what is a action research report

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research Research Tools and Apps

Action Research: What it is, Stages & Examples

The best way to get things accomplished is to do it yourself. This statement is utilized in corporations, community projects, and national governments. These organizations are relying on action research to cope with their continuously changing and unstable environments as they function in a more interdependent world.

In practical educational contexts, this involves using systematic inquiry and reflective practice to address real-world challenges, improve teaching and learning, enhance student engagement, and drive positive changes within the educational system.

This post outlines the definition of action research, its stages, and some examples.

Content Index

What is action research?

Stages of action research, the steps to conducting action research, examples of action research, advantages and disadvantages of action research.

Action research is a strategy that tries to find realistic solutions to organizations’ difficulties and issues. It is similar to applied research.

Action research refers basically learning by doing. First, a problem is identified, then some actions are taken to address it, then how well the efforts worked are measured, and if the results are not satisfactory, the steps are applied again.

It can be put into three different groups:

• Positivist: This type of research is also called “classical action research.” It considers research a social experiment. This research is used to test theories in the actual world.
• Interpretive: This kind of research is called “contemporary action research.” It thinks that business reality is socially made, and when doing this research, it focuses on the details of local and organizational factors.
• Critical: This action research cycle takes a critical reflection approach to corporate systems and tries to enhance them.

All research is about learning new things. Collaborative action research contributes knowledge based on investigations in particular and frequently useful circumstances. It starts with identifying a problem. After that, the research process is followed by the below stages:

Stage 1: Plan

For an action research project to go well, the researcher needs to plan it well. After coming up with an educational research topic or question after a research study, the first step is to develop an action plan to guide the research process. The research design aims to address the study’s question. The research strategy outlines what to undertake, when, and how.

Stage 2: Act

The next step is implementing the plan and gathering data. At this point, the researcher must select how to collect and organize research data . The researcher also needs to examine all tools and equipment before collecting data to ensure they are relevant, valid, and comprehensive.

Stage 3: Observe

Data observation is vital to any investigation. The action researcher needs to review the project’s goals and expectations before data observation. This is the final step before drawing conclusions and taking action.

Different kinds of graphs, charts, and networks can be used to represent the data. It assists in making judgments or progressing to the next stage of observing.

Stage 4: Reflect

This step involves applying a prospective solution and observing the results. It’s essential to see if the possible solution found through research can really solve the problem being studied.

The researcher must explore alternative ideas when the action research project’s solutions fail to solve the problem.

Action research is a systematic approach researchers, educators, and practitioners use to identify and address problems or challenges within a specific context. It involves a cyclical process of planning, implementing, reflecting, and adjusting actions based on the data collected. Here are the general steps involved in conducting an action research process:

Identify the action research question or problem

Clearly define the issue or problem you want to address through your research. It should be specific, actionable, and relevant to your working context.

Review existing knowledge

Conduct a literature review to understand what research has already been done on the topic. This will help you gain insights, identify gaps, and inform your research design.

Plan the research

Develop a research plan outlining your study’s objectives, methods, data collection tools, and timeline. Determine the scope of your research and the participants or stakeholders involved.

Collect data

Implement your research plan by collecting relevant data. This can involve various methods such as surveys, interviews, observations, document analysis, or focus groups. Ensure that your data collection methods align with your research objectives and allow you to gather the necessary information.

Analyze the data

Once you have collected the data, analyze it using appropriate qualitative or quantitative techniques. Look for patterns, themes, or trends in the data that can help you understand the problem better.

Reflect on the findings

Reflect on the analyzed data and interpret the results in the context of your research question. Consider the implications and possible solutions that emerge from the data analysis. This reflection phase is crucial for generating insights and understanding the underlying factors contributing to the problem.

Develop an action plan

Based on your analysis and reflection, develop an action plan that outlines the steps you will take to address the identified problem. The plan should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART goals). Consider involving relevant stakeholders in planning to ensure their buy-in and support.

Implement the action plan

Put your action plan into practice by implementing the identified strategies or interventions. This may involve making changes to existing practices, introducing new approaches, or testing alternative solutions. Document the implementation process and any modifications made along the way.

Evaluate and monitor progress

Continuously monitor and evaluate the impact of your actions. Collect additional data, assess the effectiveness of the interventions, and measure progress towards your goals. This evaluation will help you determine if your actions have the desired effects and inform any necessary adjustments.

Reflect and iterate

Reflect on the outcomes of your actions and the evaluation results. Consider what worked well, what did not, and why. Use this information to refine your approach, make necessary adjustments, and plan for the next cycle of action research if needed.

Remember that participatory action research is an iterative process, and multiple cycles may be required to achieve significant improvements or solutions to the identified problem. Each cycle builds on the insights gained from the previous one, fostering continuous learning and improvement.

Explore Insightfully Contextual Inquiry in Qualitative Research

Here are two real-life examples of action research.

Action research initiatives are frequently situation-specific. Still, other researchers can adapt the techniques. The example is from a researcher’s (Franklin, 1994) report about a project encouraging nature tourism in the Caribbean.

In 1991, this was launched to study how nature tourism may be implemented on the four Windward Islands in the Caribbean: St. Lucia, Grenada, Dominica, and St. Vincent.

For environmental protection, a government-led action study determined that the consultation process needs to involve numerous stakeholders, including commercial enterprises.

First, two researchers undertook the study and held search conferences on each island. The search conferences resulted in suggestions and action plans for local community nature tourism sub-projects.

Several islands formed advisory groups and launched national awareness and community projects. Regional project meetings were held to discuss experiences, self-evaluations, and strategies. Creating a documentary about a local initiative helped build community. And the study was a success, leading to a number of changes in the area.

Lau and Hayward (1997) employed action research to analyze Internet-based collaborative work groups.

Over two years, the researchers facilitated three action research problem -solving cycles with 15 teachers, project personnel, and 25 health practitioners from diverse areas. The goal was to see how Internet-based communications might affect their virtual workgroup.

First, expectations were defined, technology was provided, and a bespoke workgroup system was developed. Participants suggested shorter, more dispersed training sessions with project-specific instructions.

The second phase saw the system’s complete deployment. The final cycle witnessed system stability and virtual group formation. The key lesson was that the learning curve was poorly misjudged, with frustrations only marginally met by phone-based technical help. According to the researchers, the absence of high-quality online material about community healthcare was harmful.

Role clarity, connection building, knowledge sharing, resource assistance, and experiential learning are vital for virtual group growth. More study is required on how group support systems might assist groups in engaging with their external environment and boost group members’ learning. 

Action research has both good and bad points.

• It is very flexible, so researchers can change their analyses to fit their needs and make individual changes.
• It offers a quick and easy way to solve problems that have been going on for a long time instead of complicated, long-term solutions based on complex facts.
• If It is done right, it can be very powerful because it can lead to social change and give people the tools to make that change in ways that are important to their communities.

Disadvantages

• These studies have a hard time being generalized and are hard to repeat because they are so flexible. Because the researcher has the power to draw conclusions, they are often not thought to be theoretically sound.
• Setting up an action study in an ethical way can be hard. People may feel like they have to take part or take part in a certain way.
• It is prone to research errors like selection bias , social desirability bias, and other cognitive biases.

LEARN ABOUT: Self-Selection Bias

This post discusses how action research generates knowledge, its steps, and real-life examples. It is very applicable to the field of research and has a high level of relevance. We can only state that the purpose of this research is to comprehend an issue and find a solution to it.

At QuestionPro, we give researchers tools for collecting data, like our survey software, and a library of insights for any long-term study. Go to the Insight Hub if you want to see a demo or learn more about it.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ’s)

Action research is a systematic approach to inquiry that involves identifying a problem or challenge in a practical context, implementing interventions or changes, collecting and analyzing data, and using the findings to inform decision-making and drive positive change.

Action research can be conducted by various individuals or groups, including teachers, administrators, researchers, and educational practitioners. It is often carried out by those directly involved in the educational setting where the research takes place.

The steps of action research typically include identifying a problem, reviewing relevant literature, designing interventions or changes, collecting and analyzing data, reflecting on findings, and implementing improvements based on the results.

MORE LIKE THIS

Why Multilingual 360 Feedback Surveys Provide Better Insights

Jun 3, 2024

Raked Weighting: A Key Tool for Accurate Survey Results

May 31, 2024

Top 8 Data Trends to Understand the Future of Data

May 30, 2024

Top 12 Interactive Presentation Software to Engage Your User

May 29, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

Linking Research to Action: A Simple Guide to Writing an Action Research Report

What Is Action Research, and Why Do We Do It?

Action research is any research into practice undertaken by those involved in that practice, with the primary goal of encouraging continued reflection and making improvement. It can be done in any professional field, including medicine, nursing, social work, psychology, and education. Action research is particularly popular in the field of education. When it comes to teaching, practitioners may be interested in trying out different teaching methods in the classroom, but are unsure of their effectiveness. Action research provides an opportunity to explore the effectiveness of a particular teaching practice, the development of a curriculum, or your students’ learning, hence making continual improvement possible. In other words, the use of an interactive action-and-research process enables practitioners to get an idea of what they and their learners really do inside of the classroom, not merely what they think they can do. By doing this, it is hoped that both the teaching and the learning occurring in the classroom can be better tailored to fit the learners’ needs.

You may be wondering how action research differs from traditional research. The term itself already suggests that it is concerned with both “action” and “research,” as well as the association between the two. Kurt Lewin (1890-1947), a famous psychologist who coined this term, believed that there was “no action without research; no research without action” (Marrow, 1969, p.163). It is certainly possible, and perhaps commonplace, for people to try to have one without the other, but the unique combination of the two is what distinguishes action research from most other forms of enquiry. Traditional research emphasizes the review of prior research, rigorous control of the research design, and generalizable and preferably statistically significant results, all of which help examine the theoretical significance of the issue. Action research, with its emphasis on the insider’s perspective and the practical significance of a current issue, may instead allow less representative sampling, looser procedures, and the presentation of raw data and statistically insignificant results.

What Should We Include in an Action Research Report?

The components put into an action research report largely coincide with the steps used in the action research process. This process usually starts with a question or an observation about a current problem. After identifying the problem area and narrowing it down to make it more manageable for research, the development process continues as you devise an action plan to investigate your question. This will involve gathering data and evidence to support your solution. Common data collection methods include observation of individual or group behavior, taking audio or video recordings, distributing questionnaires or surveys, conducting interviews, asking for peer observations and comments, taking field notes, writing journals, and studying the work samples of your own and your target participants. You may choose to use more than one of these data collection methods. After you have selected your method and are analyzing the data you have collected, you will also reflect upon your entire process of action research. You may have a better solution to your question now, due to the increase of your available evidence. You may also think about the steps you will try next, or decide that the practice needs to be observed again with modifications. If so, the whole action research process starts all over again.

In brief, action research is more like a cyclical process, with the reflection upon your action and research findings affecting changes in your practice, which may lead to extended questions and further action. This brings us back to the essential steps of action research: identifying the problem, devising an action plan, implementing the plan, and finally, observing and reflecting upon the process. Your action research report should comprise all of these essential steps. Feldman and Weiss (n.d.) summarized them as five structural elements, which do not have to be written in a particular order. Your report should:

• Describe the context where the action research takes place. This could be, for example, the school in which you teach. Both features of the school and the population associated with it (e.g., students and parents) would be illustrated as well.
• Contain a statement of your research focus. This would explain where your research questions come from, the problem you intend to investigate, and the goals you want to achieve. You may also mention prior research studies you have read that are related to your action research study.
• Detail the method(s) used. This part includes the procedures you used to collect data, types of data in your report, and justification of your used strategies.
• Highlight the research findings. This is the part in which you observe and reflect upon your practice. By analyzing the evidence you have gathered, you will come to understand whether the initial problem has been solved or not, and what research you have yet to accomplish.
• Suggest implications. You may discuss how the findings of your research will affect your future practice, or explain any new research plans you have that have been inspired by this report’s action research.

The overall structure of your paper will actually look more or less the same as what we commonly see in traditional research papers.

What Else Do We Need to Pay Attention to?

We discussed the major differences between action research and traditional research in the beginning of this article. Due to the difference in the focus of an action research report, the language style used may not be the same as what we normally see or use in a standard research report. Although both kinds of research, both action and traditional, can be published in academic journals, action research may also be published and delivered in brief reports or on websites for a broader, non-academic audience. Instead of using the formal style of scientific research, you may find it more suitable to write in the first person and use a narrative style while documenting your details of the research process.

However, this does not forbid using an academic writing style, which undeniably enhances the credibility of a report. According to Johnson (2002), even though personal thoughts and observations are valued and recorded along the way, an action research report should not be written in a highly subjective manner. A personal, reflective writing style does not necessarily mean that descriptions are unfair or dishonest, but statements with value judgments, highly charged language, and emotional buzzwords are best avoided.

Furthermore, documenting every detail used in the process of research does not necessitate writing a lengthy report. The purpose of giving sufficient details is to let other practitioners trace your train of thought, learn from your examples, and possibly be able to duplicate your steps of research. This is why writing a clear report that does not bore or confuse your readers is essential.

Lastly, You May Ask, Why Do We Bother to Even Write an Action Research Report?

It sounds paradoxical that while practitioners tend to have a great deal of knowledge at their disposal, often they do not communicate their insights to others. Take education as an example: It is both regrettable and regressive if every teacher, no matter how professional he or she might be, only teaches in the way they were taught and fails to understand what their peer teachers know about their practice. Writing an action research report provides you with the chance to reflect upon your own practice, make substantiated claims linking research to action, and document action and ideas as they take place. The results can then be kept, both for the sake of your own future reference, and to also make the most of your insights through the act of sharing with your professional peers.

Feldman, A., & Weiss, T. (n.d.). Suggestions for writing the action research report . Retrieved from http://people.umass.edu/~afeldman/ARreadingmaterials/WritingARReport.html

Johnson, A. P. (2002). A short guide to action research . Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Marrow, A. J. (1969). The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Tiffany Ip is a lecturer at Hong Kong Baptist University. She gained a PhD in neurolinguistics after completing her Bachelor’s degree in psychology and linguistics. She strives to utilize her knowledge to translate brain research findings into practical classroom instruction.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples

Published on 27 January 2023 by Tegan George . Revised on 21 April 2023.

Table of contents

Types of action research, action research models, examples of action research, action research vs. traditional research, advantages and disadvantages of action research, frequently asked questions about action research.

There are 2 common types of action research: participatory action research and practical action research.

• Participatory action research emphasises that participants should be members of the community being studied, empowering those directly affected by outcomes of said research. In this method, participants are effectively co-researchers, with their lived experiences considered formative to the research process.
• Practical action research focuses more on how research is conducted and is designed to address and solve specific issues.

Both types of action research are more focused on increasing the capacity and ability of future practitioners than contributing to a theoretical body of knowledge.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Action research is often reflected in 3 action research models: operational (sometimes called technical), collaboration, and critical reflection.

• Operational (or technical) action research is usually visualised like a spiral following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”
• Collaboration action research is more community-based, focused on building a network of similar individuals (e.g., college professors in a given geographic area) and compiling learnings from iterated feedback cycles.
• Critical reflection action research serves to contextualise systemic processes that are already ongoing (e.g., working retroactively to analyse existing school systems by questioning why certain practices were put into place and developed the way they did).

Action research is often used in fields like education because of its iterative and flexible style.

After the information was collected, the students were asked where they thought ramps or other accessibility measures would be best utilised, and the suggestions were sent to school administrators. Example: Practical action research Science teachers at your city’s high school have been witnessing a year-over-year decline in standardised test scores in chemistry. In seeking the source of this issue, they studied how concepts are taught in depth, focusing on the methods, tools, and approaches used by each teacher.

Action research differs sharply from other types of research in that it seeks to produce actionable processes over the course of the research rather than contributing to existing knowledge or drawing conclusions from datasets. In this way, action research is formative , not summative , and is conducted in an ongoing, iterative way.

As such, action research is different in purpose, context, and significance and is a good fit for those seeking to implement systemic change.

Action research comes with advantages and disadvantages.

• Action research is highly adaptable , allowing researchers to mould their analysis to their individual needs and implement practical individual-level changes.
• Action research provides an immediate and actionable path forward for solving entrenched issues, rather than suggesting complicated, longer-term solutions rooted in complex data.
• Done correctly, action research can be very empowering , informing social change and allowing participants to effect that change in ways meaningful to their communities.

Disadvantages

• Due to their flexibility, action research studies are plagued by very limited generalisability  and are very difficult to replicate . They are often not considered theoretically rigorous due to the power the researcher holds in drawing conclusions.
• Action research can be complicated to structure in an ethical manner . Participants may feel pressured to participate or to participate in a certain way.
• Action research is at high risk for research biases such as selection bias , social desirability bias , or other types of cognitive biases .

Action research is conducted in order to solve a particular issue immediately, while case studies are often conducted over a longer period of time and focus more on observing and analyzing a particular ongoing phenomenon.

Action research is focused on solving a problem or informing individual and community-based knowledge in a way that impacts teaching, learning, and other related processes. It is less focused on contributing theoretical input, instead producing actionable input.

Action research is particularly popular with educators as a form of systematic inquiry because it prioritizes reflection and bridges the gap between theory and practice. Educators are able to simultaneously investigate an issue as they solve it, and the method is very iterative and flexible.

A cycle of inquiry is another name for action research . It is usually visualized in a spiral shape following a series of steps, such as “planning → acting → observing → reflecting.”

Sources for this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

George, T. (2023, April 21). What Is Action Research? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/action-research-cycle/

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th edition). Routledge.

Naughton, G. M. (2001).  Action research (1st edition). Routledge.

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, primary research | definition, types, & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, what is an observational study | guide & examples.

education, community-building and change

What is action research and how do we do it?

In this article, we explore the development of some different traditions of action research and provide an introductory guide to the literature.

Contents : what is action research ·  origins · the decline and rediscovery of action research · undertaking action research · conclusion · further reading · how to cite this article . see, also: research for practice ., what is action research.

In the literature, discussion of action research tends to fall into two distinctive camps. The British tradition – especially that linked to education – tends to view action research as research-oriented toward the enhancement of direct practice. For example, Carr and Kemmis provide a classic definition:

Action research is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out (Carr and Kemmis 1986: 162).

Many people are drawn to this understanding of action research because it is firmly located in the realm of the practitioner – it is tied to self-reflection. As a way of working it is very close to the notion of reflective practice coined by Donald Schön (1983).

The second tradition, perhaps more widely approached within the social welfare field – and most certainly the broader understanding in the USA is of action research as ‘the systematic collection of information that is designed to bring about social change’ (Bogdan and Biklen 1992: 223). Bogdan and Biklen continue by saying that its practitioners marshal evidence or data to expose unjust practices or environmental dangers and recommend actions for change. In many respects, for them, it is linked into traditions of citizen’s action and community organizing. The practitioner is actively involved in the cause for which the research is conducted. For others, it is such commitment is a necessary part of being a practitioner or member of a community of practice. Thus, various projects designed to enhance practice within youth work, for example, such as the detached work reported on by Goetschius and Tash (1967) could be talked of as action research.

Kurt Lewin is generally credited as the person who coined the term ‘action research’:

The research needed for social practice can best be characterized as research for social management or social engineering. It is a type of action-research, a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action, and research leading to social action. Research that produces nothing but books will not suffice (Lewin 1946, reproduced in Lewin 1948: 202-3)

His approach involves a spiral of steps, ‘each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of the action’ ( ibid. : 206). The basic cycle involves the following:

This is how Lewin describes the initial cycle:

The first step then is to examine the idea carefully in the light of the means available. Frequently more fact-finding about the situation is required. If this first period of planning is successful, two items emerge: namely, “an overall plan” of how to reach the objective and secondly, a decision in regard to the first step of action. Usually this planning has also somewhat modified the original idea. ( ibid. : 205)

The next step is ‘composed of a circle of planning, executing, and reconnaissance or fact-finding for the purpose of evaluating the results of the second step, and preparing the rational basis for planning the third step, and for perhaps modifying again the overall plan’ ( ibid. : 206). What we can see here is an approach to research that is oriented to problem-solving in social and organizational settings, and that has a form that parallels Dewey’s conception of learning from experience.

The approach, as presented, does take a fairly sequential form – and it is open to a literal interpretation. Following it can lead to practice that is ‘correct’ rather than ‘good’ – as we will see. It can also be argued that the model itself places insufficient emphasis on analysis at key points. Elliott (1991: 70), for example, believed that the basic model allows those who use it to assume that the ‘general idea’ can be fixed in advance, ‘that “reconnaissance” is merely fact-finding, and that “implementation” is a fairly straightforward process’. As might be expected there was some questioning as to whether this was ‘real’ research. There were questions around action research’s partisan nature – the fact that it served particular causes.

The decline and rediscovery of action research

Action research did suffer a decline in favour during the 1960s because of its association with radical political activism (Stringer 2007: 9). There were, and are, questions concerning its rigour, and the training of those undertaking it. However, as Bogdan and Biklen (1992: 223) point out, research is a frame of mind – ‘a perspective that people take toward objects and activities’. Once we have satisfied ourselves that the collection of information is systematic and that any interpretations made have a proper regard for satisfying truth claims, then much of the critique aimed at action research disappears. In some of Lewin’s earlier work on action research (e.g. Lewin and Grabbe 1945), there was a tension between providing a rational basis for change through research, and the recognition that individuals are constrained in their ability to change by their cultural and social perceptions, and the systems of which they are a part. Having ‘correct knowledge’ does not of itself lead to change, attention also needs to be paid to the ‘matrix of cultural and psychic forces’ through which the subject is constituted (Winter 1987: 48).

Subsequently, action research has gained a significant foothold both within the realm of community-based, and participatory action research; and as a form of practice-oriented to the improvement of educative encounters (e.g. Carr and Kemmis 1986).

Exhibit 1: Stringer on community-based action research

A fundamental premise of community-based action research is that it commences with an interest in the problems of a group, a community, or an organization. Its purpose is to assist people in extending their understanding of their situation and thus resolving problems that confront them….

Community-based action research is always enacted through an explicit set of social values. In modern, democratic social contexts, it is seen as a process of inquiry that has the following characteristics:

• It is democratic , enabling the participation of all people.

• It is equitable , acknowledging people’s equality of worth.

• It is liberating , providing freedom from oppressive, debilitating conditions.

• It is life enhancing , enabling the expression of people’s full human potential.

(Stringer 1999: 9-10)

Undertaking action research

As Thomas (2017: 154) put it, the central aim is change, ‘and the emphasis is on problem-solving in whatever way is appropriate’. It can be seen as a conversation rather more than a technique (McNiff et. al. ). It is about people ‘thinking for themselves and making their own choices, asking themselves what they should do and accepting the consequences of their own actions’ (Thomas 2009: 113).

The action research process works through three basic phases:

Look -building a picture and gathering information. When evaluating we define and describe the problem to be investigated and the context in which it is set. We also describe what all the participants (educators, group members, managers etc.) have been doing.

Think – interpreting and explaining. When evaluating we analyse and interpret the situation. We reflect on what participants have been doing. We look at areas of success and any deficiencies, issues or problems.

Act – resolving issues and problems. In evaluation we judge the worth, effectiveness, appropriateness, and outcomes of those activities. We act to formulate solutions to any problems. (Stringer 1999: 18; 43-44;160)

The use of action research to deepen and develop classroom practice has grown into a strong tradition of practice (one of the first examples being the work of Stephen Corey in 1949). For some, there is an insistence that action research must be collaborative and entail groupwork.

Action research is a form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of those practices and the situations in which the practices are carried out… The approach is only action research when it is collaborative, though it is important to realise that action research of the group is achieved through the critically examined action of individual group members. (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988: 5-6)

Just why it must be collective is open to some question and debate (Webb 1996), but there is an important point here concerning the commitments and orientations of those involved in action research.

One of the legacies Kurt Lewin left us is the ‘action research spiral’ – and with it there is the danger that action research becomes little more than a procedure. It is a mistake, according to McTaggart (1996: 248) to think that following the action research spiral constitutes ‘doing action research’. He continues, ‘Action research is not a ‘method’ or a ‘procedure’ for research but a series of commitments to observe and problematize through practice a series of principles for conducting social enquiry’. It is his argument that Lewin has been misunderstood or, rather, misused. When set in historical context, while Lewin does talk about action research as a method, he is stressing a contrast between this form of interpretative practice and more traditional empirical-analytic research. The notion of a spiral may be a useful teaching device – but it is all too easy to slip into using it as the template for practice (McTaggart 1996: 249).

Further reading

This select, annotated bibliography has been designed to give a flavour of the possibilities of action research and includes some useful guides to practice. As ever, if you have suggestions about areas or specific texts for inclusion, I’d like to hear from you.

Explorations of action research

Atweh, B., Kemmis, S. and Weeks, P. (eds.) (1998) Action Research in Practice: Partnership for Social Justice in Education, London: Routledge. Presents a collection of stories from action research projects in schools and a university. The book begins with theme chapters discussing action research, social justice and partnerships in research. The case study chapters cover topics such as: school environment – how to make a school a healthier place to be; parents – how to involve them more in decision-making; students as action researchers; gender – how to promote gender equity in schools; writing up action research projects.

Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical. Education, knowledge and action research , Lewes: Falmer. Influential book that provides a good account of ‘action research’ in education. Chapters on teachers, researchers and curriculum; the natural scientific view of educational theory and practice; the interpretative view of educational theory and practice; theory and practice – redefining the problem; a critical approach to theory and practice; towards a critical educational science; action research as critical education science; educational research, educational reform and the role of the profession.

Carson, T. R. and Sumara, D. J. (ed.) (1997) Action Research as a Living Practice , New York: Peter Lang. 140 pages. Book draws on a wide range of sources to develop an understanding of action research. Explores action research as a lived practice, ‘that asks the researcher to not only investigate the subject at hand but, as well, to provide some account of the way in which the investigation both shapes and is shaped by the investigator.

Dadds, M. (1995) Passionate Enquiry and School Development. A story about action research , London: Falmer. 192 + ix pages. Examines three action research studies undertaken by a teacher and how they related to work in school – how she did the research, the problems she experienced, her feelings, the impact on her feelings and ideas, and some of the outcomes. In his introduction, John Elliot comments that the book is ‘the most readable, thoughtful, and detailed study of the potential of action-research in professional education that I have read’.

Ghaye, T. and Wakefield, P. (eds.) CARN Critical Conversations. Book one: the role of the self in action , Bournemouth: Hyde Publications. 146 + xiii pages. Collection of five pieces from the Classroom Action Research Network. Chapters on: dialectical forms; graduate medical education – research’s outer limits; democratic education; managing action research; writing up.

McNiff, J. (1993) Teaching as Learning: An Action Research Approach , London: Routledge. Argues that educational knowledge is created by individual teachers as they attempt to express their own values in their professional lives. Sets out familiar action research model: identifying a problem, devising, implementing and evaluating a solution and modifying practice. Includes advice on how working in this way can aid the professional development of action researcher and practitioner.

Quigley, B. A. and Kuhne, G. W. (eds.) (1997) Creating Practical Knowledge Through Action Research, San Fransisco: Jossey Bass. Guide to action research that outlines the action research process, provides a project planner, and presents examples to show how action research can yield improvements in six different settings, including a hospital, a university and a literacy education program.

Plummer, G. and Edwards, G. (eds.) CARN Critical Conversations. Book two: dimensions of action research – people, practice and power , Bournemouth: Hyde Publications. 142 + xvii pages. Collection of five pieces from the Classroom Action Research Network. Chapters on: exchanging letters and collaborative research; diary writing; personal and professional learning – on teaching and self-knowledge; anti-racist approaches; psychodynamic group theory in action research.

Whyte, W. F. (ed.) (1991) Participatory Action Research , Newbury Park: Sage. 247 pages. Chapters explore the development of participatory action research and its relation with action science and examine its usages in various agricultural and industrial settings

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (ed.) (1996) New Directions in Action Research , London; Falmer Press. 266 + xii pages. A useful collection that explores principles and procedures for critical action research; problems and suggested solutions; and postmodernism and critical action research.

Action research guides

Coghlan, D. and Brannick, D. (2000) Doing Action Research in your own Organization, London: Sage. 128 pages. Popular introduction. Part one covers the basics of action research including the action research cycle, the role of the ‘insider’ action researcher and the complexities of undertaking action research within your own organisation. Part two looks at the implementation of the action research project (including managing internal politics and the ethics and politics of action research). New edition due late 2004.

Elliot, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change , Buckingham: Open University Press. 163 + x pages Collection of various articles written by Elliot in which he develops his own particular interpretation of action research as a form of teacher professional development. In some ways close to a form of ‘reflective practice’. Chapter 6, ‘A practical guide to action research’ – builds a staged model on Lewin’s work and on developments by writers such as Kemmis.

Johnson, A. P. (2007) A short guide to action research 3e. Allyn and Bacon. Popular step by step guide for master’s work.

Macintyre, C. (2002) The Art of the Action Research in the Classroom , London: David Fulton. 138 pages. Includes sections on action research, the role of literature, formulating a research question, gathering data, analysing data and writing a dissertation. Useful and readable guide for students.

McNiff, J., Whitehead, J., Lomax, P. (2003) You and Your Action Research Project , London: Routledge. Practical guidance on doing an action research project.Takes the practitioner-researcher through the various stages of a project. Each section of the book is supported by case studies

Stringer, E. T. (2007) Action Research: A handbook for practitioners 3e , Newbury Park, ca.: Sage. 304 pages. Sets community-based action research in context and develops a model. Chapters on information gathering, interpretation, resolving issues; legitimacy etc. See, also Stringer’s (2003) Action Research in Education , Prentice-Hall.

Winter, R. (1989) Learning From Experience. Principles and practice in action research , Lewes: Falmer Press. 200 + 10 pages. Introduces the idea of action research; the basic process; theoretical issues; and provides six principles for the conduct of action research. Includes examples of action research. Further chapters on from principles to practice; the learner’s experience; and research topics and personal interests.

Action research in informal education

Usher, R., Bryant, I. and Johnston, R. (1997) Adult Education and the Postmodern Challenge. Learning beyond the limits , London: Routledge. 248 + xvi pages. Has some interesting chapters that relate to action research: on reflective practice; changing paradigms and traditions of research; new approaches to research; writing and learning about research.

Other references

Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. K. (1992) Qualitative Research For Education , Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Goetschius, G. and Tash, J. (1967) Working with the Unattached , London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

McTaggart, R. (1996) ‘Issues for participatory action researchers’ in O. Zuber-Skerritt (ed.) New Directions in Action Research , London: Falmer Press.

McNiff, J., Lomax, P. and Whitehead, J. (2003) You and Your Action Research Project 2e. London: Routledge.

Thomas, G. (2017). How to do your Research Project. A guide for students in education and applied social sciences . 3e. London: Sage.

Acknowledgements : spiral by Michèle C. | flickr ccbyncnd2 licence

How to cite this article : Smith, M. K. (1996; 2001, 2007, 2017) What is action research and how do we do it?’, The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education. [ https://infed.org/mobi/action-research/ . Retrieved: insert date] .

© Mark K. Smith 1996; 2001, 2007, 2017

Last Updated on December 7, 2020 by infed.org

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

The Action Research Process

Module 1: Action Research

There are various models of the action research process. Some models are simple in their design while others appear relatively complex. Essentially, most of the models share similar elements with small variations.

Action research models begin with the central problem or topic. They involve some observation or monitoring of current practice, followed by the collection and synthesis of information and data. Finally, some sort of action is taken, which then serves as a basis for the next stage of action research (Mills 2011).

• Central Problem / Topic
• Observation / Monitoring
• Collection of Data
• Action Taken

In this course, we will define the action research process as composed of four stages and nine steps:

Image Hotspots

Action Research Process

Click each + icon to expand the steps of the stage:

It is important to note that action research is a flexible, iterative process of continuous improvement, emphasizing adaptability and responsiveness to findings at each cycle.

Kurt Lewin’s approach to action research involves a cyclical, spiral process consisting of several stages, each comprising planning, action, and reviewing the results of the action. This method is aligned with Dewey’s concept of experiential learning and is particularly suited to solving problems in social and organizational contexts.

Action Research Handbook Copyright © by Dr. Zabedia Nazim and Dr. Sowmya Venkat-Kishore is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Reviews / Why join our community?
• For companies
• Frequently asked questions

Action Research

What is action research.

Action research is a methodology that emphasizes collaboration between researchers and participants to identify problems, develop solutions and implement changes. Designers plan, act, observe and reflect, and aim to drive positive change in a specific context. Action research prioritizes practical solutions and improvement of practice, unlike knowledge generation, which is the priority of traditional methods.  

© New Mexico State University, Fair Use

Why is Action Research Important in UX Design?

Action research stands out as a unique approach in user experience design (UX design), among other types of research methodologies and fields. It has a hands-on, practical focus, so UX designers and researchers who engage in it devise and execute research that not only gathers data but also leads to actionable insights and solid real-world solutions. 

The concept of action research dates back to the 1940s, with its roots in the work of social psychologist Kurt Lewin. Lewin emphasized the importance of action in understanding and improving human systems. The approach rapidly gained popularity across various fields, including education, healthcare, social work and community development.  

Kurt Lewin, the Founder of social psychology.

© Wikimedia Commons, Fair Use

In UX design, the incorporation of action research appeared with the rise of human-centered design principles. As UX design started to focus more on users' needs and experiences, the participatory and problem-solving nature of action research became increasingly significant. Action research bridges the gap between theory and practice in UX design. It enables designers to move beyond hypothetical assumptions and base their design decisions on concrete, real-world data. This not only enhances the effectiveness of the design but also boosts its credibility and acceptance among users—vital bonuses for product designers and service designers. 

At its core, action research is a systematic, participatory and collaborative approach to research . It emphasizes direct engagement with specific issues or problems and aims to bring about positive change within a particular context. Traditional research methodologies tend to focus solely on the generation of theoretical knowledge. Meanwhile, action research aims to solve real-world problems and generate knowledge simultaneously .  

Action research helps designers and design teams gather first-hand insights so they can deeply understand their users' needs, preferences and behaviors. With it, they can devise solutions that genuinely address their users’ problems—and so design products or services that will resonate with their target audiences. As designers actively involve users in the research process, they can gather authentic insights and co-create solutions that are both effective and user-centric.  

Moreover, the iterative nature of action research aligns perfectly with the UX design process. It allows designers to continuously learn from users' feedback, adapt their designs accordingly, and test their effectiveness in real-world contexts. This iterative loop of planning, acting, observing and reflecting ensures that the final design solution is user-centric. However, it also ensures that actual user behavior and feedback validates the solution that a design team produces, which helps to make action research studies particularly rewarding for some brands. 

Designers can continuously learn from users’ feedback in action research and iterate accordingly.

© Fauxels, Fair Use

What is The Action Research Process?

Action research in UX design involves several stages. Each stage contributes to the ultimate goal: to create effective and user-centric design solutions. Here is a step-by-step breakdown of the process:  

1. Identify the Problem

This could be a particular pain point users are facing, a gap in the current UX design, or an opportunity for improvement.  

2. Plan the Action

Designers might need to devise new design features, modify existing ones or implement new user interaction strategies.  

3. Implement the Action

Designers put their planned actions into practice. They might prototype the new design, implement the new features or test the new user interaction strategies.  

4. Observe and Collect Data

As designers implement the action they’ve decided upon, it's crucial to observe its effects and collect data. This could mean that designers track user behaviors, collect user feedback, conduct usability tests or use other data collection methods.  

5. Reflect on the Results

From the collected data, designers reflect on the results, analyze the effectiveness of the action and draw insights. If the action has led to positive outcomes, they can further refine it and integrate it into the final design. If not, they can go back to plan new actions and repeat the process.  

An action research example could be where designers do the following: 

Identification : Designers observe a high abandonment rate during a checkout process for an e-commerce website. 

Planning : They analyze the checkout flow to identify potential friction points.  

Action : They isolate these points, streamline the checkout process, introduce guest checkout and optimize form fields.  

Observation : They monitor changes in abandonment rates and collect user feedback.  

Reflection : They assess the effectiveness of the changes as these reduce checkout abandonment.  

Outcome : The design team notices a significant decrease in checkout abandonment, which leads to higher conversion rates as more users successfully purchase goods.  

What Types of Action Research are there?

Action research splits into three main types: technical, collaborative and critical reflection.  

1. Technical Action Research

Technical action research focuses on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of a system or process. Designers often use it in organizational contexts to address specific issues or enhance operations. This could be where designers improve the usability of a website, optimize the load time of an application or enhance the accessibility of a digital product.  

• Transcript loading…

2. Collaborative Action Research

Collaborative action research emphasizes the active participation of stakeholders in the research process. It's about working together to identify issues, co-create solutions and implement changes. In the context of UX design, this could mean that designers collaborate with users to co-design a new feature, work with developers to optimize a process, or partner with business stakeholders to align the UX strategy with business goals.  

3. Critical Reflection Action Research

Critical reflection action research aims to challenge dominant power structures and social injustices within a particular context. It emphasizes the importance of where designers and design teams reflect on the underlying assumptions and values that drive research and decision-making processes. In UX design, this could be where designers question the design biases, challenge the stereotypes, and promote inclusivity and diversity in design decisions.  

What are the Benefits and Challenges of Action Research?

Like any UX research method or approach, action research comes with its own set of benefits and challenges.  

Benefits of Action Research

Real-world solutions.

Action research focuses on solving real-world problems. This quality makes it highly relevant and practical. It allows UX designers to create solutions that are not just theoretically sound but also valid in real-world contexts.  

User Involvement

Action research involves users in the research process, which lets designers gather first-hand insights into users' needs, preferences and behaviors. This not only enhances the accuracy and reliability of the research but also fosters user engagement and ownership long before user testing of high-fidelity prototypes.  

Continuous Learning

The iterative nature of action research promotes continuous learning and improvement. It enables designers to adapt their designs based on users' feedback and learn from their successes and failures. They can fine-tune better tools and deliverables, such as more accurate user personas, from their findings.

Author and Human-Computer Interaction Expert, Professor Alan Dix explains personas and why they are important: 

Challenges of Action Research

Time- and resource-intensive.

Action research involves multiple iterations of planning, acting, observing and reflecting, which can be time- and resource-intensive. 

Complexity of Real-world Contexts

It can be difficult to implement changes and observe their effects in real-world contexts. This is due to the complexity and unpredictability of real-world situations.  

Risk of Subjectivity

Since action research involves close collaboration with stakeholders, there's a risk of subjectivity and bias influencing the research outcomes. It's crucial for designers to maintain objectivity and integrity throughout the research process. 

Ethical Considerations

It can be a challenge to ensure all participants understand the nature of the research and agree to participate willingly. Also, it’s vital to safeguard the privacy of participants and sensitive data.  

Scope Creep

The iterative nature of action research might lead to expanding goals, and make the project unwieldy.  

Generalizability

The contextual focus of action research may limit the extent to which designers can generalize findings from field studies to other settings.  

Best Practices and Tips for Successful Action Research

1. define clear objectives.

To begin, designers should define clear objectives. They should ask the following: 

What is the problem to try to solve? 

What change is desirable as an outcome?  

To have clear objectives will guide their research process and help them stay focused.  

2. Involve Users

It’s vital to involve users in the research process. Designers should collaborate with them to identify issues, co-create solutions and implement changes in real time. This will not only enhance the relevance of the research but also foster user engagement and ownership.  

3. Use a Variety of Data Collection Methods

To conduct action research means to observe the effects of changes in real-world contexts. This requires a variety of data collection methods. Designers should use methods like surveys, user interviews, observations and usability tests to gather diverse and comprehensive data. 

UX Strategist and Consultant, William Hudson explains the value of usability testing in this video: 

4. Reflect and Learn

Action research is all about learning from action. Designers should reflect on the outcomes of their actions, analyze the effectiveness of their solutions and draw insights. They can use these insights to inform their future actions and continuously improve the design.  

5. Communicate and Share Findings

Lastly, designers should communicate and share their findings with all stakeholders. This not only fosters transparency and trust but also facilitates collective learning and improvement.  

What are Other Considerations to Bear in Mind with Action Research?

Quantitative data.

Action research involves both qualitative and quantitative data, but it's important to remember to place emphasis on qualitative data. While quantitative data can provide useful insights, designers who rely too heavily on it may find a less holistic view of the user experience. 

