment of expertise, resources, and research questions with real‐world needs, timelines, and constraints. In the case of place‐based research, studies can avoid misalignment when grounded in the realities of specific locations and conducted in collaboration with knowledgeable local partners. But literature on best practices for such research is underdeveloped on how to identify appropriate locations and partners. In practice, these research‐design choices are sometimes made based on convenience or prior experience—a strategy labeled opportunism. Here we examine a deliberative and exploratory approach in contrast to default opportunism. We introduce a general framework for scoping place‐based opportunities for research and engagement. We apply the framework to identify climate‐adaptation planning decisions, rooted in specific communities, around which to organize research and engagement in a large project addressing coastal climate risks in the Northeast US. The framework asks project personnel to negotiate explicit project goals, identify corresponding evaluation criteria, and assess opportunities against criteria within an iterative cycle of listening to needs, assessing options, prioritizing actions, and refining goals. In the application, we elicit a broad range of objectives from project personnel. We find that a structured process offers opportunities to collaboratively operationalize notions of equity and justice. We find some objectives in tension—including equity objectives—indicating trade‐offs that other projects may also need to navigate. We reflect on challenges encountered in the application and on near‐term costs and benefits of the exploratory process. 

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.