Global Digital Analysis for Science Diplomacy on Climate Change and Sustainable Development

Abstract

Addressing climate change requires innovative, collective action and robust international collaboration. Through joint efforts, nations can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, pioneer sustainable technologies, and implement effective adaptation measures. Science diplomacy and knowledge sharing hold the potential to bolster global stability and peace by directly confronting climate change challenges. Therefore, it becomes imperative to evaluate a country’s alignment of its scientific knowledge system (SKS) with international guidelines. This study delineates the global scientific discourse on climate change and juxtaposes the alignment between an individual nation’s research endeavors and United Nations resolutions concerning climate change and sustainable development. Our methodology integrates data extraction from scientific research databases with advanced textual analysis tools, highlighting this study’s unique focus on the intersection of climate change and UN resolutions. To deliver an empirical analysis, we leveraged complex network theory and advanced text-processing techniques. Our findings demonstrate the trajectory of global scientific output related to these themes, segmented by countries and coupled with CO₂ emissions data, key disciplines, and collaboration networks. These insights are instrumental for leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders, highlighting areas of convergence and divergence in national research initiatives essential for achieving global climate goals. Such knowledge is strategically useful for crafting purpose-driven public policies and honoring enduring multilateral pledges to address the climate crisis proactively.

1. Introduction

Climate change presents a multifaceted challenge with wide-ranging societal impacts. Foremost among these are the environmental repercussions, as climate change disrupts ecosystems and natural habitats. This disruption extends to global weather systems, escalating the frequency, severity, and duration of extreme events like hurricanes, typhoons, droughts, and floods. Those alterations, in turn, translate into biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, species extinctions, and bleak implications for food production, water availability, human health, and general well-being. Heatwaves further endanger human lives, and shifting weather dynamics influence the propagation of vector-borne diseases like malaria [1], dengue fever, and Lyme disease.

Beyond the immediate environmental and health implications, climate-induced adversities lead to community displacements and large-scale migrations. They strain healthcare provisioning and amplify mental health challenges. Economically, the repercussions are profound [2]. The mounting frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events inflict billions in damages on infrastructure, property, and agriculture, challenging insurance frameworks and national economies. Particularly vulnerable are industries intrinsically tied to natural resources, such as agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. Their susceptibility to climatic shifts impacts livelihoods and can induce political instability and social unrest.

Food security is similarly jeopardized by climate change [3]. Disturbed precipitation patterns, prolonged droughts, and erratic weather adversely affect crop yields and livestock productivity. This can lead to food price volatility, shortages, and heightened malnutrition, especially in regions deeply rooted in subsistence agriculture. Compounding these concerns are the intertwined issues of social justice and equity [4,5]. Groups that include historically marginalized communities, economically challenged populations, indigenous peoples, and developing countries often lack the means to mitigate and recover from climate catastrophes. Consequently, they face intensified poverty, social instability, and forced displacement. Thus, countering climate change becomes imperative not just for maintaining a human-friendly planet, but also for ensuring continued progress in social justice, political stability, and economic equity.

Given its global nature, which transcends political boundaries, effectively addressing climate change necessitates a unified international effort [6]. In our modern world, characterized by intricate trade networks, shared resources, and interconnected societies, the far-reaching consequences of climate events from one region to another are increasingly evident. Nations must collaborate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lead in the development of sustainable technologies, and implement adaptive strategies. Such collective endeavors can foster diplomatic relationships and facilitate the exchange of knowledge and resources, ultimately reinforcing global stability and peace. This underscores the significance of ensuring that a nation’s scientific knowledge system (SKS) aligns with global standards and recommendations [7].