Professor Alan Dix explains the difference between quantitative and qualitative data in this video: 

User Needs and Preferences

Designers should focus action research on understanding user needs and preferences. If they ignore these in favor of more technical considerations, the resulting design solutions may not meet users' expectations or provide them with a satisfactory experience.  

User Feedback

It's important to seek user feedback at each stage of the action research process. Without this feedback, designers may not optimize design solutions for user needs. For example, they may find the information architecture confusing. Additionally, without user feedback, it can be difficult to identify any unexpected problems that may arise during the research process.  

Time Allocation

Action research requires time and effort to ensure successful outcomes. If designers or design teams don’t permit enough time for the research process, it can lead to rushed decisions and sloppy results. It's crucial to plan ahead and set aside enough time for each stage of the action research process—and ensure that stakeholders understand the time-consuming nature of research and digesting research findings, and don’t push for premature results. 

Contextual Factors

Contextual factors such as culture, environment and demographics play an important role in UX design. If designers ignore these factors, it can lead to ineffective design solutions that don't properly address users' needs and preferences or consider their context.  

Professor Alan Dix explains the need to consider users’ culture in design, in this video: 

Copyright holder: Tommi Vainikainen _ Appearance time: 2:56 - 3:03 Copyright license and terms: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Copyright holder: Maik Meid _ Appearance time: 2:56 - 3:03 Copyright license and terms: CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons _ Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norge_93.jpg

Copyright holder: Paju _ Appearance time: 2:56 - 3:03 Copyright license and terms: CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons _ Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kaivokselan_kaivokset_kyltti.jpg

Copyright holder: Tiia Monto _ Appearance time: 2:56 - 3:03 Copyright license and terms: CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons _ Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turku_-_harbour_sign.jpg

Overall, in the ever-evolving field of UX design, this is one methodology that can serve as a powerful research tool for driving positive change and promoting continuous learning. Since to do action research means to actively involve users in the research process and research projects, and focus on real-world problem-solving, it allows designers to create more user-centered designs. These digital solutions and services will be more likely to resonate with the target users and deliver exceptional user experiences.  

Despite its challenges, the benefits of action research far outweigh the risks. Action research is therefore a valuable approach for UX designers who are keen on creating a wide range of impactful and sustainable design solutions. The biggest lesson with action research is to ensure that user needs and preferences are at the center of the research process. 

Learn More about Action Research  

Take our User Research: Methods and Best Practices course.  

Take our Master Class Radical Participatory Design: Insights From NASA’s Service Design Lead with Victor Udoewa, Service Design Lead, NASA SBIR/STTR Program. 

Read more in-depth information in 3 things design thinking can learn from action research by Amin Mojtahedi, PhD . 

Find additional insights in What Technical Communicators and UX Designers Can Learn From Participatory Action Research by Guiseppe . 

Discover more insights and tips in Action Research: Steps, Benefits, and Tips by Lauren Stewart .

Questions related to Action Research

Action research and design thinking are both methodologies to solve problems and implement changes, but they have different approaches and emphases. Here's how they differ:  

Objectives  

Action research aims to solve specific problems within a community or organization through a cycle of planning, action, observation and reflection. It focuses on iterative learning and solving real-world problems through direct intervention.  

Design thinking focuses on addressing complex problems by understanding the user's needs, re-framing the problem in human-centric ways, creating many ideas in brainstorming sessions, and adopting a hands-on approach in prototyping and testing. It emphasizes innovation and the creation of solutions that are desirable, feasible and viable.  

Process  

Action research involves a cyclic process that includes:  

- Identify a problem.  

- Plan an action.  

- Implement the action.  

- Observe and evaluate the outcomes.  

- Reflect on the findings and plan the next cycle. 

Design thinking follows a non-linear, iterative process that typically includes five phases:  

- Empathize: Understand the needs of those you're designing for.  

- Define: Clearly articulate the problem you want to solve.  

- Ideate: Brainstorm a range of creative solutions.  

- Prototype: Build a representation of one or more of your ideas.  

- Test: Return to your original user group and test your idea for feedback.  

User Involvement  

Action research actively involves participants in the research process. The participants are co-researchers and have a direct stake in the problem at hand.  

Design thinking prioritizes empathy with users and stakeholders to ensure that the solutions are truly user-centered. While users are involved, especially in the empathy and testing phases, they may not be as deeply engaged in the entire process as they are in action research.  

Outcome  

Action research typically aims for practical outcomes that directly improve practices or address issues within the specific context studied. Its success is measurable by the extent of problem resolution or improvement.  

Design thinking seeks to generate innovative solutions that may not only solve the identified problem but also provide a basis for new products, services or ways of thinking. The success is often measurable in terms of innovation, user satisfaction and feasibility of implementation.  

In summary, while both action research and design thinking are valuable in addressing problems, action research is more about participatory problem-solving within specific contexts, and design thinking is about innovative solution-finding with a strong emphasis on user needs. 

Take our Design Thinking: The Ultimate Guide course. 

To define the research question in an action research project, start by identifying a specific problem or area of interest in your practice or work setting. Reflect on this issue deeply to understand its nuances and implications. Then, narrow your focus to a question that is both actionable and researchable. This question should aim to explore ways to improve, change or understand the problem better. Ensure the question is clear, concise and aligned with the goals of your project. It must invite inquiry and suggest a path towards finding practical solutions or gaining deeper insights. 

For instance, if you notice a decline in user engagement with a product, your research question could be, "How can we modify the user interface of our product to enhance user engagement?" This question clearly targets an improvement, focuses on a specific aspect (the user interface) and implies actionable outcomes (modifications to enhance engagement). 

Take our Master Class Radical Participatory Design: Insights From NASA’s Service Design Lead with Victor Udoewa, Service Design Lead, NASA SBIR/STTR Program.  

Designers use several tools and methods in action research to explore problems and implement solutions. Surveys allow them to gather feedback from a broad audience quickly. Interviews offer deep insights through personal conversations, focusing on users' experiences and needs. Observations help designers understand how people interact with products or services in real environments. Prototyping enables the testing of ideas and concepts through tangible models, and allows for immediate feedback and iteration. Finally, case studies provide detailed analysis of specific instances and offer valuable lessons and insights. 

These tools and methods empower designers to collect data, analyze findings and make informed decisions. When designers employ a combination of these approaches, they ensure a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand and develop effective solutions. 

CEO of Experience Dynamics, Frank Spillers explains the need to be clear about the problem that designers should address: 

To engage stakeholders in an action research project, first identify all individuals or groups with an interest in the project's outcome. These might include users, team members, clients or community representatives. Clearly communicate the goals, benefits and expected outcomes of the project to them. Use presentations, reports, or informal meetings to share your vision and how their involvement adds value. 

Involve stakeholders early and often by soliciting their feedback through surveys, interviews or workshops. This inclusion not only provides valuable insights but also fosters a sense of ownership and commitment to the project. Establish regular update meetings or newsletters to keep stakeholders informed about progress, challenges and successes. Finally, ensure there are clear channels for stakeholders to share their input and concerns throughout the project. 

This approach creates a collaborative environment where stakeholders feel valued and engaged, leading to more meaningful and impactful outcomes. 

To measure the impact of an action research project, start by defining clear, measurable objectives at the beginning. These objectives should align with the goals of your project and provide a baseline against which you can measure progress. Use quantitative metrics such as increased user engagement, sales growth or improved performance scores for a tangible assessment of impact. Incorporate qualitative data as well, such as user feedback and case studies, to understand the subjective experiences and insights gained through the project. 

Conduct surveys or interviews before and after the project to compare results and identify changes. Analyze this data to assess how well the project met its objectives and what effect it had on the target issue or audience. Document lessons learned and unexpected outcomes to provide a comprehensive view of the project's impact. This approach ensures a holistic evaluation, combining numerical data and personal insights to gauge the success and influence of your action research project effectively. 

Take our Master Class Design KPIs: From Insights to Impact with Vitaly Friedman, Senior UX consultant, European Parliament, and Creative Lead, Smashing Magazine. 

When unexpected results or obstacles emerge during action research, first, take a step back and assess the situation. Identify the nature of the unexpected outcome or obstacle and analyze its potential impact on your project. This step is crucial for understanding the issue at hand. 

Next, communicate with your team and stakeholders about the situation. Open communication ensures everyone understands the issue and can contribute to finding a solution. 

Then, consider adjusting your research plan or design strategy to accommodate the new findings or to overcome the obstacles. This might involve revisiting your research questions, methods or even the design problem you are addressing. 

Always document these changes and the reasons behind them. This documentation will be valuable for understanding the project's evolution and for future reference. 

Finally, view these challenges as learning opportunities. Unexpected results can lead to new insights and innovations that strengthen your project in the long run. 

By remaining flexible, communicating effectively, and being willing to adjust your approach, you can navigate the uncertainties of action research and continue making progress towards your goals. 

Professor Alan Dix explains externalization, a creative process that can help designers to adapt to unexpected roadblocks and find a good way forward: 

Action research can significantly contribute to inclusive and accessible design by directly involving users with diverse needs in the research and design process. When designers engage individuals from various backgrounds, abilities and experiences, they can gain a deeper understanding of the wide range of user requirements and preferences. This approach ensures that the products or services they develop cater to a broader audience, including those with disabilities. 

Furthermore, action research allows for iterative testing and feedback loops with users. This quality enables designers to identify and address accessibility challenges early in the design process. The continuous engagement helps in refining designs to be more user-friendly and inclusive. 

Additionally, action research fosters a culture of empathy and understanding within design teams, as it emphasizes the importance of seeing the world from the users' perspectives. This empathetic approach leads to more thoughtful and inclusive design decisions, ultimately resulting in products and services that are accessible to everyone. 

By prioritizing inclusivity and accessibility through action research, designers can create more equitable and accessible solutions that enhance the user experience for all. 

Take our Master Class How to Design for Neurodiversity: Inclusive Content and UX with Katrin Suetterlin, UX Content Strategist, Architect and Consultant. 

To ensure the reliability and validity of data in action research, follow these steps: 

Define clear research questions: Start with specific, clear research questions to guide your data collection. This clarity helps in gathering relevant and focused data. 

Use multiple data sources: Collect data from various sources to cross-verify information. This triangulation strengthens the reliability of your findings. 

Apply consistent methods: Use consistent data collection methods throughout your research. If conducting surveys or interviews, keep questions consistent across participants to ensure comparability. 

Engage in peer review: Have peers or experts review your research design and data analysis. Feedback can help identify biases or errors, and enhance the validity of your findings. 

Document the process: Keep detailed records of your research process, including how you collected and analyzed data. Documentation allows others to understand and validate your research methodology. 

Test and refine instruments: If you’re using surveys or assessment tools, test them for reliability and validity before using them extensively. Pilot testing helps refine these instruments, and ensures they accurately measure what they intend to. 

When you adhere to these principles, you can enhance the reliability and validity of your action research data, leading to more trustworthy and impactful outcomes. 

Take our Data-Driven Design: Quantitative Research for UX course.  

To analyze data collected during an action research project, follow these steps: 

Organize the data: Begin by organizing your data, categorizing information based on types, sources or research questions. This organization makes the data manageable and prepares you for in-depth analysis. 

Identify patterns and themes: Look for patterns, trends and themes within your data. This might mean to code qualitative data or use statistical tools for quantitative data to uncover recurring elements or significant findings. 

Compare findings to objectives: Match your findings against the research objectives. Assess how the data answers your research questions or addresses the issues you set out to explore. 

Use software tools: Consider using data analysis software, especially for complex or large data sets. Tools like NVivo for qualitative data or SPSS for quantitative data can simplify analysis and help in identifying insights. 

Draw conclusions: Based on your analysis, draw conclusions about what the data reveals. Look for insights that answer your research questions or offer solutions to the problem you are investigating. 

Reflect and act: Reflect on the implications of your findings. Consider how they impact your understanding of the research problem and what actions they suggest for improvement or further investigation. 

This approach to data analysis ensures a thorough understanding of the collected data, allowing you to draw meaningful conclusions and make informed decisions based on your action research project. 

Professor Ann Blandford, Professor of Human-Computer Interaction, UCL explains valuable aspects of data collection in this video: 

Baskerville, R. L., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1996). A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research . Journal of Information Technology, 11(3), 235-246.   

This influential paper examines the philosophical underpinnings of action research and its application in information systems research, which is closely related to UX design. It highlights the strengths of action research in addressing complex, real-world problems, as well as the challenges in maintaining rigor and achieving generalizability. The paper helped establish action research as a valuable methodology in the information systems and UX design fields.  

Di Mascio, T., & Tarantino, L. (2015). New Design Techniques for New Users: An Action Research-Based Approach . In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct (pp. 83-96). ACM. 

This paper describes an action research project that aimed to develop a novel data gathering technique for understanding the context of use of a technology-enhanced learning system for children. The authors argue that traditional laboratory experiments struggle to maintain relevance to the real world, and that action research, with its focus on solving practical problems, is better suited to addressing the needs of new ICT products and their users. The paper provides insights into the action research process and reflects on its value in defining new methods for solving complex, real-world problems. The work is influential in demonstrating the applicability of action research in the field of user experience design, particularly for designing for new and underserved user groups. 

Villari, B. (2014). Action research approach in design research . In Proceedings of the 5th STS Italia Conference A Matter of Design: Making Society through Science and Technology (pp. 306-316). STS Italia Publishing.  

This paper explores the application of action research in the field of design research. The author argues that design is a complex practice that requires interdisciplinary skills and the ability to engage with diverse communities. Action research is presented as a research strategy that can effectively merge theory and practice, linking the reflective dimension to practical activities. The key features of action research highlighted in the paper are its context-dependent nature, the close relationship between researchers and the communities involved, and the iterative process of examining one's own practice and using research insights to inform future actions. The paper is influential in demonstrating the value of action research in addressing the challenges of design research, particularly in terms of bridging the gap between theory and practice and fostering collaborative, user-centered approaches to design.  

Brandt, E. (2004). Action research in user-centred product development . AI & Society, 18(2), 113-133.  

This paper reports on the use of action research to introduce new user-centered work practices in two commercial product development projects. The author argues that the growing complexity of products and the increasing importance of quality, usability, and customization demand new collaborative approaches that involve customers and users directly in the development process. The paper highlights the value of using action research to support these new ways of working, particularly in terms of creating and reifying design insights in representations that can foster collaboration and continuity throughout the project. The work is influential in demonstrating the applicability of action research in the context of user-centered product development, where the need to bridge theory and practice and engage diverse stakeholders is paramount. The paper provides valuable insights into the practical challenges and benefits of adopting action research in this domain. 

1. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice . SAGE Publications.  

This comprehensive handbook is considered a seminal work in the field of action research. It provides a thorough overview of the history, philosophical foundations, and diverse approaches to action research. The book features contributions from leading scholars and practitioners, covering topics such as participatory inquiry, critical action research, and the role of action research in organizational change and community development. It has been highly influential in establishing action research as a rigorous and impactful research methodology across various disciplines. 

 2. Stringer, E. T. (2013). Action Research (4th ed.) . SAGE Publications.  

This book by Ernest T. Stringer is a widely recognized and accessible guide to conducting action research. It provides clear, step-by-step instructions on the action research process, including gathering information, interpreting and explaining findings, and taking action to address practical problems. The book is particularly valuable for novice researchers and practitioners in fields such as education, social work, and community development, where action research is commonly applied. Its practical approach and real-life examples have made it a go-to resource for those seeking to engage in collaborative, solution-oriented research. 

3. McNiff, J. (2017). Action Research: All You Need to Know (1st ed.) . SAGE Publications.   

This book by Jean McNiff provides a comprehensive guide to conducting action research projects. It covers the key steps of the action research process, including identifying a problem, developing an action plan, implementing changes, and reflecting on the outcomes. The book is influential in the field of action research as it offers practical advice and strategies for practitioners across various disciplines, such as education, healthcare, and organizational development. It emphasizes the importance of critical reflection, collaboration, and the integration of theory and practice, making it a valuable resource for those seeking to engage in rigorous, transformative research. 

Answer a Short Quiz to Earn a Gift

What is a primary characteristic of action research in UX design?

• It drives practical changes through iterative cycles.
• It focuses solely on theoretical knowledge.
• It relies on external consultants to dictate changes.

Which type of action research improves system efficiency and effectiveness?

• Collaborative Action Research
• Critical Reflection Action Research
• Technical Action Research

What role do stakeholders play in collaborative action research?

• They participate actively in co-creating solutions.
• They provide financial support only.
• They review and approve final designs.

How do users in action research benefit the design process?

• They help make sure designs meet actual user needs and preferences.
• They help speed up the design process significantly.
• They limit the scope of design innovations.

What is the purpose of the reflection stage in the action research process?

• To document the research process for publication only
• To evaluate the effectiveness of actions and plan further improvements
• To finalize the product design without further changes

Better luck next time!

Do you want to improve your UX / UI Design skills? Join us now

Congratulations! You did amazing

You earned your gift with a perfect score! Let us send it to you.

Check Your Inbox

We’ve emailed your gift to [email protected] .

Literature on Action Research

Here’s the entire UX literature on Action Research by the Interaction Design Foundation, collated in one place:

Learn more about Action Research

Take a deep dive into Action Research with our course User Research – Methods and Best Practices .

How do you plan to design a product or service that your users will love , if you don't know what they want in the first place? As a user experience designer, you shouldn't leave it to chance to design something outstanding; you should make the effort to understand your users and build on that knowledge from the outset. User research is the way to do this, and it can therefore be thought of as the largest part of user experience design .

In fact, user research is often the first step of a UX design process—after all, you cannot begin to design a product or service without first understanding what your users want! As you gain the skills required, and learn about the best practices in user research, you’ll get first-hand knowledge of your users and be able to design the optimal product—one that’s truly relevant for your users and, subsequently, outperforms your competitors’ .

This course will give you insights into the most essential qualitative research methods around and will teach you how to put them into practice in your design work. You’ll also have the opportunity to embark on three practical projects where you can apply what you’ve learned to carry out user research in the real world . You’ll learn details about how to plan user research projects and fit them into your own work processes in a way that maximizes the impact your research can have on your designs. On top of that, you’ll gain practice with different methods that will help you analyze the results of your research and communicate your findings to your clients and stakeholders—workshops, user journeys and personas, just to name a few!

By the end of the course, you’ll have not only a Course Certificate but also three case studies to add to your portfolio. And remember, a portfolio with engaging case studies is invaluable if you are looking to break into a career in UX design or user research!

We believe you should learn from the best, so we’ve gathered a team of experts to help teach this course alongside our own course instructors. That means you’ll meet a new instructor in each of the lessons on research methods who is an expert in their field—we hope you enjoy what they have in store for you!

All open-source articles on Action Research

An Introduction to Action Research

• 8 years ago

Open Access—Link to us!

We believe in Open Access and the  democratization of knowledge . Unfortunately, world-class educational materials such as this page are normally hidden behind paywalls or in expensive textbooks.

If you want this to change , cite this page , link to us, or join us to help us democratize design knowledge !

Privacy Settings

Our digital services use necessary tracking technologies, including third-party cookies, for security, functionality, and to uphold user rights. Optional cookies offer enhanced features, and analytics.

Experience the full potential of our site that remembers your preferences and supports secure sign-in.

Governs the storage of data necessary for maintaining website security, user authentication, and fraud prevention mechanisms.

Enhanced Functionality

Saves your settings and preferences, like your location, for a more personalized experience.

Referral Program

We use cookies to enable our referral program, giving you and your friends discounts.

Error Reporting

We share user ID with Bugsnag and NewRelic to help us track errors and fix issues.

Optimize your experience by allowing us to monitor site usage. You’ll enjoy a smoother, more personalized journey without compromising your privacy.

Analytics Storage

Collects anonymous data on how you navigate and interact, helping us make informed improvements.

Differentiates real visitors from automated bots, ensuring accurate usage data and improving your website experience.

Lets us tailor your digital ads to match your interests, making them more relevant and useful to you.

Advertising Storage

Stores information for better-targeted advertising, enhancing your online ad experience.

Personalization Storage

Permits storing data to personalize content and ads across Google services based on user behavior, enhancing overall user experience.

Advertising Personalization

Allows for content and ad personalization across Google services based on user behavior. This consent enhances user experiences.

Enables personalizing ads based on user data and interactions, allowing for more relevant advertising experiences across Google services.

Receive more relevant advertisements by sharing your interests and behavior with our trusted advertising partners.

Enables better ad targeting and measurement on Meta platforms, making ads you see more relevant.

Allows for improved ad effectiveness and measurement through Meta’s Conversions API, ensuring privacy-compliant data sharing.

LinkedIn Insights

Tracks conversions, retargeting, and web analytics for LinkedIn ad campaigns, enhancing ad relevance and performance.

LinkedIn CAPI

Enhances LinkedIn advertising through server-side event tracking, offering more accurate measurement and personalization.

Google Ads Tag

Tracks ad performance and user engagement, helping deliver ads that are most useful to you.

Share Knowledge, Get Respect!

or copy link

Cite according to academic standards

Simply copy and paste the text below into your bibliographic reference list, onto your blog, or anywhere else. You can also just hyperlink to this page.

New to UX Design? We’re Giving You a Free ebook!

Download our free ebook The Basics of User Experience Design to learn about core concepts of UX design.

In 9 chapters, we’ll cover: conducting user interviews, design thinking, interaction design, mobile UX design, usability, UX research, and many more!

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

1 What is Action Research for Classroom Teachers?

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS

• What is the nature of action research?
• How does action research develop in the classroom?
• What models of action research work best for your classroom?
• What are the epistemological, ontological, theoretical underpinnings of action research?

Educational research provides a vast landscape of knowledge on topics related to teaching and learning, curriculum and assessment, students’ cognitive and affective needs, cultural and socio-economic factors of schools, and many other factors considered viable to improving schools. Educational stakeholders rely on research to make informed decisions that ultimately affect the quality of schooling for their students. Accordingly, the purpose of educational research is to engage in disciplined inquiry to generate knowledge on topics significant to the students, teachers, administrators, schools, and other educational stakeholders. Just as the topics of educational research vary, so do the approaches to conducting educational research in the classroom. Your approach to research will be shaped by your context, your professional identity, and paradigm (set of beliefs and assumptions that guide your inquiry). These will all be key factors in how you generate knowledge related to your work as an educator.

Action research is an approach to educational research that is commonly used by educational practitioners and professionals to examine, and ultimately improve, their pedagogy and practice. In this way, action research represents an extension of the reflection and critical self-reflection that an educator employs on a daily basis in their classroom. When students are actively engaged in learning, the classroom can be dynamic and uncertain, demanding the constant attention of the educator. Considering these demands, educators are often only able to engage in reflection that is fleeting, and for the purpose of accommodation, modification, or formative assessment. Action research offers one path to more deliberate, substantial, and critical reflection that can be documented and analyzed to improve an educator’s practice.

Purpose of Action Research

As one of many approaches to educational research, it is important to distinguish the potential purposes of action research in the classroom. This book focuses on action research as a method to enable and support educators in pursuing effective pedagogical practices by transforming the quality of teaching decisions and actions, to subsequently enhance student engagement and learning. Being mindful of this purpose, the following aspects of action research are important to consider as you contemplate and engage with action research methodology in your classroom:

• Action research is a process for improving educational practice. Its methods involve action, evaluation, and reflection. It is a process to gather evidence to implement change in practices.
• Action research is participative and collaborative. It is undertaken by individuals with a common purpose.
• Action research is situation and context-based.
• Action research develops reflection practices based on the interpretations made by participants.
• Knowledge is created through action and application.
• Action research can be based in problem-solving, if the solution to the problem results in the improvement of practice.
• Action research is iterative; plans are created, implemented, revised, then implemented, lending itself to an ongoing process of reflection and revision.
• In action research, findings emerge as action develops and takes place; however, they are not conclusive or absolute, but ongoing (Koshy, 2010, pgs. 1-2).

In thinking about the purpose of action research, it is helpful to situate action research as a distinct paradigm of educational research. I like to think about action research as part of the larger concept of living knowledge. Living knowledge has been characterized as “a quest for life, to understand life and to create… knowledge which is valid for the people with whom I work and for myself” (Swantz, in Reason & Bradbury, 2001, pg. 1). Why should educators care about living knowledge as part of educational research? As mentioned above, action research is meant “to produce practical knowledge that is useful to people in the everyday conduct of their lives and to see that action research is about working towards practical outcomes” (Koshy, 2010, pg. 2). However, it is also about:

creating new forms of understanding, since action without reflection and understanding is blind, just as theory without action is meaningless. The participatory nature of action research makes it only possible with, for and by persons and communities, ideally involving all stakeholders both in the questioning and sense making that informs the research, and in the action, which is its focus. (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, pg. 2)

In an effort to further situate action research as living knowledge, Jean McNiff reminds us that “there is no such ‘thing’ as ‘action research’” (2013, pg. 24). In other words, action research is not static or finished, it defines itself as it proceeds. McNiff’s reminder characterizes action research as action-oriented, and a process that individuals go through to make their learning public to explain how it informs their practice. Action research does not derive its meaning from an abstract idea, or a self-contained discovery – action research’s meaning stems from the way educators negotiate the problems and successes of living and working in the classroom, school, and community.

While we can debate the idea of action research, there are people who are action researchers, and they use the idea of action research to develop principles and theories to guide their practice. Action research, then, refers to an organization of principles that guide action researchers as they act on shared beliefs, commitments, and expectations in their inquiry.

Reflection and the Process of Action Research

When an individual engages in reflection on their actions or experiences, it is typically for the purpose of better understanding those experiences, or the consequences of those actions to improve related action and experiences in the future. Reflection in this way develops knowledge around these actions and experiences to help us better regulate those actions in the future. The reflective process generates new knowledge regularly for classroom teachers and informs their classroom actions.

Unfortunately, the knowledge generated by educators through the reflective process is not always prioritized among the other sources of knowledge educators are expected to utilize in the classroom. Educators are expected to draw upon formal types of knowledge, such as textbooks, content standards, teaching standards, district curriculum and behavioral programs, etc., to gain new knowledge and make decisions in the classroom. While these forms of knowledge are important, the reflective knowledge that educators generate through their pedagogy is the amalgamation of these types of knowledge enacted in the classroom. Therefore, reflective knowledge is uniquely developed based on the action and implementation of an educator’s pedagogy in the classroom. Action research offers a way to formalize the knowledge generated by educators so that it can be utilized and disseminated throughout the teaching profession.

Research is concerned with the generation of knowledge, and typically creating knowledge related to a concept, idea, phenomenon, or topic. Action research generates knowledge around inquiry in practical educational contexts. Action research allows educators to learn through their actions with the purpose of developing personally or professionally. Due to its participatory nature, the process of action research is also distinct in educational research. There are many models for how the action research process takes shape. I will share a few of those here. Each model utilizes the following processes to some extent:

• Plan a change;
• Take action to enact the change;
• Observe the process and consequences of the change;
• Reflect on the process and consequences;
• Act, observe, & reflect again and so on.

Figure 1.1 Basic action research cycle

There are many other models that supplement the basic process of action research with other aspects of the research process to consider. For example, figure 1.2 illustrates a spiral model of action research proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart (2004). The spiral model emphasizes the cyclical process that moves beyond the initial plan for change. The spiral model also emphasizes revisiting the initial plan and revising based on the initial cycle of research:

Figure 1.2 Interpretation of action research spiral, Kemmis and McTaggart (2004, p. 595)

Other models of action research reorganize the process to emphasize the distinct ways knowledge takes shape in the reflection process. O’Leary’s (2004, p. 141) model, for example, recognizes that the research may take shape in the classroom as knowledge emerges from the teacher’s observations. O’Leary highlights the need for action research to be focused on situational understanding and implementation of action, initiated organically from real-time issues:

Figure 1.3 Interpretation of O’Leary’s cycles of research, O’Leary (2000, p. 141)

Lastly, Macintyre’s (2000, p. 1) model, offers a different characterization of the action research process. Macintyre emphasizes a messier process of research with the initial reflections and conclusions as the benchmarks for guiding the research process. Macintyre emphasizes the flexibility in planning, acting, and observing stages to allow the process to be naturalistic. Our interpretation of Macintyre process is below:

Figure 1.4 Interpretation of the action research cycle, Macintyre (2000, p. 1)

We believe it is important to prioritize the flexibility of the process, and encourage you to only use these models as basic guides for your process. Your process may look similar, or you may diverge from these models as you better understand your students, context, and data.

Definitions of Action Research and Examples

At this point, it may be helpful for readers to have a working definition of action research and some examples to illustrate the methodology in the classroom. Bassey (1998, p. 93) offers a very practical definition and describes “action research as an inquiry which is carried out in order to understand, to evaluate and then to change, in order to improve educational practice.” Cohen and Manion (1994, p. 192) situate action research differently, and describe action research as emergent, writing:

essentially an on-the-spot procedure designed to deal with a concrete problem located in an immediate situation. This means that ideally, the step-by-step process is constantly monitored over varying periods of time and by a variety of mechanisms (questionnaires, diaries, interviews and case studies, for example) so that the ensuing feedback may be translated into modifications, adjustment, directional changes, redefinitions, as necessary, so as to bring about lasting benefit to the ongoing process itself rather than to some future occasion.

Lastly, Koshy (2010, p. 9) describes action research as:

a constructive inquiry, during which the researcher constructs his or her knowledge of specific issues through planning, acting, evaluating, refining and learning from the experience. It is a continuous learning process in which the researcher learns and also shares the newly generated knowledge with those who may benefit from it.

These definitions highlight the distinct features of action research and emphasize the purposeful intent of action researchers to improve, refine, reform, and problem-solve issues in their educational context. To better understand the distinctness of action research, these are some examples of action research topics:

Examples of Action Research Topics

• Flexible seating in 4th grade classroom to increase effective collaborative learning.
• Structured homework protocols for increasing student achievement.
• Developing a system of formative feedback for 8th grade writing.
• Using music to stimulate creative writing.
• Weekly brown bag lunch sessions to improve responses to PD from staff.
• Using exercise balls as chairs for better classroom management.

Action Research in Theory

Action research-based inquiry in educational contexts and classrooms involves distinct participants – students, teachers, and other educational stakeholders within the system. All of these participants are engaged in activities to benefit the students, and subsequently society as a whole. Action research contributes to these activities and potentially enhances the participants’ roles in the education system. Participants’ roles are enhanced based on two underlying principles:

• communities, schools, and classrooms are sites of socially mediated actions, and action research provides a greater understanding of self and new knowledge of how to negotiate these socially mediated environments;
• communities, schools, and classrooms are part of social systems in which humans interact with many cultural tools, and action research provides a basis to construct and analyze these interactions.

In our quest for knowledge and understanding, we have consistently analyzed human experience over time and have distinguished between types of reality. Humans have constantly sought “facts” and “truth” about reality that can be empirically demonstrated or observed.

Social systems are based on beliefs, and generally, beliefs about what will benefit the greatest amount of people in that society. Beliefs, and more specifically the rationale or support for beliefs, are not always easy to demonstrate or observe as part of our reality. Take the example of an English Language Arts teacher who prioritizes argumentative writing in her class. She believes that argumentative writing demonstrates the mechanics of writing best among types of writing, while also providing students a skill they will need as citizens and professionals. While we can observe the students writing, and we can assess their ability to develop a written argument, it is difficult to observe the students’ understanding of argumentative writing and its purpose in their future. This relates to the teacher’s beliefs about argumentative writing; we cannot observe the real value of the teaching of argumentative writing. The teacher’s rationale and beliefs about teaching argumentative writing are bound to the social system and the skills their students will need to be active parts of that system. Therefore, our goal through action research is to demonstrate the best ways to teach argumentative writing to help all participants understand its value as part of a social system.

The knowledge that is conveyed in a classroom is bound to, and justified by, a social system. A postmodernist approach to understanding our world seeks knowledge within a social system, which is directly opposed to the empirical or positivist approach which demands evidence based on logic or science as rationale for beliefs. Action research does not rely on a positivist viewpoint to develop evidence and conclusions as part of the research process. Action research offers a postmodernist stance to epistemology (theory of knowledge) and supports developing questions and new inquiries during the research process. In this way action research is an emergent process that allows beliefs and decisions to be negotiated as reality and meaning are being constructed in the socially mediated space of the classroom.

Theorizing Action Research for the Classroom

All research, at its core, is for the purpose of generating new knowledge and contributing to the knowledge base of educational research. Action researchers in the classroom want to explore methods of improving their pedagogy and practice. The starting place of their inquiry stems from their pedagogy and practice, so by nature the knowledge created from their inquiry is often contextually specific to their classroom, school, or community. Therefore, we should examine the theoretical underpinnings of action research for the classroom. It is important to connect action research conceptually to experience; for example, Levin and Greenwood (2001, p. 105) make these connections:

• Action research is context bound and addresses real life problems.
• Action research is inquiry where participants and researchers cogenerate knowledge through collaborative communicative processes in which all participants’ contributions are taken seriously.
• The meanings constructed in the inquiry process lead to social action or these reflections and action lead to the construction of new meanings.
• The credibility/validity of action research knowledge is measured according to whether the actions that arise from it solve problems (workability) and increase participants’ control over their own situation.

Educators who engage in action research will generate new knowledge and beliefs based on their experiences in the classroom. Let us emphasize that these are all important to you and your work, as both an educator and researcher. It is these experiences, beliefs, and theories that are often discounted when more official forms of knowledge (e.g., textbooks, curriculum standards, districts standards) are prioritized. These beliefs and theories based on experiences should be valued and explored further, and this is one of the primary purposes of action research in the classroom. These beliefs and theories should be valued because they were meaningful aspects of knowledge constructed from teachers’ experiences. Developing meaning and knowledge in this way forms the basis of constructivist ideology, just as teachers often try to get their students to construct their own meanings and understandings when experiencing new ideas.  

Classroom Teachers Constructing their Own Knowledge

Most of you are probably at least minimally familiar with constructivism, or the process of constructing knowledge. However, what is constructivism precisely, for the purposes of action research? Many scholars have theorized constructivism and have identified two key attributes (Koshy, 2010; von Glasersfeld, 1987):

• Knowledge is not passively received, but actively developed through an individual’s cognition;
• Human cognition is adaptive and finds purpose in organizing the new experiences of the world, instead of settling for absolute or objective truth.

Considering these two attributes, constructivism is distinct from conventional knowledge formation because people can develop a theory of knowledge that orders and organizes the world based on their experiences, instead of an objective or neutral reality. When individuals construct knowledge, there are interactions between an individual and their environment where communication, negotiation and meaning-making are collectively developing knowledge. For most educators, constructivism may be a natural inclination of their pedagogy. Action researchers have a similar relationship to constructivism because they are actively engaged in a process of constructing knowledge. However, their constructions may be more formal and based on the data they collect in the research process. Action researchers also are engaged in the meaning making process, making interpretations from their data. These aspects of the action research process situate them in the constructivist ideology. Just like constructivist educators, action researchers’ constructions of knowledge will be affected by their individual and professional ideas and values, as well as the ecological context in which they work (Biesta & Tedder, 2006). The relations between constructivist inquiry and action research is important, as Lincoln (2001, p. 130) states:

much of the epistemological, ontological, and axiological belief systems are the same or similar, and methodologically, constructivists and action researchers work in similar ways, relying on qualitative methods in face-to-face work, while buttressing information, data and background with quantitative method work when necessary or useful.

While there are many links between action research and educators in the classroom, constructivism offers the most familiar and practical threads to bind the beliefs of educators and action researchers.  

Epistemology, Ontology, and Action Research

It is also important for educators to consider the philosophical stances related to action research to better situate it with their beliefs and reality. When researchers make decisions about the methodology they intend to use, they will consider their ontological and epistemological stances. It is vital that researchers clearly distinguish their philosophical stances and understand the implications of their stance in the research process, especially when collecting and analyzing their data. In what follows, we will discuss ontological and epistemological stances in relation to action research methodology.

Ontology, or the theory of being, is concerned with the claims or assumptions we make about ourselves within our social reality – what do we think exists, what does it look like, what entities are involved and how do these entities interact with each other (Blaikie, 2007). In relation to the discussion of constructivism, generally action researchers would consider their educational reality as socially constructed. Social construction of reality happens when individuals interact in a social system. Meaningful construction of concepts and representations of reality develop through an individual’s interpretations of others’ actions. These interpretations become agreed upon by members of a social system and become part of social fabric, reproduced as knowledge and beliefs to develop assumptions about reality. Researchers develop meaningful constructions based on their experiences and through communication. Educators as action researchers will be examining the socially constructed reality of schools. In the United States, many of our concepts, knowledge, and beliefs about schooling have been socially constructed over the last hundred years. For example, a group of teachers may look at why fewer female students enroll in upper-level science courses at their school. This question deals directly with the social construction of gender and specifically what careers females have been conditioned to pursue. We know this is a social construction in some school social systems because in other parts of the world, or even the United States, there are schools that have more females enrolled in upper level science courses than male students. Therefore, the educators conducting the research have to recognize the socially constructed reality of their school and consider this reality throughout the research process. Action researchers will use methods of data collection that support their ontological stance and clarify their theoretical stance throughout the research process.

Koshy (2010, p. 23-24) offers another example of addressing the ontological challenges in the classroom:

A teacher who was concerned with increasing her pupils’ motivation and enthusiasm for learning decided to introduce learning diaries which the children could take home. They were invited to record their reactions to the day’s lessons and what they had learnt. The teacher reported in her field diary that the learning diaries stimulated the children’s interest in her lessons, increased their capacity to learn, and generally improved their level of participation in lessons. The challenge for the teacher here is in the analysis and interpretation of the multiplicity of factors accompanying the use of diaries. The diaries were taken home so the entries may have been influenced by discussions with parents. Another possibility is that children felt the need to please their teacher. Another possible influence was that their increased motivation was as a result of the difference in style of teaching which included more discussions in the classroom based on the entries in the dairies.

Here you can see the challenge for the action researcher is working in a social context with multiple factors, values, and experiences that were outside of the teacher’s control. The teacher was only responsible for introducing the diaries as a new style of learning. The students’ engagement and interactions with this new style of learning were all based upon their socially constructed notions of learning inside and outside of the classroom. A researcher with a positivist ontological stance would not consider these factors, and instead might simply conclude that the dairies increased motivation and interest in the topic, as a result of introducing the diaries as a learning strategy.

Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, signifies a philosophical view of what counts as knowledge – it justifies what is possible to be known and what criteria distinguishes knowledge from beliefs (Blaikie, 1993). Positivist researchers, for example, consider knowledge to be certain and discovered through scientific processes. Action researchers collect data that is more subjective and examine personal experience, insights, and beliefs.

Action researchers utilize interpretation as a means for knowledge creation. Action researchers have many epistemologies to choose from as means of situating the types of knowledge they will generate by interpreting the data from their research. For example, Koro-Ljungberg et al., (2009) identified several common epistemologies in their article that examined epistemological awareness in qualitative educational research, such as: objectivism, subjectivism, constructionism, contextualism, social epistemology, feminist epistemology, idealism, naturalized epistemology, externalism, relativism, skepticism, and pluralism. All of these epistemological stances have implications for the research process, especially data collection and analysis. Please see the table on pages 689-90, linked below for a sketch of these potential implications:

Again, Koshy (2010, p. 24) provides an excellent example to illustrate the epistemological challenges within action research:

A teacher of 11-year-old children decided to carry out an action research project which involved a change in style in teaching mathematics. Instead of giving children mathematical tasks displaying the subject as abstract principles, she made links with other subjects which she believed would encourage children to see mathematics as a discipline that could improve their understanding of the environment and historic events. At the conclusion of the project, the teacher reported that applicable mathematics generated greater enthusiasm and understanding of the subject.

The educator/researcher engaged in action research-based inquiry to improve an aspect of her pedagogy. She generated knowledge that indicated she had improved her students’ understanding of mathematics by integrating it with other subjects – specifically in the social and ecological context of her classroom, school, and community. She valued constructivism and students generating their own understanding of mathematics based on related topics in other subjects. Action researchers working in a social context do not generate certain knowledge, but knowledge that emerges and can be observed and researched again, building upon their knowledge each time.

