Next Article in Journal
(In)Visible Nuances: Analytical Methods for a Relational Impact Assessment of Anti-Poverty Projects
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Sedentary Behavior on School Engagement Among Youth Aged 10 to 18 in Southern Spain
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Societies
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/soc15040104
societies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Review of Qualitative Studies of Parents’ Perspectives on Climate Change

by
Hilary Graham
*,
Pete Lampard
and
Su Golder
Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Societies 2025, 15(4), 104; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15040104
Submission received: 6 February 2025 / Revised: 24 March 2025 / Accepted: 9 April 2025 / Published: 17 April 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Climate change is opening up new fields of qualitative research, including one focused on parents’ perspectives on climate change. Our scoping review identifies and describes studies in OECD countries in this emerging field. We used recommended search strategies and methods for reviews of qualitative studies. We located 19 unique studies (22 papers) published between January 2000 and June 2024 which were characterised by distinct foci, study populations and participant profiles. The two major foci were reproductive decision-making and the emotional impacts of climate change on parents and children. Study populations were predominantly those already actively engaged in climate change issues. In studies providing socio-demographic information, most participants were socially advantaged. In developing this important field, we argue for a broader research agenda with respect to foci and for study populations and participant profiles that are more representative of the societies in which the studies are located.

1. Introduction

Climate change is an ‘involuntary exposure’ disproportionately affecting those contributing least to it [1]. Key among these groups are children, with their physical health [2,3] and emotional wellbeing [4,5] at increasing risk.
Multiple interventions, including youth-led climate change litigation claims, are highlighting these generational inequities [6,7,8,9,10,11]. However, while important, these interventions leave the dominant systems of governance largely intact. Children are not directly represented in electoral systems or in the structures of local, national and global government. They rely instead on adults to represent them [12,13,14]. In particular, parents act on their behalf, with parental duties enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 5) [15].
This positions parents as a critical—and large—constituency in the politics of climate change. Most adults become parents; across OECD countries, over 80% of women have children by the age of 50 [10,16,17,18]. Non-parents are typically younger adults, the majority of whom will become parents as they move through adulthood [10]. The social profile (gender, ethnic identity, education, housing tenure) of parents is in line with the wider adult population [19].
The centrality of parents in mediating children’s experiences of climate change is opening up a new field of research exploring parental perspectives on climate change. This includes studies of how adults’ perceptions of climate change may affect their reproductive choices—for example, decisions to not have (more) children—and their parenting practices. It includes, too, studies of parents’ emotional wellbeing and their perceptions of their children’s wellbeing.
We contribute to this emerging field by undertaking a scoping review of qualitative studies of parental perspectives on climate change. Qualitative studies are concerned with how individuals perceive, experience and make sense of the world around them. Such studies are therefore particularly well suited to capturing parental perspectives, a concept we interpret broadly to include parental concerns, experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and anxieties about climate change. We focus on OECD countries, a group of high-income countries with high per capita carbon emissions but a diversity of family structures [20,21].

2. Methods

Scoping reviews are used to identify and describe studies in emerging fields of enquiry. Their purpose is to provide a descriptive overview of ‘the types of studies carried out to date, and where they are located’ [22]. By mapping emergent fields of research, scoping reviews can help to identify current lines of enquiry and point to gaps for future studies to fill. Like a systematic review, scoping reviews are based on transparent and reproducible search strategies, but they are typically broader in scope and without a quality assessment of methods and evidence [23].
Our scoping review focuses on qualitative studies relating to parental perspectives on climate change. The review was registered on the Research Registry, an online register of reviews [24]. We used the SPIDER framework (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type), explicitly developed for the retrieval of qualitative evidence [25], to help formulate the research question and inform the search strategy. The eligibility criteria for inclusion and exclusion are given in Table 1.
The search strategy included terms related to parents (including pregnancy, having child/ren, parent–child relations, mother, father, step-parent, grandparent) and climate change (including global warming, climate crisis, mitigation, carbon footprint) and was combined with a qualitative search filter. The full search strategy is provided in the Supplementary Materials, Table S1. Five databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). A date restriction of 1 January 2000 to 26 June 2024 was applied (further details of the database searches are provided in the Supplementary Materials, Table S2). No language or publication type restrictions were applied; however, all records identified through the searches were in English. Forward and backward citation searching was undertaken using the included studies.
We used Covidence [26], an online screening and data extraction tool recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration, to undertake the review. This included uploading search results, screening titles, abstracts and full texts, resolving disagreements, undertaking data extraction and exporting data into Excel. Screening at title and abstract stage and at full-text stage was independently undertaken by two reviewers (SG, PL). Conflicts were resolved by discussion, with remaining conflicts (13% of total screens at title and abstract stage) referred to a third reviewer (HG) for resolution. The PRISMA reporting checklist (Supplementary Materials Table S3) was adhered to [27]. To aid clarity in the presentation of results, ‘papers’ refer to the items identified through the searches, e.g., journal articles and student theses. Some of the papers were based on the same study; the term ‘study’ therefore refers to these primary studies.
Data extraction was undertaken by two reviewers (PL or SG plus HG) using the JBI scoping review templates [28]. Data extraction included the author, country of study, study aims, study methods, study population, recruitment methods, sample size and information on the participant profile.

