Abstract
Ecological grief is usually analyzed among people and communities whose lands, livelihoods, species relations, safety, cultural continuity, and place attachments are directly altered by environmental change. This Perspective extends that scholarship to scientific communities as research-mediated witnesses of ecological loss while maintaining a strict ethical distinction between direct lived harm and scientific distress. The article advances ecological grief science in five ways. First, it moves analysis beyond individual resilience, burnout, and communication failure by locating grief-like scientific distress within knowledge governance. Second, it connects ecological grief scholarship with Earth-system risk governance, including planetary boundaries, tipping points, cascading risk, resilience governance, and anticipatory governance. Third, it specifies a cross-level mechanism linking repeated ecological observation and actionability appraisal at the micro level, research-organizational and boundary mediation at the meso level, and governance mandates and authority structures at the macro level. Fourth, it converts the concept into propositions, boundary conditions, rival explanations, and observable indicators for empirical research. Fifth, it uses Sikkim in the Eastern Himalaya as an illustrative plausibility probe to show how evidence on alpine ecological change, spring decline and repair, hydropower contestation, Indigenous territorial authority, and South Lhonak glacial-lake hazard can accumulate while authority remains sectoral and fragmented.
1 Introduction
Ecological grief has become a central concept for analyzing the affective, moral, and relational consequences of environmental change (; ). It describes grief associated with experienced and anticipated ecological loss, including species decline, ecosystem transformation, disrupted dwelling, and the erosion of meaningful landscapes (; ; ). Related literature on solastalgia, climate anxiety, place attachment, anticipatory loss, and disrupted dwelling demonstrates that ecological harm is not only material; it is also lived through identity, continuity, responsibility, relation, and place (; Pihkala, 2022; ). Planetary health and One Health perspectives extend this premise by treating ecological integrity, human health, cultural continuity, and socioecological resilience as interdependent conditions of collective flourishing (Whitmee et al., 2015; Reaser and Kirkey, 2025).
Conservation social science has developed substantial accounts of institutions, values, behavior, justice, and human–environment relations in conservation practice (Sandbrook et al., 2013; ). Science-policy scholarship has likewise shown that evidence becomes useful only through institutions that secure credibility, salience, legitimacy, timing, co-production, and accountability (; ; ).
Planetary boundaries and safe-and-just Earth-system boundaries frame environmental change as a problem of remaining within biophysical and justice-related limits; tipping-elements and resilience literature emphasize thresholds, non-linearity, adaptive capacity, and transformability; and anticipatory governance asks how institutions can act before irreversible or cascading harm becomes socially undeniable (; Rockstrom et al., 2009; Walker et al., 2004; ; ; Steffen et al., 2015; ; ; Rockstrom et al., 2023).
Yet, this literature has not fully explained a distinctive condition of contemporary conservation work: scientists and other ecological knowledge holders may repeatedly document ecological change, foreseeable risk, or repair need, while the institutions surrounding that evidence fail to generate timely authority, precaution, accountability, or redress. This is not simply a problem of communicating better. It concerns the institutional conditions under which evidence becomes consequential, the actors recognized as having authority to act on it, and the moral consequences of producing knowledge that is acknowledged but not translated into precaution or repair.
The question is empirically and ethically urgent. Environmental scientists and climate scholars report grief, anxiety, anger, despair, and related emotional responses to environmental degradation and climate change (; Schipper et al., 2024; Sapiains et al., 2025). These responses should not be reduced to individual vulnerability, inadequate coping, or ordinary occupational stress. They may also register structural failures in evidence systems, especially when credible warnings and repair knowledge do not travel into authority, precaution, or repair (; Sarewitz, 2004; ).
Existing scholarship explains how evidence becomes usable, salient, legitimate, or authoritative, but rarely examines how repeated authority failures are experienced by those who produce and carry ecological evidence (; ; ; ). Environmental sociology sharpens this by showing how institutions externalize risk, delay action, organize denial, and marginalize uncomfortable knowledge (; ; ; Rayner, 2012).
