Dr George Warren

• Air travel has a significant impact on carbon emissions. Academic activities – such as traveling internationally for conferences – contribute to these emissions.• Researchers need to consider the carbon impact of their own activities – but there can be barriers to making changes.• We reflect, as a team within ACCESS, on our own decisions related to international conference travel – our intention was to travel as a group to Barcelona, Spain (from the United Kingdom) by train• For various reasons however, we did not travel as a group by train – one of us decided not to attend the conference, one of us travelled using a mix of train and air travel, while two of us took air travel. • We discuss some of the things that influenced our decisions – such as practical factors (time, costs), personal factors (confidence, gender, language skills), and structural factors (poor booking systems, visa requirements)• Shifting research-related travel practices requires systemic change – we should avoid putting all blame and responsibility onto individual researchers• Navigating these tensions are challenging – we need to reduce the carbon impact of research activities, but we also need to consider issues of equity and not ‘accidentally’ exclude some individuals from activities as we transition towards net-zero societies

Why we need Environmental Social SciencesEnvironmental issues are ultimately social issues. They are caused by, understood by, and must be solved by, people as individuals, groups, communities, political and institutional systems.Securing the future of our planet and the wellbeing of humankind requires an in-depth understanding of the interdependent relationships between people and their social and natural environment. It requires knowledge and expertise of all environmental social sciences.Who is this document for?This document is for anyone with an interest in understanding and tackling people-environment relationships and environmental problems. This includes those working as, or with, environmental social scientists in academia, policy and practice, as well as scientists, knowledge brokers and policy makers and practitioners wishing to explicitly consider people-environment relationships in their work. This may include questions around climate change, net zero emissions, nature-climate relations, biodiversity, use of natural resources, consumer choices, as well as people’s relationships with their natural environment and non-human nature.Why this document is neededEnvironmental problems are deeply rooted in social structures and tackling these problems requires significant social transformation for which environmental social science (ESS) knowledge and expertise is essential. However, the potential value and role of environmental social sciences in research and policy and practice is not always clearly valued or understood. Overlooking the vital role of people and ESS insights contributes to inadequate environmental policy.Social sciences can sometimes be dismissed as common sense and is too often carried out by those without proper training and social science expertise is often under resourced. There is frequently a narrow understanding of the range of insights, tools and techniques that different environmental social sciences can offer.Knowledge of and requests for environmental social sciences (for instance by other researchers or decision makers) is often limited to research that studies how end users (consumers) respond to new technologies or environmental policies after the problems have been framed and the solutions have been designed. Knowledge of ESS research is often based on outdated ways of thinking, for example the knowledge-deficit model, which assumes that people lack the knowledge to “do the right thing”. There is also less emphasis on more inclusive methods that bring different groups into framing the problem. However, there is a huge variety of different types of environmental social sciences. Social science has played an important and significant role in research impact. Researchers have a vast array of methods and knowledge at their disposal that is critical to help understand and improve people-environment interactions and successful delivery of policy and practice. Environmental problems require insight and knowledge from a range of different disciplines, including social sciences. This document provides a synopsis of what environmental social science is, what it does and what it can offer to environmental research, policy and practice.

Social sciences are vitally important to understand and address processes and issues in society, including environmental issues. The potential value and contribution of social science for research and policy and practice has been discussed since the 1960s (Caswill & Lyall, 2013), and a substantial number of outputs on the topic have been produced. This annotated bibliography provides signposting to key publications. It contains examples of work written from academic and non-academic perspectives. The annotated bibliography can be used as a tool to champion greater use of social sciences in inter- and transdisciplinary research, to justify funding or non-financial support for social science, or to help create an evidence base for the use of social science in policy and practice. It forms part of a suite of documents and tools aimed at championing the importance and uniqueness of Environmental Social Science (ESS) and promoting its use and impact. These include a definition and dimensions document (Gatersleben, Warren, Marselle, et al., 2024), information on toolkits that support ESS knowledge exchange (Contreras et al., 2024), and an overview of useful case studies (Warren & Gatersleben, 2024). Where most of these documents focus specifically on the role of social science in understanding and tacking environmental issues and people-environment interactions, this annotated bibliography also includes key publications that discuss the value and impact of social science in understanding and tackling social issues more broadly.

