Jane Lubchenco | PAS Academician and Jenna Sullivan-Stack, Heather Tallis and Kirsten Grorud-Colvert

Triple Challenges of Bio-diversity, Climate and Inequality


Nature makes Earth habitable and meaningful. The rich biodiversity in our ocean, in freshwater, and on land sustains us, delivering the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat, regulating climate, underpinning economies, and providing inspiration, knowledge, solace, and cultural identities. Even as people strive to advance and prosper, we have opportunities – and responsibilities – to create a future that is respectful of and enabled by nature. Doing so aligns with the moral call to action from people of faith and others to be responsible stewards of nature – our common home and heritage. However, humanity faces three major, interacting crises: biodiversity loss, climate change, and inequity. Biodiversity is disappearing at rates three to four orders of magnitude higher than natural extinction due primarily to habitat degradation, unsustainable exploitation, pollution, and climate change. Impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss also exacerbate existing inequities because the consequences fall disproportionately on the disadvantaged and underserved. An equitable, resilient future is possible, but only with integrated actions that address all three crises together. Restoring and maintaining biodiversity can provide powerful solutions for climate mitigation and adaptation and for advancing equity. Natural, scalable solutions already exist, but they are not deployed at the pace or scale needed for success. Leadership grounded in ethics and morality is needed to help realize the actions required to achieve a vibrant, just, diverse, and resilient future.

Introduction: Three megacrises, one big holistic opportunity

Society faces multiple, intersecting challenges whose resolution will determine the resilience of people and the ecosystems on which they depend (Fig. 1). Chief among these are three interrelated crises: biodiversity loss, climate change, and inequity. Here we focus on biodiversity and argue that neither of the other two challenges can be fully and successfully addressed without it. Further, tackling the three together produces more efficient and successful outcomes due to synergies and co-benefits.

Biodiversity refers to the rich diversity of life on Earth, including all animals, plants, and other groups of species – the genes they contain, the ecosystems they create and inhabit, and the functions and processes they support. Due to impacts of human activities, biodiversity is in rapid decline. Species extinction is occurring at a rate that is three to four orders of magnitude higher than would be expected without human influence (IPBES, 2019). For example, continued conversion of habitats to other uses results in the loss of forests, grasslands, and coastal ecosystems. This releases greenhouse gasses that escalate climate change (primarily driven by fossil fuel emissions) which in turn intensifies biodiversity loss. Entire ecosystems, like coral reefs, are expected to completely disappear from Earth if the climate is not rapidly stabilized (IPCC, 2018). Their loss creates cascading harms. For example, coral reefs and other coastal ecosystems protect people and property from storm damage and sea level rise by reducing flooding – one of many hidden benefits nature provides to people. In the United States alone, the disappearance of coral reefs would result in an additional annual loss of 18,000 lives and USD1.8 billion in storm damages (Storlazzi et al., 2019). In this paper, we consider the term ‘nature’ as inclusive of all biodiversity and the benefits it delivers to humankind.

As nature loss and climate change advance, they worsen existing inequities and create new ones. The largest climate-change-driven decreases in ocean animal biomass are expected at low to middle latitudes, where many nations are highly dependent on seafood and fisheries (Lotze et al., 2019). On land, both climate change and biodiversity loss hamper agricultural yields, pests, and food supplies and prices (IPBES, 2019; IPCC, 2018). Continuation of these trends is projected to create major impediments to many Sustainable Development Goals including overcoming inequality and poverty (Ebi and Hess, 2020; Fig. 2). Nature also provides substantial mental health benefits (Bratman et al., 2019), but access to natural spaces is inequitably distributed (Sun et al., 2022).

Given this tangle of challenges, piecemeal approaches will fail. Actions that appear to make progress towards a single goal often have repercussions for other goals that in turn undermine the original intent. For example, non-native pine plantations established for climate benefit in Ecuador’s páramo region reportedly had negative consequences because they displaced and harmed local species, reduced water supplies (including for the city of Quito), failed to deliver promised benefits to Indigenous groups (https://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin-articles/josefina-and-the-water-springs-against-pine-plantations-in-ecuadors-paramos), and eliminated the substantial carbon storage provided by the natural grassland they displaced (Quiroz Dahik et al., 2021). Similarly, business-as-usual methods of economic development, food production, energy production, and urban growth often harm biodiversity and contribute to climate change, but could be adjusted to avoid strongly negative tradeoffs and realize co-benefits (Tallis et al., 2018).