Researcher Positionality in Action Research

In this first chapter, we have discussed a lot about the role of experiences in sparking the research process in the classroom. Your experiences as an educator will shape how you approach action research in your classroom. Your experiences as a person in general will also shape how you create knowledge from your research process. In particular, your experiences will shape how you make meaning from your findings. It is important to be clear about your experiences when developing your methodology too. This is referred to as researcher positionality. Maher and Tetreault (1993, p. 118) define positionality as:

Gender, race, class, and other aspects of our identities are markers of relational positions rather than essential qualities. Knowledge is valid when it includes an acknowledgment of the knower’s specific position in any context, because changing contextual and relational factors are crucial for defining identities and our knowledge in any given situation.

By presenting your positionality in the research process, you are signifying the type of socially constructed, and other types of, knowledge you will be using to make sense of the data. As Maher and Tetreault explain, this increases the trustworthiness of your conclusions about the data. This would not be possible with a positivist ontology. We will discuss positionality more in chapter 6, but we wanted to connect it to the overall theoretical underpinnings of action research.

Advantages of Engaging in Action Research in the Classroom

In the following chapters, we will discuss how action research takes shape in your classroom, and we wanted to briefly summarize the key advantages to action research methodology over other types of research methodology. As Koshy (2010, p. 25) notes, action research provides useful methodology for school and classroom research because:

Advantages of Action Research for the Classroom

• research can be set within a specific context or situation;
• researchers can be participants – they don’t have to be distant and detached from the situation;
• it involves continuous evaluation and modifications can be made easily as the project progresses;
• there are opportunities for theory to emerge from the research rather than always follow a previously formulated theory;
• the study can lead to open-ended outcomes;
• through action research, a researcher can bring a story to life.

Action Research Copyright © by J. Spencer Clark; Suzanne Porath; Julie Thiele; and Morgan Jobe is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Neag School of Education

Educational Research Basics by Del Siegle

Action research.

An Introduction to Action Research Jeanne H. Purcell, Ph.D.

 Your Options

• Review Related Literature
• Examine the Impact of an Experimental Treatment
• Monitor Change
• Identify Present Practices
• Describe Beliefs and Attitudes

Action Research Is…

• Action research is a three-step spiral process of (1) planning which involves fact-finding, (2) taking action, and (3) fact-finding about the results of the action. (Lewin, 1947)
• Action research is a process by which practitioners attempt to study their problems scientifically in order to guide, correct, and evaluate their decisions and action. (Corey, 1953).
• Action research in education is study conducted by colleagues in a school setting of the results of their activities to improve instruction. (Glickman, 1990)
• Action research is a fancy way of saying Let’s study what s happening at our school and decide how to make it a better place. (Calhoun,1994)

Conditions That Support Action Research

• A faculty where a majority of teachers wish to improve some aspect (s) of education in their school.
• Common agreement about how collective decisions will be made and implemented.
• A team that is willing to lead the initiative.
• Study groups that meet regularly.
• A basic knowledge of the action research cycle and the rationale for its use.
• Someone to provide technical assistance and/or support.

The Action Research Cycle

• Identify an area of interest/problem.
• Identify data to be collected, the format for the results, and a timeline.
• Collect and organize the data.
• Analyze and interpret the data.
• Decide upon the action to be taken.
• Evaluate the success of the action.

Collecting Data: Sources

Existing Sources

• Attendance at PTO meetings
• + and – parent communications
• Office referrals
• Special program enrollment
• Standardized scores

Inventive Sources

• Interviews with parents
• Library use, by grade, class
• Minutes of meetings
• Nature and amount of in-school assistance related to the innovation
• Number of books read
• Observation journals
• Record of peer observations
• Student journals
• Teacher journals
• Videotapes of students: whole class instruction
• Videotapes of students: Differentiated instruction
• Writing samples

Collecting Data: From Whom?

• From everyone when we are concerned about each student’s performance.
• From a sample when we need to increase our understanding while limiting our expenditure of time and energy; more in-depth interviews or observations may follow.

Collecting Data: How Often?

• At regular intervals
• At critical points

Collecting Data: Guidelines

• Use both existing and inventive data sources.
• Use multiple data sources.
• Collect data regularly.
• Seek help, if necessary.

Organizing Data

• Keep it simple.
• Disaggregate numbers from interviews and other qualitative types of data.
• Plan plenty of time to look over and organize the data.
• Seek technical assistance if needed.

Analyzing Data

• What important points do they data reveal?
• What patterns/trends do you note? What might be some possible explanations?
• Do the data vary by sources? Why might the variations exist?
• Are there any results that are different from what you expected? What might be some hypotheses to explain the difference (s)?
• What actions appear to be indicated?

Taking Action

• Do the data warrant action?
• What might se some short-term actions?
• What might be some long-term actions?
• How will we know if our actions have been effective?
• What benchmarks might we expect to see along the way to effectiveness ?

Action Plans

• Target date
• Responsibility
• Evidence of Effectiveness

Action Research Handout

Bibliography

Brubacher, J. W., Case, C. W., & Reagan, T. G. (1994). Becoming a reflective educator . Thousand Oaks: CA: Corwin Press.

Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., & Hobson, D. (1996). Teachers doing research . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Calhoun, Emily (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school . Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Corey, S. M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices . New York: Teachers College Press.

Glickman, C. D. (1990). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hubbard, R. S. & Power, B. M. (1993). The art of classroom inquiry . Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

Lewin, K. (1947). Group decisions and social change. In Readings in social psychology . (Eds. T M. Newcomb and E. L. Hartley). New York: Henry Holt.

Understanding Action Research Margaret Riel Last Edit April, 2024

Action research is not a single approach but rather represents a tension between a number of forces that lead to personal, professional, and social change. I think of action research as a process of deep inquiry into one's practices in service of moving towards an envisioned future aligned with values. Action research can be seen as a systematic, reflective study of one's actions and the effects of these actions in a workplace or organizational context. As such, it involves a deep inquiry into one's professional practice. However, it is also a collaborative process as it is done WITH people in a social context, and understanding the change means probing multiple understandings of complex social systems. And finally, as research, it implies a commitment to data sharing.

There is a range of modifiers that people use for action research and many different dimensions that can be highlighted in different ways to create what some have called a family of approaches to action research (Noffke and Somekh, 2009; McNiff, 2013; Rowell, Polush, Riel and Bruewer, 2015; Rowell, Riel & Polush, 2017, Action Research Tutorial 2 ). We use collaborative action research to highlight the different ways in which action research is a social process.

Action researchers examine their interactions and relationships in social settings seeking opportunities for improvement. As designers and stakeholders, they work with their colleagues to propose new courses of action that help their community improve work practices. As researchers, they seek evidence from multiple sources to help them analyze reactions to the action taken. They recognize their own view as subjective and seek to develop their understanding of the events from multiple perspectives. The action researcher uses data collected from interactions with others to characterize the forces in ways that can be shared with other practitioners. This leads to a reflective phase in which the action researchers formulate new plans for action during the next cycle.

Action research provides a path of learning from and through one's practice by working through a series of reflective stages that facilitate the development of progressive problem-solving (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). Over time, action researchers develop a deep understanding of the ways in which a variety of social and environmental forces interact to create complex patterns. Since these forces are dynamic, action research is a process of living one's theory into practice (McNiff & Whitehead, 2010) or taking a living and learning stance towards teaching (Clive Beck, 2017). This diagram illustrates the process of action research through time.

                                                              Figure 1: The iterative process of action research

The subject(s) of action research are the actions taken, the resulting change, and the transformation thinking, acting, and feeling by the persons enacting the change. While the design of action research may originate with an individual, the process of change is always social. Over time, the action researcher often extends the arena of change to a widening group of stakeholders. The goal is a deeper understanding of the factors of change that result in positive personal and professional change.

This form of research, then, is an iterative, cyclical process of reflecting on practice, taking an action, reflecting, and taking further action. Therefore, the research takes shape while it is being performed. Greater understanding from each cycle points to the way to improved practice (Riel and Rowell, 2016).

Action researchers differ in the weight that they put on different factors or dimensions of action research (for more discussion and examples, see Rowell, Riel and Polush, 2016). Each action researcher evolves his or her approach to doing action research as the conditions and support structures are unique. To understand how action research varies, I describe two points, A, and B, along six dimensions. When someone engages in action research, they (or others) make choices that place them at some point along the continuum for each dimension. Some will argue that side A, or B, or a perfect balance between them, is ideal, or even necessary, to call the process action research. Most will have very convincing arguments for why all action research should be done in the way they advocate. The dialogue is healthy and helps us each understand the value of the positions we take. By understanding the boundaries, we develop a deeper understanding of the process. (If you click on the continuum below, you can make your own choices and compare them with others. )

https://www.actionresearchtutorials.org/2-action-research-polls/

A. Practice - Emphasis on creating a transformative change in a social setting by taking purposeful action B. Inquiry  - Emphasis on rigorous methodology and methods for validating assumptions about what changed

A. Theory from Practice  - Using practices to generate theories beginning with values, needs, and human interaction B. Theory into Practice  - Using social science findings to inform patterns of change

A. Inside Expertise- Action researchers are empowered to locate problems of practice and develop methods to improve them B. Outside Expertise  - Action researchers form partnerships with outside experts to guide the process

A. Individual Process  - Action researchers select their own questions to investigate B. Group Process  - A group of action researchers select a common question or set of questions to investigate

A. Problem-Based Approach - Action Researchers locate problems and engage in progressive problem-solving in cycles B. Inquiry-Based Approach  - Action Researchers explore effective practices to better understand and perfect them through multiple cycles

A. Identity Change  - The primary outcome of action research is changing the way the action researcher thinks, acts, and feels B. Social Change  -The primary outcomes of action research is the shift in the social context where people collectively change how they act, think and feel

A. Shared Practices  - Action Researchers share what they have learned informally at their site B. Shared Knowledge- Action Researchers share their findings in more formal contexts

Authors and professors, as well as practitioners, often have very strong views about what are the essential (and nonessential) characteristics of action research. The movement to one or the other side of each continuum represents shifts in the action research approach.

I like to think of action research as a disposition of mind as well as a research approach. It is a commitment to cycles of collective inquiry with shared reflections on the outcomes leading to new ideas. Action research forms a path towards a professional "adaptive" expertise. Hatona and Ingaki (1986) set out a contrast between efficiency expertise and adaptive expertise. I have added innovative expertise and created this chart.

                   Figure 2: The path to expertise

The yellow path can also be applied to the activist who is singled minded without researching the outcomes and consequences of action, The blue panel might be the path of researchers who do not apply their theories to change contexts. The green combines inquiry and activism to engage in action research. When you balance these two different learning approaches, you follow the green path of action research, leading to adaptive expertise and the acquisition of a deeper understanding of yourself and others.

Goals of Action Research include:

The improvement of professional practice through continual learning and progressive problem-solving;

A deep understanding of practice and the development of a well-specified theory of action ;

An improvement in the community in which one's practice is embedded through participatory research.  

Action research involves a systematic process of examining the evidence. The results of this type of research are practical, relevant, and can inform theory. Action research is different from other forms of research as there is less concern for the universality of findings, and more value is placed on the relevance of the findings to the researcher and the local collaborators. Critical reflection is at the heart of action research. When this reflection is based on careful examination of evidence from multiple perspectives, it can provide an effective strategy for improving the organization's ways of working and the whole organizational climate. It can be the process through which an organization learns.

We conceptualize action research as having three outcomes—

               1)  Professional Transformation

               2)  Organizational Theory of Change

               3)  Scholarly Identity through Sharing Research

                              Figure 3: Outcomes of Action Research  (from Riel and Lepori, 2011)

1)  Professional Transformation

At the personal level, it is a systematic set of methods for interpreting and evaluating one’s actions with the goal of improving practice. Action research is often located in schools and done by teachers, but it can also be carried out in museums, medical organizations, corporations, churches, and clubs—any setting where people are engaged in collective, goal-directed activity. Equally important, not all teacher research is action research. Teachers can do ethnographic, evaluative, or experimental research that is NOT action research. The process of doing action research involves progressive problem solving, balancing efficiency with innovation thereby developing what has been called an “adaptive” form of expertise.

 2)  Organizational Theory of Change

At the organizational level, action research is about understanding the system of interactions that define a social context. Kurt Lewin proposed action research as a method of understanding social systems or organizational learning. He claimed that the best way to test understanding was to try to effect change. Action research goes beyond self-study because actions, outcomes, goals, and assumptions are located in complex social systems. The action researcher begins with a theory of action focused on the intentional introduction of change into a social system with assumptions about the outcomes. This theory testing requires careful attention to data, and skill in interpretation and analysis. Activity theory, social network theory, system theories, and tools of evaluation such as surveys, interviews, and focus groups can help the action researcher acquire a deep understanding of change in social contexts within organizations.

                                    Figure 4. Activity Theory Model based on the work of Engeström (2004)

It is often said that action research is done with, not on, people.  This raises the question about the roles of the other people who are part of the research process ?   In some cases, there will be a team of action researchers working together.  They might be studying the same action or similar actions.  For example, in one form of action research called lesson study, a teacher team collectively designs a change in the form of a lesson. All teachers study each teacher's implementation of the change--that is teach the lesson. Together evolve the lesson.   In another example, community-based action research, there are teams of people who are implementing and studying the change, but they might all have slightly different roles.   Some of them might be engaged in action research, and others might be doing something that might better be called active learning.   I adapted this figure from Mattias Elg & Per-Erik Ellström ( 2012)  to illustrate the overlapping cycles of participants and action researcher(s).  While the action researcher(s) might take the lead in the analysis of the evidence of change, everyone is fully engaged in the process of moving from problem to action to reflection on outcomes to evolve a theory of change to guide future actions. 

3)  S cholarly Identity through Sharing Research

At the scholarly level, the action researcher produces validated findings and assumes a responsibility to share these findings with those in their setting and with the larger research community. Many people acquire expertise in their workplace, but researchers value the process of building knowledge through ongoing dialogue about the nature of their findings. Engaging in this dialogue through writing or presenting at conferences is part of the process of action research.

Action Research and Learning Circles

            Figure 5: Learning Circle Model

Developing Action Research Questions: A Guide to Progressive Inquiry

The questions asked by action researchers guide their process. A good question will inspire one to look closely and collect evidence that will help find possible answers. What are good examples of action research questions? What are questions that are less likely to promote the process of deep sustained inquiry? The best question is the one that will inspire the researcher to look at their practice deeply and to engage in cycles of continuous learning from the everyday practice of their craft. These questions come from a desire to have practice align with values and beliefs. Exploring these questions helps the researcher to be progressively more effective in attaining their personal goals and developing professional expertise.

Good questions often arise from visions of improved practice and emerging theories about the change that will move the researcher closer to the ideal state of working practices. When stated in an if/then format, they can take the shape of a research hypothesis. If I [insert the action to be taken], how will it affect [describe one or more possible consequences of the action]? We will look at two examples, one from education and one from a business setting.

Development of Action Research Questions in an Educational Context

Suppose the researcher is worried about designing the learning context to meet the needs of students who are currently not doing well in the classroom. The general inquiry question might be:

How can I personalize instruction to match the diverse needs of my students?

This forms a good overall goal which can then lead to a number of possible cycles of action research, each with a separate question. A good cycle research question has two parts: the first part describes the action to be studied, and the second part focuses on the outcome that is anticipated.

Consider this question:

If I listen to students, will I have a better understanding of them?

This question suggests action and a possible outcome but is vague in both the description of the action and the possible outcome. It is not clear what is going to be done to increase attention to students and what evidence will help evaluate the action.

Now consider:

If I set up community circle time to listen to students, describe their learning experiences in my classroom (description of the action), in what ways, if any, will the information about their learning processes lead to changes in my teaching practices (description of the outcome that will be studied)?

Now it is clear what the researcher intends to do and what a possible outcome might be. In listening to students, the researcher might discover information that will lead directly to an experiment in instructional design or might refocus the overall goal to one that was not apparent when the researcher began the inquiry.

Development of Action Research Questions in a Corporate Context

The following is another example from a business setting where people in diverse offices are working in ways that would benefit from greater coordination.

The action researcher might identify the problem as one in which poor communication results in decisions being made without attending to the issue of how a decision affects the larger system. The researcher might see a role for technology in forging a solution to this problem, such as creating a database for storing and sharing documents. The overall research question might be:

How can the development of a common location for shared knowledge and the use of interactive communication tools increase the collaborative effectiveness of team-based decision-making in our different regions?

The next step is to define the communication tool to be used and how the researcher plans to measure the collaborative effectiveness of the distant teams.

Cycle questions that might evolve should be specific with respect to the actions taken and the outcomes that will be monitored:

If I create a wiki to share documents and increase coordination, to what extent will the teams use this means of storing information to coordinate their decision-making?

A second cycle question that might follow when it is clear that other teams failed to use the wiki as effectively as the researcher had hoped:

How will making all-day support available on instant messenger for questions about the use of the wiki affect the use of the wiki to organize group work?

Recognizing Weak Action Research Questions

Questions with known answers where the goal is to "prove" it to others .   For example, suppose a person has been holding family math night for years and sees an effect on parent participation. A weak question for action research would be: Will holding a family math night increase parent participation? This might be a useful evaluative research question where a controlled study could be set up to explore the connection. However, evaluative research is different from action research. Action research is an experiment in design and involves implementing an action to study its consequences.  

Questions that can be answered yes or no.   Generally, these are questions that will not encourage paying attention to the many nuances of the setting and social interactions. Although, like any guide, while some yes/no questions can provide direction, thinking about ways to transform the question into a different format is often helpful. For example, Will the introduction of project-based learning lead to more student engagement? The question might be reworked to, How will the introduction of project-based learning affect student engagement in my classroom? The first one, the researcher can answer the question with yes (an outcome that they might have expected). The second question guides them to look for the possible mechanism of project-based learning (maybe ownership, collaboration, or self-assessment) that has been found to be related to increased engagement.  

Questions that can be answered by reading the literature.   What does "a community of practice" mean? This might be a question that the researcher needs to answer, and can do so by reading more readily than by engaging in action research. A better formulation for action research might be: How will increasing the time for teacher collaboration in grade-level teams affect the development of a community of practice at our school?

Sharing your Action Research with Others:

One of the strongest acts of leadership can be writing—sharing knowledge and insights gained. Writing enables a contribution to the body of knowledge beyond the researcher. The final report serves the purpose of sharing the knowledge gained through action research with others in a community of practice. Action researchers will need to decide what to write and to whom to write.

A Written Report

The following is the recommended template for the Master of Arts in Learning Technologies thesis for Pepperdine students. However, an action research report may be organized in multiple ways.

INTRODUCTION:

The significance of the problem you are addressing. The reader needs to be invited to think about the problem at the widest level. This should answer the question—Why should I read this; why should I care about this study? This is not about the context but about the problem and how it is linked to your vision for a different future.

THE CONTEXT:

WORK/COMMUNITY CONTEXT (Action context)— Once you have posed a problem at a general level, you will need to provide the context of your work. There are two parts to this. One is the local context (this section,) and the other is the professional context (literature review). These can come in whatever order makes sense to you. In your local context, you may want to describe your membership/position in your community of practice, as well as how you have previously tried to address the problem described.

LITERATURE REVIEW (research context )— The literature is another way to set the context for your work. What previous work informs your understanding of the problem? What theories or predictions about outcomes come from past studies? How is what you plan to do similar or different from what others have tried?

THE RESEARCH:

RESEARCH QUESTION— The research question sets up your inquiry. The overall question is the overarching problem selected. The cycle questions are sub-questions that helped address this larger issue in different ways.

REPORT OF CYCLES OF RESEARCH— Action research takes place in cycles. Each cycle is a discrete experiment, taking action to study change. Your report needs to include a detailed report for each cycle as follows or a report of the cycles in a more summary format.

DESCRIPTION OF CYCLE ACTION: Description of what was planned and why this is an effective change. Might include some guesses about what will happen.

CYCLE RESEARCH QUESTION: A strong question describes the action and expected reactions. The first part of the question clearly states what you will do in very specific language. The second part shares your best guess at an outcome. (The reactions of others that you expect to result from your action.) Your action research is a design experiment. You are designing with an eye toward a deeper understanding of change.

DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HAPPENED: Brief description of what took place. EVIDENCE USED TO EVALUATE THE ACTION: What evidence did you collect to tell you how others respond to your action? Where did you look for direct or indirect evidence of what happened? EVALUATION: How will you/did you evaluate the outcomes of your action?..... (Indicate your plans for your analysis in a paragraph or two). REFLECTION: Looking back on your action after collecting data, what thoughts come to mind? If you were to repeat the process, what would you change? What worked best for you? What most surprised you?

FINAL REFLECTION:

This is where you will take stock of your overall learning process during your action research. It might be helpful to think of a reflection as a set of connections between the past, present, and future. If this section is only a summary of events that happened, it is inadequate as a reflection. A reflection provides a deep understanding of why events occurred as they did, and how those outcomes helped you address your overarching question. At the conclusion of a good reflection, you should ideally know more than you did when you began. If you have not gained new insights about the problem and your problem-solving action, it is likely that you are only summarizing. Reflection is a powerful learning experience and an essential part of action research.

REFERENCES:

The references provide the context for your ideas. In many ways, the references indicate the community of researchers and writers that you are writing for. (See the  CCAR Tutorials  for detailed suggestions for each of these phases of action research.)

Publishing a Web Portfolio:

An important part of the action research process is sharing artifacts of the inquiry to enable the action researcher to continually reflect on practice so that peers may contribute to feedback and support. The Web Portfolio, then, becomes a place for both internal and external reflection.

A good action research portfolio, like a report, documents practices at each step of the inquiry. The accumulation of content provides critical mass for reflection and for recognizing the change of practice. There is no perfect template for an action research portfolio. One key idea, however, is to document each cycle and gather artifacts accordingly. That documentation process should utilize both descriptive and reflective writing.

The Center for Collaborative Action Research has collected action research portfolios that serve as effective models. The model portfolios are categorized into five groups: 

Classroom Action Research  

Youth Action Research  

Professional Development Action Research  

Community Participatory Action Research 

Organizational Action Research

In general, your web portfolio might include, but is not limited to, the following:

An overview of your problem at a general level and why you (and others) see this as an important challenge and some hints about what you did to solve it- this opening page should be engaging with photos, graphics, and possibly a video or audio intro from you

A description of the problem that you are researching with an action to be taken

A detailed description of the field of action (the action context)

A review of literature as part of a planning process (the research context)

The action research question(s)

The action research process is described briefly

Cycle Reports that document the activity across multiple efforts of change including

data collected

details of the analysis process

cycle reflections

Your final reflection considers what was learned across all of the cycles about yourself, your actions, your context, and the process.

References 

Collection of any artifacts, images, and videos, or research blogs that you wish to include

Professional bio

This overview was designed to provide a quick answer to the question What is action research?  Perhaps a more important question to ask is Why do action research?  There are lots of answers to this question that focus on the development of expertise, issues of social justice, and mobilization of native knowledge. I think that at the fundamental level, I would say that as humans, we are problem solvers. That is what gives us joy. Learning through ongoing problem-solving makes work a source of collaborative discovery. This inquiry and discovery can result in a very productive and successful career path, but in the end, it is its own reward. 

Beck, C., (2017) Informal action research: The nature and contributions of everyday classroom inquiry. In L. Rowell, C. Bruce, J. Shosh & M. Riel, (Eds). Palgrave Interactional Handbook of Action Research. Palgrave,ISBN 978-1-137-40523-4 (ebook) p37-48.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago and La Salle, IL: Open Court.

Engeström, Y. (2004). "New forms of learning in co-configuration work", Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 16 Iss: 1/2, pp.11 - 21

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York: Freeman.

McNiff, J. (2013). Action Research: Principals and Practice (Third Edition). New York: Routledge.

McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2010) You and your action research project. (3rd Edition). Abingdon: Routledge.

Riel, M. & Lepori, K. (2011). A Meta-Analysis of the Outcomes of Action Research. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association conference, April 2011, New Orleans.

Riel, M. & Rowell, L. (2017). Action research and the development of expertise: Rethinking teacher education. In L. Rowell, C. Bruce, J. Shosh & M. Riel, (Eds). Palgrave Interactional Handbook of Action Research. Palgrave, ISBN 978-1-137-40523-4 (ebook) 667-687.

Rowell, L. Polush, E. Riel, M, & Bruewer, A. (2015) Action researchers’ perspectives about the distinguishing characteristics of action research: a Delphi and learning circles mixed-methods study. Access online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09650792.2014.990987#.VPlW0IH-Oxw

Rowell, L., Riel, M., Polush, E. (2017). Defining action research: Situating diverse practices within varying frames of inquiry, science, and action. In L. Rowell, C. Bruce, J. Shosh & M. Riel, (Eds). Palgrave Interactional Handbook of Action Research. Palgrave: ISBN 978-1-137-40523-4 (ebook), 85-102.

Visit the CCAR Tutorials for more information and activities on how to be an action researcher. They are provided free of charge and can be used in courses or by individuals learning on their own. There is also a Facebook group for any questions while doing the tutorial activities. 

Center for Collaborative Action Research |  © Created 2006 Edited 2024

Action research is conducted in the workplace with others. It is a collaborative process. But, also, the doing of action research is more effective when action researchers can benefit from the help of a community of action researchers. The Center for Collaborative Action Research is part of a process of developing the community of action researchers for each cadre. In our program, action researchers carry out their work in  learning circles —a structure for organizing group interaction. Combining this  collaborative structure with the action research process  is an effective way to provide high levels of support for action researchers as they design their action and engage in the process of studying the outcomes.

Suggestions for Writing the Action Research Report *

Allan Feldman and Tarin Weiss

University of Massachusetts Amherst

There are five structural elements for an action research report. Although these elements will be described in a particular order, they need not be that way in your report. In fact, they do not even need to be separated from one another.

The context  

The first element of the action research report is a description of the context within which the action research took place. Depending on the project that you do, the locus of the context can be your classroom, your school, or your school district. It is possible that the context of the project includes aspects of more than one of these. It is important to remember that the physical description of the setting is important, but that there are other aspects that are important depending on the project. For example, if your project focuses on working with parents or students, a description of these populations should be included. If the project relates to an entire district, salient features of the geographical and political area, as well as important features of the schools are part of the relevant context.

Statement and Origin of your Research Focus

The statement of your research focus should answer one or more of the following questions:

Ä What did you investigate?

Ä What have you accomplished or attempted to accomplish in this study?

Ä What have been your goals?

This element of the report should also address the way in which your starting point developed. That is

How did the idea originate?

How and why did it change through the year?

What impact did your research notebook group have on the development of your starting point?

In addition, this section should include what you learned from reading the research literature that informed your study.

Methods This element of the report focuses on the way in which you investigated your practice situation.

Ä Describe what you did and why.

Ä What sort of data did you collect?

Ä How did you collect the data?

Ä What successes or difficulties did you have in carrying out this action research?

The Findings The fourth element of the report states what it was that you accomplished and/or found out. Remember that all action research projects involve actions so therefore there are effects of those actions. And, every action research project results in the teacher coming to a new understanding of his or her own educational situation. Therefore each report should contain some description of what it was that you learned. Make sure to include any events, circumstances or data that contradict what you had hoped to do or find out.

Implications Although this element is labeled implications , it is not necessary that each project have far reaching effects. These implications could be a statement of how participation in this research has affected the ways in which you look at your teaching, your students, or your school. In other words, do you see the educational world differently now, and how will that affect what it is that you will do next?

Finally, include a paragraph describing the next step of this research.   Is it complete?   Is there another scenario you wish to research?   Explain how you would continue action research following up on this study or developing a new idea.   Consider possible supports (without an action research course) and impediments to your efforts.

Overall, this structure is not dissimilar to what you may be familiar with -- the standard research report. There is a general introduction that places the research within the field, a statement of the problem or hypothesis, the method used, findings of the research, and finally, implications. But it can be significantly different because you may feel free to write in the first person and to use a narrative style -- to tell a validated story. You may also feel free to write in the formal style of scientific research. The choice is yours.

* Based on suggestions made by Peter Posch.

• Request new password
• Create a new account

Action Research: Improving Schools and Empowering Educators

Student resources, sample action research reports.

• Sample Action Research Report 1  
• Sample Action Research Report 2

Language selection

• Français fr

Climate Science 2050: National Priorities for Climate Change Science and Knowledge Report

Chapter 1 informing climate action.

Science provides the evidence and data on the impacts of climate change, but it also gives us the tools and knowledge as to how we need to address it. (...) We are now clearly in the era of implementation, and that means action. But none of this can happen without data, without evidence to inform decisions, or the science that supports programs and policies. — Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (2022)

The changing climate is impacting Canada’s economy, infrastructure, environment, health, and social and cultural well-being. Climate change science adds to our understanding of how to reduce future warming by mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, how to reduce the risks from warming, and how to reduce vulnerability to climate change. Thus, it supports climate action based on evidence.

Implementation and coordination of science activities must reflect the diversity of Canadians’ regional and equity-based experiences of climate change. Climate change multiplies risks for all communities and regions, but may do so in different ways, and the impacts may be felt differently. Science planning must also address the broader context of Canada’s progress toward a circular economy and sustainable development.

As our needs for knowledge and information evolve, the strategic planning and implementation of science must also evolve to reflect the multiple and distinct perspectives of all people and communities impacted by climate change and climate action.

1.1 Canada’s first Climate Science 2050: National Priorities for Climate Change Science and Knowledge report

The scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is clear, as is the need for urgent action to reach net-zero to avoid the most severe impacts. Footnote 1 However, scientific capacity must be focused to bring evidence to where it is most needed to guide action, to identify new opportunities to reduce GHG emissions, to develop adaptation responses, and to measure progress. Science and knowledge Footnote 2   play an essential role in helping us navigate the complex intersections, synergies, and trade-offs inherent in building a thriving, climate-resilient, net-zero Footnote 3   Canada that is just and equitable.

The Climate Science 2050: National Priorities for Climate Change Science and Knowledge Report (CS2050) was developed under the leadership of Environment and Climate Change Canada. It is a “what we heard” report, summarizing the results of two years of extensive engagement with more than 500 climate program leaders across federal departments and agencies and provincial and territorial governments, as well as academics and experts from the Canadian community of climate change science, and Indigenous organizations and scholars. As such, it takes its place alongside other national climate policy and planning initiatives. It identifies the science priorities—across various disciplines, from carbon cycle and Earth system science to impacts on health, infrastructure, and biodiversity—to inform science investments needed now for science results over the next six years (to 2030), and to guide ongoing science coordination.

The priorities outlined in this report reflect the information needs of those developing climate policy and programs across all levels of government. The priorities also reflect expert opinion on new lines of scientific inquiry that will enable decision makers to use emerging knowledge, data, tools, and information. In all instances, the science priorities will help advance ongoing efforts to mitigate GHG emissions and adapt to climate change, including setting emissions-reduction targets, refining existing policy approaches, and evaluating progress to date. The audience for this report is all those who have an opportunity to shape climate change science activities across Canada, including strategic planning, funding, coordination, and implementation.

Both Western and Indigenous science contributed to the report through science expert roundtables, stakeholder surveys, webinars, and numerous discussions with partners, experts, and stakeholders. This science is needed to ensure that investments in mitigation measures, adaptation, infrastructure resilience, and disaster recovery are as targeted and effective as possible. Evidence-based action limits future risk and associated costs. Canada is already experiencing costs as climate extremes and extreme weather events have become more frequent, intense, and long-lasting. These costs amount to about 5% to 6% of annual economic growth. Footnote 4   The floods, storm surge, wildfires, and extreme heat, winds, and droughts of the last two decades have translated to economic loss and financial liabilities. Going forward, these effects are projected to become more severe. Some portion of these future losses can be avoided through science-informed adaptation and mitigation.

CS2050, published in December 2020, was an important step for Canada, taking stock for the first time of the breadth of collaborative and transdisciplinary knowledge required to inform climate action. This report is the next step, identifying the most pressing science activities to enable evolution of climate action consistent with our best understanding of the challenge. Mitigation and adaptation solutions must continue to evolve as the evidence underpinning these solutions is strengthened.

Beyond guiding science investments, the process to develop this report involved ongoing dialogue on climate change science policy to improve delivery of science results that inform both mitigation and adaptation. Last, creating this national multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary science and knowledge report brings strategic science planning into broader planning for climate action, aligning Canada with other international approaches.

1.2 The science policy context

This science and knowledge report complements other federal mitigation and adaptation plans for Canada. Canada’s strengthened climate plan, A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy , describes federal policies, programs, and investments to achieve mitigation and adaptation goals. Canada’s commitment to achieving emission-reduction targets is set out in the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act , which received Royal Assent in June 2021. The Act sets out Canada’s 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels, as well as Canada’s target of net-zero emissions by 2050, and it requires the Government of Canada to set additional targets every five years to 2050. The Act specifies that future milestone targets must be informed by the best available science. As an important first step under the Act, the Government of Canada published the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) in March 2022. The ERP is a sector-by-sector roadmap with measures and strategies to achieve Canada’s 2030 target and to lay the foundation to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The 2030 ERP builds on the progress of past climate plans, including A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy (2020) and the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (2016) .

Even with rapid and deep global emissions reductions, some further warming in Canada is inevitable ( Canada’s Changing Climate Report , 2019). Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy recognizes the current impacts and risks of climate change through both slow-onset changes and extreme events and lays out the objectives for building resilience across Canada. A foundational principle of the strategy is that science will inform forward-looking, effective, and targeted actions to build resilience.

The Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act and Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy set the overarching framework guiding the climate change science priorities identified in this report. The priorities have multiple benefits, tackling many concurrent climate-related challenges facing society. In particular, this report recognizes the contributions and benefits of science to the numerous climate-related challenges facing society, including in the areas of biodiversity conservation, water security, emergency preparedness, and sustainable development. Thus, climate change science supports the goals and objectives of multiple national and international policy commitments and strategies (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1. Schematic “crosswalk” between this report and its national policy context, illustrating the policies and programs that benefit from climate change science and knowledge .

A graphic that outlines the policies and programs that benefit from climate change science and knowledge:

• Wildland Fire Strategy
• Arctic Northern Policy Framework
• Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada
• Indigenous Climate Leadership
• Blue Economy Strategy
• Sustainable Agriculture Strategy
• GHG National Inventory Reporting
• Canada Water Agency
• Methane Strategy
• Canada Green Building Strategy
• Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership
• Climate Services and Climate Data Strategy
• Other jurisdictional actions
• Adaptation Action Plan
• Canada’s 2030 Agenda National Strategy
• Convention on Biological Diversity
• Nature Smart Climate Solutions Fund
• Emergency Management Strategy for Canada: Towards a Resilient 2030
• Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements program
• Canadian Dialogue on Wildland Fire and Forest Resilience
• Food Policy for Canada
• Flood Hazard Identification and Mapping Program

This report addresses the need for investments in science at all scales, from discipline-focused discovery science to transdisciplinary research frameworks. It identifies science priorities that deliver ongoing results, including knowledge synthesis and mobilization, to provide information and data to respond to the urgent need for climate action. Hence, this report creates space for transdisciplinary science and participatory research, both critical to addressing knowledge gaps. The report identifies what science activities are needed, rather than how those activities should be implemented. While decision making and climate action (i.e., climate services, policies, and regulations) are crucial and must be informed by climate change science and knowledge, they fall outside the scope of this report.

Furthermore, this report does not address clean technology research and development (R&D), as there is already considerable planning and investment in these areas, such as the Federal Energy R&D Science Planning Process that brought together federal scientist and external stakeholders across 12 focus areas in energy R&D. This process is informing the next five years of federal energy R&D activities, some of which are complementary. The concurrent planning for clean technology, energy, and economics are outside the scope of this report. However, understanding the potential of renewable energy, carbon sequestration technologies, and other mitigation strategies is necessary to determine their potential in Canada to meet our net-zero objectives. This understanding informs net-zero pathway science, which is in the scope of this report. Targeted and sector-specific science is not included here, but that does not mean it is unimportant. The work and guidance of the Net-Zero Advisory Body, the Canada Energy Regulator , and the Canadian Climate Institute are particularly important in guiding research and knowledge synthesis and mobilization activities in this area.

This report reflects the guiding principles for climate change science developed in 2020, which have further evolved in response to ongoing science policy dialogue and engagement (Box 1.1). These principles are intended to shape all aspects of science planning, coordination, funding, data collection, research, and knowledge synthesis and mobilization.

To achieve the guiding principles, the Government of Canada supports Indigenous approaches and ways of doing by acknowledging Indigenous science as part of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis knowledge systems and ways of knowing. All those in Indigenous and Western climate change science and knowledge should listen and work collaboratively and respectfully to achieve equity among knowledge systems, while increasing opportunities for Indigenous self-determination, in fulfillment of Canada’s commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to Indigenous climate change science leadership (Chapter 3).

The following chapters outline the science needed to allow us to understand and assess potential impacts of climate change for Canada and the world, take informed and ambitious action, and reduce climate risk for a more resilient, net-zero Canada by 2050.

Box 1.1. Climate Science 2050 guiding principles

The guiding principles in CS2050 (published in December 2020) have directed development of this science and knowledge report. They offer guidance on how science planning, knowledge synthesis and mobilization, and research efforts can build on existing knowledge and understanding in a respectful, inclusive, and interdisciplinary way that benefits all Canadians. These principles continue to evolve, reflecting the discussions held and advice received in developing this report. These principles are to:

• Ensure equity of diverse knowledge systems , making space for Indigenous leadership and innovation, and recognizing that Indigenous knowledge is a distinct network of knowledge systems that cannot be integrated into Western science but can be bridged, braided, and woven to respectfully co-exist and co-create new knowledge.
• Embrace multi- and transdisciplinarity to produce science and knowledge that reflect the complexity and interconnections inherent in responding to climate change and that encompass different kinship systems and spiritual relationships with the land, oceans, and waterways.
• Emphasize collaboration across generations, disciplines, sectors, levels of government, organizations, and regions to bring together a range of experiences, perspectives, and areas of expertise.
• Adopt a flexible, adaptive approach in science and knowledge priorities to be responsive to emerging priorities, challenges, and opportunities.
• Apply an intersectional lens that considers how climate change intersects with various identity factors (e.g., race, class, gender) to develop solutions that tackle both climate change and inequity, while removing systemic barriers and promoting well-being.
• Respond to local and regional contexts, needs, priorities, protocols, cultures, and ways of knowing by involving communities affected by the research to produce tailored and effective adaptation and mitigation efforts.
• Further Indigenous self-determination in research to support an approach to climate change science that is holistic, place-based, and responsive, and that respects Indigenous sovereignty and ownership of data.
• Consider climate change mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable development in an integrated way to maximize multiple benefits and complementary, mutually reinforcing responses.

Chapter 2 Approach and methods

The approach and methods used to develop this report were holistic and grounded in societal outcomes, which the science informs. The report’s primary goal is to support net-zero and adaptation objectives. The identified science priorities also aim to achieve interconnected national goals for climate action, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable development. The primary drivers of science priority selection are relevance and responsiveness to information needs for climate change policies and programs. However, identification of priorities was also influenced by understanding of current knowledge gaps, anticipated scientific developments, and opportunities to advance science through increased national coordination and/or collaboration.

This report was developed through engagement with a broad range of climate program leaders across governments and sectors, as well as experts from the Canadian climate change science community, in 2021–2022. This built on the broader Government of Canada engagement on the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan and Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy.

This engagement process found that Canada should prioritize both foundational research, to address challenges in scientific disciplines, and transformative research, to address complex challenges that require the collective and integrated contributions from social, economic, natural, and health sciences. The key messages and findings from the engagement are synthesized in the science priorities presented in Chapters 3 to 6.

The full suite of science priorities addresses the information needs of users—those who design, implement, and evaluate climate policy and programs.

This chapter outlines how the report was developed, including engagement and prioritization of the science activities. Aligned with the guiding principles (Box 1.1), development of the report took a holistic approach, grounded in societal outcomes, which need to be informed by the science. Throughout the report’s development, the process emphasized advancing science to achieve domestic climate objectives and Canada’s sustainable development in a net-zero world. However, the report also anticipates opportunities for Canadian science to contribute to a broader international response to climate change and to climate-resilient development.

While Canada’s domestic net-zero and adaptation objectives drive this report, multiple benefits can also arise from these scientific efforts. The science activities outlined in the report are relevant to diverse climate-related challenges (Figure 1.1). Understanding of these challenges and connections with multiple benefits (e.g., for biodiversity, health, and sustainable development) also influenced the identification of science priorities.