The intertwining of climate change with ongoing energy transitions, geopolitics, and global energy systems, such as the dynamics of Russian gas, is a point of contention. As nations transition toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and embracing renewable energy sources, global energy dynamics undergo significant shifts, affecting geopolitical relationships. Access to, and competition over, vital resources become determining factors in international relations, with disruptions potentially leading to social unrest and even compromising state stability [8,9]. Furthermore, the migratory patterns resulting from climate-induced challenges can exacerbate international tensions [10,11]. For scholars, the migration due to climatic reasons prompts a reevaluation of polycentric approaches in climate policy [12]. Such migrations can strain diplomatic relations, fuel sociopolitical violence, and necessitate a rethinking of immigration strategies and humanitarian responses. Thus, addressing the root causes of such migrations is in the interests of virtually every nation and is an important reason to pursue international solidarity.

Science diplomacy catalyzes such international engagements, fostering negotiations, agreements, and collaborations across various spheres [13]. Forums like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are proving invaluable, serving as arenas where nations can synchronize and align their efforts toward common goals. In such contexts, diplomacy transcends traditional boundaries, promoting broader global dialogues.

The United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) stands as the UN’s paramount environmental authority, with representatives from all member states [14]. Established in 2014, UNEA organizes biennial sessions to further the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. The fifth UNEA session (UNEA-5.2), held in 2022 [15,16,17], followed the COP26 and recognized the “triple planetary crisis” of biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution. One significant outcome of UNEA-5.2 was a historic plastic pollution agreement [18]. With the UNEA as a global standard, this study investigates the alignment between global academic research and the objectives set by the UN concerning climate change and sustainable development. By delving into the available data, this paper offers a holistic view that critically evaluates global research initiatives. Digital tools showcase research discrepancies at national levels, emphasizing the research pathways required to meet internationally agreed objectives.

In this context, this research addresses two objectives:

RO1: To discern the overarching trends in global scientific research on climate change from 2008 onwards, analyzing traditional metrics like publication counts and origin and delving deeper into nuanced indicators such as co-authorship patterns and research leadership.

RO2: To compare those publication metrics on global climate research with the resolutions set forth by the United Nations on climate change and sustainable development, specifically during the fifth United Nations Environment Assembly in March 2022 [15,16,17,19]. To our knowledge, this is a pioneering endeavor, looking at whether countries have implemented research agendas that are aligned with the UN climate research resolutions to which they are signatories.

To examine the congruence between national scientific outputs and international mandates, we concentrated on keywords related to climate change and the resolutions from the fifth UNEA [15]. These resolutions emphasize harmonizing national efforts with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the recommendations from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6, WGIII Summary for Policymakers).

This methodological approach interweaves several complex system techniques to capture nuances that traditional methods might miss [20]. The findings show the interplay between climate change research and sustainable development initiatives while shedding light on the scientific inertia observed in several countries [21]. The insights from this study can guide policymakers, stakeholders, and leaders to discrepancies and gaps in current national research initiatives, improving public policies and fostering long-term global commitments to the climate crisis.

The organization of this paper is as follows. Section 2 describes the methodology and data used in this work. The results of the research are shown in Section 3. In Section 4, we summarize the highlights of the study and present the discussion of the results. Finally, in Section 5, we present the conclusions of our research and projection of future work.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology used in this work hinges on a dual-phase approach. Initially, we engaged in extensive text processing of large data sets derived from the Web of Science (WoS) and enriched with additional data from Scopus, covering global scientific publications from 2008 to 2023. After data acquisition, we applied complex network theory and text-processing techniques, establishing network diagrams to create tangible framework graphs around countries, authors, and disciplines. Through this, we could discern patterns in global climate research that may or may not align with UN climate resolutions.

The quest to better understand the trajectory of scientific progression in addressing the climate crisis led us to a detailed keyword analysis. Initially, we selected 80 keywords related to the climate crisis (see [22]) for an overarching view of scientific progression across continents and countries. Our focus then shifted to the 14 resolutions of the UNEA. The search parameters included the title, abstract, keyword plus (as categorized by WoS), and author keywords of every document from the Web of Science.