Nature: A wealth of powerful solutions

Nature provides powerful and durable options for addressing climate change mitigation, adaptation (Fig. 3; Seddon et al., 2019), and inequities. Healthy biodiversity can contribute significantly to achieving each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (Fig. 2). For example, climate mitigation goals require a focus on biodiversity because transitioning to clean energy must be coupled with drawdown of existing emissions and enhanced carbon sequestration, for example through forest restoration (e.g., http://www.drawdown.org). Retaining and recovering nature is a proven, ready option that can achieve up to 30% of the climate mitigation needed to avoid the worst impacts from climate change (Griscom et al., 2017).

Coastal protection by mangrove ecosystems also provides nature-based climate mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity, and equity benefits. Like other structural coastal habitats such as salt marshes, dunes, reefs, and mangroves can provide durable and flexible protection for coastal communities against flooding and storm damage. Mangroves protect communities by stabilizing shorelines and slowing coastal erosion, acting as ‘speed bumps’ for hurricanes, and protecting inland areas from storm surge. Their value was demonstrated in Sumatra where significantly less tsunami damage occurred in areas with mangroves compared to areas without (Danielsen et al., 2005). Further, as sea levels rise and storms intensify with climate change, gray infrastructure such as sea walls becomes inundated, whereas nature-based solutions like mangrove habitats can migrate if given room. Green infrastructure provides lower-cost, more sustainable options for coastal protection for vulnerable communities (Silver et al., 2019). Further, mangroves actively sequester carbon – up to 10x as much per unit area as land forests (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2019); provide nursery habitat for economically and culturally important fisheries; produce valuable timber, fuelwood, and charcoal; trap sediment; and detoxify pollutants. Through these benefits, mangroves provide jobs and livelihoods, supporting valuable fisheries and tourism. Nevertheless, they are among the world’s most threatened habitats.

In addition to this coastal nature-based pathway for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, other ocean-based climate solutions might come from decarbonizing shipping, renewable ocean energy, or protection of vast carbon stores on the seabed through fully protected marine protected areas (MPAs) (ibid; Sala et al., 2021). Together, these ocean-based activities might provide up to one fifth of the greenhouse gas emission reductions needed to achieve the 1.5°C Paris target by 2050 (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2019).

Beyond climate mitigation, fully and highly protected MPAs hold strong potential for climate adaptation, biodiversity protection, and contributions to equity (Grorud-Colvert et al., 2021). By reducing or eliminating extractive and destructive activities, they restore healthy, functioning, diverse ecosystems with both species- and genetic-level diversity, allow nature to recover and increase resilience to climate change (ibid). However, MPAs are vastly underutilized. Currently, only 2.4% of the global ocean is robustly protected (http://MPAtlas.org).

As with all protected areas, attention to the enabling conditions that promote long-term and equitable success is critical (ibid). Some MPAs have created or worsened inequities by excluding disadvantaged communities from fishing, imposing high management costs, or creating unequal distribution of MPA benefits, e.g., from tourism or fishery revenues. Yet others like Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument provide positive models demonstrating how simultaneous attention to biodiversity, equity, and climate can produce win-win-win outcomes (Office of Hawaiian Affairs et al., 2021). Native Hawaiians championed its establishment and now co-manage the MPA along with state and federal agencies. Rich biodiversity is protected within this very large area. And a climate vulnerability assessment, guided by Native Hawaiian perspectives, has been produced.

Nature-based solutions grounded in community leadership offer additional promise. Community-based fisheries management guided by Indigenous knowledge and local communities can help address food insecurity by recovering fish stocks and strengthening food supplies. For example, seafood provides an important source of protein and key nutrients for over 3.3 billion people (FAO, 2020). Yet inequities persist. Women are often excluded from fishery decisions despite representing approximately 40% of small-scale fisheries workers (Galappaththi et al., 2022). Community-based fisheries management can help reduce gender inequity by advancing women’s leadership. Where women help shape decisions on who, where, and how to use ocean resources, sustainability and equity in small-scale fisheries is improved (ibid). Some community-based programs further address gender and health inequities through population, health and environment approaches. For example, the Tuungane program in Tanzania aims to empower communities and provide access to reproductive health services by addressing issues related to the environment, food security, and livelihoods (https://www.pathfinder.org/projects/tuungane/).