The first CS2050 report (published in December 2020) took stock of the broad range of science aligned with climate action. This follow-up report prioritizes science activities and is intended to inform investments in research and knowledge synthesis and mobilization to align with ambitious climate action. This is similar to approaches taken in other countries with relevant jurisdictional, cultural, and/or geographical contexts. Many of the science priorities in this report represent a common science foundation for mitigation and adaptation planning, which are increasingly integrated. The common science foundation is designed to help guide these efforts so that they also become mutually reinforcing. As a result, this report identifies science priorities that span multiple disciplines, regions, and sectors, building on the initial CS2050 framework.

2.1 International examples

Understanding how other nations or international bodies have approached planning for climate change science can inform Canada’s approach. The core precept is that climate action should be based on the best possible scientific knowledge, in order to manage risk and inform effective mitigation strategies. To find international comparators, a number of science plans or strategic program plans were reviewed (below). No science plans from other jurisdictions were grounded in societal outcomes and informed both mitigation and adaptation from a holistic perspective, like the approach taken for this report.

• The European Union Joint Research Program consists of distinct research areas, which predominantly include mitigation-focused science, and an integrated sustainability research program. The Horizon Europe 2021–2024 strategic plan also includes climate science.
• The Danish Meteorological Research Institute hosts a National Centre for Climate Research , an interdisciplinary collaborative that emphasizes Danish priority topics, including the cryosphere, extreme weather, and green transition through renewable energy sources.
• There are many organizations involved in climate science in Australia , notably the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Bureau of Meteorology. The Australian Academy of Science is responsible for reviewing climate science capability and identifying the current position of the climate science sector and future climate research needs.
• In the United Kingdom , the Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme provides climate change science leadership and strategic planning, supported by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy as well as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The UK Royal Society produces briefings on a range of topics to inform climate action and research priorities. Advice is coordinated through the UK Climate Change Committee .
• In the United States , the US Global Change Research Program , a collaboration of 13 US federal departments and agencies, is responsible for strategic science planning and science assessments. This is laid out in the Global Change Research Needs and Opportunities for 2022–2031 .
• In Austria , the Austrian Climate Research Programme guides climate research related to climate change impacts, adaptation, and mitigation.
• Aotearoa New Zealand reflects the Crown–Māori relationship under the Te Tiriti o Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi), recognizing the application of te reo Māori (the Māori language) and mātauranga Māori (the unique Māori way of viewing the world, encompassing both traditional knowledge and culture), within an environmental context and specifically in New Zealand’s National Adaptation Plan.

2.2 Engagement

Climate Science 2050: National Priorities for Climate Change Science and Knowledge was developed as part of an ongoing science policy dialogue, led by Environment and Climate Change Canada, that started in 2018 with engagement for the first CS2050 report. This process involved convening a broad range of climate program leaders from across governments and sectors, as well as experts from the Canadian climate change science community. In developing the report, it was important to address knowledge gaps identified by climate policy and decision-makers across jurisdictions to better understand their priorities for climate action and what information is most needed to help this climate action succeed. The scientific community was also asked to consider what new science or knowledge syntheses are needed to meet these information needs, and where future scientific developments will enable policy makers to fill knowledge gaps and achieve climate change goals.

Working with the Office of the Chief Science Advisor’s network of Departmental Science Advisors, a Science Advisory Group was established to guide engagement and report development, prioritization, and peer review. Federal science leaders from multiple departments Footnote 5 analyzed input from the engagement and wrote this report. Throughout this process, it was evident that the organizing structures required for effective national science coordination and planning are limited, especially in light of the ambition and diversity of climate objectives.

The engagement conducted in 2021–2022 benefited from input to the broader Government of Canada engagement on the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan and Canada’s National Adaptation Strategy. In addition, the process involved engagement specifically for CS2050, including provincial and territorial engagement (Box 2.1); a targeted stakeholder survey; a Request for Information to academic organizations; and a series of seven expert science roundtables (Figure 2.1). The science roundtables discussed scientific “grand challenges” fundamental to success in mitigating GHGs and adapting to climate change. These discussions were framed by climate program leaders’ information needs, expressed through the engagement process.

A small workshop of Indigenous academic scholars complemented the science roundtable exercise, to garner insights from First Nations, Inuit, and Métis knowledge systems. This workshop further shaped the report, and, in particular, guided the development of Chapter 3, reflecting the importance of Indigenous science and capacity in weaving together Indigenous and Western science approaches.

The draft report was peer reviewed by 14 Canadian and international experts with multidisciplinary perspectives, grounded in their own specific areas of expertise. All had an appreciation of the Canadian science context through substantive engagement and/or collaboration with Canadian scientists.

Box 2.1. Provincial and territorial engagement: What we heard

Provincial and territorial governments are important users of climate change knowledge. They apply science results to reduce GHG emissions and implement adaptation that will be effective in their geographic and decision-making context. The information needs of all levels of government need to continue to inform climate change science, notably to:

• improve coordination of research across sectors and actors and improve mobilization of knowledge;
• create space and equity for Indigenous knowledge;
• improve emissions performance reporting, estimation methods, disclosure, and targets for accountability;
• improve monitoring; data collection; research on climate, risks, hazards, and opportunities; research to support vulnerability and risk assessments; and metrics, monitoring, and evaluation of interventions—in particular, in fisheries, forestry, agriculture, biodiversity, and ecosystems;
• improve prediction of climate extremes and extreme weather events;
• project climate impacts on water demand, supply, and management;
• develop hydrological, flood, and coastal hazard maps for planning, navigation, and emergency response;
• predict climate change on a local scale, and understand impacts for infrastructure, health, safety, culture, and heritage;
• develop projections, observations, data, and indicators to inform nature-based solutions and management of land, waters, wildlife, and ecosystems;
• co-develop information for mitigation, adaptation, and planning tools that municipalities, communities, local stakeholders, emergency management personnel, urban planners, engineers, and others can use to respond to climate change;
• develop integrated assessment tools, which factor climate change into policy as well as financial and economic planning; and
• understand and predict climate impacts on food security, including country foods and sustainable harvesting.

Figure 2.1. The development process for Climate Science 2050: National Priorities for Climate Change Science and Knowledge

A graphic that outlines the development process for the National Priorities for Climate Change Science and Knowledge report:

• Targetted stakeholder survey
• Academic request for information
• Provincial and territorial meetings
• National Indigenous organizations meeting
• The National Adaptation Strategy and Emission Reduction Plan tables
• Earth system climate change
• Healthy Canadians

Sustainable natural resources

Resilient aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, resilient, net-zero communities and built environment.

• Quantifying GHG emissions
• Communication and motivating action
• First Nation, Inuit, Métis knowledge systems insights.
• Canadian and international experts review, enhancing horizontal linkages across the report, and clarification of prioritization approach.

2.3 Transdisciplinary science and convergence research

The engagement and expert roundtables found that research frameworks must align with the increasing complexity of decision making for mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable development. This alignment requires advancing these frameworks toward transdisciplinary science (Box 2.2). Related to this alignment, several “nexus” topics, in which disciplines intersect, and “convergence” research topics (Box 2.2) emerged in discussions.

Box 2.2. Research paradigms for transformative science

The most challenging knowledge gaps require transdisciplinary science frameworks in order to include social, economic, natural, health, and Indigenous sciences and to integrate climate change, health, and economic well-being. The 2017 report Investing in Canada's Future: Strengthening the Foundations of Canadian Research notes that the multifaceted challenges facing society require science that goes beyond disciplines, bridging previously disconnected fields of knowledge and creating new disciplines.

Developing climate change knowledge requires participatory research paradigms, creating stronger relationships among disciplinary experts and between experts and decision makers. Furthermore, giving equal value and respect to Indigenous knowledge, alongside Western science, is itself a research paradigm that continues to develop.

In this science and knowledge report, the following terms are used (adapted from The Difference Between Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary, and Convergence Research | Research Development Office (ncsu.edu) and Research Types - Learn About Convergence Research | NSF - National Science Foundation). Transdisciplinary frameworks should enable equity and unity.

Interdisciplinarity science involves two or more disciplines coming together to develop a coordinated and inclusive definition of the research problem and to design and execute the research project.

Multidisciplinary science connects researchers from different disciplines, each contributing their disciplinary perspective.

Transdisciplinary science creates a unity of intellectual frameworks, integrating approaches beyond disciplinary perspectives and resulting in a synergistic and novel approach to defining the research problem, modalities, and knowledge synthesis and mobilization.

Convergence research brings together diverse researchers to communicate across disciplines in pursuit of a common research challenge, resulting in an intermingling of knowledge, theories, methods, data, and communities. It is similar to transdisciplinary research but intentionally creates new paradigms or disciplines.

Two-eyed seeing , a concept proposed by Mi’kmaq Elder Albert Marshall , refers to learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western knowledges and ways of knowing, taking advantage of multiple perspectives (see Guiding Principles (Two Eyed Seeing) | Integrative Science ).

2.4 Report structure

The structure of this report Footnote 6 is closely aligned with the themes in the original CS2050, but also reflects the need for transdisciplinary science to address convergence research topics. This also reflects the importance of advancing science on multiple fronts in parallel, as climate change continues to affect decision making in every region, community, and economic sector.

The priorities in this report emphasize bringing social sciences more fully into climate change science, as an essential element in advancing work across all theme areas and in empowering action. Specifically, behavioural science is needed to design and evaluate climate change communication to increase awareness and understanding and to inform and motivate action. Figure 2.2 illustrates the conceptual framework for this report.

Figure 2.2. Conceptual framework for Climate Science 2050: National Priorities for Climate Change Science and Knowledge

Climate Science 2050: National Priorities for Climate Change Science and Knowledge report identifies research and knowledge synthesis priorities over the next five-10 years to inform investments in science and the national coordination to achieve a net-zero, resilient Canada.

The graphic outlines the conceptual framework for this Science and Knowledge Report.

• Collaborative
• Indigenous People and the land
• Equitable science system
• Health and resilient Canadians
• Quantitative GHG measuement and monitoring

Predicting and projecting climate extremes and extreme events

Carbon cycle science.

• Water – Climate nexus science

Arctic climate change science

• One health and climate change nexus science

Net-zero pathway science

Climate change and sustainable development, climate change and security.

• Knowledge synthesis and mobilization
• Open science
• National coordination
• International engagement

2.5 Analysis and prioritization

Chapters 3 to 6 identify priorities for research and knowledge synthesis and mobilization. The priorities reflect the need for both foundational research (advancing science to address challenges in scientific disciplines) and transformative research (addressing complex challenges that require the collective and integrated contributions from social, economic, natural, and health sciences), both of which are required to inform and evaluate progress in meeting Canada’s climate objectives.

To select the priorities for science and knowledge, the guiding principles identified in CS2050 (Box 1.1) were used. Three additional principles were developed specifically for this report to ensure that the highest-priority science activities reflect:

• relevance and responsiveness to the needs of climate change policy and program information, to help achieve the challenging transformative climate action needed to reach a resilient, net-zero Canada;
• scientific excellence , guided by emerging science and scientific foresight; and
• benefits from increased national coordination and/or collaboration .

As well, eight criteria were developed to guide discussion of the science priorities. Science priorities should:

• result in substantial opportunities to develop science assessments and knowledge synthesis products that mobilize the investments already made in climate change science;
• advance knowledge and capacity through increased national coordination and collaborative research partnerships that extend across federal departments and encompass provincial/territorial, Indigenous, municipal, academic, environmental non-governmental, and industry organizations;
• enable multi-scale responses to climate change from national to regional and local contexts;
• build on leadership and participation in international science and knowledge to mobilize knowledge and tools in Canada’s interest and context;
• reflect a multi- or transdisciplinary approach to advance research and knowledge synthesis and mobilization, where integration of understanding across disciplines is required;
• identify readiness in the state of knowledge or tools, in order to make rapid progress with targeted and modest investment;
• apply an intersectional lens to develop solutions that tackle climate change, sustainable development, and social inequity; and
• intersect multiple disciplines and interdependencies , so that advances in climate science have co-benefits for other social or environmental objectives (e.g., health, biodiversity conservation, air and water quality) or specific economic sectors (e.g., agriculture, fisheries, forestry).

Following from these principles and criteria, the process identified  convergence research topics that:

• intersect multiple themes and science disciplines;
• are transdisciplinary;
• are relevant across regions and sectors; and/or
• share complex interdependencies, interactions, and feedbacks across environmental, ecological, socio-economic, and health systems.

These convergence research topics reflect where investments in research, facilitated national coordination and collaboration, infrastructure, and knowledge synthesis and mobilization activities will have the greatest impact on achieving a resilient, net-zero Canada. They also reflect critical science needed to evaluate our progress toward our climate goals.

The key messages and findings from the engagement discussions and expert roundtables were then synthesized. In this process, we acknowledged the importance of perspectives of users—those who design, implement, and evaluate climate policy and programs—and we listened to their information needs and knowledge gaps. This perspective shaped the prioritization of science activities for research, knowledge synthesis, and knowledge mobilization (Chapters 4 through 6). As a final step, a holistic review of the science priorities against the engagement input confirmed that science must advance on multiple fronts to address the diverse set of information needs expressed during engagement.

Chapter 3 Indigenous climate change science and knowledge

This chapter has been written by the CS2050 Secretariat in Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), reflecting many conversations and materials prepared in the context of other national climate programs. Specifically, it summarizes findings from the federally led National Adaptation Strategy engagement and Table discussions, the three Joint Indigenous Nation-Canada Tables for the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, the federal Indigenous-STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) community, the Environmental Damages Fund-Climate Action and Awareness science theme scoping, a small Indigenous academic scholars workshop, and the ECCC Indigenous Science Division. While this chapter is specific to Indigenous science and knowledge for climate change broadly, the subsequent chapters also identify specific areas in which Indigenous science and knowledge are important to addressing knowledge gaps and mobilization.

The First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples, their knowledge, and their relationship with the land, water, and ice make a critical contribution to developing solutions and responding to environmental challenges, including climate change. The reconciliation pathway—as guided by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action (PDF) report of 2015—calls for all Canadian institutions to re-envision relationships, policies, and programs to heal the wounds of the past.

Colonization has increased the susceptibility of Indigenous Peoples’ physical, cultural, economic, and spiritual well-being to climate change. Indigenous Peoples have unique relationships and responsibilities between Indigenous knowledge systems, and the land, water, and ice. These concepts among Indigenous Peoples are multi-faceted and place-based, with traditions, languages, ceremonies, and knowledge systems driving the unique world views of communities and Indigenous nations. The responsibilities inherent in those knowledge systems and ways of being are known as Natural Laws . In Indigenous contexts, land represents more than simple physical landforms, territories, or ecosystems. Across Indigenous cultures, land, water, and ice are understood to be foundational elements of Indigenous identity. They serve as the landscape upon which human and more-than-human relationships evolve and develop. At the same time, they create reciprocal relationships that define the obligations of all entities to each other. This concept of land, water, and ice as interacting elements in the web of life and as arbiters of responsibility makes Indigenous science and knowledge essential to addressing climate change and co-developing solutions for all Canadians.

Indigenous science priorities and Indigenous leadership must be integrated into the entire spectrum of science practice, from hypothesis generation to policy development and implementation, to support Canada’s commitments to reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. The respectful bridging of Indigenous and Western science enables this reconciliation but must be sensitive to the capacity of Indigenous communities to engage equitably. One of the ways we reconcile is by creating equitable spaces that acknowledge the role of academia, science, and colonialism and their impact on Indigenous science.

Box 3.1. Indigenous science

Indigenous science is a culturally specific method of accumulating knowledge, refining hypotheses, and changing practices associated with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples’ deep understanding of the natural world. Indigenous science is “wholistic” (a term used to describe the ecosystem as a whole), and deeply braids, or weaves, new information over a longer-term perspective, while respecting expected codes of conduct and due diligence toward the collective benefit of all components, including humans, in ecosystems. Indigenous research paradigms have a number of common components; for instance, relational accountability, wholistic use and transmission of data and information, and respect for people as part of processes that can influence scientific outcomes. Footnote 7

3.1 Creating an equitable science system through Indigenous science

Distinctions-based approach The term “distinctions-based approach” acknowledges the distinct histories, interests, and priorities of the three major groups of Indigenous Peoples recognized in Canada’s constitution: First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples.

Indigenous leadership has historically been silenced, unrecognized, and devalued. Only very recently has the development of climate change science and global climate change policy involved Indigenous leadership, with s elf-determination and governance as core concepts shaping environmental science and policy. Establishing a representative, diverse, and inclusive science system in Canada requires continued and renewed relationship-building. The system must readily incorporate both Western and Indigenous methods and ways of knowing in a strengthened path forward.

Research and science activities that are Indigenous-led and/or co-developed with Indigenous communities foster grassroots participation and allow communities to benefit from current information to make decisions. Footnote 8 Such activities can also lead to community engagement on a long-term basis, reducing “consultation fatigue.” Locating government facilities, research infrastructure, and personnel in Indigenous and remote communities further increases the potential for long-term relationships with Indigenous communities and builds the community’s capacity.

Equitable outcomes of climate change science must include Indigenous science methods to inform mitigation and adaptation. The following priorities are designed to build Indigenous science and strengthen equity across knowledge systems. However, Indigenous-developed research strategies are the primary articulation of Indigenous Peoples’ priorities.

ISK1. Develop Indigenous leadership in climate change science and Indigenous science networks; support science and knowledge clusters and networks that actively build relationships with Indigenous Peoples in creating pathways that respect local grassroots climate science concerns and priorities . This includes preparing the existing system for the influx of Indigenous science—training existing professionals, incorporating Indigenous science into science education materials at all levels nationally, working with licensure bodies, and others. It also includes building relationships, learning jointly with Indigenous communities, and developing Indigenous climate change and science youth leadership or mentorship programs to restore and increase the number of knowledge-holders in communities, Indigenous nations, academia, industry, and the public service.

ISK2. Braid and weave Indigenous and Western science planning and implementation with Indigenous governments, organizations, and citizens to craft approaches to climate change science and knowledge that are relevant to regions, based on distinctions, and uphold Indigenous rights and self-determination . This includes building networks of regional distinctions-based forums to guide climate change science. It also includes developing Indigenous-determined indicators that track Canada’s progress in engagement of Indigenous climate change science, so that science outcomes inform measures to mitigate the socio-cultural and socio-economic impacts of climate change.

ISK3. Create materials for Indigenous climate change science and knowledge that are responsive to Indigenous Peoples’ goals of cultural revitalization, and develop policies, programs, and initiatives respecting Indigenous languages . This approach requires the production of technical and communications materials in Indigenous languages, grounded in co-development.

ISK4. Strengthen scoping and funding mechanisms to establish Indigenous science research capacity . This could include mechanisms to create research programs, hubs, or a fourth Footnote 9 Indigenous-led research funding council/agency, at the national or regional level, to lead research and administration of science programs by Indigenous science organizations (e.g., Indigenous Centre of Excellence for Climate Change), as well as Indigenous science programs at the community level with dedicated Indigenous science liaison people (see section 3.2 below).

ISK5. Train and build capacity in Indigenous local and regional place-based science and knowledge practice . Practice could include Indigenous-led monitoring and data infrastructure; community-level knowledge and environmental management systems; training opportunities for Indigenous youth; lifelong learning and technical skills related to local environmental and Indigenous science; and Indigenous project leadership and implementation (see section 3.3 below).

3.2 Indigenous Peoples’ sacred relationships to land, water, and ice

It is through the human lens that we observe, interpret, and build the ethical framework that drives how we interact with the land, water, and ice. Relationships to the land, and ultimately climate, are encoded in Indigenous identities, languages, practices, and stories. Historical and contemporary climate and environmental knowledge can take a range of forms that might not be understood without culturally specific interpretation and translation. Establishing relationships between communities and researchers, and between the Crown and settler populations, necessitates rebuilding trust and collaboration. Canada’s constitution recognizes three groups of Aboriginal Peoples: First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. Honouring the inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples means acknowledging the culturally distinct and diverse First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples’ rights, agreements, treaties, interests, and circumstances. This distinctions-based and place-based approach remains essential to Indigenous science and knowledge.

The National Inuit Climate Change Strategy and the National Inuit Strategy on Research , the First Nations – Canada Joint Committee on Climate Action 2021 Annual Report , and the Métis Nation Climate Change & Health Vulnerability Assessment all highlight the need to develop local capacity to address the unique challenges of Indigenous Peoples, governments, organizations, and nations. Indigenous science and knowledge systems have developed responsibilities that are culturally defined. For example, the unique role and relationship of Indigenous women to water has traditionally been encoded within cultural practices and protocols, representing a branch of knowledge that can be accessed only through specific, local community-defined processes.

Box 3.2. Respecting Indigenous Peoples as climate scientists

Indigenous Peoples have an unbreakable and sacred connection with the land and water. The relationships between Indigenous Peoples, land, water, ice, animal life, and surrounding habitats are the foundation of Indigenous science and knowledge. In turn, this science and knowledge can provide context, interpretation, and deep insight. Article 25 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms Indigenous People’s rights to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationships with the land and water. Indigenous science and knowledge are highly integrative and reflect an understanding that humans are part of ecosystems and must remain in balance with them. Indigenous land stewardship practices are inherently systems-oriented and wholistic in scope. The First Nations, Inuit, and Métis are well-positioned to be guardians and stewards of ecologically sensitive landscapes, especially those involving their traditional lands.

More recently, there has been a shift toward supporting Indigenous community ownership and control of data, information, and research outputs gathered by Indigenous communities (e.g., First Nations Information Governance Centre and the National Inuit Strategy on Research ). Efforts to blend the best available Indigenous and Western scientific information have led to meaningful, long-term partnerships that are place-based. In many Indigenous Nations, Indigenous-led and/or co-developed research programs are the new minimum (e.g., Mi’kmaq partnership tenets ). In the Inuit Nunangat (the Inuit homeland in Canada), partnerships with Inuit are essential to assess and address the impacts of climate change (see Chapter 5.4. Arctic climate change science). To put in place the data infrastructure fundamental to evidence-based decision making, Indigenous rights and protocols must be recognized, and Indigenous data must be recognized as inseparable from the people and the methods used to collect that data (see Chapter 6.2. Data infrastructure).

The Canada Research Coordinating Committee has prioritized the development of Indigenous research capacity in responding to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s calls to action and in contributing to reconciliation in Canada. Such approaches, although beneficial, are not yet specific or responsive to challenges facing Indigenous Peoples, such as food and energy security or access to clean water. There is a need to create space and capacity for Indigenous leadership in funding bodies by enhancing Indigenous leadership and participation in scoping, review, and decision making that reflects the relationship with land, water, and air. Flexible funding and Indigenous-led programs that avoid competition among First Nations, Inuit, and Métis knowledge systems are particularly important.

As noted in the fourth priority ( Strengthen scoping and funding mechanisms to establish Indigenous science research capacity ), novel Indigenous-led funding models are needed to enhance the scope and funding mechanisms for Indigenous science research capacity. This capacity can be achieved through new, culturally appropriate, Indigenous-led granting programs, councils, or hubs. Science coordination is a key part of this report, and such coordination can bring together Indigenous and Western science voices in Canada. Among other benefits, coordination could provide better opportunities for Indigenous scholars and knowledge holders to publish their work, thereby bringing the voices of Indigenous Peoples to other scientists, scholars, and communities.

3.3 Learning from, and stewardship of, the land, water and ice

Land, water, and ice are the essential components that drive relationships between people and ecosystems and from which Indigenous Peoples derive their responsibilities. These relationships are celebrated, encoded, and learned through traditions and ceremony. This is not a uniquely Canadian concept, as Indigenous Peoples are being recognized globally as leaders in landscape and biodiversity conservation. Indigenous science is about the long-term understanding of ecological cycles and environmental processes that are embedded in the intimate knowledge of environment and in traditional and cultural activities. This understanding has served as a resilient force in Indigenous adaptation and mitigation strategies, as Indigenous communities monitor and respond to changes in the environment (Box 3.1).

A key element of the human–environment relationship in many Indigenous cultures is the concept of stewardship. Being part of the land provides a rich knowledge of ecosystems and biodiversity. Through Indigenous concepts such as “living well with Earth,” “all my relations,” and “kinship relationships” with the land, oceans, waterways, and animals, Indigenous science can help promote understanding and guide future human interactions with land, water, ice, and the climate. Indigenous science can also foster a longer-term strategic vision for the protection of resources that is inclusive, collaborative, and advances reconciliation.

Box 3.3. Indigenous climate change programs enabling science and knowledge-sharing

These programs foster Indigenous leadership in building and maintaining resilient ecosystems that are key to mitigating and adapting to climate change and revitalizing culture.

• In 2017, the Government of Canada launched the Indigenous Guardians program, which gives Indigenous Peoples opportunities to exercise responsibility in stewardship of land, water, and ice, as well as rights and responsibilities in protecting and conserving ecosystems, developing and maintaining sustainable economies, and continuing the profound connections between natural landscapes and Indigenous cultures.
• The Indigenous Community-Based Climate Monitoring Program supports Indigenous Peoples across Canada to monitor climate and the impacts of climate change using Indigenous knowledge systems and science.
• The United States Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Branch of Tribal Climate Resilience has regional liaisons who serve as key links between Indigenous communities and the Department of the Interior’s Climate Adaptation Science Centers. The nine Climate Change Adaptation Centers are regionally representative, managed by the US Geological Survey’s National Climate Adaptation Science Center, which aims to develop “actionable science, information and products that address identified science needs and are directly usable in supporting resource management decisions, actions, and plans.” This network of science centres is responsible for developing leaders in climate change science through a variety of research, fellowships, and training programs.
• The Canadian National Collaborating Centre for Indigenous Health supports the health of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples by improving evidence-based public health practice through a wholistic, strengths-based approach.

Approaches are needed in which priorities are determined by Indigenous Peoples and are designed to work with Indigenous capacity and community contexts. Such approaches lead to more successful and relevant science outcomes and are inclusive of culturally relevant training and Indigenous representation. Footnote 10 These outcomes should, to the greatest extent possible, be produced by Indigenous Peoples. This requires ongoing, meaningful inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in Western science research activities and programs as equal partners, to further trust and relationship-building. Such inclusion also helps build capacity in community-based Indigenous science (see priority 5 in this chapter). Combining Indigenous science and knowledge with strategic investments and support for coordination or partnerships can be a powerful tool for Indigenous Peoples, governments, and stakeholders to combat climate change. An example is the Indigenous Innovation Initiative , a challenge-based funding program that relies less on “competitive aspects in favour of a more holistic, community-oriented frame that values interconnection and communal values over individual triumphs.” This can inform novel funding models addressing the needs of communities and grounded in values based on culture, place, and distinctions. Models should avoid silos, be led by Indigenous science leaders, and favour a “one-window” approach, in which all programs are coordinated and accessible through a single system or application.

3.4 Knowledge gaps and mobilization opportunities

While the impacts and risks posed by climate change vary by region and community, common knowledge gaps emerged across the engagement undertaken to inform this report that should be addressed in order to strengthen Indigenous science leadership and capacity for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis knowledge systems. In each area, the knowledge gap reflects our understanding of the direct impact of climate change, as well as the impacts of Canadian policies, programs, and regulations that make up our response to climate change:

Food systems and security —Understanding food security in remote and rural regions through hunting, cultivating, harvesting, and access to resources, and, in urban contexts, the risks to supply chains, access, and storage of food.

Energy security —The implications of transitioning to net-zero and renewable energy solutions for employment and environmental impacts; energy security and impacts on food security, health, and shelter; opportunities for community-level energy solutions and infrastructure; and strategies for transitioning energy systems.

Infrastructure —Understanding how the lack or substandard condition of infrastructure, such as road access and connectivity (multiple routes and connections serving the origins and destinations), in remote and rural Indigenous communities limits the ability to respond to climate change and implement measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Resilient and sustainable infrastructure and critical services —Understanding community-level risks and opportunities to create net-zero and resilient communities.

Health and well-being —Understanding climate change impacts on access to medical care (for both physical and mental health); resilience of health services systems; risks of vector-borne disease and invasive species; access to freshwater; food security and safety; physical dangers; as well as search and rescue implications of a changing climate.

Climate extremes and extreme weather events —Understanding how changing climate affects livelihoods and well-being through research on extreme weather events, particularly wildfires and flooding, that is oriented to the community and aligned with the culture, to reduce disaster risk, improve response, and plan for evacuations.

Ecosystem resilience —Understanding healthy ecosystems, Footnote 11 carbon storage and conservation, and protection of biodiversity as pathways to climate resilience, and considering land, water, snow, and ice as critical natural infrastructure for Indigenous Peoples.

3.5 Looking forward

To advance climate change science and knowledge in a way that incorporates Indigenous Peoples and serves their interests, there is a need to create or expand research centres and fund programs sufficiently over the long term so that they are accessible, flexible, equitable, and integrative. Centres and programs must also be wholistic, bringing together related areas such as energy, infrastructure, food, water, and health. Regional or local research authorities and centres, and creation and access to data must respect data sovereignty and Indigenous knowledge while building Indigenous science capacity. This support should allow for the reciprocal recognition of Indigenous science and knowledge systems, creating informed rather than prescriptive spaces for the exchange of knowledge between Indigenous and non-Indigenous scientists.

A strengthened Canadian climate change science system should enhance our understanding of people and natural and managed ecosystems. It should guide our relationship with the land, oceans, and waterways to build ecosystem resilience. It should inform efforts to protect biodiversity and people. Self-determination and place-based approaches should be highlighted and respected in identifying priorities for research. Specific co-development policies, such as the 2022 Inuit-Crown Co-development principles and the Inuit Nunangat Policy endorsed by the Inuit Crown Partnership Committee, guide this work. Leadership in First Nations, Inuit, and Métis science and knowledge systems is key to informing the novel and transformative change needed for a resilient, net-zero Canada.

Chapter 4 Theme priorities

This chapter identifies science priorities according to five themes that contribute to successful mitigation and adaptation action. The priorities reflect the scale of climate change and the urgency of action required. Taking action in these areas will inform the development of mitigation and adaptation measures that are coordinated and complementary.

Healthy and resilient Canadians

To address the knowledge gaps on climate change and health, collaboration is required across all levels of government and all sectors important to health. Governments and health sectors need to look at how Canadians’ physical and mental health is affected by rising temperatures and catastrophic extreme events. They also need to address indirect effects, particularly on food security. Health systems are critical in protecting Canadians from climate change, and, like built infrastructure and critical services, they are vulnerable to extreme events. There are also opportunities to reduce emissions within the health sector on the pathway to net-zero. The research priorities focus on:

• understanding climate change impacts on health and health systems to find feasible ways to adapt;
• conducting research to create low-carbon, sustainable health systems; and
• understanding policies, programs, measures, and technologies to develop sustainable health systems.

The knowledge synthesis and mobilization priorities emphasize:

• assessing the latest scientific information on climate change and health;
• sharing knowledge about health adaptation within the health services sector; and
• changing behaviour by communicating the health risks of climate change and the adaptation options.

Most of Canada’s buildings and infrastructure (transportation, food and water supply, energy, shelter, safety, health care, telecommunications) were not designed or built with a changing climate in mind. During and after extreme weather events, Canadians may lose transportation links, water supply, and other vital services. Research is needed to:

• improve climate change data products, predictions, and projections to support decision making, infrastructure investments, and reduced risks from extreme events;
• inform mapping of multiple hazards, reflecting interdependencies and potential cascading infrastructure risks and failures;
• expand the use of performance-based design for construction and operations;
• develop an equity-based lens to better inform climate action;
• inform a transition to low-carbon, resilient buildings, transport, and infrastructure; and
• understand how to use nature-based solutions in the built environment.

The knowledge synthesis and mobilization priorities include:

• understanding governance to guide effective coordination and implementation of adaptation and mitigation for infrastructure;
• translating research results for practitioners;
• fostering effective climate action through an understanding of behavioural science and socio-economic context; and
• advancing methods, tools, and technology to benchmark community resilience and improve it.

Natural ecosystems are facing multiple stresses—including climate change—that combine to influence their resilience and integrity. These combined stresses can jeopardize many ecosystems’ ability to sustain themselves and to provide a diversity of services, values, and benefits, including those for nature, health, the economy, and society. Understanding the spectrum of different ecosystems’ responses to climate change will inform actions to sustain and restore these ecosystems, for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Research priorities include:

• understanding how climate change and extreme weather events affect ecosystems and biodiversity;
• examining the effectiveness and permanence of nature-based solutions; and
• identifying adaptation solutions that promote resilient ecosystems.

The knowledge mobilization priority involves:

• producing regular reports on status and trends in biodiversity and ecosystems to improve adaptive management and evidence-based decision making.

Climate change continues to impact the forestry, agriculture, fisheries, mineral, and energy sectors. As a result, there is a growing emphasis on developing capacity for responses that integrate both emissions mitigation and adaptation. Each sector experiences different impacts. However, research that informs cross-sectoral solutions and system-level transitions to net-zero and resilience is critical. This research will enable natural resource sectors to explore opportunities and develop decision-support tools in the circular bioeconomy as well as “climate-smart” technologies and practices.

The research priorities are to:

• understand emerging risks and vulnerabilities to Canada’s natural resource sectors;
• accelerate the contribution of natural resource sectors to climate action;
• develop and track indicators of resilience to support natural resource sectors; and
• explore mitigation and adaptation actions across sectors through collaborative and transdisciplinary approaches, including greater inclusion of social sciences.

Knowledge mobilization activities include:

• developing relevant tools to inform evidence-based policy and decision making; and
• incorporating behavioural and social science to inform more effective decision making and communication.

Informing progress towards net-zero greenhouse gas emissions

To measure progress toward net-zero GHG emissions, emissions and removals from the atmosphere must be estimated and reported using multiple methods. The research priorities allow us to use new data on source activity as well as emerging surface and satellite-based observations to improve the accuracy and timeliness of reported emissions. Research is needed to:

• develop integrated monitoring systems for atmospheric GHGs and reconcile different methods to estimate anthropogenic GHG emissions;
• improve quantification of ecosystem carbon stocks and natural GHG fluxes;
• better understand and monitor how land use change and management practices impact carbon fluxes and progress towards net-zero; and
• examine the trade-offs  and societal impacts of policies involving GHG emissions reductions and carbon-dioxide removal technologies.
• reconciling publicly available emissions data, information, and knowledge; and
• comparing and improving ecosystem models to understand natural carbon fluxes and how humans are driving changes in terrestrial carbon storage.

Climate Science 2050: Advancing Science and Knowledge on Climate Change (CS2050), published in December 2020, identified four science and knowledge outcomes—and a fifth area of foundational research—that contribute to successful mitigation and adaptation action. This chapter provides science priorities under these five themes. The priorities must unfold in parallel across themes, to inform climate action underway across all sectors and communities, and to reflect the scale of climate change and urgency of action required.

The priorities for research and knowledge synthesis and mobilization are of equal importance. Ongoing research adds knowledge and identifies opportunities for action, while knowledge synthesis and mobilization help translate the research investments into action.

As an example, the priorities in this chapter advocate for more frequent, more accurate, and higher-resolution information concerning weather, climate, and greenhouse gas fluxes. Such information informs climate change adaptation, risk assessment, communication, and climate literacy, and is needed to evaluate the progress of climate policy and action.

For all priorities involving data, open-access datasets that uphold the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) need to be developed to improve our capacity to identify, predict, monitor, and evaluate climate change and its impacts. Such datasets are needed to understand drivers, develop indicators, and evaluate the effectiveness of management actions under a range of future scenarios.

All climate change research should support and create space for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples and communities. Researchers should learn from, and partner with, Indigenous Peoples and communities. As discussed in Chapter 3, local knowledge and the science and knowledge systems of the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples should be integral to research. Research should further take into account the impacts of climate change on First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples and their distinct and diverse traditional practices. Some Indigenous Peoples and communities may be more seriously impacted by climate change and experience greater barriers to adaptation. Regardless of the specific impact of climate change, Indigenous Peoples and communities should be involved in monitoring indicators and in defining and evaluating resilience for their communities, in ways relevant to their culture.

4.1 Healthy and resilient Canadians

Climate change risks to human health continue to increase. These risks include impacts on the physical and mental health of Canadians, on Canada’s health systems, and on those disproportionately affected and vulnerable. Human health cannot be protected from climate change impacts without robust knowledge of risks to Canadians and their health systems, economic costs of health impacts, and effective adaptation measures. This includes new approaches to communicating climate change that support behavioural change. The Public Health Agency of Canada Chief Public Health Officer’s Report in 2022 focused on mobilizing public health action on climate change through current public health functions (e.g., emergency preparedness). Indigenous-led research is highlighting the interplay between the health impacts of climate hazards and underlying drivers of vulnerability (e.g., racism, current and historical colonization, social determinants of health). This research also highlights culturally meaningful approaches to protect health (see Box 4.1 Climate change poses serious risks across the Métis Nation). However, knowledge gaps continue to hinder health-adaptation efforts. Knowledge gaps also limit efforts to design and implement net-zero transitions in ways that support livelihoods, benefits health, and develops environmentally sustainable health systems.

Box 4.1. Climate change poses serious risks across the Métis Nation

Métis Nation citizens living in western Canada are uniquely sensitive to the impacts of climate change because they depend on the land for their identity, culture, livelihoods, and resource economies. Over many generations, Métis People have found innovative ways to live in their environment despite diminished access to land and waters. This resilience to change, built over generations, and Métis environmental knowledge can support adaptation solutions for Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. In 2020, the Métis National Council released its Métis Nation Climate Change & Health Vulnerability Assessment Report , to explore the risks and current gaps for the Métis Nation and identify supports needed to develop chart a path forward to climate change resilience.

Addressing the science priorities (below) requires a commitment to multi-sectoral, transdisciplinary, and “systems thinking” approaches. Such approaches include “Health in All Policies” and “One Health.” “Health in All Policies” involves collaboration, horizontally and vertically, among all levels of government and across sectors important to health (e.g., energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, water, urban planning, conservation). In this approach, those involved recognize and exercise their role in influencing key determinants of health and drivers of health outcomes. The “One Health” approach recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are interdependent (see Chapter 5.5 One Health and climate change nexus science).

The following research priorities support efforts to protect the health and resilience of Canadians and prepare health systems for a changing climate.

R1 (HRC). Understand the impacts of climate change on health and health systems, to advance effective, equitable, and feasible measures for health adaptation . Research is needed to understand the current impacts and projected health risks to Canadians related to climate change. These include risks affecting air quality, food security and safety (see Box 4.2 Food security in an uncertain future climate), as well as infectious or chronic diseases, mental health, water quality and security, and natural hazards (See Box 4.3. Reducing risks to the health of Canadians from severe weather events). Many of these impacts threaten livelihoods and hunting and fishery traditions, as well as potentially displacing First Nations, Inuit, and Métis People. Research is also needed on how underlying social and environmental factors, such as low income or socio-economic status, inadequate housing, racism, and colonization may increase these risks.

New and innovative methods, tools, and indicators are needed to understand, measure and model health risks, climate stressors, and vulnerabilities (e.g., monitoring indoor heat, using artificial intelligence applications and molecular tools for tracking climate-sensitive pathogens and antimicrobial resistance in food, soil, water, animals, and plants). This includes monitoring the state of resilience of health systems. The costs of the health impacts and risks of climate change on people living in Canada, on health systems, and on the economy must also be analyzed.

Effective, equitable, and feasible measures for climate change adaptation and mitigation actions related to health must be developed to increase the climate resilience of Canadians and their health systems. Research is needed to better understand the co-benefits and possible risks of these measures on human health, as well as to analyze their economic costs and effectiveness. This research should examine ways to avoid “maladaptation,” an adaptation action that does not succeed in reducing risks but increases them instead. This requires improved understanding of the impacts of adaptation and mitigation measures, taken both within and outside of the health sector, on human health. This will inform how to minimize risks and health inequities at regional levels and over varying time scales. Research is also needed to better understand the governance mechanisms, institutional and regulatory capacity, leadership approaches, and networking and collaboration opportunities to reduce health risks from climate change.

Box 4.2. Food security in an uncertain future climate

Food security is when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Climate change is already affecting Canadian food systems and is contributing to food insecurity. For example, Canada’s Food Price Report 2022 found that climate change has contributed to rising food prices. Increasing globalization has resulted in a global food system in which Canada participates, importing and exporting raw and prepared foods. Thus, factors disrupting global food systems, such as acute and chronic climate change impacts and political instability, can also affect food security and disrupt food systems in Canada. Chapter 8 of the report Health of Canadians in a Changing Climate (published in 2022) reviews evidence on the impacts of climate change on health through effects on food safety and security, and existing knowledge gaps.