2 From communication failure to authority discontinuity
Ecological loss may be anticipated, modeled, measured, and repeatedly observed before it is publicly named as loss. Researchers can therefore become witnesses not only to damage but also to the preventable interval between warning and action (; Sattar et al., 2021).
Scientists encounter ecological change through field observation, monitoring networks, remote sensing, hydrological records, climate models, risk assessments, herbarium data, community partnerships, and peer-reviewed publication (; Schipper et al., 2024).
Knowledge systems for sustainability depend on boundary work, boundary objects, and institutional arrangements that sustain credibility, salience, and legitimacy across scientific, policy, and public domains (Star and Griesemer, 1989; ; ). Science is more likely to inform decisions when researchers, users, and institutions jointly shape problem framing, timing, decision context, and responsibility (; ; ). Linking knowledge and action is therefore a social and institutional achievement, not a natural consequence of data quality (Tengo et al., 2014; ).
Communication models often treat translation as the bridge between knowledge and decisions (Sarewitz and Pielke, 2007; ). Evidence-to-authority grief instead locates the gap in authority chains: evidence may be credible yet non-binding, salient yet inconvenient, translated yet stripped of justice, locally legitimate yet unofficial, or actionable yet outside institutional mandate (; ; Wyborn, 2015). Risk-society, climate-delay, denial, and uncomfortable-knowledge scholarship show that institutions can externalize risk, defer action, marginalize evidence, or selectively mobilize science even when delay is foreseeable (; ; ; Rayner, 2012; Sarewitz, 2004; ).
3 Conceptualizing evidence-to-authority grief
Evidence-to-authority grief is defined here as an institutionally situated, collective moral-affective burden that may arise when scientists and other ecological knowledge holders repeatedly generate credible and potentially actionable evidence of ecological harm, systemic risk, or repair need, while decision systems fail to convert that evidence into transparent authority, accountability, precaution, or repair. Evidence includes peer-reviewed science, monitoring, modeling, field observation, Indigenous knowledge, local ecological knowledge, and participatory assessment when produced through accountable epistemic practices (Tengo et al., 2014; ). Authority refers to the formal or socially recognized capacity to make evidence consequential through mandates, standards, legal duties, funding, infrastructure decisions, emergency planning, anticipatory risk governance, or repair mechanisms.
The proposed mechanism has five interlinked processes. First, repeated evidentiary exposure occurs when a knowledge holder repeatedly encounters credible indications of ecological change, risk, or repair need. Second, actionability appraisal occurs when at least some of that evidence is interpreted as relevant to plausible precaution, adaptation, accountability, or repair. Third, boundary translation occurs as evidence moves through journals, assessments, expert panels, media, environmental impact procedures, donor frameworks, hazard maps, village assemblies, or courts. Fourth, authority discontinuity occurs when evidence remains non-binding, is narrowed into a technical object, is delayed by mandate fragmentation, or is recognized without empowering the institutions and people able to act. Fifth, moral-affective appraisal occurs when the knowledge holder interprets the gap as ethically consequential for people, species, places, or future harm (; Yin, 2018).
Evidence-to-authority grief emerges through cross-level interactions linking ecological observation at the micro level, institutional mediation at the meso level, and authority structures at the macro level. At the micro level, individual scientists and knowledge holders observe ecological change, interpret uncertainty, and assess whether evidence is actionable. At the meso level, research organizations, boundary organizations, journals, assessment bodies, expert panels, funders, and professional norms translate, classify, amplify, or narrow that evidence. At the macro level, law, state agencies, environmental regulation, infrastructure governance, disaster-risk systems, finance, and political authority determine whether evidence becomes binding, fundable, or repair-oriented. The construct is therefore a multilevel theory of how evidence travels, stalls, or becomes consequential in complex social–ecological systems (; ; ; ).
