It is evident that the planet is experiencing a series of ecological crises, manifesting in the form of temperature rise, ocean warming, biodiversity loss and natural disasters. This phenomenon has been further emphasised by the World Meteorological Organization’s designation of 2024 as a ‘year of extremes’ having a direct impact on many people and societies globally. Therefore, it has perhaps never been more topical to quote Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “The world is out of joint.”. This sentiment captures the uncertainty surrounding the ability to meet the established targets of the Paris Agreement, namely, the 1.5- and 2-degree limits on global warming (Figure 1). In particular, the ongoing loss of biodiversity has significant ramifications for the resilience of our ecosystems, including urban ones, which are vital for responding to and recovering from disturbances associated with global warming (; ).
FIGURE 1
Concurrently, and which only appears to be independent at first glance, since the 2010s, there has been in addition an observable rise in autocratic politics and a partial rejection of democracy as a societal model, owing to the evident distrust many people have in its ability to address the global challenges reported above. Only 45% of the world’s population lives in a democracy, with 39% under authoritarian rule, and 15% in hybrid regimes that combine electoral democracy with authoritarian tendencies (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2025). The coronavirus pandemic has reinforced and accelerated these prevailing trends (; ). Chief amongst these is the erosion of trust amongst younger generations in state support and social promises for the future, a phenomenon that is particularly evident in Western democracies.
What does this have to do with the most urgent question in the research field of social-ecological urban systems, and why does it need to be answered immediately? Because this question must be something like this: How do we address the global risks outlined above? How do we get a sustainable and socially balanced transformation off the ground that is geared towards the 1.5-degree target, that allows for the co-existence of humans and nature and thus the survival of all species, and that fairly distributes the benefits and burdens for us humans, to address the global risks outlined above, in particular the most vulnerable among us? What is more, because cities and their urban social-ecological systems are not the only answer, but a decisive one!
Why? Cities are the places where meanwhile most of the global population resides. It is anticipated that they will continue to experience growth in terms of both population and importance in the future: Mid-2024 approximately 4.8 of the more than eight billion people worldwide lived in towns or cities. This represents almost 60% of the global population. By 2030, this figure is set to reach 60% (). Urban areas are the locations of over 60% of all universities, functioning as pivotal centres of innovation and international intellectual thought. Urban areas are further characterised by the proximity of humans to nature, as well as a high density of built, technological, social, economic, and green-blue matter and processes (). These characteristics are associated with a high level of complexity, termed the ‘urban metabolism’, and the potential for high resilience, attributed to high diversity and proximity to resources.
However, both density and proximity can also be problematic in terms of spillovers and vector jumps when not fully understood or ignored, as evidenced by the emergence of pathogens such as the SARS-CoV-2-II virus in 2020, the Zika virus in Brazil in 2016, and more recently monkeypox and Ebola, as well as a measles outbreak in the USA in 2025 (). Furthermore, it is imperative to consider larger spatial contexts and to conduct research in these contexts to really capture the most urgent questions to be solved for urban systems. To illustrate this with a prominent example, the dramatic retreat of inland glaciers since 2000, which may be geographically distant from most cities, is particularly relevant given the imminent approach of tipping points in water supply to urban catchments that depend directly on meltwater, rivers and inland reservoirs.
At the same time, the complex social-ecological system of the city addresses numerous challenges and contentious scenarios daily. These include mutations and adaptation in the natural part of the system, as well as a transient equilibrium of human-related interests. However, the societal part of the system also features a continually expanding array of conflict resolution methodologies. In essence, cities function as substantial living laboratories, tasked with grappling with predicaments such as climate change and biodiversity loss, which they contribute to, in addition to mitigation and adaptation. It is imperative to harness these attributes when contemplating a global transition towards enhanced sustainability and the attainment of the 1.5-degree target ().
It is imperative that future research on socio-ecological systems in urban areas increasingly focuses on the systematic analysis of the emergence, progression, and resolution of complex problems along the lines of human-nature interaction, explicitly combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in a triangular fashion. The system responses are just as complex as the systems themselves; if we want to understand how transformation “happens”, we must research responses from all angles (). This necessitates the utilisation of contemporary satellite-based remote sensing and earth observation techniques, the exploration of niches for urban flora and fauna species in the field, and the comprehension of the diversity of urban living situations experienced by city dwellers and how these are linked to local and global economic and financial cycles ().
What future challenges are anticipated in the coming decade, and how can the scientific community prepare to tackle them collectively–see from an urban systems’ angle? Urban areas are set to encounter a plethora of challenges in the present and the future, including climate change, biodiversity loss, long-term sustainability, public health and equity, congestion and pollution, structural racism and civic engagement, and, in an ideal scenario, the enhancement of democracy. In order to address these challenges, it is imperative that future cities adopt a collaborative approach with their residents to identify and implement effective solutions. This collaborative effort is crucial to ensure the continuity and inclusivity of urban development ().
To connect directly here, what innovative strategies, collaborations, or technologies can be leveraged to address these burning questions and future challenges? It is essential that experience and knowledge from different sources are systematically analysed and brought together. This requires a broader positioning and the facilitation of a discourse on facts and data that is both broad and open. Recent decades have seen an increase in societal disparities (), particularly following the dissolution of the socialist system in 1990 and the rise of neoliberalism in the 1990s. This phenomenon is not merely a consequence of policy; rather, it is a fundamental societal issue that has come to the fore. Existing and emerging societal gaps and drawbacks have the potential to hinder progress in addressing the aforementioned challenges.