Box 4.3. Reducing risks to the health of Canadians from extreme weather events

Canada is experiencing more extreme weather events and hazards (e.g., heatwaves, floods, and wildfires), and these can have catastrophic impacts on human health. For example, the unprecedented heat event that affected British Columbia in June 2021 led to 619 deaths and to disastrous wildfires in a number of communities. Climate change is increasing the risk of compounding or cascading events that can overwhelm health and social services’ capacity to respond. This can affect the availability or quality of care. This can be particularly acute when such events occur at the same time as other societal shocks and stressors.

Chapter 3 of the report Health of Canadians in a Changing Climate (published in 2022) reviews evidence of the physical and mental health impacts of natural hazards related to climate change and key knowledge gaps.

Assessing the health system’s capacity to adapt to climate-related hazards is critical to avoid disruption of services and severe impacts on patients and staff due to climate hazards, such as extreme events. More research is needed on climate-related impacts and risks, vulnerabilities, and costs to health systems and facilities from immediate hazards (e.g., flood) or longer-term events (e.g., droughts, infectious diseases, storm disruptions to transportation and critical services). This includes impacts on health policies, programs, services, infrastructure, human resources, and supply chains (e.g., drugs, medical equipment), especially for rural, remote, and Northern health systems and those serving First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples. These health systems are often more vulnerable, and gaps in health outcomes between First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples, on the one hand, and non-Indigenous Canadians, on the other, remain.

R2 (HRC). Conduct research to support the transition to a sustainable, low-carbon health system . Health systems and services play a critical role in protecting Canadians from the current impacts and future risks of climate change. They also present opportunities to reduce greenhouse gases within this sector as they account for approximately 5% of Canada’s annual emissions. Climate-resilient and sustainable low-carbon health systems offer a triple dividend of better health and safety for individuals, reduced costs of operations and services, and substantial GHG emissions reductions. The Government of Canada expressed its support for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change COP26 Health Programme, committing to developing climate-resilient and sustainable low-carbon health systems.

Research is needed to support the development of low-carbon health systems. Information and methods are needed to more accurately measure and monitor GHG emissions from health sector activities. These include direct emissions from health care facility operations (e.g., on-site boilers and medical gases) and indirect emissions through purchased electricity and the supply chain.

R3 (HRC). Improve understanding of policies, programs, measures, and new technologies available to health authorities and their partners to develop low-carbon and sustainable health systems . Methods are also needed to measure other non-climatic factors impacting health system emissions, such as population changes, health care demand and utilization, and new technology development. Research can contribute to developing best practices and cost-effective new technologies to manage the health sector’s carbon footprint through, for example, retrofits of existing health care facilities, reusable medical supplies, remote medical care technologies, and lower GHG-emitting transportation in supply chains. Additionally, evaluation of current purchasing practices in the Canadian health system and innovative finance-based mechanisms, such as green revolving funds and green bonds, is needed. Last, how measures that support climate resilience, adaptation, and the reduction of GHGs can reduce the costs of climate actions for the health services sector needs to be understood.

Assessing the health system’s capacity to adapt to climate-related hazards is critical to avoid disruption of services and severe impacts on patients and staff during extreme events. More research is needed on climate-related impacts and risks, vulnerabilities, and costs to health systems and facilities from immediate hazards (e.g., flood) or longer-term strains (e.g., droughts, infectious diseases, storm disruptions to transportation and critical services). This includes impacts on health policies, programs, services, infrastructure, human resources, and supply chains (e.g., drugs, medical equipment), especially rural, remote, and Northern health systems and those serving First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples. These health systems are often more vulnerable, and gaps in health outcomes between First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples, on the one hand, and non-Indigenous Canadians, on the other, remain.

Knowledge synthesis and mobilization priorities include:

KM1 (HRC). Conduct regular national, regional, and local-scale assessments of climate change and health . Assessments should summarize the latest information on impacts on human health, health systems, and health equity; variations in vulnerabilities and risks to health; and options for adaptation and for sustainable low-carbon health systems.

KM2 (HRC). Develop innovative strategies and approaches for knowledge exchange among health professionals, practitioners, and administrators . These strategies and approaches should include education and training materials and tools tailored to the specific partners involved, to meet the health-adaptation needs of diverse audiences.

KM3 (HRC). Effect behavioural change among decision makers, stakeholders, and the public by improving strategies for effective communication of the health risks of climate change, adaptation options, and the health benefits of proactive action . This priority includes applying insights from behavioural science, relatable narratives, and participatory approaches, including diverse voices. This includes learning from, and partnering with, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples and other communities and individuals who may be more seriously impacted by climate change and experience greater barriers to adaptation.

4.2 Resilient, net-zero communities and built environment

Most Canadian communities were not designed and constructed with a changing climate in mind. As a result, the infrastructure systems we rely on to meet basic needs—such as food and water supply, energy, shelter, safety, and access to health care—are increasingly vulnerable to climate extremes and extreme weather events. As hazards—such as heavy precipitation, heatwaves, wildfires, and flooding—become more extreme, these systems face increased risks of compound hazards and cascading failures. The infrastructure sector is also a contributor to climate change, with transport and buildings representing the sectors with the second- and third-highest emissions in Canada. Long-term assets, buildings, and infrastructure constructed or retrofitted today are anticipated to have lifespans of several decades. Careful design and planning of our built environment can avoid locked-in emissions and contribute to carbon uptake (through use of innovative carbon-capturing products, bio-based products, and nature-based infrastructure solutions, as examples).

Box. 4.4. The intersection of adaptation and mitigation in the built environment

Actions to adapt to climate change and reduce GHG emissions are inextricably linked and should be considered together to maximize co-benefits. Examples of these linkages include:

• Lifecycle environmental performance : Increased climate resilience can reduce lifecycle carbon emissions by extending service life and lowering maintenance needs.
• Natural infrastructure solutions : Natural carbon sinks can complement or replace conventional engineered high-carbon infrastructure to mitigate impacts of flooding, reduce urban heat islands, and lower energy loads to cool buildings.
• Resilient low-carbon, zero-emission solutions : In building and transportation system retrofits and maintenance, integrating resilience to climate change and extreme weather events can increase overall community resilience, reduce emissions, and achieve public health outcomes.

Adapting to climate change requires meaningful and profound rethinking of where and how our communities are planned, built, and maintained, from their overall design to individual homes. There is a need to understand where adaptation and mitigation actions will have the biggest impact, and where resilience and mitigation goals reinforce each other or where there are diverging goals (see Box 4.4. The intersection of adaptation and mitigation in the built environment). Vulnerabilities and risks are not distributed uniformly across regions or across social, cultural, and economic groups. This needs to be taken into account in determining priorities and solutions.

The research priorities for the built environment span the information needs of all orders of government and economic sectors that must integrate adaptation and low- or net-zero-GHG–emission considerations into decision making for public safety, critical services and infrastructure, livelihoods, and the livability of our communities.

R1 (RNCBE). Generate climate data, predictions, and projections to inform risk assessment, adaptation, and actions to reduce GHG emissions for the built environment . Climate observations, predictions, and projections at relevant spatial and temporal scales are needed, as well as a better understanding of the impacts of climate change on the built environment. This information is critical to shifting to low- and net-zero carbon, resilient buildings, transport, energy, and infrastructure systems (e.g., housing, transit, energy, drinking water, telecommunications). The data should be suitable for estimating emissions and characterizing hazards—such as extreme precipitation, heatwaves and cold snaps, wildfires and smoke, dust storms, ice accretion, extreme winds, high lake and ocean waves, storm surges, flooding, and overland floods—as well as slower-onset disruptions—such as sea-level rise; severe shifts in drought cycles; permafrost thaw; and thinning river, lake, and sea ice.

R2 (RNCBE). Create maps of multiple hazards to identify and prioritize high-risk areas, manage interdependencies, and address potential cascading risks to infrastructure systems . Advances are needed to enable multi-layer geospatial mapping that integrates multiple and compound climate hazards and provides information for decision makers, such as:

• infrastructure system details (location, jurisdiction, type, age, condition);
• critical systems (health care, water treatment plants, emergency response, power, communications, bridges, escape routes, security services, community refuges, and district heating plants);
• social infrastructure (e.g., government buildings, schools, universities, churches, heritage buildings, and libraries);
• natural systems (air quality, parks, water, soils, minerals, wildfire fuel load, forest insects, and pathogens);
• population vulnerabilities (e.g., seniors, children, people with chronic illnesses, socially disadvantaged groups); and
• hazards (e.g., floods, droughts, wildfires, heatwaves).

This research must address current challenges to integrating map layers, which would allow novel ways of combining data and understanding their relationships. These challenges include:

• unavailability or lack of homogeneity in the data structures, limiting concurrent use at common space and time scales;
• uncertainty in climate projections, including those due to difference global emission scenarios; and
• integration of real-time or near-real-time data.

This work must also include integrated mapping tools to identify, assess, and rank risks, system interdependencies, and potential cascading failures (e.g., floods impacting energy distribution, food supply, and telecommunications).

R3 (RNCBE). Expand the use of performance-based design to find innovative construction and operating solutions. Research is needed to help move from “prescriptive-based” to “performance-based” design, a goal-oriented design approach that addresses criteria for the performance of the building or infrastructure, such as energy use, operating cost, and occupant comfort, among others. Performance-based national codes and standards will foster innovation and flexibility in how regulations are met. They will ultimately make it easier to attain low-carbon and resilient-performance targets. Research should identify ways to evaluate the performance of materials and systems, and set acceptable performance levels (e.g., for whole-asset life-cycle carbon, material durability, building comfort, wildfire resilience, accessibility). Clear performance-based design requirements level the playing field for a variety of technologies, including bio-based products and nature-based solutions.

R4 (RNCBE). Develop and apply an equity-based lens to better inform climate change adaptation and GHG emission mitigation actions. Research is needed to develop socio-economic and geographic (or place-based) datasets and metrics to characterize the various dimensions of vulnerability. This information can be used to inform the design and management of net-zero infrastructure and built environments in vulnerable communities. Knowledge gaps include understanding the cumulative effects of climate change; how they interact with existing vulnerabilities (e.g., poverty, lack of drinking water, transit, housing, or energy); and how they may amplify systemic or societal inequities and affect lived experiences.

R5 (RNCBE). Inform the transition to low-carbon buildings, transport, and infrastructure. Research is needed to develop methods, technologies, best practices, and guidance to support transition to low-carbon built environments and a zero-waste circular economy (see Box 4.7. Cross-sectoral and transdisciplinary approaches for the circular bioeconomy). This research needs to help us move from conventional prescriptive planning and design approaches toward life-cycle–based approaches, which identify opportunities and risks throughout the life cycle, from raw materials to disposal. Further research is needed to advance life-cycle cost and environmental assessment, low-carbon supply chain systems, and low-cost and rapid construction methods. Technical solutions for construction materials and systems will need to be developed, de-risked, and demonstrated.

R6 (RNCBE). Improve understanding of nature-based solutions for use in the built environment. Regional studies, pilot projects, modelling, and sustained monitoring of the performance of nature-based solutions are needed. This research will determine where natural solutions, alone or in combination with conventional human-made solutions, can help manage the risks associated with climate change, extreme events, and associated natural hazards. These risks include urban, riverine, and coastal flooding; urban heat islands; erosion; and permafrost thaw. Research can show how natural solutions can contribute to carbon uptake (e.g., by retaining soil carbon in both natural and managed landscapes). Research is also needed to identify the conditions of regions or sites that affect the viability of nature-based solutions. Such research can help assess the value (including economic value) of ecosystems and nature-based solutions in the built environment, including contributions to carbon sequestration, risk reduction (avoided losses), ecosystem services, and other co-benefits (aesthetic, cultural, health and well-being, recreational value). This priority is closely aligned with science priorities for ecosystems (see Chapter 4.3. Resilient aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems).

The priorities for knowledge synthesis and mobilization include the following:

KM1 (RNCBE). Develop guidance for effective governance, coordination, and implementation of adaptation and mitigation measures at various levels of government and at various phases of infrastructure life cycles. Governance both enables and challenges effective action to mitigate GHG emissions and improve the resilience of communities and their associated built environments. Effective coordination and implementation involve understanding the complex web of relationships, jurisdictions, and key players to inform effective governance of adaptation and mitigation. Research and guidance for effective climate action in our communities and built environments are needed at various phases of infrastructure life cycles, such as pre-planning, planning, and project monitoring, evaluation, and learning.

KM2 (RNCBE). Translate research results into guidance, protocols, and tools for practitioners to help them develop low-carbon, resilient built environments . To bring scientific capacity and awareness to the community level, results must be translated into accessible, locally relevant, and easy-to-use guides, policies, and information to inform decision making. Tools, standards, guidance, data, and other knowledge synthesis products should be targeted and strongly aligned with the intended users. The tools developed, and the information they provide, should be used to inform relevant decision making. Specifically, they should include risk analysis to prioritize built environments most at risk, which helps maximize the value of climate action.

KM3 (RNCBE). Incorporate behavioural science and understanding of the socio-economic contexts to foster climate action in the building, transport, and infrastructure sectors . To facilitate the uptake of technology and policies, effective evidence-based strategies that consider behavioural science and socio-economic factors should be used. An analysis of regulatory, cultural, social, and economic methods for change (including codes, standards, and assessment tools) is needed to identify the most effective ways to realize performance targets. However, a range of methods will be needed to meet a variety of desired benefits, depending on context and goals.

KM4 (RNCBE). Advance methods, tools, and technology to benchmark and increase community resilience, including investments in climate action. Substantial advances are needed in methods, tools, and technology to benchmark and increase community resilience to climate and extreme weather events. Innovative methods are needed to rapidly and reliably assess the capacity of existing buildings, infrastructure, energy, and transport systems to withstand climate risks, and to identify requirements and timelines for maintenance and retrofits. Decision making should inform proactive strategic planning and investments, which may include relocation and decommissioning. Strategic planning should avoid continued investment in high-risk areas where climate resilience is no longer possible.

4.3 Resilient aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems

Healthy, biologically diverse ecosystems are more resilient to the adverse effects of climate change and play a vital role in Canada’s ability to mitigate GHG emissions and adapt to climate change. Resilient ecosystems can cool cities, sequester carbon, regulate disease, supply food and materials for people and communities, buffer against floods and droughts, and contribute to the economy as well as the health and well-being of Canadians (see Box 4.5. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity).

Climate-resilient ecosystems are not static. They evolve and adapt with a changing climate and continue to provide a diversity of services and multiple values to humans and nature. Some of the ecosystem values, such as intrinsic and relational values (e.g., cultural, spiritual, societal), are unrelated to climate, but climate change may put these values at risk. Considering these multiple values of nature can help to improve the uptake and relevance of ecosystem science for a broad suite of Canadian priorities, including addressing climate change. 

Box 4.5. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity calls for scientific co-operation to minimize threats to biodiversity. The December 2022 COP15 meeting in Montreal culminated with the adoption of the  Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework , which identifies four goals and 23 targets to be achieved by 2030—including urgent actions to conserve biodiversity in a changing climate and meet people’s needs through sustainable use and benefit-sharing. Specifically, Targets 8 and 11 underscore the importance of nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based approaches in achieving these actions. These reflect other international agreements in which parties, including Canada, emphasize the role of nature-based solutions in addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation. Such agreements include the UNFCCC Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan 2022 (COP27) and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (COP14).

Interdisciplinary science (in which two or more disciplines come together to define the research problem and to design and execute the research project) is key to understanding how non-climate stressors interact with the impacts of climate change. Non-climate stressors include such issues as introduced alien species; pollution; contaminants; habitat loss; habitat degradation; shifts in land, freshwater, and ocean use; and natural variability. These may interact with climate impacts such as ocean acidification, hypoxia, drought, desertification, and changes to species’ distribution and productivity. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report highlights the importance of using interdisciplinary scientific information, Indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, and practical expertise in identifying solutions for ecosystem management and adaptation, such as preservation, protection, creation, and restoration. Research is needed to understand the complex and inter-related ecological, social, and economic challenges of climate change in order to develop and apply a solutions-oriented lens to increase the potential for co-benefits for biodiversity and ecosystems.

Understanding climate change impacts on ecosystems requires linking biodiversity and climate data with information at temporal and spatial scales that are relevant to decision making. Canada can use this knowledge to inform action that will sustain and restore ecosystems and ecosystem services, further protect biodiversity, and benefit human health, the environment, the economy, and society as a whole.

R1 (RATE). Better understand climate change impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity. This priority involves characterizing ecosystem resilience under changing climate conditions to expand our understanding of habitat diversity, natural variability, connectivity, and biodiversity, as well as of climate change impacts on ecosystem function and services. This includes:

• Developing coordinated, collaborative, and cross-sectoral approaches to monitor, predict, assess, and characterize ecosystem risks and vulnerabilities. It is critical to understand climate impacts and drivers, climate extremes, and extreme weather events that affect the integrity of ecosystems. This research is needed to address uncertainty, especially in regions that are poorly monitored and understood, such as the Arctic and coastal areas.
• Integrating data to characterize key drivers of ecosystem and biodiversity change, and to assess status and trends, as well as attributes of climate-resilient ecosystems and ecosystem services. This information can then be used to support and inform a variety of climate actions, including identifying nature-based and hybrid (combined engineered and nature-based) climate solutions (see Box 4.6. Nature-based solutions); carrying out adaptive management of ecosystems; recognizing and characterizing climate refugia; and developing indicators of ecosystem health, connectivity, function, and biodiversity.
• Understanding and assessing cumulative impacts of long-term environmental changes, short-term extreme events, and anthropogenic stressors (e.g., resource and infrastructure development). This research provides valuable information to determine how vulnerable an ecosystem is to environmental change and to inform evidence-based decisions.

Box 4.6. Nature-based solutions

Nature-based solutions protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems to address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, while providing benefits for human well-being and biodiversity (UN IPCC Working Group III). In a broad context, resilient ecosystems play a two-fold role as nature-based solutions for both climate mitigation and adaptation. Resilient ecosystems sequester, store, and release atmospheric carbon through natural processes. They can contribute to long-term climate change mitigation through human interventions in the natural carbon cycle (e.g., above- and below-ground biomass, such as that found in soils). Resilient ecosystems and the multiple services and values they deliver also enable climate adaptation for humans and nature, by buffering and rebounding from climate change impacts (e.g., slow-onset hazards, catastrophic events). This adaptive capacity of resilient ecosystems protects carbon stocks and sequestration capacity over time. Taken together, the mitigation and adaptation benefits of resilient ecosystems help address the dual biodiversity and climate crises. 

R2 (RATE). Advance multidisciplinary science and knowledge to inform climate adaptation solutions that promote resilient ecosystems in a changing climate. These approaches should respect multiple knowledge systems, support net-zero and adaptation goals, maximize co-benefits to humans and nature, and evolve as new knowledge becomes available. This includes:

• Development of innovative approaches to multi-disciplinary and interactive decision support and visualization tools, including leveraging and expanding existing platforms (e.g. GEO.ca, ClimateAtlas.ca) and multiple ways of knowing, to inform preservation, protection, creation, and restoration of ecosystems, habitats, and terrestrial and aquatic protected areas.
• Creating multidisciplinary research and monitoring frameworks to identify, characterize, and measure the multiple values of nature and how they interact. Such frameworks can be used to put a value on ecosystems and ecosystem services that benefit nature, human health, the economy, and society. Footnote 12 These frameworks are needed to develop baseline assessments for different ecosystems, social-ecological systems, and regions.
• Understanding the effectiveness, efficacy, and permanence of solutions, including nature-based solutions. Assessments of solutions should take into account benefits, trade-offs, opportunities, scalability, and effectiveness across diverse ecosystems and regions. They should also consider changes to ecosystems and biodiversity under future climate conditions. Carbon-flux models and data mobilization need to be improved to better evaluate the effectiveness of nature-based solutions. Overall, greater understanding is needed to identify solutions, particularly nature-based solutions, that are informed by multiple knowledge systems and transdisciplinary research (i.e., unifying intellectual frameworks, integrating approaches beyond disciplinary perspectives).

KM1 (RATE). Synthesize and mobilize knowledge of ecosystem resilience to support and improve adaptive management and evidence-based decision making in a changing climate. Key synthesis products include regular and systematic reports on national biodiversity and ecosystem status, trends, projections, and services. Reports may synthesize information at an ecosystem, watershed, or biome level, including impacts of multiple stressors on ecosystem functioning for aquatic and terrestrial systems. Needed synthesis products include:

• assessments of the effectiveness of regional and national conservation efforts in achieving conservation and climate goals (e.g., Canada’s Biodiversity Target 1 Challenge to conserve 25% of lands and ocean by 2025; targeted conservation through the Species at Risk Act ), including protected areas, other effective area-based conservation measures, and Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas; and
• assessments to synthesize knowledge and lessons learned from programs across sectors and jurisdictions that promote nature-based solutions.

Current efforts to synthesize and mobilize science outcomes for national, regional, and local decision and policy makers, as well as systems to collate and disseminate data, must be expanded. These include developing innovative approaches to multidisciplinary (involving researchers from different disciplines, each contributing their disciplinary perspective) and interactive decision-support and visualization tools. These tools should build on and expand existing platforms (e.g., GEO.ca, an online platform for open Canadian geospatial information, managed by Natural Resources Canada) and multiple knowledge systems. They will be designed to inform preservation, protection, creation, and restoration of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, habitats, and protected areas.

Box 4.7. Cross-sectoral and transdisciplinary approaches for the circular economy

Building a robust circular economy requires more cross-sectoral, interdisciplinary collaborations. The circular economy transitions society from a take-make-waste economic system to the use, reuse, recycling, and reintegration of materials back into the economy and nature. It would see many products made from fossil fuels, such as plastic, replaced by products made from biomass, such as wood fibre, and fossil-fuel energy sources replaced with renewable sources such as wind, solar, tidal, and bioenergy. Developing the circular economy is a meaningful way to reduce waste, mitigate GHG emissions, and protect biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Science and knowledge synthesis and mobilization are required to enable transformative solutions and break down barriers between sectors. Transdisciplinary research is needed to expand opportunities in the circular economy to achieve sustainability. The circular economy cannot be achieved without a concerted, whole-of-society effort, and the right information, insights, connections, and relationships.

Transdisciplinary research frameworks should be used to develop, test, monitor, evaluate, and implement new practices, processes, and technologies to build the circular economy that achieves a net-zero, resilient Canada.

4.4 Sustainable natural resources

The science priorities for sustainable natural resources emphasize multi-sectoral, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary perspectives, to build capacity for integrated mitigation and adaptation action. This action across natural resource sectors—including fisheries, aquaculture, forestry, agriculture, mining, and energy—informs long-term sustainable solutions and takes into account the connections among Canada’s natural resources. The impacts and risks of climate change are experienced differently in each sector but have implications that cross sector operations. Thus, cross-sectoral solutions need to be developed to achieve a resilient, net-zero, and sustainable natural resource economy.

In developing knowledge for these solutions, strategies specific to each geographic region are needed. Taken together, the following priorities enable science-informed decision-support tools, “climate-smart” technologies and practices, and exploration of circular economy opportunities (see Box 4.7. Cross-sectoral and transdisciplinary approaches for the circular economy).

The research priorities include:

R1 (SNR). Understand how natural resource sectors in Canada are affected by climate change . Observations and predictions (of climate, biological, physical, chemical, ecosystem, socio-economic, and health factors) need to be accessible and available to inform risk and vulnerability assessments. These data are key to characterizing the cascading impacts of climate change on the biological and social-ecological systems that make up each sector. They help us understand these risks within Canada and internationally, and how risks and vulnerabilities may change in future climate scenarios, including the impacts of climate extremes and extreme weather events.

To enhance resilience within the natural resource sectors, we must increase knowledge and understanding of the following:

• the impacts and risks from climate extremes and extreme weather events;
• cascading climate change impacts and risks; and
• the cumulative effects of multiple climate and non-climate stressors.

The impact of extreme events and disturbances (including their timing, frequency, and intensity) on natural resource sectors needs further research.

R2 (SNR). Develop and track indicators of social-ecological resilience in natural resource sectors and communities and understand how these sectors contribute to climate action . This priority requires understanding processes and thresholds affecting resilience, in order to design appropriate indicators and to gather relevant data. Indicators should be developed and data collected for managed and unmanaged areas and for social-ecological systems:

Forest sector : Indicators should help inform and evaluate adaptive “climate-smart” management practices. Such practices support healthy and resilient forests, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, safe and resilient communities, forest genetics, future fibre supply, biofuel production, and forest sector infrastructure. Research is also needed on the impact of forest management on carbon stocks in managed forests; this includes measuring forest carbon and determining social-ecological resilience to climate change. This work should be inclusive, engaging with the forest industry, other resource sectors, communities, and other relevant rights holders, stakeholders, and decision makers.

Fisheries and aquaculture sector : Indicators should identify and track risks and vulnerabilities of species, ecosystems, industries, and communities to the impacts of climate change, including extreme events and slow-onset changes, to build resilience in the sector. There is also a need to better understand the impacts on the sector of loss of coastal habitats, changes in species distributions (including invasive species), changing ocean conditions, and resource development (e.g., marine renewable energy, deep-sea mining, offshore oil and gas development).

Agricultural sector : Research is required to improve indicators that will inform decisions and forecast changes in climate conditions (e.g., soil moisture, growing season length), biodiversity, and climate mitigation efforts (e.g., changes to tillage and fertilization practices) at various time and space scales. Research on the long-term impacts of management practices under changing climate conditions—and their connection to soil carbon, water quality/quantity, and biodiversity—is critical for long-term food security (see Box 4.3. Food security in an uncertain future climate) and emissions reduction in the sector.

Mining and energy sectors : Research is needed on indicators for operational resilience, to reduce climate risks as these sectors evolve. This research should include a better understanding of regulatory gaps, supply and distribution systems in a net-zero world, critical minerals, site access, waste management, managing legacy contaminants (e.g., re-release from sediments due to warming), water supply, and implications or trade-offs for ecosystem restoration, reclamation, conservation, and biodiversity. Research must inform the transition to net-zero, resilient energy systems across all operations and transportation systems, and future scenarios to expand renewable energy sources.

R3 (SNR). Use collaborative research and transdisciplinary approaches to explore mitigation and adaptation actions, trade-offs, and benefits across natural resource sectors . An integrated, systems-based understanding of natural resource sectors, and the natural systems they are a part of, will help to grow the circular bioeconomy and achieve net-zero goals. Transdisciplinary research is required to develop integrated practices and policies that build adaptive capacity across and within sectors, supporting waste reduction, economic diversification, and development of “climate-smart” solutions for infrastructure and equipment. Research is also needed for low-carbon technologies that realize multiple benefits in sustainable resource management, land-use and aquatic-use planning, and food production from national to local scales.

KM1 (SNR). Develop relevant tools to enable evidence-based climate actions for all levels of policy and decision making . Integrated, interactive visualization and decision-support tools that consider future climate scenarios need to be developed, used, and promoted. These tools should be spatially, temporally, and culturally relevant to enable policy and management decisions that support environmental, economic, social, and cultural objectives for Canada’s resource sectors and resource-dependent communities, while minimizing trade-offs. The effectiveness of these innovative tools needs to be assessed to ensure that they are appropriate, accessible, and relevant to the communities, governments, practitioners, and decision makers that use them.

KM2 (SNR). Incorporate behavioural and social science in decision making and communication strategies specific to each sector . Research is needed to address gaps in knowledge implementation and to determine which factors enable and which pose barriers to climate action in the natural resource sectors. Social sciences, and specifically psychology and behavioural science, are needed to understand:

• challenges related to misinformation and disinformation; and
• how information and knowledge synthesis and mobilization products can be better targeted.

Behavioural science research should explore the impact and effectiveness of current policies and measures, such as incentives for climate-smart practices, and assess how they can more effectively support climate action. This research can also be used to support co-development and co-implementation of solutions with industry leaders in the natural resource sectors.

4.5 Informing progress towards net-zero greenhouse gas emissions

Accurate and timely monitoring of emissions reductions and removals (see Box 5.4. Carbon dioxide removal) is essential to gauge progress toward net-zero GHG emissions. Emissions may be reduced or removed through changes to energy, manufacturing, agricultural, and transportation systems, urban infrastructure, and management of the land base and natural ecosystems. Monitoring and reporting allow us to evaluate the effectiveness of policies and inform decision makers and the public on the progress toward net-zero.

The National Inventory Report is Canada’s official inventory of anthropogenic GHG sources and sinks, reporting mainly at annual time scales and provincial spatial scales, with a 16-month time lag. Canada has some of the most advanced emissions reporting methods in the world and continues to improve its reporting. However, reported emissions estimates derived from activity-based methods (i.e., bottom-up methods) can differ from those based on other methods, such as emissions estimates from atmospheric measurements (i.e., top-down methods). Both approaches have inherent uncertainties. New methods present opportunities to improve the quality and quantity of information used to estimate GHG sources and sinks. These include improved models, monitoring networks for specific sources or regions, new technologies, low-cost sensors, and satellite observations. The research priorities to improve GHG flux estimates are as follows:

R1 (IPNZ). Enhance GHG data reporting by making advances in measuring and modelling GHG emissions and reconciling complementary techniques for estimating emissions . Reporting can be made more accurate and transparent, at finer spatial and temporal scales, by integrating complementary estimation methods and data sources and by addressing remaining gaps in observations. Collecting and reporting activity data (e.g., fuel volumes) more frequently (e.g., subannually) can improve understanding of emissions. Systematic field measurements can provide information on these shorter time scales. Such information can help identify opportunities for mitigation, inform bottom-up inventory methods and models, and measure progress for emissions reduction programs for carbon dioxide and methane. Integrating multiple data sources and methods will also improve reporting of emissions and removals across the Canadian landscape. An example is the use of high-resolution remote sensing data with validated, spatially explicit landscape models to track human impacts on GHG fluxes across Canada’s land area.

Research on reconciling differences between estimates of sources and sinks obtained with complementary methods (i.e., top-down and bottom-up methods) will increase confidence in GHG data. Greater understanding of the various methods is needed to understand the source of discrepancies (e.g., missed sources, detection limits, incomplete activity data, limitations of reported data, misallocation of emission sources) and to accurately report changes in emissions over time.

Improved quantification of greenhouse gas emissions also requires integrated atmospheric GHG monitoring systems.  

Research is required to evaluate and guide methods to observe atmospheric changes and to continuously track emissions, for example differences between in situ versus remote sensing observations, or stationary observations versus mobile platforms (ground- and water-based vehicles, aircraft, drones, and satellites). Research should also consider differences between sectors, GHGs, and spatial and temporal scales. A near-term priority is detection, measurement, and reduction of fugitive methane emissions from oil and gas operations, as outlined in Faster and Further: Canada’s Methane Strategy .

R2 (IPNZ). Monitor, analyze, and assess changes in ecosystem carbon stocks . Stocks of carbon stored in Canada’s biomass, soils, aquatic, and coastal environments are important on a global scale. Research is needed to better understand the permanence and vulnerability of carbon stocks in managed and unmanaged wetlands, agricultural, coastal, and forest systems. This research should build on existing data sources and analyses, such as provincial forest inventories. Further research is needed to develop methods and data to regularly and more frequently measure natural carbon sinks at different spatial scales. Improved data on carbon sinks can identify their potential to remove carbon from the atmosphere and contribute to national net-zero objectives. This priority is closely aligned with science priorities for nature-based solutions and the carbon cycle (see Chapter 5.2. Carbon cycle science).

R3 (IPNZ). Better understand the contribution of land use and land-use change to achieving net-zero by developing land-use monitoring systems with high spatial resolution . Research is needed to improve the network design and methods used to provide fully reconciled and authoritative systems to monitor land use. Models that are continually validated against measured data are needed to assess how land use and land-use change may affect carbon fluxes and contribute to achieving net-zero. Intercomparison studies are needed to inform alignment of monitoring and modelling methods across land-use categories (i.e., forests, croplands, wetlands, and settled lands) and coastal zones. Land-use models should be used in both national inventory reporting and atmospheric observations-based methods as they become available (see Chapter 5.6. Net-zero pathway science).

R4 (IPNZ). Examine trade-offs involving GHG emissions and removals in economic, environmental, policy, health, and social spheres of Canadian society . Integrated analyses are needed to understand trade-offs associated with GHG emissions and removals and support informed climate policies. These analyses should use ecosystem and socio-economic models to consider the impacts of GHG policy directions. Research should also consider economic, technological, and nature-based solutions, including evaluating the potential benefits, costs, and risks of solutions, and uncertainty associated with them. For example, research and/or modelling should compare carbon dioxide removal methods, such as technologically-based versus nature-based carbon sequestration for multiple climate scenarios, including in the context of extreme events.

The priorities for knowledge synthesis and mobilization are designed to make knowledge and data more useful and accessible. They include:

KM1 (IPNZ). Reconcile publicly available data, information, and knowledge needed to inform calculation of emissions . Comprehensive, authoritative and accessible data is needed for emissions modelling and integrated analyses. Existing data infrastructure should be coordinated and linked. New data and knowledge management infrastructure must be promoted to enable a broader range of academic, stakeholder, and public contributions to the analysis of GHG mitigation opportunities and progress. Remote sensing products also need to be aligned and integrated with data from various sources, including other survey-based data sources. Technology should be developed to integrate datasets, validate models, and allow the free flow of data and knowledge products among governments at all levels, academia, and the public.

KM2 (IPNZ). Conduct intercomparisons and make improvements to ecosystem models to understand anthropogenic drivers of carbon change in the land sector . To improve accuracy and reduce uncertainty in estimates of emissions and removals, research is needed to validate ecosystem models against existing historical datasets and capture how human activities modify emissions and removals in managed ecosystems. A coordinated study comparing models is required to establish the strengths and weakness of various modelling platforms and to assure that functional elements of ecosystems affecting carbon and nitrogen cycles are adequately simulated and consistent across scales. Innovative approaches to combining and refining model function should be explored. These models, which project the impacts of climate change on the Canadian landscape, should play a role in integrated socio-economic analyses of mitigation strategies (see also Chapter 5.2. Carbon cycle science and Chapter 5.6. Net-zero pathway science).

These priorities for research and knowledge synthesis and mobilization would improve understanding of Canada’s GHG emissions and trends, as well as enable Canada to contribute to international GHG monitoring efforts, such as the International Methane Emissions Observatory initiative of the UN Environment Programme and the global stocktake process of the Paris Agreement. As well, the priorities help us make continued progress toward meeting Canada’s nationally determined contributions.

Chapter 5 Convergence research topics

The far-reaching impacts of climate change, and the complexity of the relationships among our environment, economy, and well-being, mean that research needs to work across all disciplines (“convergence research,” see Box 2.2. Research paradigms for transformative science). Frameworks for transdisciplinary research are needed to inform how society responds to climate change and other simultaneous challenges. Knowledge synthesis and dissemination ensures that information on these topics is available to a broad range of policy and decision makers. Using this information will enable us to more effectively transform social and economic systems to address climate change while achieving adaptation and mitigation goals.

Accurate predictions and projections of how the climate will change are essential to characterize risk and plan adaptation responses. They are also critical to inform climate strategies that reduce GHG emissions and will continue to be effective in the face of extreme events and ongoing climate change. Predictions need to go beyond temperature and precipitation extremes. They must provide insights into how frequent and how severe extreme events will become and how they may unfold simultaneously or sequentially, increasing risks to Canadian communities, human and ecosystem health and well-being, and the economy. The science priorities include developing climate predictions on seasonal to annual and decadal time scales, and on kilometric spatial scales. The Arctic region, in particular, would benefit from improved climate monitoring and data to predict climate extremes. Partnering with communities to monitor and predict regional-scale climate change is key to supporting climate action.

Carbon cycle science involves understanding how carbon flows through ecosystems, the atmosphere, communities, and industrial and natural resource sectors. This informs mitigation opportunities, as well as adaptation strategies. For example, nature-based solutions can conserve and enhance natural carbon sinks while also supporting climate adaptation (e.g., through natural cooling influences in urban environments). The efficacy of nature-based solutions is dependent on how the carbon cycle will respond to further climate change. Carbon cycle research is needed to inform how we integrate nature-based solutions, as well as technologies that remove carbon dioxide, into plans for net-zero pathways. Effective deployment of and reporting on natural carbon sinks requires strengthened collaborative research to include consideration of the carbon cycle within climate models. Research is also needed to track changes in carbon stocks (both in land and sea) and to understand their response to changing climate conditions and disturbances (natural or human-caused). Complementing this is the need for regular science assessments to track trends and inform integrated methods to measure and calculate carbon. Assessments can also inform reporting on co-benefits of nature-based solutions for biodiversity and health.

Water–climate nexus science

Advancing this nexus science (in which disciplines intersect) will inform interventions to protect human health, safety, and well-being as well as to sustain healthy aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that, in turn, are integral to human well-being. The science priorities include developing tools to predict water supply and water quality for communities and for natural resource sectors, including hydroelectric facilities. These tools will inform planning to reduce risks from climate extremes and extreme weather events. The science priorities include understanding the sustainability of the water-supply; predicting water-related extremes and their impacts on built infrastructure and critical services; predicting water-related risks to human and ecosystem health; and developing communications about water and climate to improve climate literacy.

Climate change science priorities for the Arctic are cross-cutting. Rapid warming is underway in northern Canada, with deep societal, environmental, and ecological impacts. Global implications of these changes present an opportunity for Canadian scientific leadership and participation. Inuit, First Nations, and Métis organizations must be actively engaged as partners in setting and addressing research priorities across Canada, especially in northern Canada, where how research is conducted is as important as what research is done. Community-led initiatives are needed to improve environmental monitoring, increase northern research capacity, and analyze future climate change scenarios and their implications to food and water security, transportation, infrastructure, and traditional livelihoods. The five themes of the National Inuit Climate Change Strategy provide a strong foundation for research and capacity needs. Critical science and knowledge priorities in the Arctic include developing monitoring strategies that better integrate surface observations and satellite data, and improved representation of Arctic processes (e.g., the cryosphere) within Earth system models.

One Health and climate change nexus science

One Health is a collaborative, multi-sectoral, and transdisciplinary approach to achieve optimal health outcomes by recognizing the interconnection among people, animals, plants, and their shared environment (including terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems). Research is needed to strengthen our understanding of the risks and drivers of climate change and how these can have synergistic (also called “complex integrated”) health impacts, in which many stressors combine to affect health. This research will help us characterize, and respond to, health risks exacerbated by climate change, such as vector-borne and infectious diseases, invasive species, and pathogens. It will also help us understand associated risks from other threats and stressors influenced by climate change, including environmental contaminants, ecosystem loss and degradation, and loss of biodiversity.

Net-zero emissions mean that human-caused emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere are balanced by human removals of GHGs (over a specified period). Net-zero pathway science seeks to understand the elements required to achieve net-zero emissions while responding to societal needs. It includes the interconnected biophysical, technological, and socio-economic processes affecting efforts to achieve decarbonization. This research informs planning for a carbon-constrained future, by understanding the drivers and needed shifts in a wide range of natural and socio-economic factors. Science priorities include building datasets and understanding trends in emissions, to inform scenarios of transformational change in Canada. It is also important to better represent social, political, attitudinal, and behavioural processes, and analyze their impacts on net-zero pathways. It is necessary to integrate climate projections, including climate extremes, with models of ecosystems and social and economic trends, as part of the analysis of possible pathways. To nurture these science activities and to build capacity, Canada needs a national modelling strategy for net-zero pathways.

Climate change research and climate action are essential to sustainable development and to efforts to reduce vulnerability to climate change and the associated risk. However, there is limited research on the relationship between climate action and sustainable development in Canada. Research on this topic can help to show whether, and to what extent, climate actions have advanced or hindered social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.