4 Theoretical ground
Science-policy scholarship has long examined why scientific evidence frequently fails to influence policy. Concepts such as post-normal science, boundary organizations, knowledge co-production, epistemic injustice, uncomfortable knowledge, and risk society provide robust explanations for institutional inertia, credibility deficits, and structural denial (; ; ; Rayner, 2012; ). Evidence-to-authority grief does not merely relabel these processes. It extends them in three specific ways.
First, it introduces an explicit moral-affective dimension that existing science-policy frameworks largely treat as peripheral. Boundary work, co-production, and epistemic injustice analyze how knowledge is validated, translated, or excluded; they do not theorize how repeated authority failures are emotionally and morally experienced by the knowledge holders who produce ecological evidence. By locating grief-like burden at the interface of evidence and authority, the concept connects institutional analysis with conservation social science and ecological grief scholarship in a way that neither literature has fully attempted.
Second, it converts institutional description into a multilevel mechanism with testable propositions. Existing scholarship often describes barriers to evidence use; evidence-to-authority grief specifies cross-level processes—repeated evidentiary exposure, actionability appraisal, boundary translation, authority discontinuity, and moral-affective appraisal—and derives falsifiable hypotheses about when the burden should intensify or diminish. This shifts analysis from metaphor to mechanism.
Third, it centers the question of whose knowledge is authorized to be consequential. While epistemic injustice examines wrongful exclusion from knowing, and boundary work examines translation between domains, evidence-to-authority grief asks who is required to witness ecological harm without institutional pathways to make that witnessing consequential. It therefore highlights not only whose knowledge is credible, but whose knowledge is granted decision-making authority, and at what moral cost when that authority is withheld.
The framework does not assume that scientific knowledge confers equivalent capabilities for action across researchers. The consequences of evidence depend not only on what is known, but also on the institutional, professional, and social conditions that determine whether knowledge can be translated into effective agency. Differences in disciplinary practice, career stage, employment context, and geographical setting shape opportunities to communicate evidence, influence decisions, and exercise scientific authority. Socially structured differences in credibility and recognition further affect whether knowledge is treated as actionable. These variations reflect differences in epistemic capability—the effective capacity to convert scientific knowledge into consequential action—rather than differences in the validity of knowledge itself.
Field researchers, Indigenous knowledge holders, local scientists, women, early-career scholars, and researchers outside dominant policy networks may encounter different authority discontinuities because credibility and legitimacy are unevenly distributed (; ; Whyte, 2017). Evidence-to-authority grief therefore asks whose knowledge becomes actionable, who is required to witness without authority, and who bears the consequences when evidence fails to travel (; Schlosberg, 2007).
Six propositions (hypothesis = H) follow from this framework. H1: Evidence-to-authority grief should increase when perceived actionability is high and control over institutional uptake is low. H2: Transparent decision pathways should reduce the burden because they make non-use accountable rather than opaque. H3: Boundary arrangements that retain justice, repair, and local authority should moderate the burden more effectively than arrangements that translate evidence into technical outputs alone. H4: Authority discontinuity should be most pronounced when evidence crosses institutional domains, for example from cryosphere science to infrastructure regulation, disaster planning, and local governance. H5: Visible repair mechanisms should reduce moral-affective burden even when harm cannot be fully prevented, because they demonstrate that evidence has institutional consequence. H6: The burden should be strongest when micro-level actionability meets meso-level translation but macro-level authority remains absent, opaque, or procedurally dispersed (; ; ; ).
The concept overlaps with neighboring psychological and occupational constructs, and Table 1 summarizes these distinctions.
