While equity in climate adaptation is increasingly recognized, university-based research can inadvertently reinforce inequities. 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.

A new article, co-authored by Rutgers researchers and other university colleagues and Philadelphia-based mutual-aid group, Homies Helping Homies (HHH), examines how a research partnership can fundamentally reshape climate adaptation research practices by shifting the focus from traditional, top-down academic approaches to equitable, action-oriented, and community-engaged co-production of knowledge.

The article, From Transactional to Transformative: Evolving Research Practices Through Mutual Aid Collaboration, shows that such a transformation prioritizes the needs and expertise of vulnerable communities, making research outcomes more relevant and implementable, according to the study.

It was co-authored by post-doc researcher Manasa Bollempalli in the Department of Human Ecology, along with Rutgers university co-authors Nuzhat Fatema, doctoral student in the Department of Geography; Amy Li, doctoral student in the Department of Anthropology; and Victoria Ramenzoni, associate professor in the Department of Human Ecology; along with Kevin Bass and Anthony Adams, of Homies Helping Homies Research Collective; Yvonne Appiah Dadson, doctoral student, and DeeDee Bennett-Gayle, associate professor in the College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security and Cybersecurity, University at Albany; Elizabeth Gilmore, associate professor at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.

The research is part of the work being undertaken by the  Household Decision-Making Team at the Megalopolitan Coastal Transformation Hub (MACH) led by Rutgers. MACH is a consortium of 13 institutions that brings together academics, policymakers, and community leaders to research climate change impacts and develop effective, evidence-based responses in the Philadelphia–New Jersey–New York region and beyond.

Rutgers post-doc researcher Manasa Bollempalli in the Department of Human Ecology.

In the Q&A below, corresponding author and post-doc researcher Manasa Bollempalli shared the goals of the research study and how mutual aid functions not just as community support but as a methodological and ethical framework for equitable, justice-oriented climate research.

Why does this type of research matter?

Climate adaptation research often reinforces inequities by relying on top-down, researcher-defined questions and weak community engagement. Mutual aid organizations, rooted in daily relationships of reciprocity, care, and grassroots action, provide trust-based and culturally grounded access to communities that conventional research struggles to reach. This collaborative approach reveals how marginalized residents experience climate hazards such as heat, flooding, resource scarcity, and water crises in ways that differ dramatically from academic framings.

What are the key findings of this collaborative research?

Mutual aid reshapes research access, trust and relevance: Partnering with HHH provided crucial entry points into low-income and immigrant communities, enabling interviews, participant observation, and relationship-building that traditional outreach failed to produce

Researchers’ positionality and methods transformed: Participation in mutual aid activities required researchers to adopt solidarity-based, non-hierarchical roles, standing in food-distribution lines, packing groceries, helping residents, changing how residents perceived them and how data could be gathered

Community members discuss climate through vernacular risks: Residents rarely used terms like “climate change.” They responded instead to questions about  street flooding, disrupting wages, basement water damage, inability to afford cooling, food insecurity, and infrastructure failure. This reframed how researchers designed surveys, interviews, and coding categories.

Deep inequities shape climate preparedness: Residents face constrained decision-making due to poverty, lack of institutional support, and distrust of government. Many just make decisions on the spot during crises due to limited time, resources, and awareness of available aid

Mutual aid is both a resilience system and a research practice: HHH’s horizontal, care-centered model created “transformative spaces” for knowledge co-production, spaces where researchers must confront ethical tensions around power, extraction, and reciprocity.

What new finding did the research unearth?

The paper explicitly argues that mutual aid should be recognized as methodological infrastructure for climate adaptation research. It documents a rare case where community partners influenced research design, recruitment, interview content, data interpretation, and emerging outreach strategies. It reveals structural flaws in academic funding systems that do not support the time, labor, or relational work required for equitable community collaboration.

What are the implications for practice?

For researchers: Center reciprocity, shared decision-making, and context-specific recruitment; Use vernacular risks rather than scientific jargon when engaging marginalized populations; Build reflexivity and positionality work into every research stage.

For policymakers and institutions: Genuine community-based research requires time, resources, and flexible funding structures; Climate programs must incorporate insights from populations who often have the least access to preparedness resources and formal support systems.

For community organizations: Mutual aid groups can serve as critical bridges between frontline communities and research institutions while also shaping policy-relevant knowledge.