Climate change is impacting many aspects of people’s well-being, safety, and security. Research is needed to better understand the potential implications of climate change on well-being and security, conflict, national defence, and social and geopolitical stability. Such research should analyze intersecting stressors (related and unrelated to climate), environmental risks, and social impacts and issues. Applying a lens that considers climate change and security factors would improve understanding of how climate change affects future development choices, their distributional aspects, and solutions. This lens would incorporate existing data and knowledge on environmental, socio-economic, and health factors to better inform climate and security solutions. Research must also assess long-term climate, economic, political, and financial changes for Canada, and how these are affected by changes on a global scale. Transdisciplinary research frameworks are essential to evaluate the security implications of climate change policy for geopolitical risks, risks to financial systems and energy supply, humanitarian responses, and foreign policy.

Social science and climate change

Social and behavioural science are critical to helping us understand Canadians’ attitudes, beliefs, values, and biases related to climate change. This information can be used to develop targeted communication strategies and translate climate change science in way that connects with different audiences. Effective communication, based on the latest scientific knowledge and delivered clearly and concisely, can contribute to the shifts in attitudes and behaviours needed to drive transformational societal change and achieve net-zero GHG emissions.

Convergence research topics were identified according to shared cross-cutting characteristics, high relevance across multiple climate system components and regions, and broad impacts across communities and socio-economic sectors. They focus on biophysical, socio-economic, and policy interactions, as well as feedbacks (i.e., responses that either intensify or minimize the initial effect). These topics require particular attention and support to build multi- and transdisciplinary scientific approaches, looking beyond cause and effect to reflect increasingly complex and difficult-to-manage responses to climate change.

Taken together, these topics reflect knowledge needed to guide integrated approaches to mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapting to climate change. Such initiatives can transform social and economic systems, promote the health of Canadians and the environment, and conserve natural ecosystems and biodiversity.

5.1 Predicting and projecting climate extremes and extreme events

Research is needed to improve prediction (in the near term) and projection (over the long term in response to GHG emissions) of climate extremes and extreme weather events (see Box 5.1. Climate extremes and extreme weather events). Stakeholders and experts have emphasized that this research is fundamental to advancing a wide range of climate change science and knowledge. It is also critical to planning effective adaptation and mitigation actions. Advances in Earth system climate science and modelling of extreme events require a better understanding of how climate change will influence terrestrial, hydrological, oceanographic, biogeochemical, cryospheric, and atmospheric processes (including those associated with clouds, precipitation, and storms).

Box 5.1. Climate extremes and extreme weather events

Climate extremes and extreme weather events may be short-term (such as storms and heatwaves that occur over hours, days, or weeks) or long-term (such as multi-year droughts). Prediction and projection of their evolving frequency and intensity should encompass extremes on all time and space scales.

Extremes —The far ends (tails) of the distribution of a particular variable (e.g., hottest or coldest temperature) .

Extreme event —An event that is rare at a particular place and time of year (e.g., heatwaves, wildfires, floods, droughts, storm surges).

Compound extreme events —Simultaneous or sequential combined extremes or multiple events or hazards (e.g., sea level rise and storm surge; drought coupled with heatwaves and/or wildfires).

Predictions and projections rely on a strong Earth system climate modelling capacity. These models simulate how chemistry, biology, and physical forces work together. Understanding extremes can also contribute to climate literacy, which, in turn, can help build competencies for climate adaptation in the public and private sectors and increase awareness of climate risks among citizens, motivating individual and collective climate action.

Improved predictive capacities should be coupled with risk assessment tools to plan for climate extremes and extreme weather events, especially for compound extreme events (see Box 5.1. Climate extremes and extreme weather events). Compound events may be more likely than individual events to push natural resource sectors, infrastructure, and public safety, beyond their resilience thresholds. A further step in understanding the consequences of compound extreme events is considering concurrent socio-economic conditions, such as economic recession, which may exacerbate or create additional vulnerabilities and challenges to recovery (see Box 5.2. Responding to climate and weather emergencies).

Box 5.2. Responding to climate and weather emergencies.

For Métis Nation BC (MNBC), the challenges posed by climate change, such as more intense storms, frequent heavy rain and snow, heatwaves, drought, extreme flooding, and higher sea levels, could significantly alter the types and magnitudes of hazards faced by communities and the teams of emergency management professionals serving them. This is reflected in the Emergency Support Framework Phase 1 project started in 2020 to help MNBC support MNBC Chartered Communities and Métis Citizens in emergency preparedness and readiness in case of future disasters. The project included an assessment of existing conditions, emergency response capabilities, program status, and identification of challenges for Métis Citizens regarding emergency operations. This critical preliminary assessment will help deliver effective emergency support for the MNBC to supplement existing systems managed by the local, regional, and provincial government. For more information:  Climate Preparedness Workshop Series Final Report Released | MNBC .

Ongoing research and investment are needed to improve climate predictions. Within the following priorities, progress may be accelerated through a more coordinated national approach, closer integration with the community or stakeholders, and/or interdisciplinary approaches that include social and health sciences. The science priorities are:

R1 (PPCEE). Improve predictions and projections of extremes, on time scales of seasons to decades, and on kilometric spatial. Develop and improve predictions on seasonal to interannual time scales, projections on decadal to century time scales, and parameters (measures of specific aspects of climate or weather) relevant to users in Canada. These include extremes and conditions conducive to extreme events, air quality, ocean conditions and sea level, and hydro-climate parameters related to freshwater security. These parameters should be “downscaled” from large-scale models or observations to kilometre scales for use in models (e.g., hydrological, oceanographic, vector-borne disease, wildfire, and coastal erosion models). Improved projections of climate extremes will inform climate metrics and design codes for specific sectors, disaster risk reduction and emergency preparedness, public health and security, food security, and other applications of climate risk management.

Larger-scale models provide information that becomes input into smaller-scale receptor models useful for planning at the regional and local level. This “modelling chain” of global to high-resolution regional Earth system models needs to be improved to better represent conditions (e.g., soil moisture, permafrost, ocean temperature) and atmospheric processes (e.g., convective instabilities, extreme winds, storm tracks), and predict climate and climate extremes. The modelling chain of Earth system models must output data at high resolution so that the data can be used in regional or local receptor models. Interdisciplinary research is required to expand the range of variables and parameters that are predicted and projected to include those relevant to impacts and risks for Canadian users (discussed above). This will allow models to better inform health and safety, infrastructure, disaster preparedness, and other economic and societal outcomes. For example, data from models can be incorporated into climate services to help governments and communities prepare for and react to extreme weather events.

Currently, capacity in seasonal, interannual, and decadal predictions is limited. Advances are possible in seasonal prediction systems and in the quality of observations and reanalyses used to initialize simulations. To expand the range of variables and parameters, research is needed on how machine learning and artificial intelligence could build on existing Canadian capacity for seasonal predictions. Improved models would be valuable for environmental prediction (e.g., of floods, storm surges, and fires) as well as for socio-economic applications, such as agricultural practices and management of natural resources (e.g., water, forestry, fisheries).

R2 (PPCEE). Improve monitoring, data collection and accessibility. Accessible, integrated, and interoperable datasets of climate and Earth system observations are essential to inform Earth system modelling and prediction of extremes, help us understand long-term evolution of extremes, and inform adaptation and infrastructure investments. Such datasets should also be updated on a regular basis. Climate monitoring (both land surface and ocean) must be improved and better aligned with user-defined climate indices (used to characterize an aspect of a system, such as a circulation pattern), especially for extreme events, precipitation, wind and cryosphere changes. Specifically, sparsely observed regions, such as the Arctic, need to be better covered (see Box 5.3. Filling the gaps in atmospheric Arctic observations), and monitoring systems (i.e., siting and technology) must be maintained over the long term. At the same time, investments are needed in new technology to sustain and extend monitoring capacity and provide products at higher resolution. This technology includes autonomous systems, space-based Earth observation products and their calibration, and blended in situ and remote sensing products.

Box 5.3. Filling the gaps in atmospheric Arctic observations

Temperatures in the Canadian Arctic are increasing at a rate of two to three times the global average, yet a significant gap still exists in atmospheric Arctic observations compared to the rest of the world. There are only a small number of ground-based atmospheric measurement stations (that gather data on weather and climate variables as well as GHGs) in Canada’s northern regions, which limits our ability to track changes in vulnerable northern ecosystems and feedbacks due to the more rapid rate of warming in these regions. As a result, studies to predict future climate conditions may not be accurate enough to inform adaptation efforts and to assess progress toward stabilizing global temperatures. Although planned satellites to monitor carbon dioxide and methane will increase global observational coverage, Canada’s northern latitudes will continue to be under-observed. The Government of Canada is proposing the Terrestrial Snow Mass Mission and the Arctic Observing Mission, which could observe the Arctic like never before. These missions being developed in partnership between Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Canadian Space Agency and Natural Resources Canada, working with domestic academic institutions and international scientific experts, would have unprecedented capabilities for observing climate change impacts, improving emergency preparedness to extreme weather events and supporting resilient adaptation in the North. This is an opportunity for Canada to take international leadership to advance progress in satellite Earth observation capacity, focused on the North.

R3 (PPCEE). Co-develop approaches to monitoring, conducting research, and predicting climate change with affected communities. For prediction of extremes and climate change monitoring, partners include First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities, municipalities, provinces and territories, and other involved groups. Existing science activities need to move beyond an expert role and instead co-create knowledge directly with affected communities, in order to provide relevant climate information that supports climate mitigation and adaptation. There are opportunities to form or strengthen partnerships for observational and process studies as well as long-term monitoring and modelling efforts. Community partnerships can also build local and regional capacity, strengthening understanding of climate change and the engagement of citizens, organizations and communities in climate mitigation and adaptation.

For this convergence research topic, there is a priority for knowledge synthesis and mobilization:

KM1 (PPCEE). Synthesize and mobilize existing knowledge on the physical science of climate change, including extremes . Knowledge should be synthesized and mobilized through many avenues (see Chapter 6. Moving the climate change science agenda forward).

In regard to extreme weather events specifically, work is underway to develop rapid “event-attribution systems” that would evaluate and communicate the contribution of climate change to such events. A new federal program is using the growing field of “attribution science” to promptly establish to what extent a certain extreme event (for example, a flood in British Columbia or wildfire in Quebec) is due to climate change.

Tools, guidance, and training continue to be required to build competencies in taking action on climate change in all levels of government and private sector. This will allow decision makers to incorporate climate change considerations in policy development and infrastructure projects, to improve the resilience of projects climate extremes and extreme events.

5.2 Carbon cycle science

Carbon cycle science involves understand how carbon flows through communities, industrial and natural resource sectors, ecosystems, and the atmosphere. Carbon cycle science that reflects ecosystem responses to deliberate human actions and removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is incorporated in national inventories of GHG sources and sinks, and in Earth system climate models, to varying degrees. This understanding informs mitigation opportunities, including enhancing natural sequestration and in situ conservation of carbon, as well as adaptation strategies that build on nature-based or hybrid solutions. Footnote 13 Overall, the mitigation potential of nature-based solutions that aim to preserve or enhance carbon storage has not been well calculated over space and time. Furthermore, the variables influencing these calculations are not used consistently, and various estimates of carbon sinks are not directly comparable.

The potential contribution of carbon dioxide removal to national emissions-reduction objectives requires ongoing research. Research is needed to improve calculation of removals and to understand the effects of ongoing warming on large-scale efforts to sequester carbon (see Box 5.4. Carbon dioxide removal). New research should build on atmospheric observations and model-based methods to estimate carbon fluxes, which can complement National Inventory Reporting. Broadly, this research contributes to:

• improving mitigation strategies;
• validating and refining reporting methods for carbon dioxide removal technologies and for natural carbon sequestration;
• understanding potential contributions to emissions reductions; and
• achieving and sustaining net-zero emissions.

Nature-based solutions are an important element of mitigation strategies. However, uncertainties and gaps limit our understanding of their current and potential capacity to sequester and store carbon in managed and unmanaged areas (e.g., wetlands including peatlands, agricultural and forest systems, harvested wood, and coastal ecosystems). Research on the permanence of natural sequestration must take into account the impacts of future warming and changing precipitation on how ecosystems function. This includes the potential release of carbon dioxide and methane (e.g., from permafrost and soils) in response to warming, disturbances from extreme events or human activity, and hydrological changes (e.g., in wetlands and coastal areas) as well as related climate feedbacks in the Earth system that amplify climate change.

Box 5.4. Carbon dioxide removal

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) involves removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it durably in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products. It includes existing and potential human improvements to biological or geochemical carbon dioxide sinks and direct air carbon dioxide capture and storage (DACCS), but excludes natural carbon dioxide uptake not directly caused by human activities (see IPCC AR6 WIII Glossary ).

The need for more science on CDR is pressing because of Canada’s commitment to reaching net-zero GHG emissions by 2050, which will require CDR to offset remaining GHG emissions that prove hard to mitigate. These science needs are also underscored by the prominence of CDR in recent scenarios limiting global warming to 2°C or less as well as by announcements of large private and public funding commitments for CDR projects around the world.

In the Canadian context, science needs for CDR can be grouped into five categories covering physical, economic, and social sciences. Key CDR methods to focus on include: DACCS, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, biochar, and nature-based solutions.

• Risks, trade-offs, and co-benefits —Identify the major risks, trade-offs, and co-benefits from deploying CDR methods in Canada.
• Feasibility and economic impacts —For various levels of deployment of CDR (megatonnes of carbon dioxide per year, see item 5), determine the life-cycle energy and material requirements, estimate costs (including those for the enabling infrastructure) and potential impacts on the job market, reflect the need for both direct decarbonization and CDR to reach net-zero GHG emissions, project technical and economic improvements over the coming decades, estimate the potential synergies among CDR methods, and optimize their deployment across the country and over time.
• Governance —Assess regulatory and governance frameworks for real-world research and large-scale deployment of CDR in Canada; develop protocols for monitoring, reporting, and verification of CDR; assess implications of CDR deployment for GHG reporting and accounting; and study the social and political implications of various governance approaches for CDR.
• Stakeholder engagement —Assess public acceptability and develop strategies to constructively engage stakeholders on the potential deployment of CDR.
• Level of deployment —Estimate the level of deployment (megatonnes of carbon dioxide per year) Canada needs to and can achieve to contribute to net-zero GHG emission targets by 2050, for CDR as a whole and for specific CDR methods.

Research activities under these categories should assess whether existing scientific studies are directly applicable to Canada and should use the national climate change research infrastructure (e.g., federal laboratories, observation network, and high-performance computing) in moving forward.

There is an increasing need to predict, measure, and validate direct interventions to divert carbon through carbon capture, utilization, and storage, including through direct air capture technologies. Emerging opportunities in the circular bioeconomy (an economy powered by nature, emphasizing renewables and minimizing waste) and bioenergy (fuels from biomass), including low-carbon and hybrid engineering solutions for infrastructure, represent further interventions to sequester carbon, diverting or delaying carbon flows back to natural ecosystems. The impact of these interventions on ecosystem function and biodiversity is poorly understood. Nature-based and hybrid approaches to managing flood and wildfire risks, creation of greenspace and parks within and beyond urban areas, and Canada’s Nature Legacy Agenda (conserving 30% of our land and ocean by 2030) all have implications for ecosystem function and biodiversity as well as long-term carbon sequestration.

The priorities for carbon cycle science (below) include improved, process-based understanding of vegetation and soil-related carbon sources and sinks across the Canadian landscape, spanning agricultural, forest, wetland, coastal, and tundra environments.

To track how nature-based solutions affect the carbon cycle, we need a comprehensive understanding of current natural carbon stocks and fluxes (i.e., baseline conditions).

Building coordinated, national capacity for carbon cycle science in Canada is critical. This includes participating in international efforts and organizations in Earth system and carbon science and building on that knowledge to advance Canada’s interests and climate objectives. The science priorities are to:

R1 (CC). Conduct collaborative research in Earth system modelling and in understanding the carbon cycle . This priority includes developing national government and academic strategies and collaborative partnerships in (1) developing and evaluating Earth system climate models and (2) conducting research and monitoring of the carbon cycle. Research in this area should include a broad range of observational data and process studies to help develop and validate models.

Research requires a multidisciplinary, Earth system approach. In several regions of Canada, ecosystems and climate processes have substantial impacts on the global carbon cycle, yet there are uncertainties concerning associated feedbacks. These regions include boreal forests, wetlands, wildfire-prone areas, permafrost, and coastal ocean regions. Climate, soil processes, vegetation, hydrology, and the cryosphere are all linked. This has important impacts on biogeochemical cycles, including the sequestration and potential release of stored carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide, methane, or other GHGs) and nitrogen.

R2 (CC). Monitor carbon stocks to understand their responses to changing climate conditions and disturbances . Long-term monitoring of biological, chemical, and physical aspects of ecosystems will allow us to track changes in both land- and marine-based carbon stocks over time and relate them to changes in environmental conditions and disturbances, both natural and human-caused. Research is needed to understand the role of wetlands (including peatlands) and permafrost areas in climate warming. Research is also needed to understand the effect of increasing frequency and severity of natural disturbances, such as wildfires, on forest carbon. These should be considered together with the effect of forest management practices and the transfer of carbon to harvested wood products. Research should also focus on the role of lakes and rivers in storing and transporting carbon between terrestrial and marine environments, and the potential for carbon sequestration in coastal sea grasses and wetlands, salt marshes, and kelp beds, to inform coastal management and the protection of these marine ecosystems (see Chapter 4.5. Informing progress towards net-zero greenhouse gas emissions).

Research is needed to evaluate and guide observation-based methods (involving data from ground stations and satellites) to estimate emissions, and long-term field experiments to estimate regional- and national-scale carbon stocks and carbon fluxes. While both natural and human-caused carbon fluxes should be estimated, the techniques and implementation considerations differ between the two, in terms of precision, accuracy, spatial and temporal coverage, frequency, and measurement.

R3 (CC). Improve, compare, and apply ecosystem models to estimate carbon fluxes on a national scale . It is important to validate the main models used to simulate carbon emissions and removals across Canadian ecosystems against existing historical datasets. Validation ensures their accuracy and helps us better understand the uncertainty in the model simulations. There is a wide range of ecosystem models that can inform the understanding of carbon and nitrogen cycles. These models function on a number of scales, ranging from models specific to a single site to watershed, landscape, and global-scale models.

As a part of validation, a coordinated model intercomparison study could establish the strengths and weaknesses of various models. The study would also determine whether models at the landscape, watershed, regional, or global scales are consistent with finer-scale models and examine whether key functional elements of ecosystems are adequately simulated and consistent across scales. Validated ecosystem models should play a key role in analyzing mitigation strategies, involving nature-based solutions, projecting the impacts of climate change on the Canadian landscape, and monitoring and reporting emissions and removals of GHGs from the managed and unmanaged landscape.

There is one priority for knowledge synthesis and mobilization:

KM1 (CC). Undertake regular science assessments of the carbon cycle and the potential for increased carbon uptake in Canada . Regular science assessments are needed to inform integrated methods for carbon accounting and tracking over time, including long-term tracking (beyond 2050). Such assessments of carbon stores and stocks should be national (with regional resolution) and conducted regularly (approximately every five years). They should also consider interannual variability and vulnerability to future warming and extreme events.

5.3 Water–climate nexus science

Water responds to increasing temperatures throughout the Earth system, with impacts on water quantity, quality, and chemistry, as well as biodiversity and ecosystems. Warming temperatures affect the physical state of water in the atmosphere (rain, snow, ice) and on the surface, which has cascading impacts on human health, ecosystem health and services, biodiversity, community infrastructure and services, culture, and sustainability of natural resource sectors. Water is involved in substantial climate feedbacks. Climate change results in increases in hydrological variability and extreme events (such as floods and droughts), ocean warming and acidification, a changing cryosphere, and shifting species distributions. However, how aquatic, terrestrial, cryospheric, estuarine, and marine environments respond to climate change, water management, and GHG mitigation actions is not fully understood.

The effects of increased atmospheric GHGs on aquatic ecosystems are often manifested in changes in water quality in both freshwater and marine environments. Warmer water temperatures, changes in water chemistry, sea-level rise, eutrophication, salination of coastal freshwater environments, droughts, and flooding are just some examples of change that can have a negative impact on water quality and the ecologically sensitive species that inhabit these environments. Coastal and Arctic environments are particularly vulnerable during the spring, as increased precipitation and snow/ice melt can lead to greater freshwater and nutrient influx. These changes can impact the quality of water for the people and organisms that rely on it.

Risks to human and ecosystem health related to the water–climate nexus include the following:

• effects on drinking, agricultural, and recreational water quality;
• threats to freshwater supply through climate-driven changes to essential sources (melt water from seasonal snow and glaciers, changes to regional precipitation patterns);
• water-borne diseases;
• impacts on biodiversity;
• physical injuries and mental health impacts due to extreme flooding events and their effects on local or regional infrastructure and services; and
• impacts on water and food security.

Science on the water–climate nexus informs interventions to sustain healthy aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. It improves confidence in tools that predict freshwater supply and improve or maintain water quality for communities and for natural resource sectors. This science also informs planning to reduce risks from hydro-climate extremes and extreme events, particularly floods, storms, wildfires, drought, and harmful algal blooms. These challenges require mobilization of Western and Indigenous science and partnerships with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples and communities, who are stewards of water in large areas of Canada.

Building the scientific evidence to manage water resources effectively is complex and needed to ensure that decision makers and end-users have clear and understandable information and tools to make decisions and take appropriate action. The science priorities are to:

R1 (WCN). Understand future water sustainability, including supply, demand, quality, and effects on human and ecosystem health. Transdisciplinary science efforts are required to understand freshwater sustainability in the coming decades. Sustainability means a balance of water resource use with ecosystem health, functions, and services. This understanding includes how vulnerable freshwater supply is to climate change, and whether water supply will meet the expected increase in demand by humans and ecosystems. This underpins research in the topics below and is essential to determine where, and in which seasons, future warming threatens water supply and quality. Sustainable integrated management and decision making, should address:

• climate impacts on freshwater use and impacts on water users, such as agricultural and urban communities;
• contaminant and nutrient pollution;
• aquatic habitat health, including the impacts of invasive species; and
• projected changes in extreme events (i.e., floods, droughts), their societal impacts and implications for water resource infrastructure.

Freshwater sustainability involves integrating requirements for specific communities and for public health with protection of ecosystems and their services, such as the sustainable operations of natural resource sectors (see Chapter 4.4. Sustainable natural resources). Hydroelectric power generation continues to be an integral component of renewable energy in many regions. Research is needed to understand the impact of climate-induced changes in streamflow regimes on hydroelectric power capacity and resilience. Better understanding can help inform monitoring and management of freshwater resources, at the national and regional levels.

An understanding of long-term freshwater supply and demand across Canada is needed to develop methods and models to predict the timing and severity of supply stresses in freshwater systems. These methods and models can also help meet household, agricultural, and industrial water demands, especially during extreme heat events and droughts. This research requires collaborative efforts to forecast (seasonally, on a local to regional scale) and project (long-term) freshwater carrying capacity for key watersheds. This will become particularly important as changes to snowpack and glaciers impact the timing and quantity of meltwater runoff to hydrological systems. Such forecasts and projections can inform planning for freshwater supply and infrastructure.

Scientific information that is multi-scale (e.g., local or urban, regional, ecosystem, watershed) is essential to support integrated freshwater management and stewardship.

R2 (WCN). Model water-related risks to the health of humans and ecosystems as well as burden of disease (illness and death) due to further warming. Climate-driven changes to water quality and quantity have consequences for both natural ecosystems and freshwater availability and safety for human consumption. Impacts differ by region and include warmer waters, increased sediments associated with thawing permafrost, sea-level changes, flooding, drought, changes in precipitation patterns, and greater land-based runoff. Other impacts may also disrupt the health of aquatic ecosystems and degrade their ability to provide ecosystem services, including food and water security for Canadians. Research is needed to develop new and strengthened monitoring approaches and analytical methods for detecting new or previously rare health risks. These approaches and methods can be used to develop effective measures to protect the health of humans and aquatic ecosystems. An increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme events, including wildfires, heatwaves, droughts, and floods, can result in freshwater contamination, shortages, freshwater runoff, eutrophication, and other issues. Changes in water quality and quantity may have cascading effects for the health and well-being of communities and individuals, and may exacerbate existing social inequities. Climate-driven changes to water resources may also impact health and well-being by impeding access to traditional foods, affecting agriculture and tourism, and hindering safe travel and supply lines (e.g., ice roads) in some communities (e.g., coastal, Arctic, and northern communities).

To take action on the modelled risks, research should advance source water protection and public health interventions in equitable and effective ways, through transdisciplinary science frameworks and programs to acquire needed data. These data can be used to develop mechanistic understanding, new technologies, and models to assess the burden of illness due to climate change impacts on water quality and quantity. Efforts to protect health from these impacts should be informed by an understanding of the needs of those most at risk, co-developed with communities and groups affected, where possible.

5.4 Arctic climate change science

Box 5.5. our arctic science context.

Inuit Nunangat, the Inuit homeland and settled land claim areas, reaches across the entire Canadian Arctic, which accounts for 40% of Canada’s land mass. Other Indigenous groups, including First Nations and Métis, also reside in the region on unceded territories. As a result, Canada must collaborate in global science communities on what research is conducted in the Arctic, and how Arctic science is planned, led, implemented, and reported. This includes considerations for Arctic science capacity, infrastructure, knowledge dissemination, and partnerships, including co-development and leadership of research initiatives with Indigenous communities.

Over recent decades, the temperature in the Arctic has increased at three to four times the global average, as a result of climate feedbacks that amplify climate change. The impacts of this warming are significant because of the close cultural connection that First Nations, Inuit, Métis, and other northern residents in the Arctic have with the natural environment (see Box 5.5. Our Arctic science context). Climate-induced changes to the Arctic also have global consequences. These include:

• reduced albedo (reflection of sunlight back into space) from reduced Arctic snow and ice cover, which amplifies warming;
• significant carbon emissions from thawing permafrost;
• changes to the behaviour of the jet stream (driven by amplified Arctic warming and reduced sea ice); and
• global sea-level rise associated with glacier and ice sheet melt (mainly from Arctic Canada and Greenland at this time).

These global effects also have implications for every region of Canada. Since the Arctic affects climate change and is affected by climate change, Arctic research priorities are relevant across all themes and topics in this report.The Arctic of the future will be significantly different from the Arctic of today. Climate science is essential to inform effective, evidence-based adaptation and mitigation activities across Arctic and sub-Arctic Canada.

How Arctic research is planned, conducted, and delivered in Canada is just as crucial as what Arctic science is prioritized. Governments and the research community must actively engage First Nations, Inuit, and Métis organizations as partners in addressing science and knowledge priorities across northern Canada. Community-led initiatives are needed as part of self-determination in environmental monitoring, enabled by increased northern capacity. Climate change is the key driver of Arctic environmental change, and climate research must be grounded in Indigenous knowledge systems. These knowledge systems should be more integrated in research design and monitoring of environmental conditions that affect social, cultural, and health considerations in northern communities.

Knowledge co-production, information-sharing, and evidence-based decision making are foundational principles for research and knowledge synthesis and mobilization activities in northern Canada. Current Arctic research capacity is loosely coordinated across a range of institutions, stakeholders and rights holders, and programs (e.g., federal and territorial government departments, and university-led networks such as ArcticNet and PermafrostNet). There is an opportunity to increase co-development, co-management, and coordination in these areas.

A Canadian Arctic climate science and knowledge system needs to be established to support climate information needs across northern regions and communities. A rights-based approach is required, premised on partnerships with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis representatives and respect for multiple knowledge systems.

Increased northern scientific capacity should include community-based monitoring as well as participatory scenario analysis, planning, and governance. These scientific approaches are key to resilience-based ecosystem stewardship and adaptive governance. They can also help preserve livelihoods and well-being as environmental conditions change. Northern-based training opportunities and research facilities (e.g., laboratory capacity) must continue to be developed. Communication and coordination between southern and northern science networks can be enhanced through increased capacity of community-based knowledge brokers and mediators.

The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) National Inuit Climate Change Strategy provides a strong foundation for establishing Arctic science priorities. The five thematic areas identified by the ITK (knowledge and capacity; health, well-being, and the environment; food systems; infrastructure; and energy) align with science priorities in this report. These priorities for Arctic climate research form part of a framework that can be revised to include additional and changing perspectives.

The first four research priorities are aligned with thematic areas identified by the ITK (R1—health, well-being and the environment; R2—food systems; R3—infrastructure; and R4—energy):

R1 (ACC). Understand climate change influences on traditional and cultural activities . Research is required to:

• implement innovative and collaborative monitoring programs for terrestrial, cryosphere, freshwater, and marine environments;
• understand changing Arctic Ocean and sea ice conditions; and
• enhance Earth system modelling and weather, ice, hydrological, and oceanographic forecasting.

This work will inform the development of approaches to reduce climate change impacts on traditional practices, cultural activities, public health and safety, mobility, and food security for northern Canadians.

R2 (ACC). Conduct research to support secure and sustainable food systems, along with surveillance of the exposure of northerners to emerging food- and water-borne infectious diseases, contaminants, and parasites . Climate change is strongly influencing risk for food systems. Research priorities include improved understanding of the intersection of climate and ecosystem changes, including impacts on human health and threats to food and water security. In the North, food systems include traditional harvest of wild plants and animals and market food. Research is needed to assess the risk climate change poses to traditional and market food access. Monitoring is also needed to assess the exposure of northerners to food- and water-borne infectious diseases, contaminants, and parasites. This includes evaluating community resilience to these risks.

R3 (ACC). Conduct hazard mapping and vulnerability assessments to inform adaptation planning for built infrastructure in northern communities . Knowledge of hazards and vulnerability will inform research to determine adaptation needed for infrastructure (roads, airstrips, buildings, wharves) and transportation (vehicles, air, shipping), including improved understanding of future ice conditions and landscape disturbance from permafrost thaw and coastal erosion. The key outcomes will guide the construction of infrastructure that is climate-resilient and sustainable, while meeting cultural needs and preferences.

R4 (ACC). Design monitoring programs that integrate surface observations and satellite data (existing and planned missions) to track key climate indicators and determine risks from changes in disturbances (such as wildfires and melting sea ice) . New satellite missions are needed to address gaps in national observations (see Box 5.3. Filling the gaps in atmospheric Arctic observations). These missions will help us understand and measure cryospheric change (e.g., snow water equivalent; snow depth on sea ice; river, lake, and sea ice conditions) and landscape-scale GHG fluxes. We need a nationally coordinated approach to deploying and maintaining instruments and sustaining observation networks. This approach must be supported by enhanced scientific infrastructure (e.g., improved telecommunications capacity for affordable, near-real-time data transmission).

R5 (ACC). Advance and evaluate Earth system models to better represent the atmospheric, cryosphere, hydrological, oceanographic, ecological, and carbon cycle processes in northern regions . Improved understanding and representation of the carbon cycle is a high priority to assess future carbon fluxes (both sources and sinks) from thawing permafrost, the changing boreal forest (including increased wildfire), expanding tundra vegetation, and the warming Arctic Ocean. Understanding the changing freshwater and sea ice conditions in the Arctic Ocean will inform projections of Arctic Ocean stratification and acidification, and impacts on ecosystems, fisheries, food security, and carbon uptake. Weather-prediction capabilities need to be improved to better forecast extreme events that are common across northern Canada (e.g., fog, freezing rain, blizzards). Advances are needed in river, lake, ocean, and sea ice forecasts across operational (near-real-time), seasonal, and decadal time scales for safety, navigation, and commerce. Research is also needed to better understand:

• climate forcing and feedbacks from changing Arctic clouds and aerosols;
• the impact of climate change on contaminants (including black carbon deposition on snow and ice, as well as changes to mercury in terrestrial, aquatic, and marine environments);
• the ecological impacts of ice crusts resulting from winter rain events;
• changing Arctic Ocean conditions; and
• implications for Arctic marine ecosystems, shipping, security, and economic development.

The physical and ecosystem changes occurring across the Canadian Arctic cannot be viewed through the lens of individual disciplines. Interconnected climate and environmental changes across the Arctic create cascading impacts and risks. A holistic and transdisciplinary understanding is necessary to determine the efficacy and limits of strategies to reduce climate risks and strengthen resilience and sustainability for Arctic ecosystems and people.

The knowledge mobilization priority aligns with ITK’s knowledge and capacity theme.

KM1 (ACC). Co-develop a distributed approach to delivering climate services for northern communities to inform evidence-based decision making . This priority is to ensure that place-based climate information is available to northern communities. Climate services organizations can help better understand current climate vulnerabilities, risks, and opportunities. They can support planning and decision making to allow northerners to become more resilient to the expected impacts of future climate change.

5.5 One Health and climate change nexus science

A Venn diagram of Human Health, Plant Health, Environmental Health, and Animal Health, all overlapping at One Health.

Climate change risks are complex and interconnected, and impacts can propagate through natural and human systems in ways that are difficult to anticipate. Investigating those interconnections through the lens of a One Health and climate change nexus supports science-based adaptation. One Health is a collaborative, multi-sectoral, and transdisciplinary approach to achieve optimal health outcomes by recognizing the interconnection among people, animals, plants, and their shared environment (including terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; see Box 5.6. One Health). By taking a One Health approach to tackle climate change, we can:

• better understand the impacts of climate change on health equity, and on the health of Canadians, animals, plants, and the environment;
• find collaborative, effective, and economically advantageous approaches to adaptation and mitigation (e.g., surveillance, prevention, and risk management along with guidance to support regulatory decision making); and
• avoid siloed adaptation and responses that have limited benefits or have negative impacts outside the targeted sector.

Box 5.6 One Health

One Health, as defined by the World Health Organization, is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems. It recognizes that the health of humans, domesticated and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and interdependent. The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines, and communities at varying levels of society to work together to foster well-being and tackle threats to health and ecosystems. At the same time, these sectors, disciplines, and communities can address the collective need for:

• clean water, energy, and air;
• safe and nutritious food; and
• action on climate change.

Substantial knowledge gaps and issues in data accessibility, sharing, and interoperability currently limit our understanding of the interconnected impacts of climate change on health. To address those gaps, advance collaboration, and identify transdisciplinary opportunities for adaptation, the activities for research and knowledge synthesis outlined below are needed.

R1 (OHCC). Strengthen understanding of risks and drivers of change across the human, animal, plant, and environment interfaces. Climate change continues to create synergistic (also called “complex integrated”) health impacts in which many stressors combine to affect the health of Canadians, animals, plants, and their shared environment. These impacts are due to extreme events and slow-onset changes, along with unprecedented environmental degradation, societal inequities, and changes in biodiversity, land use, and demographics. These impacts may emerge unexpectedly because there is a lack of understanding of the scope and scale of ecosystem changes, how these changes may intersect, and what the impacts will be on health (with “health” defined in this section as the health of Canadians, animals, plants, and their shared environment). There is a need to better understand and detect current, emerging, and often converging trends through greater foresight, modelling, risk assessment, surveillance, and laboratory diagnostic capabilities, including:

• examining the sensitivity to climate change of pathogens, pests, and populations of concern (e.g., invasive species, disease vectors), to determine where and when these may emerge or re-emerge in Canada;
• predicting future shifts in ecological and species ranges (e.g., plants, wildlife, invasive species, disease vectors) due to climate change and how human interaction, exposure, and socio-economic factors may interact with these changes; and
• understanding how health inequities and the social determinants of health influence climate change vulnerability, putting some populations at greater risk of health hazards due to climate change and creating barriers and challenges to protective adaptation measures.

R2 (OHCC). Advance transdisciplinary approaches as well as First Nations, Inuit, and Métis ways of knowing in knowledge-sharing, data braiding, and analytics . The complex and interdependent nature of health underscores the need for coordinated, collaborative, and cross-sectoral approaches. Such approaches should enable multiple and diverse disciplines to work better together to understand, assess, collect, synthesize, and analyze cross-cutting issues. The One Health approach aligns well with Indigenous science and knowledge, including a holistic view of health that links the health and well-being of humans, animals, plants, and their shared environment. First Nations, Inuit, and Métis ways of knowing in this research area will introduce novel approaches for collecting, using, sharing, and analyzing socio-economic and environmental data. These approaches will help us to better understand climate impacts, risks, and adaptation solutions. This requires:

• integrated, multi-sectoral approaches for risk intelligence (information-gathering to identify risks) and surveillance systems for early warning, detection, and risk assessment of threats to health;
• development of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis partners’ capacity and bringing together Indigenous science and ways of knowing and Western knowledge to conduct research and monitoring projects on climate change and various health risks, specifically, zoonotic infections and food safety and security;
• innovations in assessing cumulative effects and cross-sectoral risk management capacity, equipping Canada to better protect the health of individuals and communities, ecosystems, and plant and animals; and
• evaluation of existing climate One Health interfaces and frameworks, integrated these in the Canadian context.

The priority for knowledge mobilization is the following:

KM1 (OHCC). Develop decision support and visualization tools that are transdisciplinary and interactive, supporting decision making and ecosystem management . One Health provides an opportunity to integrate data streams that have not traditionally intersected. To ensure that researchers and data users can access the information they need for transdisciplinary research, they will need:

• data infrastructure, including high-performance computing (see Chapter 6. Moving the climate change science agenda forward);
• integrated community-based surveillance; and
• appropriate, accessible, and interoperable data streams.

Public health surveillance, artificial intelligence, and big data will be essential to advance progress on the science and knowledge gaps. To mobilize information and enhance collaboration and external partnerships, there is a need for networks, venues, or forums that include First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities.

Advancing these science priorities will enable:

• One Health objectives;
• a multi-sectoral, transdisciplinary, “systems thinking” approach; and
• integration of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis ways of knowing.

The key outcomes will be better surveillance, prediction, and communication to protect people, economies, food supply, and natural systems against current and future climate risks.

5.6 Net-zero pathway science

This convergence research involves decarbonization pathways, in line with Canada’s commitment to reach net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. Pathway science explores the inter-related biophysical, technological, and socio-economic processes involved in decarbonization. The priorities for this topic seek to inform social, institutional, and political considerations, including opportunities for and barriers to successful decarbonization. This theme also embraces multiple approaches, models, and methods. It reflects diverse streams of knowledge and values in order to understand—and ultimately guide—transformational change. The science priorities are based on user needs and open science principles to support decision making, consistent with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act .

Net-zero pathways are far more than lines on a graph. As the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Reports make clear, net-zero pathways necessitate systemic transformations to all parts of society to drive down emissions and to secure outcomes for resilience, adaptation, and, more broadly, sustainable development. This effort charts a course for the future of Canada in a carbon-constrained world, including underlying shifts in technology, infrastructure, policy, institutions, business models, markets, behaviours, labour, culture, and beliefs, along with many other factors. To understand the scope of this change, pathway analysis must integrate social and behavioural shifts, as well as distributional effects and principles of equity and justice.

Net-zero pathway science relies on efforts from multiple disciplines and embraces diverse streams of knowledge, ways of knowing, and values that inform societal responses to climate change.

The conceptual framework for net-zero pathway science—reflecting iterative knowledge development, evaluation, and monitoring processes—is shown in Figure 5.1. Engineering and natural science can contribute understanding of the biophysical and techno-economic dimensions, spanning carbon sinks and cycles as well as technological and nature-based climate solutions. The social sciences and humanities can make critical contributions to socio-political and policy dimensions needed to inform this research and deliver practical results. Transition, innovation, and historical science and technology studies offer insights about the way major systems, such as electricity, transport, and agri-food, have shifted over time. These efforts must also engage with the arts and humanities to envision alternative futures, promote usability, and support learning and attitudinal shifts.

Figure 5.1. Conceptual framework for net-zero pathway science, reflecting iterative knowledge development, evaluation, and monitoring processes .

The graphic demonstrates the conceptual framework for net-zero pathway science.

The cycle consists of four iterative steps:

• Decision-driven, open-source, and community-based
• Indicators, strategies, targets, and outcomes
• Monitoring and evaluation
• Iterative and adaptive learning

The Venn diagram within the cycle consists of the following:

• Generating data and scenarios for long-term pathways, including emissions and socio-economic baseline and futures in Canada
• Building integrated assessment modelling, convergent research, and other transdisciplinary approaches
• Enabling transformation at all levels, including legislation, rights, equity, and shifting attitudes ad behavioural change

The research priorities are the following:

R1 (NZP). Build foundational knowledge, including societal and economic considerations, to inform net-zero scenarios for transformational change in Canada.