3. Results

The PRISMA flowchart is presented in Figure 1 and summarises the results of the searches (further details are provided in the Supplementary Materials, Tables S1–S5). In total, 786 unique records were screened for relevance, with 90 checked at full-text stage and 22 meeting the study’s inclusion criteria. Of these 22 papers, 19 were based on unique data sets.
Details of excluded studies are given in the Supplementary Materials, Table S4. The list includes studies of experiences of extreme weather events (e.g., bushfires, floods) where climate change was not discussed by authors or participants, e.g., [29]. The search also identified a scoping review of quantitative and qualitative studies exploring the impact of climate change on parents’ mental health [30]; the qualitative studies in the review had been independently identified by our search strategy.
Table 2 provides an overview of the included papers. It confirms the premise of our review: that parental perspectives on climate change represent an emerging field of qualitative research. From 2000 to 2014, no relevant papers were identified by our search. Two included papers (two unique studies) were published between 2015 and 2019. Between 2020 and 2024, 20 included papers (17 unique studies) were published.
As Table 2 indicates, the USA has the largest volume of research exploring parental perspectives (seven papers), followed by Australia (four), and the UK (three). A wide variety of qualitative methods was used, including interviews (n = 12), focus groups (n = 3), free-text responses within a quantitative survey (n = 7), and personal accounts (diaries, testimonials; n = 5). Sample sizes for studies based on interviews and focus groups ranged from 4 to 98 and on personal accounts from 40 to 67. Sample sizes for studies based on free-text responses to questions in quantitative surveys ranged from 12 to 607.
Table 3 provides a summary of the 22 papers. The summary draws directly on the authors’ descriptions (further details of methods and study populations are provided in the Supplementary Materials, Table S5). Table 3 points to three distinctive features of existing qualitative research in the field of parental perspectives on climate change. These relate to 1. the focus of the studies, 2. their study populations and 3. their participant profiles.

3.1. Focus of the Studies

The majority of studies were concerned with (i) reproductive decision-making in the context of climate change and (ii) parents’ perceptions of the emotional impacts of climate change on them and their children. A smaller set of studies (iii) interrogated narratives and practices relating to the experience of parenting in the context of a changing climate. Figure 2 summarises the spread of papers across these foci. As it indicates, two studies did not fit within the three clusters: Thomas et al. [52] explored the alignment of parental and child perspectives as part of a study of children’s views of climate change, and Boddy et al. [32] investigated the role of environmental concerns within moral narratives of responsibility in families in England and India.
Six studies focused on reproductive decision-making in the context of climate change. The studies by Holmes, Natalier and Pascoe Leahy [36] (USA), Jurcik [40] (Canada), Nakkerud [45] (Norway), Schneider-Mayerson and Leong [48] and Schneider-Mayerson [49] (USA; two papers), Bodin and Björklund [33] (Sweden) and Szalma and Szczuka [51] (Hungary) all explored how awareness of climate change affected reproductive decisions. In the first four of these studies, the majority of participants were not parents; in the Bodin and Björklund [33] and Szalma and Szczuka [51] studies, 50% were parents.
Seven studies had parents’ emotional responses to climate change as their primary focus. The studies by Lykins, Bonich, Sundaraja and Cosh [42] (Australia) and Pardon, Dimmock, Chande, Kondracki, Reddick, Davis, Athan, Buoli and Barkin [46] (Australia) explored the negative mental health impacts of climate change on pregnant women and new mothers, respectively, while Severo’s [50] study (Portugal) focused on parental perceptions and worries with respect to caring for adolescent children in the context of climate change. The studies by Hirschberg [35] (USA) and Léger-Goodes, Malboeuf-Hurtubise, Hurtubise, Simons, Boucher, Paradis, Herba, Camden and Généreux [41] (Canada) examined parental perspectives on their children’s experiences of climate grief and how parents helped them cope with eco-anxiety. Studies by Gaziulusoy [34] (Australia, Finland, Netherlands, Turkiye, and USA), and Schelhas and Gast [47] (Germany) had a related focus on parents’ experiences of parenting and their concerns for their children growing up in a world confronting climate change. Baker et al.’s [31] study (Australia) considered parents’ perceptions of their children’s climate change emotions and needs. A further study (ref. [43] USA), where the primary focus was on the introduction of climate change education in schools, also discussed parents’ concerns about their children’s eco-anxieties.
Beyond studies on reproductive decision-making and parental perceptions of the emotional impacts of climate change, there were three studies that interrogated the narratives and discursive practices of parents politically engaged in climate action. Howard’s UK-based study (three papers: [37,38,39]) explored how activist parents constructed a moral identity as ‘responsible’ parents while maintaining a high carbon lifestyle. Boddy et al.’s study [32] explored the ‘moral tales’ around climate change articulated by parents in their narratives about their everyday lives. Munro’s [44] study (Belgium, Switzerland, USA) analysed parental and grandparental testimonies posted on environmental advocacy organisations to reveal the writers’ pro-natalist stance and their valorisation of motherhood.
These different themes—around reproductive decision-making, emotional wellbeing and discursive practices—were brought together in some studies. For example, a paper from Schneider-Mayerson’s study of how an awareness of climate change influenced decisions about parenthood also explored participants’ ‘concerns about the well-being of their existing, expected, or hypothetical children in a climate-changed future’ [49]. In one of Howard’s papers on activist parents’ discursive practices, climate-related emotions and anxieties were also noted [38].