 

Image by mbruxelle, licensed via Adobe Stock (Education License)

A new study published in Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health reveals how cultural values and community ties shape the health, resilience, and well-being of immigrant communities—especially when facing natural disasters that are becoming more frequent and intense due to climate change. Victoria Ramenzoni, associate professor in the Department of Human Ecology and an affiliate of the Rutgers Climate and Energy Institute, is a co-author on the study. You can read the full study here.

The authors explored how immigrant groups from different parts of the world define and experience health—not just as the absence of illness, but as something deeply connected to social relationships, cultural traditions, work opportunities, and access to nature. Participants described health in ways that often reflected their cultural heritage: some communities emphasized harmony with nature and spiritual well-being, while others focused on economic security or strong family networks.

When it comes to disasters like hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and droughts, these cultural perspectives strongly influence response strategies. For example, some groups relied heavily on extended family networks to share resources and provide shelter, while others turned to faith-based organizations for support. In certain communities, traditional ecological knowledge guided decisions about safe relocation areas or food storage practices during crises. These approaches often differed from standardized emergency plans, highlighting the need for culturally adapted disaster response systems.

Climate is now widely recognized as a major driver of global migration and population mobility. As changing weather patterns and extreme events force more people to move, understanding how cultural perspectives influence health and disaster response becomes critical for building resilience.

These findings carry important lessons for policymakers, health agencies, and community organizations. By tailoring health programs and disaster response plans to match the cultural realities of immigrant populations, leaders can improve trust, increase participation in preparedness efforts, and ensure resources are distributed more equitably.

This article was written with assistance from Artificial Intelligence, was reviewed and edited by Oliver Stringham, and was reviewed by Victoria Ramenzoni, a co-author on the study.

 

L-R: Distinguished Professor Robert Kopp, Distinguished Professor William Hallman, Professor Cymie Payne and Professor Pamela McElwee field questions during the audience Q&A session.

On September 29, the Rutgers Climate and Energy Institute (RCEI), in collaboration with the Department of Human Ecology, hosted a forum at which Rutgers experts discussed recent U.S. government-led efforts to repeal greenhouse gas regulations in the United States and the scientific community’s rapid responses to these efforts.

The forum featured RCEI affiliates, William Hallman, Distinguished Professor, Pamela McElwee, professor, and Cymie Payne, professor—all in the Department of Human Ecology—and Robert Kopp, Distinguished Professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences.

Opening remarks were delivered by McElwee, followed by an overview by Payne of the 2009 endangerment finding—the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) evidence-based finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare of current and future generations and that emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.  

Payne explained that EPA’s recent proposal to rescind the endangerment finding would remove EPA’s legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. She noted that  arguments being made by the Trump Administration are similar to those that had been made by the Bush Administration that greenhouse gases are not air pollutants under the Clean Air Act—an argument that was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007, which also said the Clean Air Act obligates EPA to curb pollutants it determines endanger public health and welfare by contributing to climate change. 

Professor Cymie Payne poses a question to the audience.

The rulemaking proposal to repeal the finding was published in August 2025 and the public comment period closed in September. EPA will next have to explain how its proposal responds to the comments. Payne explained that to sustain the argument that EPA lacks the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, “the Supreme Court would have to overrule itself” from the 2007 Supreme Court case but noted the 2007 Supreme Court case was a 5-4 decision with three of the dissenters in the 2007 case still on the Court while none of the justices in the majority at the time remain. If the repeal is upheld (meaning the courts side with the EPA), Payne noted that Congress would need to pass specific climate change legislation in order for the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to the legal argument, EPA argues that the scientific evidence is too uncertain and that the scientific basis for the 2009 finding is flawed. Both Professor Kopp and Professor Hallman spoke to two important responses within the scientific community to address the efforts to unwind the endangerment finding—one self-organized by 85 climate scientists, the other organized through the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 

In July 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, a report that the EPA featured and relied upon in its rule proposal. In response, Professors Kopp and McElwee joined with more than 85 scientists from the United States and around the world to co-author a 450-page compendium rebutting the DOE report. Kopp, who also served as co-editor of the compendium, noted that the DOE report was full of misunderstandings of the scientific literature, had cherry-picked evidence, omitted contrary evidence, did not comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and was not peer reviewed by independent experts following a rigorous progress as the Information Quality Act requires for Highly Influential Scientific Assessments. 