This report describes case study examples of past impacts of Environmental Social Science (ESS) research in order to outline the value of ESS in research and practice. The document has been prepared as a sister output to the ACCESS report “Environmental Social Science: What is it and why do we need it?” (see Gatersleben et al., 2024) in which ESS is defined as “the systematic study of the interrelationship between three dynamic components: people [… ,] the social environment [, and] the natural (non-human) environment” (Gatersleben et al., 2024, p. 4).

The Environmental Social Science kNowledge Exchange Map of Opportunities (ESS NEMO) is a package of systems maps and associated documentation that show the groups, organisations and individual actors that environmental social scientists could engage with in knowledge creation and/or exchange in the UK. ESS NEMO is a tool that, among other rationales, aims to promote greater collaboration and trust between environmental social scientists, and with other groups that may not traditionally be included in ESS activities. Environmental Social Science (ESS) is defined as the systematic study of people and their social and their non-human physical environment (their habitat) (Gatersleben et al., forthcoming). The information presented in ESS NEMO reflects the situation as of 10th July 2024. It is acknowledged that the landscape is dynamic, and changes frequently over time.

Advancing Capacity for Climate and Environment Social Science (ACCESS) is an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funded project, which aims to champion and coordinate social science research, to build capacity and promote and enhance the value of environmental social science in research and practice to address key environmental challenges. ACCESS’s first step is to learn from the past experiences of social scientists in climate and environment training, research, policy and practice through various research activities. This report summarises the key findings of one of these activities: exploratory interviews with participants from academic, governmental and non-governmental sectors to explore the impact of UK-based Environmental Social Science (ESS) into policy and practice. Specifically, this report focuses on participants’ experiences of the factors hindering or enhancing the integration of ESS into policy and practice. The aim of this research is to provide evidence to promote greater inclusion of ESS into policy and practice by outlining the key factors influencing its impact. To achieve these wider project aims, findings presented here will be combined with evidence emerging from other activities conducted within the ACCESS project to inform a broader set of recommendations to enhance the inclusion of ESS into research, training and policy and practice. This is with the wider ACCESS goal of supporting and building capacity for ESS in the UK. Findings presented in this report, and subsequent reports of this nature, can be applicable for those working in academia, the government agencies (intermediates), non-governmental organisations, and the policy makers wanting to understand current and future ways in which UK-based ESS can be integrated into research, training, and policy and practice. It is important to note that perceptions of enhancing and hindering factors were collected through the interviews; assessing the extent of their reality in practice would require other observatory methods that were not undertaken in this study (see Newman, 2023).

Objectives: To explore and evaluate the impact of factors including public risk perceptions on COVID-19 protective behaviors across the UK and Germany.Methods: We used survey data collected from a representative sample for Germany and the UK (total N = 1,663) between April and May 2021. Using a Structural Equation Model, we evaluate the role of personal health risk perceptions, official message quality, source of news, age and political orientation on COVID-19 protective behaviors in the context of German and UK risk communication strategies.Results: Personal health risk perceptions had a significant positive influence on protective behaviors. Economic risk perceptions had a negative direct influence on protective behaviors, particularly in Germany, as well as a positive indirect influence. Official message quality, use of official news sources and age had positive impacts on risk perceptions and protective behaviors. Left-wing political orientation was linked to greater likelihood of undertaking protective behaviors.Conclusion: For future pandemics, more attention should be paid to evaluating and conceptualizing different varieties of risk perceptions, risk communication strategies, and demographic variables alongside their impacts on undertaking protective behaviors.

Vaccines represent one of the most important methods to reduce the risk of hospitalisation and mortality as a result of COVID-19. To ensure the spread and risk of the Delta variant of COVID-19 is minimised, as many people as possible nationally must be fully vaccinated. Ensuring success in reaching high rates of vaccination relies on both effective risk management and risk communication strategies. This paper evaluates vaccine rollout management and communication strategies in five European nations: France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and England within the UK, updating findings from a previous paper on the same topic from January 2021. This paper evaluates these five nations' management and communication strategies regarding the vaccine rollout timeline and prioritisation. Further, we discuss the effectiveness and importance of vaccine or immunity passports, highlighting the importance of ensuring that the needs of minoritised groups are considered in promoting the vaccine rollout, and ensuring fairness when prioritising certain groups over others to have earlier access to any vaccine. In conclusion, recommendations for policy makers and public health communicators are put forward.

Risk communication is a vital part of any risk management strategy but has become even more important in the time of the COVID-19 global health crisis. In recent months, nations across Europe have begun to consider strategies for rolling out vaccines, which is widely seen as the way to overcome high death rates and widespread lockdowns over the course of 2020. In most European nations, vaccinations are not mandatory and thus public willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 must be high to achieve lofty goals of reaching herd immunity from the virus. This paper evaluates current communication strategies on vaccine rollouts in several European nations: the UK, France, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland. Following an outline of the history of vaccination issues and unique public vaccine hesitancy profiles in each nation, an overview on current risk communication strategies around the vaccine rollout are offered, focusing on two key areas: (1) communication of the vaccine rollout timeline and 'expectations management', and (2) communication of which groups are to be prioritised for any vaccine. From the findings of the paper, it is recommended that nations aiming to promote high vaccine uptake and avoid trust-destroying events: promote informed consent amongst their citizens; are cautious in optimism and manage expectations appropriately; follow scientific advice to vaccine rollout strategies; disseminate and administer the vaccine using local trusted doctors, GPs and nurses; are open and honest about when people will get a vaccine and uncertainties associated with them.

Risk communication is key to engaging with the public on non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to promote acceptance, compliance and policy support. This article outlines the considerations needed for effective risk communication to promote support for and compliance with NPIs alongside building trust, before assessing the hazard characteristics of COVID-19 on public perceptions. Highlighting examples of risk communication successes and failures in five European case study countries: France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK, this article aims to underline the impact of risk communication on public trust and confidence in respective government COVID-19 strategies, and outline recommendations for future public health crises.

European lockdown strategies over the winter of 2020 have brought into sharp relief the need for effective strategies to reduce the rate of COVID-19 transmission and lower the rate of hospitalisations and deaths. Understanding exactly how European nations have arrived at this point, and the process by which they have done this, is key to learning constructive lessons for future pandemic risk management. Bringing together experience from across five European nations (the UK, France, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland), this paper outlines what has occurred between September 2020 and mid-January 2021. Our analysis draws out several themes important to understanding the different national risk management approaches adopted, namely: the extent to which lessons were learned or overlooked from the first wave of the pandemic; the relationship between science and policy; the speed and responsiveness of policy decisions; and differing levels of reliance on individual responsibility for safeguarding public health. Subsequently, we recommended that: there is more involvement of decision scientists and risk analysts in COVID-19 decision making, who have largely been absent thus far; the epidemiological science should be followed where possible, but when value judgments are made this should be clearly and transparently communicated; proactive measures avoiding policy delay should be followed to reduce the rate of infection and excess deaths; governments must avoid confusing or inconsistent regional implementation and communication of interventions; rebuilding public trust is key to promoting public compliance and support for COVID-19 health measures; overreliance on individual responsibility as the focus of non-pharmaceutical interventions should be avoided; public compliance with COVID-19 restrictions requires pre-tested simple messages; open and consistent engagement with local leaders and officials should become a mainstay of government efforts to help ensure consistent adoption of nationwide COVID-19 policy measures.

This annotated bibliography acts as a sister document to the literature review on working with other disciplines and stakeholders (Warren et al., 2024), providing detail on key reports, articles, books and book chapters cited in the larger central report on the benefits, drawbacks, barriers and drivers of working with other disciplines and stakeholders, accessible here: https://accessnetwork.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2024/05/Benefits-drawbacks-barriers-and-drivers-of-working-with-other-disciplinesand-stakeholders-ACCESS-literature-review.pdf. In line with our goals of mapping, assessing and learning from past and present evidence to support Environmental Social Science (ESS) in research and policy & practice, this annotated bibliography provides key sources for evidence on factors influencing working with other disciplines and stakeholders. For each source, a brief overview of the contents, arguments, and findings from each evidence source are outlined. Sources are listed in alphabetical order. This annotated bibliography is particularly targeted at non-academic social scientists and researchers, aiming to provide this group with a more accessible form of digesting information on working with other disciplines and stakeholders. In addition, this annotated bibliography aims to signpost to particularly influential, interesting or informative resources for future ESS initiatives aspiring to include a range of different disciplinary perspectives or stakeholders.