3.2. Study Populations

In a large proportion of studies, participants were drawn from populations of adults and parents known to be taking climate change into account in their decision-making and everyday lives.
Four studies (six papers) recruited parents active in climate change politics. Participants were invited to join the studies because they were engaged in ‘campaigning to address climate change’ [37,38,39] and ‘environmental advocacy organizations’ [44], were ‘aware of climate change and actively concerned about the implications of climate change on their children’ [34] and were ‘actively engaged in climate protection’ [47].
A further four studies (five papers) focused on adults who were taking account of climate change in their decisions about parenthood. In these studies, the majority of participants were not parents. Jurcik’s [40] study explored ‘the impact of climate change on individuals considering parenthood and the complexities of becoming a parent during the current climate crisis’, using climate change groups on Facebook among other recruitment methods. Schneider-Mayerson’s US study addressed the ‘nexus between reproductive choices and environmental politics in relation to climate change’ by asking ‘how are young people who are factoring climate change into their reproductive choices making these decisions?’ [48,49]. In this study, potential participants were additionally screened to ensure all were ‘Alarmed’ about climate change, using the Global Warming’s Six America’s instrument that segments adults according to their climate change perspectives. The ‘Alarmed’ category, representing 28% of US adults, ‘are convinced global warming is happening, human-caused, an urgent threat, and strongly support climate policies’ [53]. Holmes’ US study explored how women negotiate decisions about motherhood through personal testimonies written by members of a ‘women-led network focusing on reproductive justice and the impact of climate change on reproductive lives’ [36]. Nakkerud’s study was concerned with people living in Norway making decisions about not having children or having only one child ‘partly or fully out environmental concerns’ [45]. In a fifth study, of parents in the UK and India, participants were purposively selected ‘because they discussed environmental concerns’ in the context of family practices [32].
In addition to studies where participants were drawn from populations known to be actively engaged with climate change issues and politics, there were studies whose recruitment methods may have resulted in samples skewed towards these groups. Hirschberg’s [35] study recruited parents via ‘organizational contacts’, giving the example of an organisation with the mission to ‘collectively create a world where children can thrive while facing the realities of climate change’, as well as via personal contacts. The study population for Baker’s study was users of Facebook groups, including ‘Environmental Groups’ [31]. Leger-Goodes’ Canadian study recruited participants via emails shared by organisations supporting families in Quebec including ‘pro-environmental organizations’ [41].
As further examples, advertisements on social media and snowballing through the authors’ personal networks were used in Bodin and Björklund’s [33] study of ‘how people of different ages discuss and justify their stance concerning reproduction in relation to their knowledge about climate change and overpopulation’ while Pardon et al.’s [46] study used online media networks and the author’s university networks to explore the negative mental health consequences of climate change among Australian mothers. It is not clear if the invitations to participate in these two studies resulted in samples composed of those with heightened concerns about climate change. However, the papers from the studies note that ‘climate change in relation to reproduction is a burning topic across age groups’ [33] with a ‘a sense of “overwhelm” about bringing up children in a climate-change world’ [46].
A number of studies recruited from populations with the potential to be representative of the wider national population. For example, the study population for Madden et al.’s [43] US-based study was the parents of children attending public (state) schools while Lykins, Bonich, Sundaraja and Cosh [42] (Australia) recruited ‘via various pregnancy and expectant parent social media networking sites’. However, little information is provided about these study populations, or about the resulting profile of participants.

3.3. Participant Profiles

All 22 papers provided some information on their samples’ socio-demographic profile (e.g., gender of participants, age range of children). However, a large proportion of the studies reported few further details.
Only four papers provided information on participants’ ethnicity [35,38,40,41]. A larger proportion (7 of 22) provided data on the socio-economic profile of the sample, e.g., education, employment status and/or income [35,40,48,49,50,51]. These data indicate that the majority of the studies’ participants were advantaged with respect to ethnicity (white, First Nation) and socio-economic position (e.g., university degree or higher).
A further five provided a textual summary of sample composition. These textual summaries again pointed to participants’ relatively privileged circumstances. For example, ‘participants were mainly middle class, possessing a tertiary level education and a medium to high income’ [38], ‘four of the 10 families attended private/fee-paying schools’ [32], testimonial writers ‘were primarily middle-class women’ [44], and the sample had ‘an overrepresentation of white, heterosexual, middle class women’ [33].
Piecing together this information, it appears that the studies and their associated papers are grounded in the perspectives and lifestyles of women from advantaged backgrounds. In some instances, this sample bias is a consequence of the study focus and study population. For example, Boddy et al.’s [32] study explored the narratives of parenting and climate change among parents in ‘affluent families’; the parents in their study were purposively selected ‘because they discussed environmental concerns within narratives of the responsibilities of relative privilege’. As another example, Howard noted that ‘the social class and ethnicity of the sample’ of UK parents engaged in climate activism ‘reflected the wider UK climate change movement’ [38].
In many of the studies, the bias towards a socially privileged sample may have been accentuated by the recruitment methods. Recruitment via online climate change and environmental networks, university networks and the researchers’ personal networks were frequently used methods, supplemented by snowball sampling. Examples of these methods include Howard, Howell and Jamieson [37], Howard [38], Howard [39], Munro [44], Baker, Clayton and Bragg [31], Hirschberg [35], Pardon, Dimmock, Chande, Kondracki, Reddick, Davis, Athan, Buoli and Barkin [46], Schelhas and Gast [47], Jurcik [40], Schneider-Mayerson and Leong [48], Schneider-Mayerson [49] and Holmes, Natalier and Pascoe Leahy [36].