In the domain of social-ecological urban research, there has been an excessive reliance on planners and environmental experts in public administrations and large NGOs as the predominant recipients or consumers of research outcomes. This practice has led to a situation where diverse urban society is underrepresented as the primary target audience. However, the increasing digitalisation of life offers significant opportunities to directly involve diverse urban society in research and in communication of outcomes. Through the co-creation of data, supported by Smartphone-based apps using the power of AI, for example, there is an opportunity to reaffirm both interest and faith in science and to prevent systemic knowledge on global change, climate hazards, and biodiversity loss from being confined to the ivory tower of science.
In its own interest, environmental and sustainability science should, especially in times of regression of the democratic and liberal social model, examine the reasons for the global rise of this autocratic, nationalist movement and the mistrust in climate, health and biodiversity research and the rise of green bashing. Moreover, social-ecological system’s research of the 21st century should address issues of water supply, food (exemplified in Figure 2; ) and energy security and concerns about the cost of living in a more direct manner.
FIGURE 2
Furthermore, there is a necessity to explore how the values and objectives of global environmental governance can resonate with those who hold deep scepticism towards the prevailing international order. Urban social-environmental governance of the 21st century must reduce shortsightedness, cumbersome procedures, or the influence of interest groups and, at the same time, exploiting their inherent advantages (). Examples of such advantages might include, as discussed above, the free flow of information, participation, or accountability (). As previously referenced, the climate and biodiversity tipping points should be incorporated into the objectives of local and supra-regional policies, analogous to the SDGs. This would serve to more explicitly direct long-term framework laws, and focus deliberative mini-publics or hybrid mosaic governance ().
Finally, while not a counter-thesis to the aforementioned points, it is submitted that this perspective opens up a second, complementary line of thought. In accordance with , the concept of “the city” may not be interpreted simply as a conventional spatial delineation. Rather, it is the urban lifestyle, termed “urban-ness” by Boone et al.―defined by the physical and functional characteristics that support and facilitate urban-like livelihoods, life styles, connectivity, and places―that necessitates transformation and should, as a filter and enabler, be positioned at the core of the systematic, systemic, and integrative analysis of frontiers researchers on social-ecological urban systems.
Statements
Author contributions
DH: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research 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) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
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.
References
1
AnderssonE.HaaseD.KronenbergJ.LangemeyerJ.MascarenhasA.WolffM.et al (2022). Based on nature, enabled by social-ecological-technological context: deriving benefit from urban green and blue infrastructure. Ecol. Soc.27 (4), 18. 10.5751/ES-13580-270418
2
BooneC.RedmanC. L.BlancoH.HaaseD.KochJ.LwasaS.et al (2014). “Reconceptualizing urban land use,” in Rethinking global land use in an urban era. Strüngmann forum reports, vol. 14, julia lupp, series. Editors SetoK.ReenbergA. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
3
BuijsA. E.GulsrudN. M.RodelaR.DiduckA. P.van der JagtA. P. N.RaymondC. M. (2024). Advancing environmental justice in cities through the Mosaic Governance of nature-based solutions. Cities147, 104799. 10.1016/j.cities.2024.104799
4
Democracy Index (2024). Economist intelligence unit at. Available online at: https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2024/.
5
ElmqvistT.AnderssonE.McPhearsonT.BaiX.BettencourtL.BrondizioE.et al (2021). Urbanization in and for the anthropocene. npj Urban Sustain1, 6. 10.1038/s42949-021-00018-w
6
HaaseA. (2024). Inequalities and injustices of urban green regeneration: applying the conflict analysis perspective. Land13, 296. 10.3390/land13030296
7
HaaseD. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic observations as a trigger to reflect on urban forestry in European cities under climate change: introducing nature-society-based solutions. Urban For. Urban Green.64, 127304. 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127304
8
HaaseD. (2024). Embracing ambivalence as the key to promoting tree diversities as nature-based solutions in European cities. Urban Ecosyst.27, 1837–1846. 10.1007/s11252-024-01555-9
9
KowarikI.FischerL. K.HaaseD.KabischN.KleinschrothF.KonijnendijkC.et al (2025). Promoting urban biodiversity for the benefit of people and nature. Nat. Rev. Biodivers.1, 214–232. 10.1038/s44358-025-00035-y
10
McPhearsonT.FrantzeskakiN.OssolaA.DiepL.AndersonP. M. L.BlatchT.et al (2025). Global synthesis and regional insights for mainstreaming urban nature-based solutions. PNAS. In press.
11
OttoD.HaaseA. (2021). How the COVID-19 pandemic impacts social scientific research on sustainability: questions of methodology, ethics and justice: comment on Santana et al. 2021. Sustain. Sci.17, 315–318. 10.1007/s11625-021-01066-y
12
RitchieH.RosadoP.RoserM. (2023). Per capita, national, historical: how do countries compare on O2 metrics?Available online at: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-metrics.
13
RoserM.RitchieH.RosadoP. (2013). Food supply. 136–147. 10.1016/b978-1-4832-0068-2.50013-9
14
WellmannT.AnderssonE.KappS.LauschA.PalliwodaJ.PriessJ.et al (2023). Reinforcing nature-based solutions through tools providing social-ecological-technological integration. Ambio52, 489–507. 10.1007/s13280-022-01801-4
Summary
Keywords
urban, social-ecological systems (SES), future research, climate change, biodiversity, human health
Citation
Haase D (2025) What’s ahead: navigating the future of environmental science in and around cities in post-pandemic times. Front. Environ. Sci. 13:1613491. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2025.1613491
Received
17 April 2025
Accepted
06 May 2025
Published
14 May 2025
Volume
13 - 2025
Edited by
Martin Siegert, University of Exeter, United Kingdom
Reviewed by
Angela Helen Arthington, Griffith University, Australia
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Haase.
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: Dagmar Haase, dagmar.haase@ufz.de
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.