The UNEA Climate Resolutions addressed critical issues like waste management, biodiversity conservation, and implementing a circular economy. Alongside such themes, these additional resolutions gained unanimous acceptance [23]:

• Resolution to End Plastic Pollution
• Resolution on an Enhancing Circular Economy
• Resolution on Sustainable Lake Management
• Resolution on Nature-based Solutions for Supporting Sustainable Development
• Resolution on the environmental dimension of a sustainable, resilient and inclusive post COVID-19 recovery
• Resolution on Biodiversity and Health
• Resolution on the Animal Welfare–Environment–Sustainable Development Nexus
• Resolution on Sustainable Nitrogen Management
• Resolution on Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure
• Resolution on the Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste
• Resolution for a Science-Policy Panel to contribute further to the sound management of chemicals and waste and to prevent pollution
• Resolution text on environmental aspects of minerals and metals management
• Resolution on the Future of the Global Environment Outlook
• Resolution on due regard to the principle of equitable geographical distribution

It is noteworthy that certain nations have shown reticence in adopting swift measures to reduce plastic usage, potentially stalling effective implementations. While these resolutions have garnered global accolades, there is an urgency to understand potential delays and to carve out robust, large-scale solutions in line with the SDGs. Of the fourteen resolutions, we concentrated on eleven, as they were most amenable to a meticulous analysis. The others, primarily political in essence, posed challenges for our analytical design.

To further unpack these resolutions, the following keywords serve as analytical lenses:

R1:

Plastic pollution

R2:

Circular economy

R3:

Lake management

R4:

Sustainable development

R5:

COVID-19 recovery

R6:

Biodiversity and health

R7:

Animal welfare

R8:

Nitrogen management

R9:

Sustainable infrastructure

R10:

Management of chemicals

R11:

Minerals management

This investigation yielded an assessment matrix of how closely countries are aligning with the UN and IPCC guidelines. Beyond aiding governments in refining their strategies, the analysis illuminates the sociopolitical dynamics underpinning scientific authorship. Such insights are useful for fine-tuning national scientific strategies and decision-making processes.

3. Results

We start with the results tied to keywords such as “climate change” and “global warming”, and then explore data related to the United Nations resolutions and other pertinent metrics.

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of climate-change-related publications in countries with more than 1000 papers published between 2008 and 2023. The United States and China are the leading contributors.

The volume of scientific publications is influenced by factors like population size, economic strength, and national research priorities [24]. Figure 2 presents a comparison of climate change articles relative to a country’s total scientific output in the same period.

Interestingly, the data shows it is not the major economies, but rather, smaller nations that prioritize climate research, dedicating around 28% of their total scientific publication efforts.

Our analysis, shown in Figure 3, traces the growth of climate-focused papers from 2008 to 2022. We identified three growth patterns, depicted through intensified colors: exponential (green scale), linear (red scale), and unclear (gray). Countries with exponential growth are spread worldwide, as are those with linear growth. China, for instance, has shown rapid research growth, whereas the USA maintains a steady pace. South America, Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and parts of Oceania demonstrate increasing research interest.

A significant increase in global climate research is evident beginning in 2008. After the 2015 Paris Agreement, as depicted in Figure 4, there was a marked rise in climate-related research, with more than 70% of published studies after 2016 focusing on this topic. Remarkably, 80% of China’s visible research after 2016 seems to pertain to some aspect of climate change.

In Figure 5, we assess the link between a country’s research output and its CO₂ emissions. While both the USA and China are major CO₂ emitters, China’s research publication output on climate is about half that of the USA. Conversely, countries like Iceland, with lower emissions, commit significant resources to climate research.

Figure 6 further highlights the relationship between CO₂ emissions and research intensity. The findings demonstrate a noteworthy correlation between CO₂ emissions and the volume of scientific publications.

We examined the median ratio of emissions to the number of publications for each quartile, as presented in Figure 6. The visual representation in this figure conspicuously highlights that those nations with lower CO₂ emissions (Q1) exhibit a heightened emphasis on addressing the climate challenge through published research.