4. Discussion

While contributing least to climate change, children are at greatest risk of its adverse effects [54,55]. With no direct voice in dominant systems of governance, they rely on their parents to represent them [15]. Our scoping review identified and described qualitative research relating to parents’ perspectives on climate change. We used recommended methods for searching and for data extraction and recording. Nonetheless, some limitations should be noted.
We used the SPIDER framework to screen for eligibility (Table 1) and included studies using qualitative data collection methods. In this category, we included studies collecting only qualitative data and ones that combined fixed and open-ended responses (i.e., mixed methods designs). As others have noted, there is an important distinction between the collection of ‘qualitative data’ and the execution of ‘qualitative research’ [56,57,58]. Our inclusion criteria relate to the collection of qualitive data: inclusion in our review does not therefore imply that every study employs an iterative process of interpretation grounded in the everyday routines and meanings of people’s lives [59].
The timeframe for our review means we will have missed papers published after the end point of our searches (June 2024). However, the inclusion of more recent papers is unlikely to change the overall focus of qualitative research to date: on reproductive decision-making and parents’ perceptions of the emotional impacts of climate change on them and their children.
We used inclusive search terms for the key components of our scoping review (climate change, parents, perspectives, qualitative research). Parents and expectant parents were included in all papers and studies in the review, and, in most of these, the participants were all parents. However, a number of papers and studies included participants who were not (expectant) parents. In five of the twenty-two papers (four studies), the majority were adults without children; all these studies explored reproductive decision-making in the context of climate change. Reproduction was not included in our search terms, suggesting there is a potentially large evidence base of qualitative research on the relationship between perceptions of climate change and reproductive intentions and practices, including voluntary childlessness. A scoping review focused explicitly on reproductive choices would enable this seam of work to be mapped and integrated into the wider evidence base on the impact of climate change on intimate relationships and family life.

5. Conclusions

The majority of adults across OECD countries are concerned about climate change [60,61]. A large proportion of these adults are parents [10,16,17,18], with responsibilities and duties relating to the welfare of their children. Against this backdrop, our scoping review identified and described qualitative research focused on parents’ perspectives on climate change.
Our review indicates that this is a small field of research with limited geographical spread: a large proportion of participants (over 70%) were resident in the US, Australia and the UK. Our review also indicates that parental perspectives on climate change are both a recent and a growing field of research: no papers were published before 2015 and 90% were published between 2020 and 2024. The papers in our review illuminate how parental concerns about climate change are evident at all stages of children’s lifetime, from prior to conception, through pregnancy and early motherhood and onto children’s school years.
While potentially a rich resource through which to understand parental perspectives on climate change, the papers, and the studies on which they are based, draw on the perceptions and experiences of particular sub-groups. The study populations are disproportionately composed of parents who are actively engaged in climate change politics and action. The samples are skewed to privileged groups, for example, with respect to ethnic identity (white) and social class (higher education/middle class). What is missing are qualitative studies exploring climate change perspectives among the general population of parents, particularly those who are neither engaged in climate change forums nor from socially advantaged groups. A key gap relates to the perspectives of parents whose lives are lived at the intersections of multiple dimensions of social inequality.
With policies to address climate change dependent on public support, this is an important gap to fill. Those developing and implementing climate policies need evidence on how parents understand and experience climate change and its impact on their children’s wellbeing and future lives from studies that reflect the diversity of the population. This evidence is urgently needed, and qualitative research is uniquely placed to provide it.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/soc15040104/s1. Table S1: Inclusion and exclusion criteria; Table S2: Databases; Table S4: Search terms; Table S5: Excluded studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.G., S.G. and P.L.; search strategy, S.G. and P.L.; screening, S.G., P.L. and H.G.; analysis, H.G., S.G. and P.L.; writing—review and editing, H.G., S.G. and P.L.; visualization, P.L.; funding acquisition, H.G., S.G. and P.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study is independent research carried out by the Public Health Policy Research Unit (PH-PRU), grant number PH_PRU_1217_20901, commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health and Social Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health and Social Care Research, the Department of Health and Social Care or its arm’s length bodies, and other Government Departments.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were not required for this study as the research papers on which the study draws are all in the public domain.