Kopp also noted that the DOE report critically omits climate change impacts on natural systems and that human well-being is intertwined with the stability of natural systems from safe food and clean water to disease regulation, mental health and cultural identity. Of note also was the lack of  discussion within the DOE report on the disruptive effects of climate change on wildlife and biodiversity that are altering predator-prey relationships, increasing disease risks, and destabilizing ecosystems, and also result in economic impacts. He cited examples of reduced pollination and aquaculture damage, among other impacts. A section of the scientists’ response co-written by McElwee particularly focused on these absences. 

Hallman relayed results of a September 2025 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine study, Effects of Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions on U.S. Climate, Health, and Welfare, which was undertaken to inform the EPA following its call for public comments as it considers the status of the endangerment finding. The study focused on evidence gathered by the scientific community since 2009—the year of the endangerment finding—and noted that EPA’s 2009 finding that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases threaten human health and welfare was accurate, has stood the test of time, is reinforced by even stronger evidence, and that much of the understanding of climate change that was uncertain or tentative in 2009 has now been resolved by scientific research.   

Hallman explained that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was established through an Act of Congress and signed into law by President Lincoln in 1863 to provide independent objective advice to the U.S. government on matters of science and technology whenever called upon. Further, Hallman explained that over the years NAS has been merged with the National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Medicine and that together the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine “has been a cornerstone of U.S. science policy bridging government needs with independent scientific expertise.”  

A recording of this panel is available here. 

 

(From left) Researchers Robert Kopp, Pamela McElwee and Kevon Rhiney have been named as lead authors on a report that will be the world’s leading and most authoritative assessment on the state of climate change. Photo credit: Michelle Cody.

A United Nations-affiliated science panel has named three Rutgers scientists as lead authors on a report that will serve as the next worldwide assessment of climate change.

Rutgers University-New Brunswick faculty members Robert Kopp, Pamela McElwee and Kevon Rhiney were selected to contribute to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Seventh Assessment Report. The reports produced by the panel are considered the world’s leading and most definitive assessments on the state of climate change.

Rutgers faculty are among 664 experts from 111 nations to participate as authors and editors in the IPCC’s three working groups. Working Group I deals with the physical science basis of climate change, Working Group II assesses impacts, adaptation and vulnerability and Working Group III analyzes the mitigation of climate change. 

“The IPCC delivers the authoritative global assessment of the scientific, technical and socioeconomic dimensions of climate change,” said Julie Lockwood, a Rutgers ecologist who is director of the Rutgers Climate and Energy Institute (RCEI). “Lead authors are selected through a rigorous international process that evaluates nominees based on their scientific expertise and publication record.”

Lockwood noted that Kopp, McElwee and Rhiney are affiliates of RCEI. 

“We are very proud to have them represent us and the rest of the Rutgers community over the years of sustained commitment their positions require,” said Lockwood, who also is a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources in the Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences.

Kopp, a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences within the Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences, was named a lead author of Working Group I’s report Chapter 8, to be titled “Abrupt Change, Low-Likelihood High-Impact Events, and Critical Thresholds, Including Tipping Points, in the Earth System.”

Kopp’s research focuses on past and future sea-level change, the interactions between physical climate change and the economy, the use of climate risk information to inform decision-making and the role of higher education in supporting societal climate risk management. Kopp, who also is director of the Megalopolitan Coastal Transformation Hub, was a lead author of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report.

McElwee, a professor in the Department of Human Ecology within the Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, will be a lead author of Chapter 5, titled “Enablers and Barriers,” of the Working Group III report. She studies the socioecological impacts of global environmental problems, applying her expertise in biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services and climate change mitigation and adaptation in terrestrial socio-ecological systems. 

For the IPCC’s earlier Sixth Assessment Report cycle, McElwee was a lead author of the Special Report on Climate Change and Land. Recently, McElwee was the co-chair of another international report, the Nexus Assessment prepared by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

The organization, a frequent partner of the IPCC, adopted its report in December 2024. The document offered decision makers worldwide a comprehensive assessment of the interplay between biodiversity, water, food, health and climate change and explored more than five dozen potential responses to address issues raised in the study. 