Figure 7 delves into cross-disciplinary collaborations throughout the six major OECD disciplines. There is notable collaboration between natural sciences, agricultural sciences, and engineering. The bond between natural and social sciences is also strong. Connections between health and humanities appear less robust, though general medicine is apparent as a central figure in climate research, perhaps reflecting the anticipated health impacts over the coming decades.

Noteworthy, too, is the strong collaborative relationship between the natural and social sciences, characterized by dense and substantial connections between “ecology, evolution, behavior, and systematics” and “ecology”; “management, monitoring, policy, and law” and “geography, planning, and development”; and between “pollution” and “environmental chemistry”.

3.1. Collaboration between Countries

Examining the landscape of scientific research on climate change reveals intriguing patterns of collaboration among countries and provides insights into the interplay between nations as they jointly address the climate threat. Figure 8 maps out the cooperative efforts made by international researchers between 2008 and 2023.

Each cluster (circle) in Figure 8 represents a global region. The size of a node indicates the extent of that country’s collaborative ties. For instance, the larger representations of the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom suggest these countries have forged numerous alliances in climate research. Lines connecting nodes denote instances of co-authorship between researchers of those nations. Notably, the thicker and darker lines indicate more frequent collaborations. Only substantial connections are shown.

It is clear that many intra-continental collaborations are sporadic, with exceptions for Europe and Asia. Instead, the web of collaboration often stretches between continents. A vivid example is the strong academic bond between North America and Europe, especially the USA and the UK. The United States also has notable connections with Australia and China.

South Africa emerged as a key collaborator in this visualization, mainly forging ties with European and Asian countries, especially China. In the South American context, Brazil’s prominence is unmistakable. Its circle is the most substantial in its region, although its international links are comparatively few.

The color gradient in Figure 8—from yellow to blue—sheds light on the continuity of collaborations. Derived from the methodology referenced in [21], this gradient denotes “collaborative inertia”. A country with high inertia tends to work consistently with the same partners over the years. On the other hand, lower inertia implies a dynamic approach, frequently engaging with new research allies. The visualization suggests that the major players in climate research, such as the USA, UK, Australia, Japan, and China, not only have extensive collaborations but also exhibit a tendency to sustain these relationships over decades. This consistent partnering reflects the importance of building and maintaining strong alliances, both personal and institutional, in climate change research.

3.2. Leadership in the Development of Scientific Knowledge

It is well established that research leadership often correlates with the identity and institutional affiliation of the corresponding author. Figure 9 shows the continent and country of origin for each corresponding author within all climate change research from 2008 to 2023.

One striking observation from Figure 9 is that a significant portion, over 65% of research leadership, emerges from just Europe and Asia. North America follows, accounting for 22% of the leadership. The collective contributions of Africa, Oceania, and South America make up the remaining 12%.

A deeper dive reveals nuanced variations in leadership distribution at the continental scale. In Europe and Africa, for instance, the mantle of leadership is spread more broadly. The dominant trio of countries in these continents claim less than half of the regional leadership in climate change research. In stark contrast, the top three frontrunners in both the Americas and Asia overwhelmingly dominate, representing more than 70% of the research leadership. Oceania presents a unique case: Australia is a standout, shouldering a hefty 87% of the research leadership for the region. This finding aligns with our prior observations on global collaboration patterns, which earmarked Australia as a key player in the global network of scientific cooperation in climate research in Figure 8.

3.3. UN Resolutions

The United Nations (UN) resolutions serve as vital blueprints that guide global endeavors, particularly in sustainable development and environmental conservation. By setting forth key action points and benchmarks, the resolutions instill a sense of commitment, collaboration, and responsibility to pave the way for a resilient and sustainable future. When analyzing research related to these resolutions, overarching trends can be observed across continents, as presented in Figure 10; more granular data is presented for individual countries in Figure 11.