• Identify trends and socio-economic changes that will drive emissions reductions, through methods such as foresight analysis, futures research, and scenario development (e.g., urbanization, electrification, digitization).
• Conduct economic and integrated assessment modelling that reflects the complexity of the technological, economic, and social spheres, including alternative economic paradigms.
• Analyze and compare pathways through model intercomparison projects (for example, those organized by the World Climate Research Programme or Energy Modelling Forum) and science assessments. In these comparisons, consider environmental objectives unrelated to climate as well as sustainable development.
• Integrate Canadian pathways with regional and global pathways, to understand external influences on Canada’s net-zero pathways.

R2 (NZP). Understand socio-political, attitudinal, and behavioural processes in net-zero pathways and improve how these are integrated in modelling and analysis.

• Use attitudinal and behavioural knowledge to understand how Canadians can be empowered to make informed decisions and adopt new practices, for example, through capacity-building and information-sharing.
• Bridge social science knowledge with economic, energy, and technology considerations to explore the linkages between regulations and policy, economic incentives, social marketing campaigns, grassroots change, and co-benefits of climate action, to understand their influence on net-zero action.
• Understand the effectiveness of climate policy, incentives, regulations, and jurisdictional governance and responsibilities in order to better tailor net-zero programs so that they resonate with audiences to motivate progress.
• Incorporate diverse forms of knowledge creation and emerging perspectives. These forms include prioritizing new voices that can expand the usability of these approaches as well as Indigenous science and perspectives. Perspectives of youth, gender, and race, and historically and currently marginalized voices are all needed to expand the knowledge base and frames of reference for net-zero futures. This can be achieved through co-producing proposals for changes to the existing systems.

R3 (NZP). Develop a national strategy for modelling net-zero pathways to inform transformational change in Canada.

• Build a community of scientists to work on net-zero pathway models in an open-source, decision-driven research environment. This effort would include integrated assessment modelling and allow transparent model development and intercomparison of models and results, leveraging international examples and modelling tools, where possible.
• Advance understanding of the potential of concurrent solutions that achieve adaptation, resilience, and sustainable development.
• Better represent socio-economic factors, through systems-based approaches and “futures” research (the study of social and technological advances). As multiple modelling approaches continue to evolve, models should have less uncertainty and respond better to diverse information needs, to inform net-zero planning in various regions and sectors.
• Develop models capable of analyzing net-zero pathways beyond “business as usual” or incremental change as required, in order to reflect the transformative processes for achieving and sustaining net-zero. Current models were designed for a given purpose in a specific context; they must be further developed to explore new scenarios involving radical changes (step changes in technologies but also crises and unexpected developments).

Pathway science capacity in Canada is expanding rapidly, with centres of expertise emerging across society. But greater coordination is needed to make usable and salient information available to guide net-zero pathways. As well, advancing these science priorities requires a vast expansion in systems-based and transdisciplinary approaches. This convergence research topic emphasizes the importance of opening up the pathway development process to multiple disciplinary perspectives and approaches. Pathway development must incorporate open-source data and transparent assumptions, and reflect the range of social, economic, technological, and future climate considerations needed to move Canada rapidly toward its net-zero objective. These approaches will help to establish pathway science capacity in Canada, to build knowledge about the key features of pathways, including technology adoption, uncertainty, norms, culture, politics, equity, and justice. To advance pathway science, the knowledge and capacity in Canada’s think tanks; private sector; academic institutions; civil society; arts organizations; First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples and organizations; and governments are all needed. This science will position Canada to envision and move toward a net-zero, resilient future.

5.7 Climate change research and sustainable development

The Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report finds, with high confidence, that accelerated and equitable climate action is critical to sustainable development, given the strong links among sustainable development, vulnerability, and climate risks. Climate change research and climate action are essential to sustainable development in Canada (see Box 5.7. Sustainable development). Equitable and meaningful participation of all relevant actors in decision making for mitigation and adaptation is necessary to facilitate the shift toward sustainability.

In Canada, the Federal Sustainable Development Act establishes support for sustainable development, with a view to improving the quality of life of Canadians and taking action on climate change. This legislation identifies principles for sustainable development, namely, that it is based on an efficient use of natural, social, and economic resources, and that the Government of Canada needs to integrate environmental, economic, and social factors in making all of its decisions.

Research should focus on understanding how climate action, including mitigation and adaptation, can impact sustainable development. This includes supporting the United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs), strengthening the science–policy interface, and sharing best practices and experiences in sustainable development.

Box 5.7. Sustainable development

The meaning of sustainable development continues to evolve. In the 1987 Brundtland Report, Our Common Future , it was defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It has been conceptualized as “three pillars” or “nested dependencies,” with social, economic, and environmental dimensions. Other concepts of sustainable development also involve substituting technology and skills for benefits traditionally provided by nature or ecosystems.

Among the elements of sustainable development, the relationships among social, economic, and environmental elements are integral. Achieving goals in only one dimension is insufficient. Instead, SDGs must be pursued and achieved concurrently. This is why the SDGs are described as integrated and indivisible .

A trade-off refers to an outcome where action on one dimension of sustainable development is observed to hinder or regress progress toward another dimension of sustainable development.

A synergy refers to an outcome where action substantially supports simultaneous progress on multiple dimensions of sustainable development.

A co-benefit refers to the positive effects that a policy or measure aimed at one objective might have on other objectives, regardless of its net effect on overall social welfare. Co-benefits (or  ancillary  benefits) are often subject to uncertainty and depend on local circumstances and implementation practices, among other factors.

Despite advances in climate change science and sustainable development, there is a gap in research on how climate actions implemented in Canada either advance or hinder sustainable development, including its social, economic, and environmental dimensions.

The research priority is:

R1 (CCRSD). Examine the relationships between climate action and sustainable development. Research should be specific to the Canadian context and support the SDGs. This includes research to understand how climate action implemented in Canada affects sustainable development, developing equity-based models and analytical frameworks to predict or evaluate the impacts of climate action on sustainable development, and understanding how climate action interacts with socio-economic elements of sustainable development. Gender-based and intersectional (the ways in which systems of inequality intersect) analyses of sustainable development, as well as consideration of interactions between distinctions-based Indigenous science and worldviews are needed to support this research.

5.8 Climate change and security

Climate change substantially alters human security, political stability, and security infrastructure (which protects critical systems from threats to their operation). This includes increased frequency of extreme events, impacts on food, water and energy availability, impacts on livelihoods and well-being, increased competition for natural resources, and increased displacement and migration.

Addressing the range of climate change’s implications for security is urgent. Without urgent and substantial mitigation and adaptation efforts, climate change will generate increasingly severe, pervasive, and widespread risks for most aspects of natural and human well-being, as well as livelihoods, public safety, and economic performance and resilience. Many climate change impacts have profound implications for safety, vulnerability, and security, as well as for national defence, conflict, and social and geopolitical instability (see Box 5.8. Canada’s defence operations and climate change). Climate solutions to address security considerations need to integrate strategies, policies, and actions to reduce GHG emissions (mitigation). Such solutions should be carried out in tandem with reducing exposure to climate hazards, environmental conservation and protection, and securing well-being for all. Footnote 14 Research should inform solutions that are well-timed and align with other economic and environmental policy goals, to avoid exacerbating existing inequities and to favour solutions that enhance equity and justice. Transdisciplinary research is essential to an integrated understanding of the multiple factors that could guide orderly transitions to net-zero and adaptation planning, and sustainable development, while avoiding worsening vulnerabilities.

Box 5.8. Canada’s defence operations and climate change

The growing impacts of a changing climate pose direct and indirect threats to human and national security worldwide. Canada’s defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE), recognizes climate change as a security challenge both at home and abroad. In Canada, the effects of climate change are transforming the physical and security landscape, leading to an evolving set of challenges. For example, severe effects such as floods and wildfires are increasingly impacting communities and threatening critical infrastructure.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces provide critical services for Canada’s security, both internationally and nationally. The department plans to better understand demands for military aid during extreme events, such as floods and wildfires, domestically and internationally.

In June 2022, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) announced it plans to establish a Climate Change and Security Centre of Excellence (CCASCOE) in Canada, to work cohesively across member nations to develop and promote solutions to climate security challenges by creating new opportunities for collaboration. These solutions include the member countries’ shared objectives of mitigating GHG emissions from security activities, as well as adapting and building resilience to climate change.

The science priorities for this nexus topic respond to the top risks identified on a global scale and their impacts in a Canadian context. Footnote 15 Research is needed to inform risk assessments on daily to seasonal and decadal scales across Canada, including urgent attention to the more rapidly warming Arctic. Conceptual models, such as those that reflect the risk-multiplier framing, the direct impacts of further climate change in Canada, and the feasibility and effectiveness of mitigation and adaptation actions are needed. This research should enable understanding of security implications as well as collective and co-operative action through analysis of intersecting stressors, related and unrelated to climate. This would include analyses of environmental risks (extreme weather events, biodiversity loss, infectious diseases, and human-caused environmental damage) and social impacts (social cohesion, livelihood crises and coping, natural resource management, food security, energy supply and transition, debt crises, economic and just transition, and gender equity).

Applying a climate change and security lens to climate change research could improve our understanding of how climate change affects future development choices, their distributional aspects, and solutions. Such a lens draws on the breadth of environmental, socio-economic, and health data and knowledge that inform Canadian solutions. This research framework can include perspectives outside of Canada’s domestic context, to help understand the implications of global responses to climate change for Canada, and inform Canada’s contributions to international initiatives (e.g., climate mitigation and adaptation activities, finance, disaster risk management, and foreign aid). Footnote 16 This research includes identifying immediate security issues and those anticipated under various future climate scenarios. It involves looking at how these security issues can affect existing geopolitical tensions and the dynamics of violence, conflict, and co-operation. It can also include understanding how safety, health, and humanitarian needs will be identified and met, and how the impacts of climate change can be managed through disaster preparedness and long-term support for sustainable development (for example, in developing countries). There is also a need to assess long-term political, economic, and financial transformations in domestic and global contexts as part of future climate scenarios.

There is limited and fragmented capacity to pursue this research in Canada. Specific science priorities for Canada in this area include the following:

R1 (CCS). Evaluate climate change policy pathways and their security implications . These pathways span multiple future contexts, including those that would result from meeting emissions targets, currently stated Nationally Determined Contributions, or other global emission pathways (see Chapter 5.6. Net-zero pathway science). Evaluating their security implications can better inform decision makers, including implications for geopolitical risks, risks to financial and energy supply systems, humanitarian responses, and Canadian foreign policy. The near-term and longer-term impacts of these pathways on adaptive capacity, ongoing adaptation actions, and resulting resilience need to be understood.

R2 (CCS). Identify the risks and threat-multipliers of climate change for the operations of security institutions and for emergency preparedness and response . Climate change intensifies resource scarcity and worsens existing social, economic, and environmental factors. Research is needed to understand the climate-related impacts on, risks to, and vulnerabilities of the operations of Canada’s security institutions and emergency preparedness and response.

R3 (CCS). Develop a suite of security responses to climate change, across relevant contexts and scales . This would include developing collaborative strategies for climate change security that consider interactions between socio-economic factors (e.g., social inequities), and potential alignment with other economic and environmental policy goals.

R4 (CCS). Develop a “system of systems” response to climate change, reflecting the interconnections and cascading responses across social and economic sectors and communities . This includes identifying where climate risks to security may be underestimated (“blind spots”) or where impacts may be indirect or difficult to predict. Research needs to consider the Canadian security context as well as broader international considerations to better understand security impacts and inform solutions.

5.9 Social science and climate change

To make a difference, research results must be used—by other researchers, by decision makers involved in setting policies, by practitioners in the public and private sectors, and by members of the public. Behavioural and social science can help identify and study these different audiences and their needs to inform the development of targeted tools, products, and assessments to better communicate and translate climate change science in a way that connects with each group and facilitates climate action.

Social science research results can also inform climate policies, such as regulations, tax measures (disincentives such as carbon pricing and incentives such as tax credits), rebates and similar financial incentives, public health measures, municipal bylaws, and information and promotion programs.

Social science informs effective knowledge mobilization and communication which are critical to bringing research results to decision makers, practitioners, and members of the public. Plans for synthesizing and mobilizing the results of research should be built into every research project, rather than being an afterthought.

To mobilize knowledge, there is a growing role for climate change communication. Best practices, toolkits, and playbooks are emerging to make such communication more effective. Communication strategies draw on social science, particularly behavioural science, to contribute to shifts in attitudes and behaviours across various Canadian audience segments (see Box 5.9. Program of Applied Research on Climate Action in Canada (PARCA Canada)). Footnote 17

However, public opinion research and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) demonstrate that there is still a need to:

• increase climate literacy;
• address a lack of trust in government and experts;
• respond to misinformation and disinformation; and
• bridge the knowledge gaps between understanding climate impacts and the need for action, in parallel with efforts to motivate that action.

Experts and practitioners have highlighted knowledge gaps in understanding:

• the attitudes and beliefs of Canadian audiences;
• how to reach those audiences effectively; and
• how to evaluate the impact of communication products and delivery on Canadian audiences’ attitudes and behaviours toward climate action.

Communication efforts have a higher chance of success if they are based on the latest scientific knowledge and delivered through clear and coherent communication products. Developing the right message through evidence-based methods, finding appropriate messengers, and choosing the right delivery tool for audience segments are all essential elements of communication strategies.

To mobilize knowledge, climate change communication can draw on social and behavioural science to influence Canadian attitudes and behaviour. Research is still needed to understand Canadian audience segments and develop communication products targeted to them. To build trust with each audience segment, communicators can develop narratives about climate change impacts and action that relate to people’s lived experiences and perspectives. Narratives and visuals (illustrations, videos) can help bring complex climate change issues home to Canadians. Misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation about climate change must be countered with a flow of credible information (see Box 5.10. Terms used in climate change information). Trusted messengers—who may be community members beyond the traditional sources of information—are critical in getting messages out.

Box 5.10. Terms used in climate change information

Misinformation : Information that is false but is created or spread by someone who thinks it is true, without the intention of causing harm (e.g., someone posting an article containing out-of-date information but not realizing it).

Disinformation : Information that is false and deliberately created to deceive or harm (e.g., purposely posting false data with an intent to discredit).

Malinformation : Information based on real information and used to inflict harm on a person, organization, group, or country (e.g., someone using information that is picked selectively and represented out of context to ignite controversy or hatred; or someone responding negatively to a particular ideology, program, or policy).

Science capital : Science-related qualifications, understanding, knowledge (about science and “how it works”), interest, and social contacts (e.g., knowing someone who works in a science-related job).

Audience segmentation : The process of finding strategic subgroups of your target audience, based on shared behaviour, interests, or attributes that indicate how they may respond to marketing.

The “ movable middle ”: Those whose demand for climate action is much lower than their stated concern, representing an overall lack of support for individual and/or collective action.

Knowledge synthesis provides up-to-date research that policy makers can use to inform evidence-based decisions and make progress towards mitigation and adaptation goals. In fact, scientific evidence can motivate action by illustrating the impacts of climate change and therefore the urgent need for climate action.

Knowledge synthesis includes periodic assessments of the state of knowledge, every five to 10 years, with more frequent updates and targeted products as needed. There are existing assessments on a variety of topics, including climate change science, climate change and health, and national and regional climate change impacts and adaptation. New assessments are needed on topics such as carbon cycle science and motivating climate change action. Translation of science is also needed to develop tools, products, and services that are relevant for policy and decision making.

To date, knowledge synthesis has mainly taken the form of reports assessing and summarizing the current science results. These include the federal government’s report series  Canada in a Changing Climate: Advancing our Knowledge for Action , including Canada’s Changing Climate Report , National Issues Report , Health of Canadians in a Changing Climate , and reports on regional, national, northern, and Indigenous issues. Many non-governmental organizations (David Suzuki Foundation, Clean Prosperity for Canadians, Pembina Institute, among others) also include research results in their reports, often as the evidence base for their recommendations.

Research priorities for social science, as it relates to climate change, are the following:

R1. (SSCC). Understand Canadian audience segments and develop communication products that target these audiences. Research is needed to understand audience segments in Canada, including attitudes, beliefs, values, and biases in various demographic, regional, socio-economic, and sectoral groups. Segments can be identified from research and statistical analyses of demographic, socio-cultural, contextual, or situational factors. Understanding audience segmentation will help develop communications that target various audiences. It will also inform which communication channels (web sites, traditional news media, social media) and types of media (reports, social media posts, illustrations or infographics, videos) should be used.

To build trust, communicators must also understand what constitutes credible evidence for each audience type. Sectors more affected by government policy and regulation are particularly important to reach, to achieve high levels of policy and regulatory compliance.

R2. (SSCC). Develop narratives about climate change impacts and action to empower Canadians, inspire hope, and accelerate societal transformation. Communicators must develop narratives about climate change impacts and action that empower and inspire the Canadian audience segments identified. Participatory research Footnote 18 methods, which involve a systematic inquiry conducted in collaboration with those affected by an issue, can help inform this communication. These approaches—among others—can build a connection between people and their experience of climate change, to understand and inform action (See Box 5.11. Lessons from public health for effective climate change communication and Box 5.12. The Monitoring and Evaluating Climate Communication and Education (MECCE) Project).

Narratives Footnote 19 or storylines contextualize scientific information so that it relates to people’s lived experiences and perspectives. This communication approach is grounded in engagement with target audiences. Narratives can help Canadians make sense of the data on climate variability and change, GHG emissions, and other topics, in terms of current impacts, risks, and future scenarios.

Box 5.11. Lessons from public health for effective climate change communication

The public health community has decades of experience in communicating health risks to Canadians in order to shape behaviour. Climate change communication can draw from this rich experience. A dedicated effort to learn from advances in health and pandemic-related knowledge is needed to translate this experience and its impact on human behaviour to climate action. The health research community mobilized rapidly and worked directly with health policy decision-makers and practitioners in response to COVID-19, for example, which has immediate lessons for climate communication.

Box 5.12. The Monitoring and Evaluating Climate Communication and Education (MECCE) Project

The MECCE Project's goal is to advance global climate literacy and action by improving the quality and quantity of climate change education, training, and public awareness. It is a Canadian-led academic international research partnership of over 80 leading scholars and agencies, based at the University of Saskatchewan. The MECCE Project is supporting transformation through intersecting areas of research and mobilization of action on climate change communication and education, in alignment with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Action for Climate Empowerment commitments.

R3. (SSCC). Understand public trust and information flow to support the communication of credible information, while limiting the spread of incorrect or misleading climate information. Trust is a key factor in how people consume and act on information. The critical role of messengers matters as much as the message itself. Research on effective framing and other approaches from social and psychological sciences would be beneficial to identify a diverse pool of messengers with whom to co-develop climate action narratives. Different audience segments may also require different communication approaches. For some audiences, emphasizing knowledge systems and responding to existing social issues affecting them helps build trust. For many Canadians, visual features, such as illustrations and videos, helps them make sense of complex information.

Supporting the flow of credible information is key. Understanding how information spreads; how messengers are perceived as credible; and who spreads misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation is central to understanding information flows. This understanding could also contribute to mitigating the harmful effects of false or misleading information and to co-developing accurate, objective, and empowering climate narratives with trusted members of communities.

Thus, knowledge mobilization is not the final step in research but an ongoing effort involving co-development with the intended audiences. It provides a crucial link between science and climate action by contributing to the shifts in attitudes and behaviours needed to reduce GHG emissions and take adaptation action. In this way, knowledge mobilization makes an important contribution to achieving the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Action for Climate Empowerment goal to empower all members of society to engage in climate action. Footnote 20

The knowledge synthesis and mobilization priority is to:

KM1. (SSCC). Conduct regular, substantive science and knowledge assessments (on a five- to 10-year cycle), complemented by shorter, more frequent updates and targeted products. Experts emphasized the importance of updating such reports regularly (such as every five to 10 years), as well as more frequent and shorter updates (see Chapter 4.1. Healthy and resilient Canadians and Chapter 5.2. Carbon cycle science on the importance of such assessments for health and for carbon cycle science, respectively). The assessments discussed included both existing assessments on climate change science and on climate change and health, as well as new assessments on the carbon cycle and motivating climate action.

Experts also stressed the need to conduct science and knowledge assessments of Canada’s regions as well as for the country as a whole. Past reports have targeted specific regions of Canada or have included a regional breakdown, as regional assessments are useful to provincial, territorial, and municipal governments, as well as to Indigenous communities. Such regional assessments should consider social, cultural, ecological, and environmental outcomes, as well as climate change impacts on health, food security, and the environment. The Northern Canada chapter of the Canada in a Changing Climate: Regional Perspectives Report was released in 2022. Continuing assessments for northern Canada are critical because of the faster rate of warming in the region and the dependence of northern communities on land, oceans, and ice for food, transportation, and culture.

These assessments can also help efforts to build climate literacy among members of the public and climate competencies among professionals and practitioners in many fields who must integrate climate considerations into their work.

There is also a need to create climate data and information products tailored to specific economic and industrial sectors (e.g., health, infrastructure, natural resources), so that the data can be readily accessed and applied to inform policy and decision-making. As well, information streams and products that target urban, rural, coastal, remote, and Indigenous communities can help in local decision making. These should be available on geographic scales and time scales that are relevant to policy and decision making and should cover aspects of climate useful to communities, such as extreme events, health, and water resources.

Chapter 6 Moving the climate change science agenda forward

Several overarching considerations were raised during engagements for the development of this report.

Data infrastructure is an important prerequisite to climate change science. Hubs, platforms, and supercomputers are needed for storage, processing, and analysis of large volumes of data. Rapidly advancing technology in this area will help scientists collect more information at greater resolution. This technology includes cloud-based systems that permit secure sharing of large data sets, artificial intelligence, and “big data” technologies. Datasets should cover not only climate, ecosystem, and biodiversity data but also human indicators such as socio-economic and health data. Data platforms should apply international standards, allowing Canadian scientists to contribute to and gain access to international datasets.

“Open science” involves making the whole process of science openly available to all. In this regard, climate change datasets should meet the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable). The Government of Canada has committed to open science for its scientific operations, and specifically for information on the impacts of climate change. However, open science must be balanced with ethical considerations, protecting private data about people and respecting data sovereignty and intellectual property rights. Collection and analysis of data involving First Nations people must follow the First Nations OCAP (ownership, control, access, and possession) principles, and data involving Inuit communities must follow the National Inuit Strategy on Research.

Science in Canada, and climate change science in particular, lacks national coordination. The current fragmented system is difficult to navigate, creates roadblocks to collaboration, and fails to bridge science results with policy making. Science networks have been an effective way to enable transdisciplinary collaborative research in specific areas. Focused efforts to convene and encourage further collaborative research are required.

Canada has benefited from participation in international efforts to understand climate change. Canadian data and knowledge must meet rigorous quality and accuracy standards to be included in these efforts. Among the many international efforts Canada is involved in are global and regional science assessments, global monitoring programs, emissions information initiatives, and transdisciplinary research programs.

The priority science activities that this report recommends will increase the creation, dissemination, and use of climate-related information across Canada. The objective is to advance the tools, services, policies, and programs essential to meeting the challenges ahead in creating a resilient, net-zero Canada.

This report has focused on the priorities for Canadian climate change science most relevant to informing climate action and evaluating progress. All of the priorities identified can help Canada reach its objectives for net-zero GHG emissions and climate change adaptation. While research and development and technological innovations are outside the scope of this report, the science priorities overlap with R&D objectives for clean technology and emissions reductions in various sectors.

The experts who contributed to this report were unanimous in emphasizing the urgency of climate action. They noted that there is already a substantial knowledge base to guide GHG emissions reductions and strengthen adaptation efforts. Continuing scientific research will help climate action to evolve by better characterizing risk, evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation and adaptation approaches, measuring progress, and identifying new opportunities for action.

To advance the agenda set in this report, several overarching issues relevant to many priorities need to be addressed. These issues were raised repeatedly during engagements and underpin the priorities:

• data infrastructure
• open science
• national coordination
• international engagement

6.1 Data infrastructure

Data infrastructure, including hubs, platforms, and supercomputing resources, enables the  storage, processing, and analysis of the large volumes of data produced by climate change science activities. This data is then used to inform further research and modelling efforts, as well as customized information products for activities such as climate services. While governments and other organizations currently operate many data hubs and platforms, rapid technological advances in monitoring approaches (surface, ocean, and space-based), data collection, and analytics present opportunities to collect more information, with greater spatial and temporal resolution.

Fundamental to climate and Earth system modelling is supercomputing infrastructure. Such infrastructure should be collaboration-oriented, including cloud-based systems that permit secure sharing of large datasets. Artificial intelligence and “big data” technologies for automated management of large datasets and integration and validation of models should be prioritized.

Once data has been gathered and analyzed, access to relevant data and to supercomputing infrastructure remains an obstacle for the research community. Datasets also need to be interoperable, so that data from multiple datasets can be analyzed to discover relationships and trends. This is especially important to enable transdisciplinary research, which may use climate data in conjunction with environmental, socio-economic, and health data. Sophisticated data platforms are needed to facilitate contributions from a diverse range of public and private sector sources and observation systems. Analytics must enable access to data from different sources, in various formats. “Data catalogues” should be developed so that users can find integrated and interoperable data.

The data infrastructure science priority is to:

R1. (Data) Create, maintain, and strengthen accessible and interoperable platforms for data on climate, greenhouse gases (GHGs), ecosystems and biodiversity, and related socio-economic, and health indicators . Platforms on climate data (terrestrial, hydrological, ocean, and atmospheric) must provide this data at multiple scales to support research and reporting on regional to national scales. This must include:

• necessary digital space for the platforms, data, and data analytics tools;
• awareness-building and training so that the platforms can be used by all those involved in climate change science; and
• national governance to enable coordination and to support contributions across relevant platforms (federal, provincial, academic, private sector); to sustain and manage contributions; to implement and sustain the technical infrastructure; and to develop user protocols respecting needs of contributors and science users.

The data platforms must represent a scientific and authoritative source of climate change data. They should include integrated tools for analytics and reporting to better inform research and decision making for both the public and private sectors. The platforms, datasets, and analytics should then be used by climate services to provide operational, near-real-time applications, as well as longer-term reporting (see also Chapter 6.2. Open Science).

Federal government leadership, as well as contributions from Indigenous, provincial, territorial, academic, non-governmental, and private sector organizations, can build on current efforts, such as the following:

• the Fifth National Action Plan on Open Government—Climate Change and Sustainable Growth Commitment : the Government of Canada plans to enhance access to timely climate and environmental science, information, and data, working in partnership with other levels of governments, businesses, Indigenous Peoples, and citizens;
• the Canadian Centre for Climate Services and regional climate services organizations;
• a climate data strategy to support access to the range of climate change data holdings of the federal government;
• the Statistics Canada Census of Environment ; and
• the emerging Digital Earth Canada platform for a networked system based on Earth observations.

Data platforms should apply existing international standards, so that Canadian scientists can contribute and gain access to international datasets. Such standards also ensure that science outcomes are comparable across countries and can be used in international policy making.

6.2 Open science

Open science involves making science openly available to all—scientists, policy makers, and the public—from design through methods and results. Open science is critical to public dialogue about climate science, helping to improve understanding and public confidence.

A critical component of open science is open-access datasets that uphold the FAIR principles; such datasets should be integral to all aspects of climate change science. Open, interoperable data platforms are particularly important to collaborative and multidisciplinary research that combines datasets from multiple fields (see 6.1. Data infrastructure).

Canada’s commitment to open science was reflected in Canada’s 2018–2020 National Action Plan on Open Government , which committed to developing an open science roadmap for the Government of Canada. The resulting Roadmap for Open Science , published in 2020, provides overarching principles and recommendations to guide these activities in Canada. The recommendations are intended for science and research funded by federal government departments and agencies.

In response to the roadmap, federal departments and agencies have designated Chief Scientific Data Officers and published open science action plans. The three federal granting bodies (the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research) have policies on open access and research data management intended to improve access to research findings and data funded by these bodies, and to disseminate research results.

The updated 2022–2024 National Action Plan on Open Government went a step further by including a commitment to give people access to the information and tools they need to better understand the impacts of climate change. During consultations on the action plan, Canadians said the Government of Canada needs to better communicate and engage with citizens on its decisions and on its progress on combatting climate change and ensuring sustainable growth. With this in mind, the Government of Canada has committed to enhancing access to timely climate and environmental science, information, and data. The federal government will also help other levels of governments, businesses, Indigenous communities and organizations, and citizens better understand climate change and its impacts on ecosystems.

Open science must be balanced with ethical considerations, mainly involving protection of data. Data platforms must reflect user protocols for appropriate use—preserving anonymity and privacy for data about people, as well as respecting data sovereignty and intellectual property rights.

In this regard, the governance and stewardship of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis knowledge systems must be respected, as required under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (PDF). Data collection and analysis must be informed by specific protocols and rights regimes, such as the First Nations principles of OCAP® (ownership, control, access, and possession). The National Inuit Strategy on Research  (PDF) also prioritizes Inuit access, ownership, and control over data and information. Data priorities must align with best practices identified by the First Nations Information Governance Centre and the National Inuit Strategy on Research (PDF). These principles and practices provide inclusive, respectful mechanisms for the co-development of knowledge with Indigenous Peoples.

6.3 National coordination

Figure 6.1. Schema showing role of organizations and priorities in climate change science .

A circular figure with four layers to demonstrate the science and policy communities participating in climate change science.

The innermost layer is of the Federal Science and Knowledge Program, with a Venn diagram of National coordination, Science outcomes, and Science-policy interface.

The second layer is the National Priorities for Climate Change Science and Knowledge: Research and Knowledge Synthesis Priorities.

The third layer consists of Indigenous Organizations, Academia, the Private Sector, Science NGOs and Foundations, and Governments.

The outermost later is of the Granting Councils.

Coordination of science, including climate change science, remains largely ad hoc in Canada. Science activities are often carried out in a distributed or fragmented way; as a result, these activities may not be strategic or integrated on a national scale.

National coordination is challenging, because Canada has a broad range of people and organizations participating in climate change science, from government to non-government organizations, universities, Indigenous organizations, communities, and the private sector (Figure 6.1). The current system is difficult to navigate for individuals or organizations looking to collaborate within or across disciplines (multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary research), or across sectors. The priorities identified in this report will be more successful if they are accompanied by stronger national science coordination as well as stronger relationships between the science community and policy makers.

The engagement to develop this report highlighted some examples of areas important for national coordination:

• Net-zero pathway science : Collaborative networks or centres of excellence among government, universities, and think tanks are needed to build knowledge, as well as to engage effectively in, and to draw from, rapidly growing international activity in data and modelling (see Chapter 5.6 Net-zero pathway science).
• Earth system climate and carbon cycle science : Although Earth system research in Canada is respected internationally, increased coordination and a more strategic approach across institutions could improve national capacity further. As emphasized in the 2019 Canadian Carbon Cycle Research Workshop (PDF), an integrated national network approach to carbon cycle research is essential to improve the understanding of Canadian carbon sources and sinks (see Chapter 5.2 Carbon cycle science).
• Climate change communications and motivating action : A community of practice on communications strategies and behavioural change is needed. Such a community could organize forums and conferences to allow communicators from diverse knowledge systems, including Indigenous knowledge and traditional science and knowledge, to contribute to climate change narratives (see Chapter 5.9 Social science and climate change).
• inform prioritization of science activities;
• facilitate collaborative research partnerships and funding; and
• serve as a conduit for science outcomes to inform national climate action.

Development of mechanisms and structures to improve national coordination is the next step. Funding opportunities are needed to enable multi-partner, transdisciplinary research frameworks, including private sector and foundation funding, diverse actors, and multiple knowledge systems.

Science networks can enable transdisciplinary collaborative research, as well as knowledge synthesis and mobilization, across the diversity of science communities. Networks, such as ArcticNet, Marine Environmental Observation, Prediction and Response (MEOPAR) Network, and PermafrostNet, have been effective in advancing climate change science in Canada.

Box 6.1 summarizes some of the considerations in developing national coordination capacity.

Box 6.1. Creating national coordination capacity

National coordination of climate change science is challenging but increasingly needed. Convening science communities helps build collaborative research partnerships and plan scientific activities strategically.

There are various models for science coordination; one model discussed during the engagement was a secretariat-type organization for Canadian climate change science. Such an organization would facilitate strategic planning and relationship-building, and advise on how to achieve policy outcomes.

Among its objectives, a coordination organization should include the following:

• Science policy dialogue between experts and decision makers at all levels;
• National, multidisciplinary climate change science priorities;
• Interdisciplinary science networks and collaboration among governments, academia, non-government organizations, the private sector, Indigenous partners, communities, and international partners; and
• Science assessments, knowledge products, and science advice.

It could fulfil the following functions:

• Coordinate the national community to provide standards for measurements, data, and modelling;
• Convene networking opportunities, so that researchers can find partners within and across disciplines;
• Identify grand science challenges that require interdisciplinary approaches;
• Communicate authoritative science and knowledge on climate change; combat disinformation; and
• Enable collaboration through interdisciplinary, intersectional, and interjurisdictional research.

6.4 International engagement

Climate change is a global issue; Canada’s changing climate and opportunities for climate action contribute to larger international science efforts to understand climate change. Canadian science benefits from participation in international science programs. To participate, Canadian data and knowledge must meet rigorous scientific standards for quality and accuracy.

Canadian scientists have taken leadership roles—and Canadian science results have been included—in global and regional science assessments produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services . As well, Canadian researchers contribute to the assessments and reports of the Arctic Council , which provide a critical pan-Arctic perspective on climate change, biodiversity, health, and sustainable development, among other topics.

Canadian participation in global monitoring programs enables our scientists to access the breadth of monitoring technologies, platforms, and databases. This is particularly important in Earth system climate science, where global surface, ocean, and space-based observations are essential to understand Earth systems. Canada is a member of the international Group on Earth Observations (GEO) network, which supports United Nations programs for the environment, climate, ocean, sustainable development, and disaster risk reduction. Canada participates in several Earth system global observing networks, including the Global Atmosphere Watch Programme , the Integrated Global Greenhouse Gas Information System (IG3IS) , and the Global Ocean Observing System . The European Union’s Copernicus Earth Observation Programme agreed in 2022 to share data reciprocally with the Canadian Space Agency; further cooperation with Copernicus would benefit multiple science priorities.

Because Canada’s emissions information is used as input to Earth system climate modelling, Canada provides data consistent with the contributions of other countries. Consistency and comparability in global information allow Canada to evaluate progress toward net-zero and assess future climate risks. Canada’s data contribution strengthens Canada’s position at the UNFCCC and other environmental policy tables. Canadians have been involved in international emissions initiatives, including the IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, the International Methane Emissions Observatory , and the Global Fire Emissions Database .

Canada’s current engagement in international research organizations and consortia provides opportunities for Canadians to contribute to leading-edge international science. These include many disciplinary and transdisciplinary research programs and strategic planning exercises, such as the World Climate Research Programme ; the United Nations’ Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GlobalABC) ; the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction’s New Task Group on Nature-based solutions for climate-resilient buildings and communities ; the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium; the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Global Soil Partnership ; and the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases .

6.5 Conclusion

Canadians are already seeing climate-related changes and extreme events across the country. These changes and events have significantly affected people, businesses, communities, and the environment, and they will continue to do so. To address these impacts, decision making needs to incorporate climate change science and knowledge considerations, more urgently than ever before.

This report is part of a broader effort to enable urgent climate action and strengthen the resilience of natural and human systems to the impacts of climate change. It emphasizes monitoring, data, modelling, research, and analysis as the evidence base for action. The report recommends priority science activities across several themes that will increase the creation, dissemination, and use of climate-related information across Canada. The report’s ultimate objective is to advance the tools, services, policies, and programs essential for GHG emissions mitigation and climate change adaptation.

The urgency of climate mitigation and adaptation action requires effective deployment of national science resources. Everyone in the climate change science and knowledge community will have a part to play in ensuring that climate action is based on the best available science. This report aims to guide climate change science and enable greater coordination of the science for delivery of results over the next five to ten years. The next step is for those across the Canadian climate change science community to use this report to guide science investments, coordinate and plan research activities, and mobilize the necessary knowledge to support and inform a more resilient, net-zero future for Canada.

Annex – Climate change science priorities

The following are the science activities identified as important areas for research and knowledge mobilization .

• Research priority – R
• Knowledge mobilization priority – KM
• Indigenous science and knowledge – ISK

Page details

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Rising seas and extreme storms fueled by climate change are combining to generate more frequent and severe floods in cities along rivers and coasts, and aging infrastructure is poorly equipped for the new reality. But when governments and planners try to prepare communities for worsening flood risks by improving infrastructure, the benefits are often unfairly distributed.

A new modeling approach from Stanford University and University of Florida researchers offers a solution: an easy way for planners to simulate future flood risks at the neighborhood level under conditions expected to become commonplace with climate change, such as extreme rainstorms that coincide with high tides elevated by rising sea levels.

The approach, described May 28 in Environmental Research Letters , reveals places where elevated risk is invisible with conventional modeling methods designed to assess future risks based on data from a single past flood event. “Asking these models to quantify the distribution of risk along a river for different climate scenarios is kind of like asking a microwave to cook a sophisticated souffle. It’s just not going to go well,” said senior study author Jenny Suckale, an associate professor of geophysics at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability . “We don’t know how the risk is distributed, and we don’t look at who benefits, to which degree.”

Helping other flood-prone communities

The new approach to modeling flood risk can help city and regional planners create better flood risk assessments and avoid creating new inequities, Suckale said. The algorithm is publicly available for other researchers to adapt to their location.

A history of destructive floods

The new study came about through collaboration with regional planners and residents in bayside cities including East Palo Alto, which faces rising flood risks from the San Francisco Bay and from an urban river that snakes along its southeastern border.

The river, known as the San Francisquito Creek, meanders from the foothills above Stanford’s campus down through engineered channels to the bay – its historic floodplains long ago developed into densely populated cities. “We live around it, we drive around it, we drive over it on the bridges,” said lead study author Katy Serafin , a former postdoctoral scholar in Suckale’s research group. 

The river has a history of destructive floods. The biggest one, in 1998, inundated 1,700 properties, caused more than $40 million in damages, and led to the creation of a regional agency tasked with mitigating future flood risk.

Nearly 20 years after that historic flood, Suckale started thinking about how science could inform future flood mitigation efforts around urban rivers like the San Francisquito when she was teaching a course in East Palo Alto focused on equity, resilience, and sustainability in urban areas. Designated as a Cardinal Course for its strong public service component, the course was offered most recently under the title Shaping the Future of the Bay Area . 

Around the time Suckale started teaching the course, the regional agency – known as the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority – had developed plans to redesign a bridge to allow more water to flow underneath it and prevent flooding in creekside cities. But East Palo Alto city officials told Suckale and her students that they worried the plan could worsen flood risks in some neighborhoods downstream of the bridge.

Suckale realized that if the students and scientists could determine how the proposed design would affect the distribution of flood risks along the creek, while collaborating with the agency to understand its constraints, then their findings could guide decisions about how to protect all neighborhoods. “It’s actionable science, not just science for science’s sake,” she said.

San Francisquito Creek waters rose along a temporary wooden floodwall in East Palo Alto, California, during a storm event on Dec. 31, 2022. | Jim Wiley, courtesy of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority

Science that leads to action

The Joint Powers Authority had developed the plan using a flood-risk model commonly used by hydrologists around the world. The agency had considered the concerns raised by East Palo Alto city staff about downstream flood risks, but found that the standard model couldn’t substantiate them.

“We wanted to model a wider range of factors that will contribute to flood risk over the next few decades as our climate changes,” said Serafin, who served as a mentor to students in the Cardinal Course and is now an assistant professor at University of Florida.

Serafin created an algorithm to simulate millions of combinations of flood factors, including sea-level rise and more frequent episodes of extreme rainfall – a consequence of global warming that is already being felt in East Palo Alto and across California .

Serafin and Suckale incorporated their new algorithm into the widely used model to compute the statistical likelihood that the San Francisquito Creek would flood at different locations along the river. They then overlaid these results with aggregated household income and demographic data and a federal index of social vulnerability .

They found that the redesign of the upstream bridge would provide adequate protection against a repeat of the 1998 flood, which was once considered a 75-year flood event. But the modeling revealed that the planned design would leave hundreds of low-income households in East Palo Alto exposed to increased flood risk as climate change makes once-rare severe weather and flood events more common.

Related story

Sea-level rise may worsen existing Bay Area inequities

A beneficial collaboration.