Table 1
| Construct | Core definition | Necessary conditions | Sufficient conditions | Key distinction from evidence-to-authority grief |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence-to-authority grief | Collective moral-affective burden arising when credible, actionable ecological evidence is repeatedly produced, while decision systems fail to convert it into transparent authority, precaution, or repair | Repeated evidentiary exposure; actionability appraisal; authority discontinuity; moral-affective appraisal | All five mechanism elements present across micro, meso, and macro levels | – |
| Moral distress | Painful psychological response when one knows the ethically correct action but is institutionally constrained from performing it | Ethical clarity about right action; institutional constraint on individual action | Individual prevented from acting despite knowing what ethics requires | Focuses on individual action constraints rather than collective knowledge-to-authority gaps across nested governance levels |
| Eco-anxiety/climate anxiety | Chronic fear, worry, or dread about observed or anticipated environmental and climate change | Awareness of environmental threat; affective response of fear or worry | Clinically or subclinically significant anxiety about environmental conditions | Generalized threat response; not specific to evidence production, boundary translation, or authority discontinuity |
| Burnout | Syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment resulting from chronic workplace stress | Chronic occupational stress; emotional exhaustion | Meets established occupational burnout criteria | Occupational stress syndrome; lacks the moral-affective grief dimension and multilevel institutional analysis |
| Professional frustration | Disappointment arising when professional efforts fail to achieve intended outcomes | Goal blockage; professional investment in outcome | Recognized disappointment tied to professional goals | Normative occupational response to blocked goals; does not require moral appraisal of institutional harm to people, species, or places |
| Ecological grief (general) | Grief associated with experienced or anticipated ecological loss, including species decline, ecosystem transformation, and erosion of meaningful landscapes | Perceived ecological loss; grief response | Grief symptoms tied to ecological change | Evidence-to-authority grief is a specific subtype focused on institutional knowledge governance rather than direct lived harm to place, livelihood, or species relation |
Conceptual distinctions between evidence-to-authority grief and related constructs.
5 Operationalizing the concept for empirical research
Evidence-to-authority grief can be operationalized through four observable dimensions: evidentiary exposure, actionability appraisal, boundary translation, and authority response. Evidentiary exposure captures sustained engagement with the production or interpretation of ecological evidence; actionability appraisal assesses whether credible intervention pathways are perceived to exist; boundary translation examines the extent to which evidence travels into policy, regulatory, legal, or public decision-making arenas; and authority response evaluates whether such evidence is translated into precautionary action, accountability, resource allocation, or institutional reform.
Table 2 elaborates the concept and a supplementary note provides a detailed operational framework.
Table 2
| Mechanism element | Empirical question | Observable indicators | False positives |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repeated evidentiary exposure | Has the knowledge holder repeatedly encountered credible ecological change, risk, or repair need? | Field seasons; monitoring responsibilities; models; datasets; publications; expert panels; community or policy engagement | General exposure to environmental degradation; publication pressure; ordinary workload |
| Actionability appraisal | Is the evidence interpreted as relevant to plausible precaution, adaptation, accountability, or repair? | Named interventions; hazard mitigation options; restoration pathways; governance reforms; repair or compensation proposals | Evidence too uncertain; intervention infeasible; disagreement about values or trade-offs |
| Boundary translation | Through which interfaces does evidence move? | Assessment reports; environmental clearances; policy briefs; courts; donor documents; media; local assemblies; expert committees | Visibility mistaken for influence; citation counts used as a proxy for institutional uptake |
| Authority discontinuity | Where does evidence lose consequence? | Acknowledgement without mandate; no decision rule; no funding stream; no legal duty; no repair trigger; local authority excluded | Transparent non-use; justified precautionary trade-off; legitimate community rejection of externally defined action |
| Moral-affective appraisal | Do knowledge holders interpret non-use as ethically consequential? | Interviews; surveys; diaries; organizational records; climate anxiety, grief, burnout, moral distress, and efficacy measures | Eco-anxiety, burnout, activism, employer conflict or precarity independent of authority discontinuity |
Construct specifications for empirical testing.
6 Lessons from Sikkim, Eastern Himalaya
Sikkim in the Eastern Himalaya provides a critical test case for a recurring challenge in environmental governance: the growing availability of credible knowledge alongside limited institutional capacity to translate that knowledge into action. Credible evidence of ecological change has accumulated, yet its translation into authoritative action remains uneven (Telwala et al., 2013; Tambe et al., 2012; ; Sattar et al., 2021). Warming has altered alpine plant distributions and water availability, while springshed restoration demonstrates viable adaptation pathways that remain constrained by institutional and financial barriers (Telwala et al., 2013; ; Tambe et al., 2012). Hydropower conflicts similarly expose tensions among scientific, state, and Indigenous forms of authority (; ; ; Whyte, 2017; ; ). The South Lhonak disaster further highlights the gap between recognized glacial-lake risk and precautionary governance (Sattar et al., 2021, 2025).