Wildfire risk in the United States is another complex challenge requiring integrated, nature-based solutions. As climate change increases the frequency and severity of wildfires, it threatens biodiversity and releases carbon, accelerating climate change. Communities of color are disproportionately likely to live in fire-vulnerable areas (Davies et al., 2018), and more likely to suffer respiratory diseases – including COVID-19 – that can be exacerbated by wildfire smoke (Dey and Dominici, 2020). Forest management that imitates historical fire patterns can reduce undergrowth and high-density vegetation and restore healthy, diverse forests that are less vulnerable to widespread, destructive fire. Indigenous knowledge foregrounds these forest management strategies; in the U.S., many Native American cultures have used fire as a tool to live with diverse landscapes for thousands of years. California’s 2022 “Strategic Plan for Expanding the Use of Beneficial Fire” aims to address climate, wildfire, and biodiversity risks by revitalizing cultural burning practices through the leadership of local Tribes (https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/03/30/governors-task-force-launches-strategic-plan-to-ramp-up-wildfire-mitigation-with-prescribed-fire-efforts/).

Health, well-being, and spirituality are also influenced by nature, which becomes increasingly important as individuals and communities are impacted by the inequitable effects of biodiversity loss and climate change. Contact with nature has multiple health benefits including better sleep, reduced depression and anxiety, lower blood pressure, and increased social connectedness (Frumkin et al., 2017). An appreciation and reverence for nature is reflected in many spiritual and faith traditions, which can in turn lead to greater care for nature. For example, Indigenous knowledge systems include a deep connection between humanity and the environment (Tu’itahi et al., 2021). Sacred writings across numerous faith-based traditions express a responsibility for stewardship of nature, for example Pope Francis’ Encyclical Laudato si’.

Recommendations for nature-based solutions with climate, biodiversity, and equity benefits

Multiple opportunities exist for leadership and integrated action that build up on the above findings. We offer four actionable recommendations for durable, integrated solutions to the coupled biodiversity, climate, and equity crises.

  1. Embed nature in climate, equity and other decisions. Despite the clear importance of considering nature, it is often ignored in favor of technology. At this critical moment, all viable, responsible solutions should be considered. Sufficient methods and data now exist to move beyond a myopic techno-centric view and embed nature and its downstream effects on climate and equity in all decisions taken by nations, programs, companies, and communities. For example, nature can and should be accounted for in major economic accounting systems and the powerful decisions they inform. Nations are increasingly adopting natural capital accounts that place nature on national balance sheets, with methods akin to those used to generate gross domestic product (GDP). The G7 and other countries have committed to this approach (www.wavespartnership.org), including the United States (https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/04/24/accounting-for-nature-on-earth-day-2022/), but uptake by more countries is needed.

Governments, companies, and communities frequently make decisions using benefit/cost analysis or impact assessments without considering nature. Technology to mitigate and adapt to climate change should be considered in tandem with nature-based solutions, and evaluated for co-benefits to biodiversity and equity. Guidance and precedent exist for collectively addressing energy, food or water security, health, livelihoods, and beyond. Calls for this approach are increasing (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/04/27/2022-09138/strengthening-the-nations-forests-communities-and-local-economies), and adoption should be rapidly streamlined across sectors.

  1. Elevate Indigenous Peoples, other historically excluded groups, and local communities in decision-making. Indigenous Peoples have customs and practices for living in balance with nature that have been refined over hundreds of generations and are growing in international recognition, for example in the UN Secretary General’s call for an alignment of Indigenous worldviews and strategies with global efforts to make peace with nature. Dialogue across Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous peoples through trust-based relationships is necessary to inform existing management structures and future decision-making and improve both equity and effectiveness. Co-management such as that being developed for the Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/06-2022-Readout-of-the-NBSCRA-JOINT-BFTF-BITAC-Meeting.pdf), is a promising option.  
  1. Protect and sustainably manage the whole Earth. Nearly 200 countries are actively negotiating a global conservation framework through the Convention on Biological Diversity that will guide conservation action for the next decade. The framework is centered in the recognition that climate, equity, and biodiversity challenges are intertwined, and that addressing them will take a 100% approach. This includes a commitment to protect one third of the Earth or more (‘protect at least 30% by 2030’) in well-managed, effective, connected networks of refuges that represent the spectrum of diversity around the globe (A new global framework for managing nature through 2030: First detailed draft agreement debuts | Convention on Biological Diversity (cbd.int)). This ambition for protection is gaining support from many nations, organizations, and leaders including Pope Francis, as in his message for the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHnSdWDXf2M).

However, despite the urgent need for more and more effective protection of nature and ecosystems, protection alone is insufficient. Unsustainable resource use, pollution, climate change, invasive species, and other threats ignore protected area boundaries and threaten nature and people (Fig. 4). All sectors need to adopt sustainable actions.

Progress towards 100% sustainable management has begun but more comprehensive actions are needed to make progress toward a truly sustainable Earth. The sixteen Ocean Panel countries – representing nearly half of the planet’s national ocean waters – committed to sustainable management of 100% of their ocean jurisdictions (https://oceanpanel.org/). Other countries are setting comprehensive restoration goals, like the European Union’s recent Nature Restoration Law that commits EU countries to restore 20% of degraded lands and waters by 2030, and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. Corporate leaders are also contributing, recognizing the influential impacts of supply-chain decisions on ecosystems around the globe [e.g., Seafood Business for Ocean Stewardship (https://seabos.org/) and the Capitals Coalition (https://capitalscoalition.org/)].

  1. Align incentives to nature. A wide range of factors – from family or religious values to company advertisements to school curricula to government policies, funding, and subsidies – influence our options and choices. These mechanisms can create friction and impede change, or they can catalyze new hope and bold action.

In all parts of life, the incorporation of effective incentives that recognize and reward inclusion of nature should be routine and disincentives should be eliminated. Preliminary efforts are underway. The World Trade Organization recently agreed to prohibit harmful fishery subsidies that undermine long-term harvests and biodiversity and put food sources at risk. The G7 countries recognized the harmful environmental and social effects of some subsidies and have committed to deliver nature-positive outcomes (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/g7-climate-and-environment-ministers-meeting-may-2021-communique/g7-climate-and-environment-ministers-communique-london-21-may-2021). President Biden called for increased adoption of nature-based solutions across the US Federal government. Pathways under consideration include changing workforce training and professional development; increasing nature-based solutions to protect Federal facilities and resources; changing policies and guidance to make it easier to consider, and when appropriate, prioritize nature-based solutions; and other avenues to make nature the go-to option for achieving climate resilience, equity, and prosperity. Spiritual and faith-based incentives also exist, for example through the Catholic Church’s liturgical Season of Creation, which includes a focus on global to community-level service and volunteerism. These actions are encouraging but a quantum leap in effective actions is needed to realign incentives with nature-positive outcomes.


The urgency of each problem – climate change, biodiversity loss, and inequity – often drives a myopic focus on just that threat. Yet, successful solutions to each will require a unified approach that integrates all three. Such holistic solutions exist, but are not being adopted at the pace or scale that is required in part because the three communities are often siloed and focused on solving just one problem without recognizing the interconnected nature of all three. In addition, each community has biases; for example, the climate community is heavily weighted toward a focus on mitigation and on technology. A focus on resilient ecosystems and people provides the opportunity to broaden the horizons of each community and consider integrated, holistic solutions. In short, a resilient future depends on bold leadership to champion these integrated approaches.

Figure 1. Global business leader perception of greatest risks, reproduced from The World Economic Forum Global Risk Report (World Economic Forum, 2022). Line thickness is scaled according to number of links.

Figure 2. From (IPBES, 2022). “Sustainable use of wild species has unacknowledged potential to contribute to the achievement of many targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). This figure shows the untapped potential to include sustainable use of wild species in strategies to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. The potential contribution of the sustainable use of wild species to achieve a Sustainable Development Goal was assessed based on the wording of the ‘outcome targets’ (n = x) under each Sustainable Development Goal and the evidence documented in the IPBES Assessment of the Sustainable Use of Wild Species. The percentages showed in the figure refer to the number of targets related to the sustainable use of wild species that: are ‘already taken into account’ (grey bar), has ‘potential relevance’ (green bar), or has ‘no relevance’ (white bar) to achieve each Sustainable Development Goal. Supporting information and detail on assessments for each Sustainable Development Goals are available in Chapter 1 {1.6}. A data management report for this figure is available at: 10.5281/zenodo.6036274”.

Figure 3. Nature-Based Solutions, from (Seddon et al., 2019). Solutions centered around biodiversity can provide diverse benefits for climate resilience and human well-being. Other benefits exist that are not listed here, ranging from mitigation of the effects of ocean acidification to enhancing national security to supporting physical, emotional, and spiritual health. Some feedbacks between biodiversity, its benefits, and human well-being are not represented here, but crucial; for example, equity, as a component of human well-being, is central to achieving climate resilience and stemming biodiversity loss, and these in turn broadly support human well-being.

Figure 4. Key drivers of species loss by taxonomic group. Figure reproduced from https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48104037

1. Bratman, G.N., Anderson, C.B., Berman, M.G., Cochran, B., de Vries, S., Flanders, J., et al. (2019). Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0903. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax0903.

2. Danielsen, F., Sørensen, M.K., Olwig, M.F., Selvam, V., Parish, F., Burgess, N.D., et al. (2005). The Asian Tsunami: A Protective Role for Coastal Vegetation. Science 310, 643-643. doi: 10.1126/science.1118387.