Data Availability Statement

The papers in the scoping review provide the data for the study and are all listed in the References, together with their URLs.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Patz, J.A.; Gibbs, H.K.; Foley, J.A.; Rogers, J.V.; Smith, K.R. Climate Change and Global Health: Quantifying a Growing Ethical Crisis. EcoHealth 2007, 4, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Helldén, D.; Andersson, C.; Nilsson, M.; Ebi, K.L.; Friberg, P.; Alfvén, T. Climate change and child health: A scoping review and an expanded conceptual framework. Lancet Planet. Health 2021, 5, e164–e175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. UNICEF. The Climate Crisis is a Child Rights Crisis: Introducing the Children’s Climate Risk Index; UNICEF: New York, NY, USA, 2021; Available online: https://www.unicef.org/media/105376/file/UNICEF-climate-crisis-child-rights-crisis.pdf (accessed on 23 March 2025).
  4. Hickman, C.; Marks, E.; Pihkala, P.; Clayton, S.; Lewandowski, R.E.; Mayall, E.E.; Wray, B.; Mellor, C.; Van Susteren, L. Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: A global survey. Lancet Planet. Health 2021, 5, e863–e873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Coffey, Y.; Bhullar, N.; Durkin, J.; Islam, M.S.; Usher, K. Understanding Eco-anxiety: A Systematic Scoping Review of Current Literature and Identified Knowledge Gaps. J. Clim. Change Health 2021, 3, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Donger, E. Children and Youth in Strategic Climate Litigation: Advancing Rights through Legal Argument and Legal Mobilization. Transnatl. Environ. Law 2022, 11, 263–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hansen, J.E. Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the coming Climate Change catastrophe And Our Last Chance to Save Humanity; Bloomsbury: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  8. Williams, P.C.; Marais, B.; Isaacs, D.; Preisz, A. Ethical considerations regarding the effects of climate change and planetary health on children. J. Paediatr. Child Health 2021, 57, 1775–1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. UNFCCC. Introduction to YOUNGO. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Introduction%20to%20YOUNGO%202022.pdf (accessed on 23 March 2025).
  10. Office for National Statistics. Childbearing for Women Born in Different Years, England and Wales: 2021 and 2022. Available online: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/conceptionandfertilityrates/bulletins/childbearingforwomenbornindifferentyearsenglandandwales/previousReleases (accessed on 23 March 2025).
  11. Office of the Commissioner for Wales. Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act. Available online: https://www.futuregenerations.wales/about-us/future-generations-act/ (accessed on 23 March 2025).
  12. Groves, C.; Adam, B. Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics; Brill Academic Publishers: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  13. Keane, J. Children and civil society. In The Golden Chain: Family, Civil Society and the State; Nautz, J., Ginsborg, P., Nijhuis., T., Eds.; Berghahn Books: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  14. Thompson, D.F. Representing future generations: Political presentism and democratic trusteeship. In Democracy, Equality, and Justice, 1st ed.; Matravers, M., Meyer, L.H., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  15. UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Statement of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on Article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2023; Available online: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/crc/statements/CRC-Article-5-statement.pdf (accessed on 23 March 2025).
  16. Köppen, K.; Mazuy, M.; Toulemon, L. Childlessness in France. In Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences; Kreyenfeld, M., Konietzka, D., Eds.; Demographic Research Monographs; Springer: Champagne, IL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  17. Rotkirch, A.; Miettinen, A. Childlessness in Finland. In Childlessness in Europe: Contexts, Causes, and Consequences; Kreyenfeld, M., Konietzka, D., Eds.; Demographic Research Monographs; Springer: Champagne, IL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  18. US Census Bureau. Percentage of Childless Women in the United States in 2020, by Age. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241535/percentage-of-childless-women-in-the-us-by-age/ (accessed on 23 March 2025).
  19. Graham, H.; Gao, N.; Glerum-Brooks, K.; Golder, S.; Lampard, P.; Lister, J.; Petticrew, M. Informing Public Health Messaging on Health and Climate Change. Available online: https://www.phpru.online/projects/completed-projects/informing-public-health-messaging-on-health-and-climate-change.html (accessed on 23 March 2025).
  20. Li, Z.; Khurshid, A.; Rauf, A.; Qayyum, S.; Calin, A.C.; Iancu, L.A.; Wang, X. Climate change and the UN-2030 agenda: Do mitigation technologies represent a driving factor? New evidence from OECD economies. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2023, 25, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. OECD. Family Database. Available online: https://web-archive.oecd.org/temp/2024-06-21/69263-database.htm (accessed on 23 March 2025).
  22. Petticrew, M.; Roberts, H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. xv, 336. [Google Scholar]
  23. Smith, S.A.; Duncan, A.A. Systematic and scoping reviews: A comparison and overview. Semin. Vasc. Surg. 2022, 35, 464–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Golder, S.; Lampard, P.; Glerum-Brooks, K.; Graham, H. Parental Concern About Climate Change’s Impacts on Children: A Scoping Review of qualitative Studies (Reviewregistry1860). Review Registry: 2024. Available online: https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#registryofsystematicreviewsmeta-analyses/registryofsystematicreviewsmeta-analysesdetails/669788a2a88410002834fa6f/ (accessed on 23 March 2025).
  25. Cooke, A.; Smith, D.; Booth, A. Beyond PICO:The SPIDER Tool for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. Qual. Health Res. 2012, 22, 1435–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Covidence. Covidence Systematic Review Software; Covidence: Melbourne, Australia, 2024; Available online: www.covidence.org (accessed on 23 March 2025).