Similar patterns occur in coral-reef governance, where decades of research on bleaching and ecological thresholds have not always translated into coordinated management across fisheries, tourism, and climate institutions (; ). Comparable challenges occur in climate-sensitive disease adaptation and urban heat governance, where implementation requires coordination beyond the institutions producing the evidence (; ; ). Across these domains, the limiting factor is increasingly not knowledge scarcity but institutional translation: the capacity of societies to connect evidence, authority, and responsibility before ecological change becomes irreversible (; ; ).
7 Implications for conservation science
The priority is to reduce avoidable non-use while maintaining scientific humility, democratic accountability, and respect for affected communities (Sarewitz and Pielke, 2007; ; ). Evidence-to-authority grief does not imply that evidence should automatically determine policy; it asks how evidence is assessed, contested, accepted, rejected, deferred, or translated into repair.
Three institutional implications follow. First, conservation institutions should define precaution and escalation thresholds in advance, especially where serious or irreversible harm is plausible despite uncertainty (United Nations, 1992; Stirling, 2007). Anticipatory governance similarly requires foresight, scenarios, monitoring, and trigger mechanisms before loss becomes politically unavoidable (; ). Second, institutions should maintain decision records and clear mandate ownership so that warnings crossing disaster management, infrastructure, environmental regulation, finance, and local governance do not dissolve into institutional pluralism. Third, boundary organizations and assessment processes should retain justice, authority, and repair, rather than translating evidence into technical risk categories alone (; ; ).
Repair triggers are equally important when prevention is no longer possible. These may include ecological restoration, livelihood support, risk reduction, preparedness, institutional learning, public explanation, and long-term monitoring. Support for scientists should therefore include ecological grief literacy, but counseling and peer spaces cannot substitute for accountable pathways through which evidence shapes decisions (; Schipper et al., 2024).
Global assessment bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) are policy-relevant rather than policy-prescriptive, yet they have procedures, review systems, and governance routes (; ; ). Regional conservation warnings often lack comparable pathways. The institutional task is therefore to build evidence-to-authority systems linking credibility, salience, and legitimacy to decision rights, accountability, local authority, precaution thresholds, and repair, making the fate of evidence visible and deliberative rather than silent, fragmented, and retrospectively regretted.
8 Scope, boundary conditions, and limitations
The uneven distribution of authority over evidence exposes a structural problem in conservation knowledge: credible evidence may exist without clear pathways to action, repair, or accountability. Evidence-to-authority grief should therefore be used only to clarify this relationship, not to override value pluralism, democratic deliberation, or the experiences of affected communities (; ). Its value depends on strengthening accountability to those communities, rather than recentering scientists within ecological grief and justice scholarship (; Schlosberg, 2007; Whyte, 2017).
9 Conclusion
Evidence-to-authority grief advances ecological grief scholarship by locating a grief-like burden at the interface of evidence, authority, and accountability. It describes the moral-affective strain that may arise when credible, actionable ecological evidence is repeatedly produced, yet institutions fail to create transparent pathways for precaution, repair, or justified non-use.
For conservation social science, the implication is analytical rather than prescriptive. The field should study not only how ecological evidence is produced, but how it becomes authoritative, whose knowledge is recognized, how uncertainty is used, and why warnings may precede harm without changing institutional action.