3. Davies, I.P., Haugo, R.D., Robertson, J.C., and Levin, P.S. (2018). The unequal vulnerability of communities of color to wildfire. PLOS ONE 13, e0205825. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205825.

4. Dey, T., and Dominici, F. (2020). COVID-19, Air Pollution, and Racial Inequity: Connecting the Dots. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 34, 669-671. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.0c00432.

5. Ebi, K.L., and Hess, J.J. (2020). Health Risks Due To Climate Change: Inequity In Causes And Consequences. Health Aff. (Millwood) 39, 2056-2062. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2020.01125.

6. FAO (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. doi: 10.4060/ca9229en.

7. Frumkin, H., Bratman, G.N., Breslow, S.J., Cochran, B., Kahn, P.H., Lawler, J.J., et al. (2017). Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda. Environ. Health Perspect. 125, 075001. doi: 10.1289/EHP1663.

8. Galappaththi, M., Armitage, D., and Collins, A. M. (2022). Women’s experiences in influencing and shaping small-scale fisheries governance. Fish Fish. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/faf.12672.

9. Griscom, B.W., Adams, J., Ellis, P.W., Houghton, R.A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D.A., et al. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 11645-11650. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1710465114.

10. Grorud-Colvert, K., Sullivan-Stack, J., Roberts, C., Constant, V., Horta e Costa, B., Pike, E., et al. (2021). The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean. Science 373. doi: 10.1126/science.abf0861.

11. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Caldeira, K., Chopin, T., Gaines, S., Haugan, P., Hemer, M., et al. (2019). Five Opportunities for Action. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.

12. IPBES (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany: E.S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H.T. Ngo (editors).

13. IPBES (2022). Summary for policymakers of the thematic assessment of the sustainable use of wild species of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6810036.

14. IPCC (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (editors).

15. Lotze, H.K., Tittensor, D.P., Bryndum-Buchholz, A., Eddy, T.D., Cheung, W.W.L., Galbraith, E.D., et al. (2019). Global ensemble projections reveal trophic amplification of ocean biomass declines with climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 12907-12912. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1900194116.

16. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State of Hawai’i (2021). Mai Ka Pō Mai: A Native Hawaiian guidance document for Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. Honolulu, HI: Office of Hawaiian Affairs.  

17. Quiroz Dahik, C., Crespo, P., Stimm, B., Mosandl, R., Cueva, J., Hildebrandt, P., et al. (2021). Impacts of pine plantations on carbon stocks of páramo sites in southern Ecuador. Carbon Balance Manag. 16, 5. doi: 10.1186/s13021-021-00168-5.

18. Sala, E., Mayorga, J., Bradley, D., Cabral, R.B., Atwood, T.B., Auber, A., et al. (2021). Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature 592, 397-402. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03371-z.

19. Seddon, N., Turner, B., Berry, P., Chausson, A., and Girardin, C.A.J. (2019). Grounding nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity science. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84-87. doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0405-0.

20. Silver, J.M., Arkema, K.K., Griffin, R.M., Lashley, B., Lemay, M., Maldonado, S., et al. (2019). Advancing Coastal Risk Reduction Science and Implementation by Accounting for Climate, Ecosystems, and People. Front. Mar. Sci. 6. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00556.

21. Storlazzi, C., Reguery, B., Cole, A., Lowe, E., Shope, J., Gibbs, A., et al. (2019). Rigorously valuing the role of U.S. coral reefs in coastal hazard risk reduction. US Geological Survey (2019-1027).

22. Sun, Y., Saha, S., Tost, H., Kong, X., and Xu, C. (2022). Literature Review Reveals a Global Access Inequity to Urban Green Spaces. Sustainability 14, 1-16. doi: 10.3390/su14031062

23. Tallis, H.M., Hawthorne, P.L., Polasky, S., Reid, J., Beck, M.W., Brauman, K., et al. (2018). An attainable global vision for conservation and human well-being. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 563-570. doi: 10.1002/fee.1965.

24. Tu’itahi, S., Watson, H., Egan, R., Parkes, M., and Hancock, T. (2021). Waiora: the importance of Indigenous worldviews and spirituality to inspire and inform Planetary Health Promotion in the Anthropocene – Sione Tu’itahi, Huti Watson, Richard Egan, Margot W. Parkes, Trevor Hancock, 2021. Glob. Health Promot. 28, 73-82. doi: 10.1177/17579759211062261.

25. World Economic Forum (2022). The Global Risks Report 2022. Geneva: World Economic Forum.