  27. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br. Med. J. 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pollock, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Khalil, H.; McInerney, P.; Alexander, L.; Tricco, A.C.; Evans, C.; de Moraes É, B.; Godfrey, C.M.; Pieper, D.; et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid. Synth. 2023, 21, 520–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Davis, D.; Roberts, C.; Williamson, R.; Kurz, E.; Barnes, K.; Behie, A.M.; Aroni, R.; Nolan, C.J.; Phillips, C. Opportunities for primary health care: A qualitative study of perinatal health and wellbeing during bushfire crises. Fam. Pract. 2022, 40, 458–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Bechard, E.; Silverstein, J.; Walke, J. What Are the Impacts of Concern About Climate Change on the Emotional Dimensions of Parents’ Mental Health? A Literature Review. Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  31. Baker, C.; Clayton, S.; Bragg, E. Educating for resilience: Parent and teacher perceptions of children’s emotional needs in response to climate change. Environ. Educ. Res. 2021, 27, 687–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Boddy, J.; Phoenix, A.; Walker, C.; Vennam, U.; Austerberry, H.; Latha, M. Telling ‘moral tales’? Family narratives of responsible privilege and environmental concern in India and the UK. Fam. Relatsh. Soc. 2016, 5, 357–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bodin, M.; Björklund, J. “Can I take responsibility for bringing a person to this world who will be part of the apocalypse!?”: Ideological dilemmas and concerns for future well-being when bringing the climate crisis into reproductive decision-making. Soc. Sci. Med. 2022, 302, 114985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Gaziulusoy, A.İ. The experiences of parents raising children in times of climate change: Towards a caring research agenda. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 2, 100017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hirschberg, T. Strategies Parents Use to Support Adolescents Experiencing Climate Grief. Ph.D. Thesis, Natural Hazards Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA, 2021. Available online: https://hazards.colorado.edu/news/dissertations/strategies-parents-use-to-support-adolescents-experiencing-climate-grief (accessed on 23 March 2025).
  36. Holmes, M.; Natalier, K.; Pascoe Leahy, C. Unsettling maternal futures in climate crisis: Towards cohabitability? Fam. Relatsh. Soc. 2023, 12, 357–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Howard, L.; Howell, R.; Jamieson, L. (Re)configuring moral boundaries of intergenerational justice: The UK parent-led climate movement. Local Environ. 2021, 26, 1429–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Howard, L. When global problems come home: Engagement with climate change within the intersecting affective spaces of parenting and activism. Emot. Space Soc. 2022, 44, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Howard, L. Where ‘Green’parenting Meets Climate Activism: Understanding the Affective, Political, Generative, but Challenging ‘Space in-Between’of Radical Eco-Parenting. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK, 2023. Available online: https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/40871 (accessed on 23 March 2025).
  40. Jurcik, N. Parental Decision-Making in the Face of Climate Change. Ph.D. Thesis, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada, 2023. Available online: https://knowledgecommons.lakeheadu.ca/bitstream/handle/2453/5208/JurcikN2023m-1a.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 23 March 2025).
  41. Léger-Goodes, T.; Malboeuf-Hurtubise, C.; Hurtubise, K.; Simons, K.; Boucher, A.; Paradis, P.-O.; Herba, C.M.; Camden, C.; Généreux, M. How children make sense of climate change: A descriptive qualitative study of eco-anxiety in parent-child dyads. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0284774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Lykins, A.D.; Bonich, M.; Sundaraja, C.; Cosh, S. Climate change anxiety positively predicts antenatal distress in expectant female parents. J. Anxiety Disord. 2024, 101, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Madden, L.; Joshi, A.; Wang, M.; Turner, J.; Lindsay, S. Parents’ perspectives on climate change education: A case study from New Jersey. ECNU Rev. Educ. 2024, 8, 184–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Munro, K. Hegemonic stories in environmental advocacy testimonials. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 31, 233–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nakkerud, E. “There Are Many People Like Me, Who Feel They Want to Do Something Bigger”: An Exploratory Study of Choosing Not to Have Children Based on Environmental Concerns. Ecopsychology 2021, 13, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pardon, M.K.; Dimmock, J.; Chande, R.; Kondracki, A.; Reddick, B.; Davis, A.; Athan, A.; Buoli, M.; Barkin, J.L. Mental health impacts of climate change and extreme weather events on mothers. Eur. J. Psychotraumatology 2024, 15, 2296818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Schelhas, I.; Gast, M. “I Owe It to My Daughter”: How Parents Deal with the Climate Crisis. Psychodynamic Interviews with Parents Committed to Climate Protection. Psychoanal. Study Child 2024, 77, 402–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Schneider-Mayerson, M.; Leong, K.L. Eco-reproductive concerns in the age of climate change. Clim. Change 2020, 163, 1007–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Schneider-Mayerson, M. The environmental politics of reproductive choices in the age of climate change. Environ. Politics 2022, 31, 152–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Severo, A.F.F. Parenting and Climate Change: What are Parents’ Perceived Roles and Worries? Master’s Thesis, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal, 2023. Available online: https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/85923/1/Ana%20Flavia%20Franco%20Severo.pdf (accessed on 23 March 2025).
  51. Szalma, I.; Szczuka, B.J. Reproductive Choices and Climate Change in a Pronatalist Context. East Eur. Politics Soc. 2024, 08883254241229728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Thomas, I.; Martin, A.; Wicker, A.; Benoit, L. Understanding youths’ concerns about climate change: A binational qualitative study of ecological burden and resilience. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry Ment. Health 2022, 16, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Global Warming’s Six Americas. Available online: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/projects/global-warmings-six-americas/ (accessed on 9 September 2024).
  54. Hadré, E.; Küpper, J.; Tschirschwitz, J.; Mengert, M.; Labuhn, I. Quantifying generational and geographical inequality of climate change. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 8483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Thiery, W.; Lange, S.; Rogelj, J.; Schleussner, C.-F.; Gudmundsson, L.; Seneviratne, S.I.; Andrijevic, M.; Frieler, K.; Emanuel, K.; Geiger, T.; et al. Intergenerational inequities in exposure to climate extremes. Science 2021, 374, 158–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Braun, V.; Victoria, C.; Elicia, B.; Louise, D.; and McEvoy, C. The online survey as a qualitative research tool. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2021, 24, 641–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Aspers, P.; Corte, U. What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research. Qual. Sociol. 2019, 42, 139–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jansen, H. The logic of qualitative survey research and its position in the field of social research methods. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2010, 11, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Denzin, N.K. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research; Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., Eds.; Sage Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2005; Volume 1, p. 42. [Google Scholar]