The central claim is not that ecological evidence should automatically determine policy. Rather, recurring failures to connect evidence with accountable authority may generate a distinct burden among knowledge holders. If empirically supported, evidence-to-authority grief would link knowledge governance, environmental justice, and ecological grief, requiring attention not only to emotional literacy but also to the authority structures through which evidence becomes consequential, deferred, or inert.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
No human participants were interviewed or surveyed. The manuscript analyzes public scientific publications and reports at a conceptual level. Future empirical studies of scientists, Indigenous knowledge holders, or disaster-affected communities should use context-specific ethics review, community-centered protocols, informed consent, and safeguards against extractive or retraumatizing research.
Author contributions
YT: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative AI was used as an editorial and analytical assistance tool for literature review, drafting, restructuring and formatting. The author reviewed, revised and takes responsibility for the final content, argument and interpretation.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2026.1924073/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AlbrechtG. (2005). Solastalgia: a new concept in health and identity. Pan Philos. Act. Nat.3, 41–55. doi: 10.1017/S2047102525100204
2
AroraV. (2009). They are all set to dam(n) our future: contested development through hydel power in democratic Sikkim. Sociol. Bull.58, 94–114. doi: 10.1177/0038022920090106
3
BeckU. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage).
4
BennettA.CheckelJ. T. (Eds.) (2015). Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
5
BennettN. J.RothR.KlainS. C.ChanK.ChristieP.ClarkD. A.et al. (2017). Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol. Conserv.205, 93–108. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006
6
BoydE.NykvistB.BorgstromS.StacewiczI. A. (2015). Anticipatory governance for social-ecological resilience. AMBIO44, S149–S161. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0604-x
7
Campbell-LendrumD.MangaL.BagayokoM.SommerfeldJ. (2015). Climate change and vector-borne diseases: what are the implications for public health research and policy? Philos. Trans. R. Soc B. Biol. Sci.370, 20130552. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0552
8
CashD. W.ClarkW. C.AlcockF.DicksonN. M.EckleyN.GustonD. H.et al. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.100, 8086–8091. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1231332100
9
ChaudharyP.BawaK. S. (2011). Local perceptions of climate change validated by scientific evidence in the Himalayas. Biol. Lett.7, 767–770. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0269
10
ClarkW. C.van KerkhoffL.LebelL.GallopinG. C. (2016). Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.113, 4570–4578. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1601266113
11
ClaytonS.KarazsiaB. T. (2020). Development and validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. J. Environ. Psychol.69, 101434. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101434
12
CookeA.BenhamC.ButtN.DeanJ. (2024). Ecological grief literacy: approaches for responding to environmental loss. Conserv. Lett.17, e13018. doi: 10.1111/conl.13018
13
CunsoloA.EllisN. R. (2018). Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss. Nat. Clim. Change8, 275–281. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0092-2
14
CvitanovicC.HobdayA. J.van KerkhoffL.WilsonS. K.DobbsK.MarshallN. A. (2015). Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean Coast. Manage.112, 25–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.002
15
DouglasH. (2009). Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press).
16
DukpaR. D.JoshiD.BoelensR. (2019). Contesting hydropower dams in the Eastern Himalaya: the cultural politics of identity, territory and self-governance institutions in Sikkim, India. Water11, 412. doi: 10.3390/w11030412
17
Fernandez VelascoP. (2025). Ecological grief as a crisis in dwelling. Eur. J. Philos.33, 233–248. doi: 10.1111/ejop.12962
18
FolkeC.CarpenterS. R.WalkerB.SchefferM.ChapinT.RockstromJ. (2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc15, 20. doi: 10.5751/ES-03610-150420
19
FolkeC.HahnT.OlssonP.NorbergJ. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.30, 441–473. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
20
FrickerM. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
21
FuntowiczS. O.RavetzJ. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures25, 739–755. doi: 10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
22
GalazV.BiermannF.CronaB.LoorbachD.FolkeC.OlssonP.et al. (2012). Planetary boundaries: exploring the challenges for global environmental governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.4, 80–87. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.006
23
GiddensA. (2009). The Politics of Climate Change (Cambridge: Polity).
24
GierynT. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am. Sociol. Rev.48, 781–795. doi: 10.2307/2095325
25
GordonT. A. C.RadfordA. N.SimpsonS. D. (2019). Grieving environmental scientists need support. Science366, 193. doi: 10.1126/science.aaz2422
26
GustonD. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val.26, 399–408. doi: 10.1177/016224390102600401
27
HeadL.HaradaT. (2017). Keeping the heart a long way from the brain: The emotional labour of climate scientists. Emot. Space Soc24, 34–41. doi: 10.1016/j.emospa.2017.07.005
28
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2010). Statement on IPCC Principles and Procedures (Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
29
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2012). Functions, Operating Principles and Institutional Arrangements of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Bonn: IPBES).
30
JasanoffS. (Ed.) (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order (London: Routledge).
31
KirchhoffC. J.LemosM. C.DessaiS. (2013). Actionable knowledge for environmental decision making: broadening the usability of climate science. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.38, 393–414. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-022112-112828
32
LatulippeN.KlenkN. (2020). Making room and moving over: knowledge co-production, Indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.42, 7–14. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.10.010
33
LauK.RenC.NgE. (2025). Urban heat island adaptation and mitigation in practice: lessons from policy implementation in five cities. Philos. Trans. R. Soc A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.383, 20240581. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2024.0581
34
LemosM. C.MorehouseB. J. (2005). The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Glob. Environ. Change15, 57–68. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.09.004
35
LentonT. M.HeldH.KrieglerE.HallJ. W.LuchtW.RahmstorfS.et al. (2008). Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.105, 1786–1793. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0705414105
36
LevinS. A.XepapadeasA.CrepinA. S.NorbergJ.de ZeeuwA.FolkeC.et al. (2013). Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: modeling and policy implications. Environ. Dev. Econ.18, 111–132. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X12000460
37
LittleK. (2008). Lepcha narratives of their threatened sacred landscapes. Transform. Cult. eJournal3, 227–255. doi: 10.5130/tfc.v3i1.686
38
MarshallN. A.AdgerW. N.CurnockM.GoldbergM.ThiaultL.BohenskyE.et al. (2019). Reef grief: investigating the relationship between place meanings and place change on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Sustain. Sci.14, 579–587. doi: 10.1007/s11625-019-00666-z
39
MillsM.PresseyR. L.WeeksR.FoaleS.BanN. C. (2010). A mismatch of scales: challenges in planning for implementation of marine protected areas in the Coral Triangle. Conserv. Lett.3, 291–303. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00134.x
40
MuidermanK.GuptaA.VervoortJ.BiermannF. (2020). Four approaches to anticipatory climate governance: different conceptions of the future and implications for the present. WIREs Clim. Change11, e673. doi: 10.1002/wcc.673
41
NorgaardK. M. (2011). Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262015448.001.0001
42
NorstromA. V.CvitanovicC.LofM. F.WestS.WybornC.BalvaneraP.et al. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain.3, 182–190. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2
43
OjalaM.CunsoloA.OgunbodeC. A.MiddletonJ. (2021). Anxiety, worry, and grief in a time of environmental and climate crisis: a narrative review. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.46, 35–58. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-022716
44
OstromE. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob. Environ. Change20, 550–557. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004
45
PanditM. K.GrumbineR. E. (2012). Potential effects of ongoing and proposed hydropower development on terrestrial biological diversity in the Indian Himalaya. Conserv. Biol.26, 1061–1071. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01918.x
46
PielkeR. A.Jr. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511818110
47
PihkalaP. (2022). The process of eco-anxiety and ecological grief: a narrative review and a new proposal. Sustainability14, 16628. doi: 10.3390/su142416628
48
RaynerS. (2012). Uncomfortable knowledge: the social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Econ. Soc41, 107–125. doi: 10.1080/03085147.2011.637335
49
ReaserJ. K.KirkeyI. M. (2025). Ecological grief is a One Health imperative for building socioecological resilience. BioScience, biaf135. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biaf135