Rhiney, an associate professor in the Department of Geography in the Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences, will be a lead author of Chapter 13, titled “Small Islands,” of the Working Group II report. Rhiney also served as a contributing author for the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C (SR1.5), one of three special reports published during the Sixth Assessment cycle.

Rhiney is a broadly trained human-environment geographer whose interdisciplinary research explores the social, economic and environmental justice implications of global environmental change for small islands and developing countries, particularly in the Caribbean. Rhiney’s key research themes include smallholder farmer vulnerability to climate and market forces, adaptation strategies in agriculture, and the socio-political dynamics of post-disaster recovery. Smallholder farmers, considered vital to global food security because they produce a significant portion of the world’s food, cultivate crops or rear livestock on a limited scale, typically managing less than 5 acres of land. 

The Rutgers faculty members and other experts were nominated by governments and IPCC observer organizations and selected by the IPCC Bureau from a global pool of 3,771 nominees.

The panel is the pre-eminent global body for assessing science related to climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide political leaders with periodic scientific assessments concerning climate change, its implications and risks and to put forward adaptation and mitigation strategies.  

It also has a Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories that develops methodologies for measuring emissions and removals.

Rutgers is also playing a vital role in providing support to U.S. researchers who wished to apply to participate in the IPCC report. McElwee chairs the new U.S. Academic Alliance for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (USAA-IPCC) and Kopp is a member of its steering committee. The USAA-IPCC nominated 282 scientists for roles in preparing the IPCC report, making up for the U.S. federal government, which normally runs this process. No U.S. government nominations were made by the Trump Administration this cycle. 

The appointed authors will begin their work on assessing relevant literature and preparing drafts of their respective reports, as agreed upon by the IPCC at its 62nd session in Hangzhou, China, in February. 

The three IPCC Working Group reports are expected to be approved in mid-2028, while the Synthesis Report that will incorporate and conclude the entire cycle will be approved by late 2029.

“The appointment of the author teams means that work on the Seventh Assessment Report on the state of climate science can now begin,” said IPCC Chair Jim Skea. “The author teams, drawn from several thousand excellent nominations, ensure outstanding expertise across a range of disciplines.”

This article first appeared in Rutgers Today.

 

Professor Pamela McElwee leads the proceedings as co-chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Credit: Kiara Worth/International Institute for Sustainable Development/Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

A Rutgers scientist says isolated attempts to address interconnected issues will not succeed

Pamela McElwee, a professor in the Department of Human Ecology at the Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, has spent the last 25 years studying human adaptation to global environmental change. 

She has served as an adviser on environmental policy to the White House, U.S. Senate and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Recently, as co-chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), McElwee oversaw the culmination and global adoption of the Nexus Assessment Report. 

Released in December in Windhoek, Namibia, the report offers decision makers worldwide a comprehensive assessment of the interplay between biodiversity, water, food, health and climate change and explores more than five dozen potential responses to address issues raised in the study. 

McElwee discusses her experience during the report’s finalization and her hopes for its impact.

How do you feel now that the report is finished? 

It’s been the honor of my lifetime to lead this effort, and I’m incredibly proud of the team that helped to put this report together. We had 165 authors from 57 different countries, and I loved meeting every single one of them to learn from them and work together towards this outcome. 

We collectively put three years of effort into this report, which we hope will have significant impacts on policymakers around the world in helping them manage trade-offs between biodiversity, water, food, health and climate change.

 It’s a perfect example of the kind of global impact that we want to have at Rutgers, and I hope my involvement highlights the interdisciplinary excellence in research and teaching on environmental issues that we have here.

What does the report say?

Our report is one of the most ambitious scientific assessments ever undertaken on our current environmental, social and economic crises, including biodiversity loss, water and food insecurity, health risks and climate change. 

The assessment shows how these crises are all interconnected in ways that make separate efforts to address them ineffective and counterproductive. For example, current approaches to economic activity result in unaccounted for costs and damages to biodiversity, water, health and climate that we estimated cost at least $10 trillion to $25 trillion per year, equivalent to around 25% of global GDP. 