From the data, it is clear that Asia and Europe are at the forefront in producing research related to the UN resolutions, with a pronounced focus on “sustainable development” (R4). On a more granular level, as seen in Figure 9, countries with advanced economies within each continent drive the research related to UN resolutions, consistently prioritizing R4. Notably, several European nations showcase a more diversified research emphasis across the resolutions, highlighting areas like “circular economy” (R2) and “animal welfare” (R7) not commonly found elsewhere in the world.

Figure 12 underscores the uneven distribution of research pertaining to the UN resolutions. To measure this disparity, akin to the concept of economic inequality encapsulated by the Gini coefficient, we adopt a parallel method.

The Gini coefficient quantifies inequality within a frequency distribution, serving as a metric for income inequality in a society, for example. A Gini coefficient of 0 represents perfect equality, where all income or wealth values are identical, while a Gini coefficient of 1 indicates the utmost inequality among values, exemplified by a scenario where, as in the given example, one individual possesses all the income, leaving all others with none. In this study, a Gini coefficient of 0 signifies perfect equality (equal publication rates across all resolutions), whereas a value of 1 denotes complete inequality (one resolution dominates all research endeavors). The calculation involves the proportion of the yellow area in the figure, derived from the bisector (orange line) and the Lorenz curve (blue line), relative to the total area under the bisector. A significant yellow area indicates high inequality. Our findings, represented by the yellow lines, show a coefficient of 0.8, implying a significant bias toward a select few resolutions in the research landscape.

Figure 13 displays an analysis of UN resolutions and their associated research production across the OECD scientific disciplines classification, starting with an overview of the combined disciplines.

Additionally, using the same OECD classification, we explored the links between these disciplines and the respective resolutions in Figure 13. Mirroring the patterns observed in climate change research, both the natural and social sciences emerge as dominant players in climate resolution research, especially R4. Applying the Gini coefficient to gauge inequality across the disciplines, Figure 14 presents a coefficient of 0.45, indicating a less pronounced disparity in comparison with the broader research trends seen in Figure 10.

Figure 15 dissects the WoS discipline subcategories and maps their research output to specific UN resolutions. This detailed breakdown reveals trends within the OECD disciplines. Notably, the agricultural and veterinary sciences discipline prominently contributes to the “animal welfare” resolution (R7). Meanwhile, health sciences demonstrates a varied research spectrum, spanning resolutions like “sustainable development”, “COVID-19 recovery”, and “animal welfare” (R4, R5, and R7 respectively). Across other OECD disciplines, a significant emphasis on R4 is consistent, mirroring the trends highlighted in Figure 11.

4. Discussion

Through an extensive digital examination of global scientific research since 2008, this study aimed to reveal patterns in how the world has addressed the climate crisis and aligned scientific efforts with the UN’s 14 resolutions on sustainable development and climate change. The data unequivocally portrays the climate crisis as a grave concern affecting a myriad of societal aspects, ranging from biodiversity preservation to mental health and urban planning. Particularly concerning is the increased vulnerability of marginalized populations and developing nations. Addressing climate change necessitates global collaboration that extends beyond mere emissions reduction, encompassing the development of sustainable technologies and adaptive approaches that align with nature-based solutions [25]. This challenge looms large, as not all nations are inclined to endorse the transition toward sustainability [26], resulting in disparities across various environmental, social, and economic dimensions.

The study underscores the significant emphasis on fostering international connections and collaborative initiatives, evident in the formation of partnerships across continents. Notably, well-established global economic powerhouses unsurprisingly take the lead in generating scientific contributions related to the climate crisis. However, it is imperative, as asserted in reference [27], that economic superpowers with substantial environmental responsibilities, such as the United States and China, must intensify their scientific cooperation efforts, as depicted in Figure 8, to effectively address the issue. Conversely, as suggested by reference [28], there is a compelling need to enhance the integration of social science research with other disciplines, particularly the natural sciences primarily advanced by developed nations, as depicted in Figure 7. Our findings also unveil a noteworthy trend in less globally central countries redirecting their research efforts toward environmental challenges. While Europe and Africa exhibit a more dispersed leadership structure within their respective continents, a conspicuous concentration of scientific leadership is observed in regions such as the Americas, Asia, and Oceania.

One intriguing aspect disclosed by this work is the inverse correlation between a nation’s CO₂ emissions and its research commitment to climate change. This phenomenon may be attributed to the pervasive influence of the global research agenda, primarily shaped by major economies. However, it could also signify genuine concern among economically vulnerable countries more susceptible to the climate crisis, as evidenced by Figure 2 and Figure 5. Conversely, these findings might indicate that the substantial volume of scientific output on the climate crisis generated by select countries and bolstered by their collaborative efforts, including those with significant contributions to the climate crisis, could be a response to the inertia of a potent knowledge production apparatus, potentially accompanied by a sustainable or greenwashing phenomenon, with limited substantive impact in the field [29]. It is relevant to note that greenwashing arises from a lack of transparency and inadequate regulatory measures [30,31]. Themes associated with greenwashing have become an increasingly prevalent subject in the scientific literature [32]. However, the existing literature reviews on this topic are limited in quantity, and there are deficiencies in terms of quantitative research, generalization, scientific rigor, and systematization. Furthermore, studies indicate that research on greenwashing is predominant in developed countries [32].

5. Conclusions

Addressing climate change extends beyond being merely an environmental concern; it is intricately interwoven with multifaceted societal objectives, encompassing the assurance of human well-being and the cultivation of international collaborations. Nonetheless, it is imperative to recognize the uneven distribution of climate change impacts, with diverse communities and socio-economic strata shouldering disparate burdens. This underscores the essentiality of a concerted global endeavor that spans individuals, communities, and nations, addressing both mitigation and adaptation strategies.

The UNEA resolutions have played a pivotal role in guiding worldwide initiatives for sustainability and environmental protection. However, there is a noticeable imbalance in the concentration of research across these resolutions. Areas such as “sustainable development” attract substantial, and perhaps disproportionate, attention.

Following the Paris Agreement of 2015, there has been a noteworthy upsurge in research related to climate change, with China’s commitment standing out prominently. Nevertheless, the growth trajectory exhibits variations, with some nations experiencing remarkable advancements, while others progress steadily, and certain countries lag behind. Comprehending the driving forces behind these diverse growth patterns and determining strategies to stimulate the required exponential research growth are of paramount importance.

Another impetus for this study was to expand upon the methodology and findings of our previous research, which was focused on Chile [33]. That earlier study revealed results similar to the current work but at the national level, including the concentration of scientific production related to the climate crisis and UN sustainability resolutions, as well as unconventional relationships among entities involved in generating scientific knowledge and patterns of scientific collaboration. The current study examines these aspects on a continental and global scale.

While this study provides a reasonably comprehensive mapping of global research trends related to climate change, it is crucial to acknowledge certain methodological limitations. A more in-depth exploration of the interplay between public–private partnerships, scientific output, and economic growth, especially concerning nations that set the global research agenda, would be beneficial. Additionally, a closer examination of individual nations may unveil nuanced dynamics, particularly in developing countries already grappling with the impacts of climate change but possessing limited academic resources.

In sum, this study forms an early foundation for understanding the global research landscape on climate change topics and their research alignment with the UN resolutions. It underscores the pressing need for unified action, considering the multifaceted impact of climate change, and emphasizes the pivotal role of international collaboration. By shedding a brighter light on the research nexus between climate science, economic development, and social justice, these findings may help guide policymakers and stakeholders toward a more holistic strategy for a sustainable future. The overarching message is clear: collective global action is imperative for answering the threat posed by climate change, but current climate impact research is surprisingly narrow, unevenly distributed, and incompletely shared. The global research community can do better.