When the scientists shared their findings with the city of East Palo Alto, the Joint Powers Authority, and other community collaborators in conversations over several years, they emphasized that the conventional model wasn’t wrong – it just wasn’t designed to answer questions about equity.

The results provided scientific evidence to guide the Joint Powers Authority’s infrastructure plans, which expanded to include construction of a permanent floodwall beside the creek in East Palo Alto. The agency also adopted a plan to build up the creek’s bank in a particularly low area to better protect neighboring homes and streets.

Ruben Abrica, East Palo Alto’s elected representative to the Joint Powers Authority board, said researchers, planners, city staff, and policymakers have a responsibility to work together to “carry out projects that don’t put some people in more danger than others.”

Bay Area coastal flooding triggers regionwide commute disruptions

The results of the Stanford research demonstrated how seemingly neutral models that ignore equity can lead to uneven distributions of risks and benefits. “Scientists have to become more aware of the impact of the research, because the people who read the research or the people who then do the planning are relying on them,” he said.

Serafin and Suckale said their work with San Francisquito Creek demonstrates the importance of mutual respect and trust among researchers and communities positioned not as subjects of study, but active contributors to the creation of knowledge. “Our community collaborators made sure we, as scientists, understood the realities of these different communities,” Suckale said. “We’re not training them to be hydrological modelers. We are working with them to make sure that the decisions they’re making are transparent and fair to the different communities involved.”

For more information

Co-authors of the study include Derek Ouyang, Research Manager of the Regulation, Evaluation, and Governance Lab (RegLab) at Stanford and Jeffrey Koseff , the William Alden Campbell and Martha Campbell Professor in the School of Engineering , Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering in the School of Engineering and the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, and a Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment . Koseff is also the Faculty Director for the Change Leadership for Sustainability Program and Professor of Oceans in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability.

This research was supported by Stanford’s Bill Lane Center for the American West. The work is the product of the Stanford Future Bay Initiative, a research-education-practice collaboration committed to co-production of actionable intelligence with San Francisco Bay Area communities to shape a more equitable, resilient and sustainable urban future.

Jenny Suckale, Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability: [email protected] Katy Serafin, University of Florida: [email protected] Josie Garthwaite, Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability: (650) 497-0947, [email protected]

• Data Center
• Watch & Listen
• Publications

Data, facts and figures

All About our programmes, funding and results

Global trends and key figures in the fields of education, science, culture, communication and information

Global Reports

Available for consultation & download

All UNESCO Global Reports

Discover all UNESCO's global reports on UNESDOC, our digital library 

UNESCO's action around the world

Use our interactive map to find out more about UNESCO's work in all fields, in every region of the world.

Related items

• Information and communication
• Social and human sciences
• Natural sciences
• Gender equality
• Priority Africa
• Artificial intelligence
• Future of education
• See more add

Straight Talk About Soy

The Takeaway: Soy is a unique food that is widely studied for its estrogenic and anti-estrogenic effects on the body. Studies may seem to present conflicting conclusions about soy, but this is largely due to the wide variation in how soy is studied. Results of recent population studies suggest that soy has either a beneficial or neutral effect on various health conditions. Soy is a nutrient-dense source of protein that can safely be consumed several times a week, and probably more often, and is likely to provide health benefits—especially when eaten as an alternative to red and processed meat.

Soy is exalted as a health food by some, with claims of taming hot flashes, warding off osteoporosis, and protecting against hormonal cancers like breast and prostate.

At the same time, soy is shunned by others for fear that it may cause breast cancer, thyroid problems, and dementia, though these claims have not been substantiated.

Whether published in a popular press article or a well-designed clinical study, some debate about soy remains. As a species within the legume family , nutrition scientists often label soy as a food with potential for significant health benefits. However, due to contrary research that suggests possible negative effects of soy in certain situations, there has been a hesitancy to wholeheartedly promote soy.

Part of the uncertainty is due to the intricacy of soy’s effects on the body. Soy is unique in that it contains a high concentration of isoflavones, a type of plant estrogen (phytoestrogen) that is similar in function to human estrogen but with much weaker effects. Soy isoflavones can bind to estrogen receptors in the body and cause either weak estrogenic or anti-estrogenic activity. The two major soy isoflavones are called genistein and daidzein. Soy isoflavones and soy protein appear to have different actions in the body based on the following factors:

• Type of study . Is it being examined in a study with animals or humans? Soy may be metabolized differently in animals, so the outcomes of animal studies may not be applicable to humans.
• Hormone levels . Because soy can have estrogenic properties, its effects can vary depending on the existing level of hormones in the body. Premenopausal women have much higher circulating levels of estradiol—the major form of estrogen in the human body—than postmenopausal women. In this context soy may act like an anti-estrogen, but among postmenopausal women soy may act more like an estrogen. Also, women with breast cancer are classified into hormone type—either hormone positive (ER+/PR+) or hormone negative (ER-/PR-) breast cancer—and these tumors respond differently to estrogens.
• Type of soy . What type of soy is being studied: Whole soy foods such as tofu and soybeans, processed versions like soy protein powders, or soy-based veggie burgers? Fermented or unfermented soy foods? If supplements are used, do they contain isoflavones or soy protein?

Thus, there are many factors that make it difficult to construct blanket statements about the health effects of soy. 

Aside from their isoflavone content, soy foods are rich in nutrients including B vitamins , fiber , potassium , magnesium , and high-quality protein . Unlike some plant proteins, soy protein is considered a complete protein, containing all nine essential amino acids that the body cannot make which must be obtained from the diet. Soy foods are also classified as fermented or unfermented (see table with examples, below). Fermented means that the soy food has been cultured with beneficial bacteria , yeast, or mold. Some believe that fermenting soy improves its digestibility and absorption in the body, as this process partially breaks down soy’s sugar and protein molecules.

Research on Soy and Disease

Learn more about the research on soy and specific diseases or other conditions:

Soy protein took center stage after research showed that it might lower levels of harmful cholesterol. A 1995 meta-analysis of 38 controlled clinical trials showed that eating approximately 50 grams of soy protein a day (no small amount as this translates to 1½ pounds of tofu or eight 8-ounce glasses of soy milk!) in place of animal protein reduced harmful LDL cholesterol by 12.9 percent. [1] Such reductions, if sustained over time, could mean a greater than 20% lower risk of heart attack, stroke, or other forms of cardiovascular disease. In response to this finding, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allowed companies to claim that diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol that also contain soy “may reduce the risk of heart disease.” [2]

However, a number of studies since have tempered that finding. [3] According to a comprehensive update of soy research by the nutrition committee of the American Heart Association (AHA) published in 2000, eating 50 grams of soy per day lowered LDL by only about 3%. [3] In October 2017, after review of additional scientific studies since the health claim was authorized, the FDA proposed a rule to revoke the claim because numerous studies presented inconsistent findings on the relationship between soy protein and heart disease. [4] Some of these inconsistencies may have resulted because soy was compared with a variety of alternative foods.

Even though soy protein may have only a small direct effect on cholesterol, soy may still benefit the heart in other ways. An epidemiological study following three large cohorts of American men and women who did not have cardiovascular disease at the start of the study found that those who ate the highest amounts of tofu and isoflavones from soy foods, compared with those who ate the least, had an 18% and 13% lower risk, respectively, of developing heart disease. [5] The benefit of tofu was stronger in premenopausal women and postmenopausal women not using hormone therapy.

Soy foods are generally good for the heart and blood vessels because they provide polyunsaturated fat, fiber, vitamins, and minerals, and are low in saturated fat. Replacing red meat with plant proteins including soy foods, beans, and nuts was associated with a 14% lower risk of heart disease, as found in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, a large long-term epidemiological study of more than 43,000 men. [6] Another large cohort of more than 500,000 Chinese adults with no previous cardiovascular disease found that those with the highest intakes of soy (4+ days a week) compared with those who never ate soy had a 25% lower risk of deaths from heart attack. [7]

Hormone replacement therapy has traditionally been used as an effective treatment for hot flashes and other unpleasant symptoms that accompany menopause, but its long-term use has raised concerns of an increased risk of some diseases including breast cancer and stroke. Soy has been a popular alternative treatment but not clearly supported by research; in theory the potential estrogenic effects of soy isoflavones could help to tame hot flashes by giving an estrogen-like boost during a time of dwindling estrogen levels.

In many Far East Asian countries where soy is eaten daily, women have lower rates of menopausal symptoms, although research is conflicting as to whether soy is a primary contributor. [8] Reports suggest that about 70–80% of U.S. women of menopausal and perimenopausal age experience hot flashes, in comparison with 10–20% of Far Eastern Asian women. [9] Further, the average blood concentration of the isoflavone genistein in Asian women who regularly consume soy is about 12 times higher than that of U.S. women. [9]

Yet several meta-analyses and carefully controlled clinical studies have not found strong evidence of a link. [10,11] An AHA review in 2006 concluded that it was unlikely that soy isoflavones exert enough estrogenic activity to have an important impact on hot flashes and other symptoms of menopause. [3] A JAMA review the same year found highly conflicting results with soy isoflavone extracts and stated that the overall evidence did not support its benefit in relieving hot flashes. [12]

In another review of 43 randomized controlled trials have examined the effects of phytoestrogens on hot flashes and night sweats in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Four trials found that extracts of 30 mg or greater of genistein consistently reduced the frequency of hot flashes. Other trials that used dietary soy or soy extracts suggested a reduced frequency and severity of hot flashes and night sweats when compared with placebo, but these trials were small with a possible strong placebo effect. [8] No adverse effects were noted from the soy treatments when followed for up to two years, but the authors did not feel overall there was strong and consistent evidence for a benefit of soy.

Another meta-analysis of 16 studies found that soy isoflavone supplements had a small and gradual effect in weakening menopausal hot flashes compared with estradiol (human estrogen). However, authors noted weaknesses in the analysis due to a small number of participants and high variability in study design. [9]

A more recent review of randomized trials found that some studies showed benefit of soy supplements on hot flashes; the therapeutic dosage ranged from 40-70 mg of isoflavones daily. [13] The authors also observed that the presence of equol (a protective substance made from the breakdown of isoflavones that only some women can produce) may be needed for isoflavones to effectively reduce hot flashes. Despite these results, the study authors did not offer a confident conclusion on the use of isoflavone supplements due to variations in study design and length; differences in the types and dosages of supplements; and the small sample sizes and high drop-out rates.

This area needs further research as questions remain about a possible benefit of soy. Results are conflicting, potentially due to variation in the types of soy preparations used, the quantities given, and for how long they are used.

Phytoestrogens don’t always mimic estrogen. In some tissues and in some people, they may block the action of estrogen. If soy’s estrogen-blocking action occurs in the breast, then eating soy could, in theory, reduce the risk of breast cancer because estrogen stimulates the growth and multiplication of breast and breast cancer cells. Studies so far have not provided a clear answer. Some have shown a benefit with soy consumption and breast cancer while others show no association. [14-17] It appears that the effects of soy may vary depending on menopausal status, the age at which soy is consumed, and type of breast cancer.

In animal and cell studies, high dosages of isoflavone or isolated soy protein extracts tend to stimulate breast cancer growth. [18,19] However, studies that observe people consuming soy foods over time show either a protective or neutral effect. Women from Asian countries appear to receive greater protective benefit from breast cancer with high soy intakes than American and European women, but this may simply be a difference in the amount of soy consumed. [20,21] Asian women may have higher levels of equol, a substance metabolized from the isoflavone daidzein by bacterial flora in the intestines. [22] Equol is believed to block potentially negative effects of human estrogen, but not all women possess the bacteria needed to create equol. [23] It is estimated that 30-50% of all humans are able to produce equol. [24] Eating soy foods starting at an early age (such as those found in many traditional Far East Asian diets) may be why women from some countries find greater benefit from soy foods than others. [19] However, the overall evidence on equol and cancer risk is unsettled. [25]

The Shanghai Women’s Health Study which followed 73,223 Chinese women for more than 7 years has been the largest and most detailed study of soy and breast cancer risk in a population with high soy consumption. [26] In this study, women who ate the most soy had a 59% lower risk of premenopausal breast cancer compared with those who ate the lowest amounts of soy. There was no association with postmenopausal breast cancer. Risk was 43% lower when soy was eaten during adolescence. Seven years later, the study authors published a follow-up analysis from the same cohort over 13 years to evaluate any association between soy foods and specific types of breast cancer defined by hormone receptors and by menopausal status (Estrogen [ER] +/-; Progesterone [PR] +/-). [27] Key highlights of the study:

• A 22% lower risk of breast cancer when comparing the highest to lowest intakes of soy during adulthood.
• A 28% lower risk of hormone positive (ER+, PR+) breast cancer in postmenopausal women.
• A 54% lower risk of hormone negative (ER-, PR-) breast cancer in premenopausal women.
• A 47% lower risk of premenopausal breast cancer when comparing high to low intakes of soy during adolescence and adulthood.

The Breast Cancer Family Registry was a prospective study following 6,235 women for 9 years diagnosed with breast cancer and living in the U.S. and Canada; intake of soy isoflavones was examined in relation to deaths from all causes. [28] Key highlights of the study:

• Women who ate the highest amounts of soy isoflavones had a 21% lower risk of death compared with women with the lowest intakes.
• Women who had ER-/PR- tumors and who were not receiving tamoxifen appeared to receive greatest benefit from the higher soy isoflavone intakes. However, isoflavone intake did not have a negative impact on women who were receiving tamoxifen or who had ER+/PR+ tumors.
• Of all ethnicities, Asian American women tended to have the highest isoflavone intakes at about 6 mg daily, but this amount was still much lower than women living in Asian countries who eat closer to 46 mg daily. The authors noted that American women appeared to benefit from eating smaller amounts of soy.

Another prospective study followed 1,954 American women who were breast cancer survivors for six years. [29] Key highlights of the study:

• Among postmenopausal women treated with tamoxifen, breast cancer recurrence was 60% lower when comparing the highest to the lowest daidzein (a specific type of soy isoflavone) No benefit was observed in women who had never used tamoxifen.
• Recurrence was lower with increasing isoflavone intake among women with tumors that were ER+/PR+ but not ER-/PR-.
• The most frequent sources of soy foods were not whole or minimally processed soy foods, but rather soy sauce, breakfast or diet drinks, tofu, diet bars, and soy protein isolate powder. The mean amount of isoflavones in the “high” category was about 19 mg daidzein and 27 mg genistein daily—a modest amount compared with Asian populations.
• The authors concluded that soy isoflavones eaten at levels comparable to those in Asian populations may reduce the risk of cancer recurrence in women receiving tamoxifen therapy and does not appear to interfere with tamoxifen efficacy. However, the findings need to be confirmed because they were mainly in subgroups and could be due to chance.

Prospective studies also find soy foods to be protective from breast cancer deaths:

• A cohort study of 1,460 Chinese women who were early-stage breast cancer survivors looked at dietary soy isoflavone intakes at baseline and after the breast cancer diagnosis, over a four-year period. [30] Higher soy intakes at baseline were associated with a 66% lower risk of deaths from any cause and a 64% lower risk of deaths from breast cancer. Higher soy intakes after diagnosis were associated with a 64% and 51% lower risk of deaths, from any cause and from breast cancer, respectively. The effects were greater in women who were premenopausal, had ER-/PR- tumors, and were taking tamoxifen.
• A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies found a 12% reduction in breast cancer deaths with each 5 gram per day increase in soy protein intake. [31]

However, randomized controlled trials do not show an effect of soy foods on risk factors for breast cancer:

• A review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) looked at isoflavone intakes ranging from 36-235 mg/day from food or supplements, taken from 1 month to 3 years, and breast cancer risk (as measured by breast density, changes in estrogen, and bloodwork) in healthy women. [32] The eighteen RCTs included both pre- and postmenopausal participants. No changes in breast cancer risk factors were found with isoflavone intakes. The authors noted limitations in their analysis in that there were wide variations in numbers of participants and the doses and duration of treatments, which made drawing firm conclusions difficult. Most importantly, these studies did not examine actual incidence of breast cancer.

The incidence of prostate cancer is highest in Western countries and lowest in Asian countries, where soy foods are a regular part of the daily diet. In addition, observational studies have found an increased risk of prostate cancer in Chinese and Japanese men who move to Western countries and adopt a Western diet, but not in those who continue eating a traditional diet. [33] Soy isoflavones, specifically genistein and daidzein, are incorporated in prostate tissue and may act as weak estrogens and inhibit the development of prostate cancer. [34]

In a meta-analysis of 30 case-control and cohort studies from the U.S., Europe, Japan, and China, intakes of total soy foods, genistein, daidzein, and unfermented soy foods were associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer. [34]

A review of eight randomized controlled trials examined the effects of soy in men with or at risk of developing prostate cancer. Two of these studies found that isoflavone supplements or dietary soy protein reduced the risk of prostate cancer in men at high risk of developing the disease. However, none of the studies found a significant effect on prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, a protein produced by the prostate gland that is used to detect prostate cancer. There were no adverse effects reported with soy supplementation. The authors discussed limitations of the review including the small number of participants, the short duration of studies (less than one year), and variation in dosages and types of soy given. [33]

A small randomized controlled trial in 2021 examined if soy protein supplements could slow down or reverse rising PSA levels in men who had previously been diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer, but who had a recurrence (as evidenced by rising PSA levels). The study found that even though the soy protein supplements increased blood levels of genistein, there was no effect of the supplement versus placebo on PSA levels when given for 6-8 months. [35]

Fermented soy foods commonly eaten in East Asian diets, including natto, tempeh, soy paste, and soy sauce, contain isoflavones and also bacteria that might have benefits for neurological disorders including cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and Parkinson’s disease (PD). Soy’s antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects may reduce the oxidative stresses associated with AD and PD. [36] Animal studies have suggest that soy compounds can weaken the progression of AD and prevent nerve cell death. They also find that soy can reduce inflammation and excess free radical production in the brain. AD has been associated with decreased levels of beneficial anti-inflammatory bacteria while harboring increased levels of proinflammatory bacteria.  Fermented soy foods are produced with beneficial bacteria like Lactobacilli, Bifidobacteria, and Bacillus species that produce butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid that regulates immune function and is being investigated for its protective effects on the brain.

Long-term low levels of estrogen the occur in menopausal women can reduce the number of estrogen receptors in the brain that are necessary for specific cognitive functions like memory and learning. [37] The soy isoflavone, daidzein, has been hypothesized to reduce decline in cognitive function or disease processes related to cognition and behavior. Thus, the possibility has been raised that eating soy foods might help prevent age-related memory loss or decline in thinking skills. [38]

Studies in humans, however, are not conclusive on soy’s effects on the brain:

• Trials have yielded contradictory results, with some showing a benefit with soy isoflavone supplementation [39, 40] and others showing no benefit. [41-43] A review of 13 randomized controlled trials found that in about half of the studies, isoflavone supplementation had a beneficial effect on cognition in older men and women compared with controls, including improvements in attention, information-processing speed, and memory. However the results overall were mixed, with other studies not demonstrating a benefit. This may have been due to differing dosages given or the types of cognition tests used. [37]

One large study in men found a detrimental effect on cognitive function. In a prospective cohort study of more than 3,700 Japanese-American men living in Hawaii, those with the highest intakes of tofu (eaten almost daily) at midlife ages had greater cognitive impairment and brain atrophy in late life compared with men with the lowest tofu intakes (almost never eaten). [44] However, the actual number of men eating very high amounts of tofu was small, and past dietary information was collected by relying on the participants’ memory, some of whom may have already experienced cognitive decline. Because of this, the researchers stated that the findings were too preliminary to make recommendations. [45]

A meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials found that although soy supplements raised thyroid stimulating hormone levels slightly, they did not have any effect on actual thyroid hormone production. [46] However, another study found that soy may interfere with thyroid hormone medication used to treat hypothyroidism. In one randomized double-blinded trial, 60 patients with a mild form of hypothyroidism (called subclinical hypothyroidism) were given low or high-dose phytoestrogen supplements (both also contained 30 grams of soy protein), the amount that might be obtained from a vegetarian diet. [47] Risk of developing clinical hypothyroidism was increased in the higher phytoestrogen group (no effect in the lower phytoestrogen group). The authors suggested that female vegetarian patients with subclinical hypothyroidism may need more careful monitoring of thyroid function. However, the authors also found a benefit on of reduced cardiovascular risk factors in the high phytoestrogen group, with a significant reduction in insulin resistance, inflammatory markers, and blood pressure. The effect of soy on thyroid function needs further examination.

• Anderson JW, Johnstone BM, Cook-Newell ME. Meta-analysis of the effects of soy protein intake on serum lipids. New England Journal of Medicine . 1995 Aug 3;333(5):276-82.
• Code of Federal Regulations. Health claims: Soy protein and risk of coronary heart disease . 21CFR101.82. 2001.
• Sacks FM, Lichtenstein A, Van Horn L, Harris W, Kris-Etherton P, Winston M. Soy protein, isoflavones, and cardiovascular health: an American Heart Association Science Advisory for professionals from the Nutrition Committee. Circulation . 2006 Feb 21;113(7):1034-44.
• FDA Statement. Statement from Susan Mayne, Ph.D. , on proposal to revoke health claim that soy protein reduces risk of heart disease. October 30, 2017. Accessed 3/26/2018.
• Ma L, Liu G, Ding M, Zong G, Hu FB, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Manson JE, Sun Q. Isoflavone intake and the risk of coronary heart disease in US men and women: results from 3 prospective cohort studies. Circulation . 2020 Apr 7;141(14):1127-37.
• Al-Shaar L, Satija A, Wang DD, Rimm EB, Smith-Warner SA, Stampfer MJ, Hu FB, Willett WC. Red meat intake and risk of coronary heart disease among US men: Prospective cohort study. BMJ . 2020 Dec 2;371.
• Wang X, Yu C, Lv J, Li L, Hu Y, Liu K, Shirai K, Iso H, Dong JY. Consumption of soy products and cardiovascular mortality in people with and without cardiovascular disease: a prospective cohort study of 0.5 million individuals. European Journal of Nutrition . 2021 Jun 2:1-0.
• Lethaby A, Marjoribanks J, Kronenberg F, Roberts H, Eden J, Brown J. Phytoestrogens for menopausal vasomotor symptoms. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2013 Dec 10;(12):CD001395
• Li L, Lv Y, Xu L, Zheng Q. Quantitative efficacy of soy isoflavones on menopausal hot flashes. British journal of clinical pharmacology . 2015 Apr;79(4):593-604.
• Krebs EE, Ensrud KE, MacDonald R, Wilt TJ. Phytoestrogens for treatment of menopausal symptoms: a systematic review. Obstetrics & Gynecology . 2004 Oct 1;104(4):824-36.
•  Kronenberg F, Fugh-Berman A. Complementary and alternative medicine for menopausal symptoms: a review of randomized, controlled trials. Annals of internal medicine . 2002 Nov 19;137(10):805-13.
• Nelson HD, Vesco KK, Haney E, Fu R, Nedrow A, Miller J, Nicolaidis C, Walker M, Humphrey L. Nonhormonal therapies for menopausal hot flashes: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA . 2006 May 3;295(17):2057-71.
• Chen LR, Ko NY, Chen KH. Isoflavone supplements for menopausal women: A systematic review. Nutrients . 2019 Nov;11(11):2649.
• Trock BJ, Hilakivi-Clarke L, Clarke R. Meta-analysis of soy intake and breast cancer risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute . 2006 Apr 5;98(7):459-71.
• Michels KB, Mohllajee AP, Roset-Bahmanyar E, Beehler GP, Moysich KB. Diet and breast cancer: a review of the prospective observational studies. Cancer: Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society . 2007 Jun 15;109:2712-49.
• Linos E, Willett WC. Diet and breast cancer risk reduction. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network . 2007 Sep 1;5(8):809-16.
• Zhao TT, Jin F, Li JG, Xu YY, Dong HT, Liu Q, Xing P, Zhu GL, Xu H, Miao ZF. Dietary isoflavones or isoflavone-rich food intake and breast cancer risk: A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Clinical nutrition . 2019 Feb 1;38(1):136-45.
• de Lemos ML. Effects of soy phytoestrogens genistein and daidzein on breast cancer growth. Annals of Pharmacotherapy . 2001 Sep;35(9):1118-21.
• Allred CD, Allred KF, Ju YH, Virant SM, Helferich WG. Soy diets containing varying amounts of genistein stimulate growth of estrogen-dependent (MCF-7) tumors in a dose-dependent manner. Cancer research . 2001 Jul 1;61(13):5045-50.
• Maskarinec G, Ju D, Morimoto Y, Franke AA, Stanczyk FZ. Soy Food Intake and Biomarkers of Breast Cancer Risk: Possible Difference in Asian Women?. Nutrition and cancer . 2017 Jan 2;69(1):146-53.
• Chen M, Rao Y, Zheng Y, Wei S, Li Y, Guo T, Yin P. Association between soy isoflavone intake and breast cancer risk for pre-and post-menopausal women: a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. PloS one . 2014 Feb 20;9(2):e89288.
• Setchell KD, Brown NM, Lydeking-Olsen E. The clinical importance of the metabolite equol—a clue to the effectiveness of soy and its isoflavones. The Journal of nutrition . 2002 Dec 1;132(12):3577-84.
• Yuan JP, Wang JH, Liu X. Metabolism of dietary soy isoflavones to equol by human intestinal microflora–implications for health. Molecular nutrition & food research . 2007 Jul;51(7):765-81.
• Atkinson C, Frankenfeld CL, Lampe JW. Gut bacterial metabolism of the soy isoflavone daidzein: exploring the relevance to human health. Experimental biology and medicine . 2005 Mar;230(3):155-70.
• Lampe JW. Emerging Research on Equol and Cancer–3. The Journal of nutrition . 2010 May 26;140(7):1369S-72S.
• Lee SA, Shu XO, Li H, Yang G, Cai H, Wen W, Ji BT, Gao J, Gao YT, Zheng W. Adolescent and adult soy food intake and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai Women’s Health Study–. The American journal of clinical nutrition . 2009 Apr 29;89(6):1920-6.
• Baglia ML, Zheng W, Li H, Yang G, Gao J, Gao YT, Shu XO. The association of soy food consumption with the risk of subtype of breast cancers defined by hormone receptor and HER2 status. International journal of cancer . 2016 Aug 15;139(4):742-8.
• Zhang FF, Haslam DE, Terry MB, Knight JA, Andrulis IL, Daly MB, Buys SS, John EM. Dietary isoflavone intake and all-cause mortality in breast cancer survivors: The Breast Cancer Family Registry. Cancer . 2017 Jun 1;123(11):2070-9.
• Guha N, Kwan ML, Quesenberry CP, Weltzien EK, Castillo AL, Caan BJ. Soy isoflavones and risk of cancer recurrence in a cohort of breast cancer survivors: the Life After Cancer Epidemiology study. Breast cancer research and treatment . 2009 Nov 1;118(2):395-405.
• Ho SC, Yeo W, Goggins W, Kwok C, Cheng A, Chong M, Lee R, Cheung KL. Pre-diagnosis and early post-diagnosis dietary soy isoflavone intake and survival outcomes: A prospective cohort study of early stage breast cancer survivors. Cancer Treatment and Research Communications . 2021 Jan 1;27:100350.
• Nachvak SM, Moradi S, Anjom-Shoae J, Rahmani J, Nasiri M, Maleki V, Sadeghi O. Soy, soy isoflavones, and protein intake in relation to mortality from all causes, cancers, and cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics . 2019 Sep 1;119(9):1483-500.
• Finkeldey L, Schmitz E, Ellinger S. Effect of the Intake of Isoflavones on Risk Factors of Breast Cancer—A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Intervention Studies. Nutrients . 2021 Jul;13(7):2309.
• van Die MD, Bone KM, Williams SG, Pirotta MV. Soy and soy isoflavones in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BJU international . 2014 May;113(5b):E119-30.
• Applegate CC, Rowles JL, Ranard KM, Jeon S, Erdman JW. Soy consumption and the risk of prostate cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients . 2018 Jan 4;10(1):40.
• Bosland MC, Schmoll J, Watanabe H, Randolph C, Kato I. Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Six-Month Intervention Study of Soy Protein Isolate in Men with Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy: A Pilot Study. Nutrition and Cancer . 2021 Mar 18:1-0.
• Jang CH, Oh J, Lim JS, Kim HJ, Kim JS. Fermented soy products: Beneficial potential in neurodegenerative diseases. Foods . 2021 Mar;10(3):636.
• Thaung Zaw JJ, Howe PR, Wong RH. Does phytoestrogen supplementation improve cognition in humans? A systematic review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences . 2017 Sep 1;1403(1):150-63.
• Ahmed T, Javed S, Tariq A, Onofrio G, Daglia M, Fazel Nabavi S, Mohammad Nabavi S. Daidzein and its Effects on Brain. Current medicinal chemistry . 2017 Feb 1;24(4):365-75.
• Kritz-Silverstein D, Von Mühlen D, Barrett-Connor E, Bressel MA. Isoflavones and cognitive function in older women: the SOy and Postmenopausal Health In Aging (SOPHIA) Study. Menopause . 2003 May 1;10(3):196-202.
• Basaria S, Wisniewski A, Dupree K, Bruno T, Song MY, Yao F, Ojumu A, John M, Dobs AS. Effect of high-dose isoflavones on cognition, quality of life, androgens, and lipoprotein in post-menopausal women. Journal of endocrinological investigation . 2009 Feb 1;32(2):150-5.
• Kreijkamp-Kaspers S, Kok L, Grobbee DE, De Haan EH, Aleman A, Lampe JW, Van Der Schouw YT. Effect of soy protein containing isoflavones on cognitive function, bone mineral density, and plasma lipids in postmenopausal women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA . 2004 Jul 7;292(1):65-74.
• Fournier LR, Ryan-Borchers TA, Robison LM, Wiediger M, Park J, Chew BP, McGuire MK, Sclar DA, Skaer TL, Beerman KA. The effects of soy milk and isoflavone supplements on cognitive performance in healthy, postmenopausal women. Journal of Nutrition Health and Aging . 2007 Mar 1;11(2):155.
• Ho SC, Chan AS, Ho YP, So EK, Sham A, Zee B, Woo JL. Effects of soy isoflavone supplementation on cognitive function in Chinese postmenopausal women: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Menopause . 2007 May 1;14(3):489-99.
• White LR, Petrovitch H, Ross GW, Masaki K, Hardman J, Nelson J, Davis D, Markesbery W. Brain aging and midlife tofu consumption. Journal of the American College of Nutrition . 2000 Apr 1;19(2):242-55.
• Grodstein F, Mayeux R, Stampfer MJ. Tofu and cognitive function: food for thought.  J Am Coll Nutr . 2000 Apr;19(2):207-9.
• Otun J, Sahebkar A, Östlundh L, Atkin SL, Sathyapalan T. Systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of soy on thyroid function. Scientific reports . 2019 Mar 8;9(1):1-9.
• Sathyapalan T, Manuchehri AM, Thatcher NJ, Rigby AS, Chapman T, Kilpatrick ES, Atkin SL. The effect of soy phytoestrogen supplementation on thyroid status and cardiovascular risk markers in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism: a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism . 2011 May 1;96(5):1442-9.

Last reviewed January 2022

Terms of Use

The contents of this website are for educational purposes and are not intended to offer personal medical advice. You should seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website. The Nutrition Source does not recommend or endorse any products.

• Go back to Main Menu
• Client Log In
• MSCI Client Support Site
• Barra PortfolioManager
• MSCI ESG Manager
• MSCI ESG Direct
• Global Index Lens
• MSCI Real Assets Analytics Portal
• RiskManager 3
• CreditManager
• RiskManager 4
• Index Monitor
• MSCI Datscha
• MSCI Real Capital Analytics
• Total Plan/Caissa
• MSCI Fabric
• MSCI Carbon Markets

Navigation Menu

• Our Clients

Insights on MSCI One

Institutional client designed indexes (icdis), total portfolio footprinting, esg trends to watch, factor models, visualizing investment data.

• Our Solutions
• Go back to Our Solutions
• Analytics Overview
• Crowding Solutions
• Fixed Income Analytics
• Managed Solutions
• Multi-asset Class Factor Models
• Portfolio Management
• Quantitative Investment Solutions
• Regulatory Solutions
• Risk Insights
• Climate Investing
• Climate Investing Overview

Implied Temperature Rise

Trends 2024.

• Biodiversity
• Carbon Markets
• Climate Lab Enterprise
• Real Estate Climate Solutions
• Sustainable Investing
• Sustainable Investing Overview

ESG and Climate Funds in Focus

What is esg, role of capital in the net-zero revolution.

• Sustainability Reporting Services
• Factor Investing
• Factor Investing Overview

MSCI Japan Equity Factor Model

• Equity Factor Models
• Factor Indexes
• Indexes Overview

Index Education

Msci climate action corporate bond indexes.

• Client-Designed
• Direct Indexing
• Fixed Income
• Private Real Assets

Thematic Exposure Standard

• Go back to Indexes
• Resources Overview

MSCI Indexes Underlying Exchange Traded Products

• Communications
• Equity Factsheets
• Derivatives
• Methodology
• Performance
• Private Capital
• Private Capital Overview

Global Private Capital Performance Review

• Total Plan (formerly Caissa)
• Carbon Footprinting
• Private Capital Indexes
• Private Company Data Connect
• Real Assets
• Real Assets Overview

2024 Trends to Watch in Real Assets

• Index Intel
• Portfolio Services
• Property Intel
• Private Real Assets Indexes
• Real Capital Analytics
• Research & Insights
• Go back to Research & Insights
• Research & Insights Overview
• Multi-Asset Class
• Real Estate
• Sustainability
• Events Overview

Capital for Climate Action Conference

• Data Explorer
• Developer Community
• Technology and Data

2022 Annual Report

• Go back to Who We Are
• Corporate Responsibility
• Corporate Responsibility Overview
• Enabling Sustainable Investing
• Environmental Sustainability
• Governance Practices
• Social Practices
• Sustainability Reports and Policies
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

Henry A. Fernandez

• Recognition

Main Search

Esg rating hero banner, esg ratings.

Measuring a company’s resilience to long-term, financially relevant ESG risks

Social Sharing

Esg rating intro para, what is an msci esg rating.

MSCI ESG Ratings aim to measure a company’s management of financially relevant ESG risks and opportunities. We use a rules-based methodology to identify industry leaders and laggards according to their exposure to ESG risks and how well they manage those risks relative to peers. Our ESG Ratings range from leader (AAA, AA), average (A, BBB, BB) to laggard (B, CCC). We also rate equity and fixed income securities, loans, mutual funds, ETFs and countries.

ESG Ratings video

How do MSCI ESG Ratings work? What are significant ESG risks? What does a poor rating look like? How can you use them?

Download Transcript (PDF, 120 KB)  (opens in a new tab)

ESG ratings

Download brochure (PDF, 1.08 MB)  (opens in a new tab)   

How do MSCI ESG Ratings work?

How does msci esg ratings work.

ESG risks and opportunities can vary by industry and company. Our MSCI ESG Ratings model identifies the ESG risks, (what we call Key Issues), that are most material to a GICS® sub-industry or sector. With over 13 years of live track history we have been able to examine and refine our model to identify the E, S, and G Key Issues which are most material to an industry.

View our Key Issues framework   |   ESG Methodologies  (opens in a new tab)  |   What MSCI’s ESG Ratings are and are not

ESG Ratings module

A company lagging its industry based on its high exposure and failure to manage significant ESG risks

A company with a mixed or unexceptional track record of managing the most significant ESG risks and opportunities relative to industry peers

A company leading its industry in managing the most significant ESG risks and opportunities

Explore our ESG transparency tools

Contact sales

Explore our ESG Transparency Tools content - part 1

Explore the Implied Temperature Rise, Decarbonization Targets, MSCI ESG Rating and Key ESG Issues of over 2,900 companies.

Explore E, S & G Key Issues by GICS® sub-industry or sector and their contribution to companies' ESG Ratings.

Example: Explore the data metrics and sources used to determine the MSCI ESG Rating of a US-based producer of paper products.

Explore our ESG Transparency Tools content - part 2

ESG Fund Ratings aim to measure the resilience of mutual funds and ETFs to long term risks and opportunities.

Explore ESG and climate metrics for all MSCI equity, fixed income and blended indexes regulated by the EU.

ESG ratings Tabs

Integrating esg ratings into the investment process: key features.

A growing body of client, industry and MSCI research has shown the value of integrating MSCI ESG Ratings to manage and mitigate risks and identify opportunities. We are proud to work with over 1,700 clients worldwide that help inform and improve our ESG Research, including our ESG Ratings methodology and coverage. Investor clients use MSCI ESG Ratings as follows. 

Fundamental / quant analyses

Portfolio construction / risk management, benchmarking / index-based product development, disclosure and reporting for regulators and stakeholders, engagement & thought leadership.

• Stock analysis
• ESG Ratings used for security selection or within systematic strategies
• ESG Factor in quant model- identify long term trends and arbitrage opportunities
• Adjust discounted cashflow models
• Identify leaders and laggards to support construction
• Use ratings and underlying scores to inform asset allocation
• Stress testing, and risk and performance attribution analysis
• ESG as a Factor in Global Equity Models
• MSCI ESG Ratings are used in many of MSCI’s 1,500 equity and fixed indexes
• Select policy or performance benchmark
• Develop Exchange-Traded-Funds and other index-based products
• Make regulatory disclosures
• Report to clients & stakeholders
• Demonstrate ESG transparency and leadership
• Engage companies and external stakeholders
• Provide transparency through client reporting
• Conduct thematic or industry research

ESG rating Key benefits

Key product features:.

We rate over 8,500 companies (14,000 issuers including subsidiaries) and more than 680,000 equity and fixed income securities globally (as of October 2020), collecting thousands of data points for each company.

MSCI ESG Research Experience and Leadership

Msci esg research experience and leadership.

• We have over 40 years 2 of experience measuring and modelling ESG performance of companies. We are recognized as a ‘Gold Standard data provider’3 and voted 'Best Firm for SRI research' and ‘Best Firm for Corporate Governance research' for the last four years 3
• We were the first ESG provider to assess companies based on industry materiality, dating back to 1999. Only dataset with live history (13+ years) demonstrating economic relevance
• Objective rules based ESG ratings, with an average 45% of data, 5 coming from alternative data sources, utilizing AI tech to extract and verify unstructured data
• First ESG ratings provider to measure and embed companies’ ESG risk exposure 4

ESG Ratings Related Content

Related content, .rel-cont-head{ font-size: 31px important; line-height: 38px important; } sustainable investing.

Companies with strong MSCI ESG Ratings profiles may be better positioned for future challenges and experience fewer instances of bribery, corruption and fraud. Learn how our sustainability solutions can provide insights into risks and opportunities.

Climate and Net-Zero Solutions

To empower investors to analyze and report on their portfolios’ exposures to transition and physical climate risk. 1 .

Sustainable Finance

ESG and climate regulation and disclosure resource center for institutional investors, managers and advisors.

ESG ratings footnotes

MSCI ESG Research LLC. is a Registered Investment Adviser under the Investment Adviser Act of 1940. The most recent SEC Form ADV filing, including Form ADV Part 2A, is available on the U.S. SEC’s website at www.adviserinfo.sec.gov  (opens in a new tab) .

MIFID2/MIFIR notice: MSCI ESG Research LLC does not distribute or act as an intermediary for financial instruments or structured deposits, nor does it deal on its own account, provide execution services for others or manage client accounts. No MSCI ESG Research product or service supports, promotes or is intended to support or promote any such activity. MSCI ESG Research is an independent provider of ESG data, reports and ratings based on published methodologies and available to clients on a subscription basis. 

ESG ADV 2A (PDF, 354 KB)  (opens in a new tab) ESG ADV 2B (brochure supplement) (PDF, 232 KB)  (opens in a new tab)

1  GICS®, the global industry classification standard jointly developed by MSCI Inc. and S&P Global.

2  Through our legacy companies KLD, Innovest, IRRC, and GMI Ratings.

3  Deep Data Delivery Standard http://www.deepdata.ai/

4  Through our legacy companies KLD, Innovest, IRRC, and GMI Ratings. Origins of MSCI ESG Ratings established in 1999. Produced time series data since 2007.

5  Source: MSCI ESG Research 2,434 constituents of the MSCI ACWI Index as of November 30, 2017.

UtmAnalytics