“It’s a perfect example of the kind of global impact that we want to have at Rutgers, and I hope my involvement highlights the interdisciplinary excellence in research and teaching on environmental issues that we have here.”  Pamela McElwee, Professor, Department of Human Ecology

The good news is that there are lots of potential solutions that promote synergies to minimize these externalities. Examples include: restoring carbon-rich ecosystems such as forests, soils, mangroves; managing biodiversity to reduce risk of diseases spreading from animals to humans; improving integrated landscape and seascape management; expanding urban nature-based solutions, like green space in cities; and promoting sustainable healthy diets. 

The assessment provides a scientific review of which potential policies and actions are most effective and feasible to ensure these integrated co-benefits.

Is the world a different place from when you started to prepare this report three years ago?

Last year was a rough year for multilateral environmental agreements that are supposed to get the countries of the world to cooperate on key ongoing crises. The Convention on Biological Diversity meetings ended up being suspended and unfinished. The Framework Convention on Climate Change meetings ended with no new solutions on climate. And negotiations for a global plastics treaty collapsed with no agreement. 

We start 2025 with the new Trump administration pulling out of the Paris Agreement, a treaty on climate change. The administration will likely target other agreements as well. But despite all this, all the countries that are members of IPBES (more than 140, including the U.S. under the previous administration) voted to approve and adopt the Nexus Assessment Report, which is based on sound science and provides a number of potential solutions for tackling these crises.

Attendees meeting in Namibia prepare the Nexus Assessment. Credit: Kiara Worth/International Institute for Sustainable Development/Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

What recommendations do you expect to be adopted?

Science-policy assessment reports such as ours do not recommend particular courses of action. We assess what the costs and benefits are of different options and let decision makers choose which are most appropriate for their circumstances.

That said, we evaluate over 70 different options that provide co-benefits across biodiversity, water, food, health and climate change, so there are a wide variety of potential steps. Many of these actions are things farmers, consumers, community members and educators can do, and the scale of action for many is locally focused. 

That is all good news, given the ongoing lack of clarity about the role of the U.S. federal government on environmental policy. Even if we don’t see action over the next four years at the federal level, there are many things that states and localities can do. For example, I will be speaking on Earth Day to decision-makers in Wilmington, Delaware, about the report, as there is a lot of interest in what they can do at state level and below on biodiversity and climate over the next few years. 

What went into preparing this report?

Our report has been more than three years in development, at a total cost of more than $1.5 million. Across seven chapters, we organized teams of authors to assess the scientific literature, such as on current and future trends in and among biodiversity, water, food, health and climate change, and possible options to help policymakers design solutions in more holistic ways across these elements. 

We started in early 2022 and met in person three times for the full author team – in Germany, South Africa and Nepal. A smaller group of coordinating lead authors together with myself and my co-chair Paula Harrison [principal natural capital scientist and professor of land and water modelling at the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology] met even more times both in person and online to produce a summary for policymakers. 

In all, everyone gave a significant portion of their lives the past three years to ensure we were assessing the best available evidence through robust methodologies, resulting in some clear findings for tackling our interlinked environmental crises.

This article first appeared in Rutgers Today.

 

Pamela McElwee at the 16th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Cali, Columbia. Photo: Courtesy of Pamela McElwee.

Pamela McElwee, professor in the Department of Human Ecology and affiliate of Rutgers Climate Energy Institute, was the lone Rutgers representative at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity, when ended on November 2 in Cali, Columbia.

Rutgers has been an observer organization since 2022 and McElwee participated in three formal side events, including one organized by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) on upcoming assessments. IPBES is the key scientific assessment body providing scientific insights to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Participating in this IPBES event was salient given McElwee is co-chair of the nexus assessment on the interlinkages between biodiversity, water, food, health and climate change, which is set to be adopted by countries at the IPBES11 plenary in Windhoek, Namibia, in December 2024. McElwee also presented at a press conference organized by IPBES and UNESCO on biodiversity, food, health and culture alongside Chef Mauro Colagreco, a 3-star Michelin chef who is the first UNESCO ambassador for biodiversity.

McElwee was also part of a panel on the Montpellier Process, a new initiative from the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) to provide science-policy advice to governments on reforming food systems. 

Pamela McElwee is captured on the monitors while speaking at COP16 in Cali, Colombia.

Some of the key decisions adopted at the COP16 meeting include how to better address the linkages between biodiversity and health and climate change, as well as better supporting the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in the work of the convention.