  60. OECD. Percentage of Adults Who Perceive Climate Change as a Major Threat in OECD Countries, 2020; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2023; Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-skills-outlook-2023_27452f29-en.html (accessed on 23 March 2025).
  61. Jakučionytė-Skodienė, M.; Liobikienė, G. The Changes in Climate Change Concern, Responsibility Assumption and Impact on Climate-friendly Behaviour in EU from the Paris Agreement Until 2019. Environ. Manag. 2022, 69, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Societies 15 00104 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart showing number of records identified, screened and included, sourced from Covidence [26].
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart showing number of records identified, screened and included, sourced from Covidence [26].
Societies 15 00104 g001
Societies 15 00104 g002
Figure 2. A visual summary of papers in the review ([31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,49,51,52]).
Figure 2. A visual summary of papers in the review ([31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,49,51,52]).
Societies 15 00104 g002
Table 1. Scoping review: eligibility criteria (using SPIDER).
Table 1. Scoping review: eligibility criteria (using SPIDER).
InclusionExclusion
SampleAny sample of parents (mothers/fathers/both) or grandparents or expectant parents in OECD country.Any sample not composed, in whole or part, of parents, grandparents, and/or expectant parents. Samples recruited in non-OECD countries.
Phenomenon of InterestAttitudes, experiences, or opinions to climate change and global warming.Attitudes, experiences, or opinions on specific actions (e.g., recycling, transport, energy use) and/or other environmental issues.
DesignAny qualitative data collection methods (e.g., interviews, observations, or focus groups).Quantitative research (e.g., fixed-response surveys).
EvaluationAny information on attitudes, experiences, or opinions of parents; may be the primary or secondary focus of the study.Information on health impact or behaviour.
Research typeQualitative or mixed methods (e.g., combining fixed and open-ended responses).Quantitative research and non-empirical research (e.g., commentaries, editorials, letters).
Table 2. Study characteristics (22 outputs from 19 unique studies).
Table 2. Study characteristics (22 outputs from 19 unique studies).
Year of Publication (n = 22)Count (%)
2000–20040 (0%)
2005–20090 (0%)
2010–20140 (0%)
2015–20192 (9%)
2020–202420 (91%)
Countries (n = 19 *)Count (%)
United States7 (37%)
Australia4 (21%)
United Kingdom3 (16%)
Canada2 (11%)
Nordic countries (Finland, Norway, Sweden)1 each (5%)
Switzerland, Belgium, Hungary, Netherlands, Turkiye, France1 each (5%)
Qualitative Data Collection Method/s (n = 19)Count (%)
Interviews10 (53%)
Focus groups3 (16%)
Open-ended questions/free-text responses in quantitative survey6 (32%)
Diary entries1 (5%)
Testimonials2 (11%)
* One study also included a non-OECD country (India).
Table 3. Included outputs (22 papers from 19 studies). * based on same study; ** based on same study.
Table 3. Included outputs (22 papers from 19 studies). * based on same study; ** based on same study.
#Author, Year, Form of OutputCountryAimsStudy MethodsPopulationRecruitment MethodsSample Size (n)Participant Profile
1Baker, et al. [31] (journal article)AustraliaTo explore ‘caretaker perceptions of children’s climate change emotions, and the needs and challenges of supporting children’ (p687)Quantitative survey with open-ended questionsThose with caring responsibilities for school-aged children (parents and teachers)Online survey posted to Australian Facebook groups141Majority were parents. Parents had children aged 1–17 years and all lived in Australia.
2Boddy, et al. [32] (journal article)UK, IndiaTo provide a ‘narrative analysis of family practices’ relating to environmentalism and climate change (p359)Visits and interviewsAffluent parents in England and IndiaRecruited via schoolsParents in 10 familiesFour of the ten families had children attending private/fee-paying schools.
3Bodin and Björklund [33] (journal article)SwedenTo explore ‘how people of different ages discuss and justify their stance concerning reproduction in relation to their knowledge about climate change and overpopulation’ (p2)Age-specific focus groupsPeople living in Skåne County, Sweden.Recruited through social media, university website, and author networks98Aged 17–90; the majority identified as women. ’An overrepresentation of white, heterosexual, middle class women’ (p2).
4Gaziulusoy [34] (journal article)Finland, Australia, Turkiye, USA, Nether-landsTo capture ‘the lived experiences of parents raising children during climate change’ (p1)Interviews with open-ended questionsParents aware of climate change and implications for their childrenInvitation through online and offline social networks12Gender: 8 women, 4 men. Parents aged 36–46; 8 women, 4 men. No information on socio-economic background or ethnic identity.
5Hirschberg [35] (undergraduate dissertation)USATo fill the gap in knowledge on the perspectives of parents of children aged 12–17 on climate griefInterviews with open-ended questionsParents aged 30 and over with an adolescent child experiencing emotional distress about climate changeRecruitment via organisational contacts, and author networks8 parents and 8 children7 female, 1 male parent participants; majority white. All had at least a Bachelor degree and professional backgrounds relating to environmental sciences.
6Holmes, et al. [36] (journal article)USA‘To explore the emotionally reflexive processes by which some women build maternal futures in the unsettling context of climate change’ (p357)Online testimoniesWomen providing personal testimonies on a woman-led network focusing on reproductive justice and climate changeTestimonies provided in response to researcher’s invitation and house parties hosted by network members67Largest group were women aged 20–29 without children. No information on socio-economic background or ethnic identity.
7 *Howard, et al. [37] (journal article)UK‘To explore the emotional spaces of parenting and campaigning for inter-generational climate justice’ (p1429)Semi-structured qualitative diary + semi-structured interviewUK-based activist mothers and fathersRecruitment via social media and snowballing2012 mothers; 8 fathers. No further information provided.
8 *Howard [38] (journal article)UK‘To investigate the overlapping emotional spaces of climate activism and parenting’ (p1)Qualitative diary entries and interviewsParents/guardians worried about climate change and impact on their children and involved in climate change campaigningRecruitment via social media and snowballing2012 mothers; 8 fathers. ’Participants were mainly middle class, possessing a tertiary level education and a medium to high household income. All but one participant were White’.