50
RockstromJ.GuptaJ.QinD.LadeS. J.AbramsJ. F.AndersenL. S.et al. (2023). Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature619, 102–111. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06083-8
51
RockstromJ.SteffenW.NooneK.PerssonA.ChapinF. S.IIILambinE. F.et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature461, 472–475. doi: 10.1038/461472a
52
SandbrookC.AdamsW. M.BuscherB.ViraB. (2013). Social research and biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol.27, 1487–1490. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12141
53
SapiainsR.AzocarG.Palomo-VelezG.RondanelliR. (2025). Climate change anxiety in the scientific community: an exploratory study with Chilean climate change-related scholars. Front. Psychol.16, 1507487. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1507487
54
SarewitzD. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ. Sci. Policy7, 385–403. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001
55
SarewitzD.PielkeR. A.Jr. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environ. Sci. Policy10, 5–16. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.001
56
SattarA.CookK. L.RaiS. K.BerthierE.AllenS.RinzinS.et al. (2025). The Sikkim flood of October 2023: drivers, causes and impacts of a multihazard cascade. Science387, eads2659. doi: 10.1126/science.ads2659
57
SattarA.GoswamiA.KulkarniA. V.EmmerA.HaritashyaU. K.AllenS.et al. (2021). Future glacial lake outburst flood hazard of the South Lhonak Lake, Sikkim Himalaya. Geomorphology388, 107783. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2021.107783
58
SchipperE. L. F.MaharajS. S.PeclG. T. (2024). Scientists have emotional responses to climate change too. Nat. Clim. Change14, 1010–1012. doi: 10.1038/s41558-024-02139-3
59
SchlosbergD. (2007). Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
60
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 1907-39. Soc Stud. Sci.19, 387–420. doi: 10.1177/030631289019003001
61
SteffenW.RichardsonK.RockstromJ.CornellS. E.FetzerI.BennettE. M.et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science347, 1259855. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855
62
StirlingA. (2007). Risk, precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO Rep.8, 309–315. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400953
63
TambeS.KharelG.ArrawatiaM. L.KulkarniH.MahamuniK.GaneriwalaA. K. (2012). Reviving dying springs: climate change adaptation experiments from the Sikkim Himalaya. Mt. Res. Dev.32, 62–72. doi: 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-11-00079.1
64
TelwalaY.BrookB. W.ManishK.PanditM. K. (2013). Climate-induced elevational range shifts and increase in plant species richness in a Himalayan biodiversity epicentre. PloS One8, e57103. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057103
65
TengoM.BrondizioE. S.ElmqvistT.MalmerP.SpierenburgM. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO43, 579–591. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3
66
United Nations (1992). Report of the United Nations conference on environment and development, rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992 (New York: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development).
67
WalkerB.HollingC. S.CarpenterS. R.KinzigA. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc9, 5. doi: 10.5751/ES-00650-090205
68
WhitmeeS.HainesA.BeyrerC.BoltzF.CaponA. G.de Souza DiasB. F.et al. (2015). Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet386, 1973–2028. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60901-1
69
WhyteK. P. (2017). Indigenous climate change studies: indigenizing futures, decolonizing the Anthropocene. Eng. Lang. Notes55, 153–162. doi: 10.1215/00138282-55.1-2.153
70
WybornC. (2015). Co-productive governance: a relational framework for adaptive governance. Glob. Environ. Change30, 56–67. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.009
71
YinR. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th ed (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Summary
Keywords
anticipatory governance, authority discontinuity, earth-system risk governance, ecological grief, environmental sociology, epistemic justice, evidence-to-authority grief
Citation
Telwala Y (2026) Ecological grief in scientific communities. Front. Conserv. Sci. 7:1924073. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2026.1924073
Received
30 June 2026
Revised
30 July 2026
Accepted
30 July 2026
Published
14 August 2026
Volume
7 - 2026
Edited by
Cristina Eisenberg, Ecocultural Resources LLC, United States
Reviewed by
Łucja Lange, University of Łódź, Poland
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Telwala.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Yasmeen Telwala, yasmeentw@gmail.com
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.