“Governments often treat biodiversity, climate and pollution as individual issues addressed by siloed ministries, but there are so many interconnections,” noted McElwee. “The research community has really stressed the need to address all these issues in an interlinked way, such as ensuring that money to finance a climate transition to low carbon energy is also going to biodiversity-supportive measures or making the case for more mainstreaming of biodiversity to get health wins, such as avoiding the next zoonotic pandemic.”

McElwee added, “Now that the COP16 meeting has concluded with strong statements about how to meet both climate and biodiversity goals through nature-positive land and sea management that involves strong participation of affected communities, such as Indigenous peoples, it will be up to research organizations like Rutgers to help put these statements into action.”

 

Jack Harris met with Historic Environment Scotland at Holyrood Park in Edinburgh. Photo: Courtesy of Jack Harris.

From June 2- 20, Jack Harris, an assistant teaching professor and Program Director in Sustainability in the Department of Human Ecology, is in Scotland meeting with academic and community partners, thanks to a Rutgers Global Grant to develop a study abroad program on “Scottish Sustainability.”

The 3-credit, 3-week course, to be launched in June 2025, will meet the experiential learning requirements of the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences and the Department of Human Ecology. This faculty-led course will explore Scottish sustainability using a comparative, cross-cultural perspective that highlights the multiculturalism and gender equity of Scotland.

According to Harris, “the intent and design of the program is to have students learn from people deeply engaged with problems of sustainability in their communities and regions. Students will explore community buyouts, renewable energy, sustainable food systems, local businesses, and urban sustainability projects. They will also meet with government leaders at the local and national levels to gain an understanding of the legal and institutional drivers of Scottish sustainability.”

Harris is fine-tuning multiple aspects of this upcoming study-abroad experience, including assessing transportation, housing and food options and accessibility across various locations across Scotland. He’s held several meetings with partners, including Fyne Futures at their community farm on Bute, and faculty and staff at UHI North, West and Hebrides, Scotland’s newest college connecting rural and island communities across the North, West and Outer Hebrides. He’s also planned meetings with partners at the University of Glasgow as well as several South Asian community organizations in Glasgow. 

Jack Harris meeting at the Westford Inn with leaders of Taigh Chearsabhagh, an arts centre and museum in Lochmaddy on the island of North Uist, Scotland. Photo: Courtesy of Jack Harris.

“I also had tremendous meetings with Historic Environment Scotland in Edinburgh at Holyrood Park and with Brigend Farms, the first community buyout in Edinburgh, and have nailed down the first week of the course.”  

The student-abroad program that Harris has planned “is interdisciplinary and will appeal to students with diverse academic and pre-professional interests.” He sat down with SEBS/NJAES Newsroom to share some background about himself, the topic of ‘sustainability’ and why it matters today.

Tell us a bit about yourself and your career, including when you came to Rutgers.

I came to Rutgers in August of 2023 from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, where I designed and taught a course in “Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Impact” and oversaw the Internship Program as a Visiting Assistant Professor. Prior to Illinois, I was at SUNY New Paltz as an Assistant Professor and Sustainability Faculty Fellow. I started my academic career at Northwestern’s Network for Nonprofit and Social Impact (NNSI) as a Research Associate where we completed one of the largest community network studies done, to date. 

I made a mid-career switch to academia and earned my Ph.D. at Rutgers School of Communication and Information. My dissertation was a study of long-term recovery after disaster and the inter-organizational collaborations and local knowledge that make disaster recovery happen. Based on my eight years of field research following Hurricane Sandy, I published a book, Hyperlocal Organizing: Collaborating for Recovery over Time, which explores how disaster recovery is rooted in place and requires local knowledge and community networks to be effective.  

What led you to this particular topic? 

Multiple travels to Scotland over the last several years have introduced me to sustainability challenges as well as innovative solutions to sustainability in a country that faces energy and food challenges as well as recovery from rapid deindustrialization and ongoing depopulation of rural areas. Scotland struggles with being a constituent part of the United Kingdom – one that voted against BREXIT – while trying to find solutions to economic wellbeing rooted in its own culture and history. Scotland also has a strong tradition of intellectual leadership in economic, social and ecological thinking, with Adam Smith and David Hume being the most well-known of the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers.

Jack Harris in Scotland. Photo: Courtesy of Jack Harris.

Patrick Geddes, known for his work in urban planning and sociology following his early career as a Botany professor at the University of Dundee, is an important Scottish thinker of the 20th century whose work has implications for understanding sustainability in the 21st century. Geddes emphasized the connection of space, place, and time with language and culture for understanding design, communities, and cities, and these interconnections are highly visible in different urban and rural environments across Scotland. Understanding interconnections between the social, economic and ecological is crucial for understanding sustainability challenges and solutions at all scales.

What broadly are you hoping to achieve and the next steps?

I am working to develop this course as a core part of our sustainability offerings at SEBS and Rutgers more broadly. In addition to learning about sustainability, students will immerse themselves in a different culture and become connected to urban, rural, and Island communities and the people there doing unique, creative, and equitable sustainability work designed to increase their communities economic and social wellbeing.

This study abroad program allows students to explore issues related to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the Planetary Boundaries Framework and the Triple Bottom Line of People, Planet, and Profit, in practice, in the field. This program will place community engagement in a broader, comparative perspective for Rutgers students and enhance student success by building small, engaged cohorts willing to translate these experiences into independent and honors research projects, as well as international internships.

Why does this particular topic matter?

Scotland is a leader in sustainability practices and provides a unique, bounded case study through which to explore sustainability practices and policies rooted in culture, identity, institutions, and history. Since 1999 Scottish law and policy (independent of United Kingdom laws and policies) have focused on empowering people and communities to engage in sustainable activities that increase economic and social well-being at neighborhood, community, and regional levels.

Three Acts of Scottish Parliament – the Land Reform (Scotland) Act of 2003, The Community Empowerment (Scotland Act) of 2015 and the Islands (Scotland) Act of 2015 foster community agency, which, in turn, drives hyperlocal efforts to increase sustainability and wellbeing through community-based approaches to energy, housing, and sustainable food systems. Many of the sustainability challenges Scotland faces are uniquely rooted in its history and culture and the country provides a unique, bounded case through which to explore sustainability practices and policies rooted in culture, identity, institutions, and history. Scottish law and policy (independent of United Kingdom laws and policies) have focused on empowering people and communities to engage in sustainable activities that increase economic and social well-being through community-based approaches to energy, housing, art, culture, language, and sustainable food systems.

Understanding differences between place-based and solutions-oriented approaches to sustainability are critical for 21st century sustainability professionals working to build viable approaches that address current global challenges related to climate and wellbeing. 

“Sustainability at scale” such as large wind farms and massive rewilding projects and their impacts on people and communities in Scotland are significant issues in Scotland as well and highlight connections between global solutions and hyperlocal realities. The Scottish Highlands also have a long tradition of women leaders and entrepreneurs making it an important place through which to explore intersections of gender and sustainability.

What inspires or motivates you?

Meeting new people, learning new things and travel. When I travel, I like to go off the beaten path a bit and talk with folks as much as I can. That travel opens the mind and broadens perspective is a bit of a cliché, but if you take the time to travel to parts unknown, as the late Anthony Bourdain phrased it, you will discover new ways of thinking and being and build stronger relationships. These “parts unknown” does not necessarily have to be distant and unfamiliar; they can be found in culture, communities and cities we think we already know.

 

On May 21, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) delivered its Advisory Opinion on the request submitted to the Tribunal by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law. ITLOS is an independent judicial body established by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

This particular ruling relates to the request submitted to the Tribunal by the Commission on December 12, 2022. The Tribunal’s ruling relates to governments’ climate change obligations, both mitigation and adaptation. The Advisory Opinion was read by Judge Albert Hoffmann, who presided over the case.

Cymie Payne, an expert in international and environmental law, led a team for the International Union for Conservation of Nature that was “asked by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to provide a submission for its consideration in this advisory opinion case.”

Rutgers Associate Professor Cymie Payne. Photo: Courtesy of Cymie Payne.

According to Payne, “the Tribunal’s opinion was closely aligned with the arguments we made.” Payne is an associate professor in the Department of Human Ecology in the Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences and a faculty member in the Rutgers Law School. She was recognized with a 2023-2024 Chancellor and Provost Award for Faculty Excellence among Rutgers–New Brunswick faculty for her work on this important case.

The Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law requested the Tribunal to give an advisory opinion on the following questions:

What are the specific obligations of State Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’), including under Part XII:

(a) to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment in relation to the deleterious effects that result or are likely to result from climate change, including through ocean warming and sea level rise, and ocean acidification, which are caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere?

(b) to protect and preserve the marine environment in relation to climate change impacts, including ocean warming and sea level rise, and ocean acidification?

In its Advisory Opinion, the Tribunal decided unanimously that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the Commission and unanimously decides to respond to the request by the Commission.

The replies to the questions submitted by the Commission, as contained in the operative clauses of the Advisory Opinion, are available in the Tribunal’s press release_350. The press releases of the Tribunal, and a recorded webcast, as well as documents and other information are available on the Tribunal’s website and http://www.tidm.org, and from the Registry of the Tribunal.

 

An interdisciplinary social scientist with wide ranging interests in racial inequality and Black urban life, Kwate will receive the UAA award on April 24 at the International Conference on Urban Affairs in New York. This year’s conference, “Cities on the Edge: Promoting Equity and Resiliency through Research, Activism, Planning and Policy,” will convene more than 1,200 participants from over 55 countries.

Originally trained as a clinical psychologist, a startling burden of chronic illness among the patients she treated in large New York City hospitals led her to a research program investigating the social determinants of African American health. With the support of more than $2.7 million in federal and foundation funding, Kwate has led interdisciplinary research studies at the intersection of social science, public health and the humanities.

She’s also published the short work, Burgers in Blackface: Anti-Black Restaurants Then and Now, which examines restaurants that deploy unapologetically racist logos, themes, and architecture. She also edited, The Street: A Photographic Field Guide to American Inequality, a visual taxonomy of inequality using Camden, NJ, as a case study.

Kwate has been a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow at the Newberry Library and has received fellowships from the Smithsonian Institution, the European Institutes for Advanced Studies, and others. She is currently writing a book investigating the impact of corner liquor stores in Black communities from 1950 to date.

According to the UAA Assessment Committee:
“White Burgers, Black Cash: Fast Food from Black Exclusion to Exploitation by Naa Oyo A. Kwate (University of Minnesota Press) is a detailed, fascinating, and insightful study of the history and current practices of the fast food industry. The book is impressively interdisciplinary, drawing on methods and themes from history, public health, geography, planning, and sociology. Dr. Kwate dissects the creation of racialized landscapes over time in urban America, detailing how exploitative retailers have come to characterize black spaces. Dr. Kwate uses the lens of a single industry to show how structural forces of racism, capitalism, and politics intersect with the individual acts of businesses, customers, and local officials. The book’s engagement with the everyday experiences and materiality of the city, while always keeping in mind connections to broader drivers of urban development, is very strong. This timely book will be of interest to scholars, students, and the general public. Dr. Kwate does an excellent job of presenting archival evidence and contemporary data while telling a compelling story of why U.S. cities have assumed particular racialized landscapes.”

 

Angie Oberg.

I am pleased to announce the appointment of Angela Oberg as Senior Director of Climate Action and Sustainability, overseeing the Office of Climate Action. In this role, Dr. Oberg will serve as the university’s inaugural Chief Climate Officer.

President Holloway formed the Office of Climate Action in September 2021 to steward the university’s comprehensive strategic climate action plan, which calls on Rutgers to achieve carbon neutrality and reduce the university’s vulnerability to climate impact by 2041, Rutgers’ 275th anniversary.

For the last two years, Dr. Oberg has partnered with Professors Bob Kopp and Kevin Lyons to develop and launch the Office of Climate Action. Together, these three individuals—with support from all of you and many more—have helped organize the complex work of achieving our shared goals and establish a structure to ensure that the university remains true to its climate commitments.

On behalf of our community, I thank Professors Kopp and Lyons for their leadership throughout this process, and I express my appreciation for Dr. Oberg for taking on the charge now of leading these efforts into their next phase.

In her expanded role, Angie will be leading critical efforts to continue to foster a culture of sustainability across Rutgers; develop mechanisms for tracking our progress around our climate goals; ensure that our campuses serve as living climate laboratories for our faculty and students; and help our university and its communities develop plans for just and equitable climate adaptation.

She holds a doctoral degree in planning and public policy from the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy (GSNB’18), a Master of Landscape Architecture degree from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, and a Bachelor’s degree from Austin College.

Please join me in congratulating Dr. Oberg on her new role. Thanks to all of you for what you do to further this vital work for the future of our university.