9 *Howard [39] (doctoral thesis)UKTo address ‘knowledge gaps in the ways action on the climate “crisis” is mobilised in the context of family and personal relationships’ (p3)Interviews; diary entriesParents engaged in any type of organised, shared campaigning to address climate changeRecruitment via social media and climate parent groups2012 mothers; 8 fathers.
10Jurcik [40] (Masters dissertation)CanadaTo explore ‘the impact of climate change on individuals considering parenthood and the complexities of becoming a parent during the current climate crisis’ (piii)Semi-structured interviewsParticipants who identified as being of childbearing age, years/the gestational parent and considering climate change deciding about parenthoodRecruitment via social media to climate change groups and influencers known to the researcher20Majority did not have children/stepchildren; had a Bachelor degree or higher, identified as white, did not identify as First Nation.
11Léger-Goodes, et al. [41] (journal article)CanadaTo ‘gain insight into the ways in which children experience eco-anxiety’ (p2) and how parents understand their child’s lived experiences and help them cope with their concernsSurvey with free text responseParents of children aged 8–12 yearsRecruitment via organisations working with families and via pro-environmental organisations12The majority identified as women and as White Canadian. No information provided on educational status/ family socio-economic circumstances.
12Lykins, et al. [42] journal article)Australia‘To assess the contribution of climate change anxiety to antenatal worry and depression’ (p3)Survey with open-ended questionsWomen who identified as female and were currently pregnantRecruitment via expectant parent social media networking sites49 participants responded to open-ended questionsNo socio-demographic information on participants.
13Madden, et al. [43] (journal article)USATo understand parental perspectives on climate change education standards introduced into schools in New Jersey, USAQuantitative survey with open-ended questions and free text option at the end of surveyParents of children attending public (state) schoolsRecruitment via social media and emails using professional listservs83No parental socio-demographic data on participants.
14Munro [44] (journal article)USA, Belgium, SwitzerlandTo critically analyse testimonials by parents and grandparents engaged in environmental advocacy organisationsMission statements and testimonialsWeb-based testimonials from environmental advocacy organisationsRecruitment via environmental advocacy organisations40 testimonialsTestimonial writers were ‘primarily white, middle-class women exclusively living in the Global North’, the majority from US-based organisations.
15Nakkerud [45] (journal article)NorwayTo explore ‘the psychological and social processes surrounding choices to be environmentally childfree’ (p200)Semi-structured interviewsPeople wanting to have no children or only have child because of environmental concernsRecruitment social media or direct invite20Majority identified as women with no children. No information on socio-economic background or ethnic identity.
16Pardon, et al. [46] (journal article)Australia‘To explore the negative mental health consequences of climate change and/or extreme weather events as reported by new Australian mothers’ (p3)Focus groupsMothers aged ≥ 18 years and with baby ≤ 12 monthsRecruitment via social media and university networks3114 participants had two or more children. No other socio-demographic information.
17Schelhas and Gast [47] (journal article)GermanyTo focus on ‘parents who are actively engaged in climate protection […] to find out how they deal with the climate crisis against the backdrop of their own parenting and concern for the future of their children’ (p402)InterviewsParents engaged in ’climate protection’Recruitment via parents engaged in climate activism groups43 mothers; 1 father. No further information provided.
18 **Schneider-Mayerson and Leong [48] (journal article)USATo fill the gap in scholarship ‘on the relationship between climate change and individual reproduction intentions and practices’ (p1009)Survey with open-ended questionsYoung people factoring climate change into reproductive decision-makingLink to survey posted via climate thinkers, activists, and organisations607Majority identified as female, non-parents white, very liberal with a Bachelor degree or higher.
19 **Schneider-Mayerson [49] (journal article)USA‘To explore the nexus between reproductive choices and environmental politics in relation to climate change’ (p153)Survey (with free text response)Climate ‘leftists’ factoring climate change into reproductive decision-makingLink to survey posted via climate thinkers, activists, and organisations607Majority identified as female, non-parents white, very liberal with a Bachelor’s degree or higher.
20Severo [50] (Masters dissertation)PortugalTo explore parents’ perceptions of their roles and worries with respect to parenting and climate changeInterviewsParents of children aged 10–14 yearsRecruitment face-to-face and online dissemination in a school close to the university29Majority had completed higher education; 40% of families eligible for free/reduced prices school lunches for their children.
21Szalma and Szczuka [51] (journal article)HungaryTo better understand ‘how individuals make decisions about childbearing according to their views on climate change and how they rationalise their choices in a pronatalist country’ (p1)Semi-structured interviewsChildless and single-child women between 18 and 45 yearsInitial recruitment via social networks and snowball sampling4421 had no children; 21 had one child; 2 were pregnant; 25 had a higher degree.
22Thomas, et al. [52] (journal article)USA, FranceA small number of parents included in a study of ‘young people’s views about climate change’ (p1)Focus groupsParents of children aged under 10Recruitment via social media platforms12Parents had children under 10 years; no other data provided.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Graham, H.; Lampard, P.; Golder, S. A Review of Qualitative Studies of Parents’ Perspectives on Climate Change. Societies 2025, 15, 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15040104

AMA Style

Graham H, Lampard P, Golder S. A Review of Qualitative Studies of Parents’ Perspectives on Climate Change. Societies. 2025; 15(4):104. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15040104

Chicago/Turabian Style

Graham, Hilary, Pete Lampard, and Su Golder. 2025. "A Review of Qualitative Studies of Parents’ Perspectives on Climate Change" Societies 15, no. 4: 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15040104

APA Style

Graham, H., Lampard, P., & Golder, S. (2025). A Review of Qualitative Studies of Parents’ Perspectives on Climate Change. Societies, 15(4), 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15040104

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop