Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Perspective

Frontiers in Conservation Science ·

Volume 7 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2026.1870224

Climate change and the collective: understanding climate change through the lens of collective trauma and ecological systems theory

  • Meghana Nallajerla1*corresponding author
  • Sandra Engstrom2
  1. 1Suzanne Dworak Peck School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States
  2. 2Social Work Department, Faculty of Health, Sport and Society, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

Mental health and psychosocial impacts of climate change – including increased PTSD, depression, and anxiety – are increasingly recognized as a critical impact of the climate crisis. Although the climate crisis is a global phenomenon affecting millions, existing literature predominantly captures individual psychopathological impacts. To date, here is limited understanding of the collective nature of climate change and its individual, interpersonal, community, and societal level impacts. Further, limited literature has discussed both the “collective” nature of these impacts, while also examining their inequitable nature from an intersectional lens. This perspective piece introduces a conceptualization of the climate crisis as a multi-level, collective traumatic phenomenon, with implications that include individual mental health but extend far beyond to communities, cultures, and society. We integrate Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems, collective trauma, and intersectionality theory to briefly illustrate the psychosocial impacts of and interventions for climate change at the individual (micro), family (meso), community (exo), society (macro) and chronological (chrono) levels. This overarching framework is then used to discuss possible clinical and community interventions, and recommendations for future research on the climate crisis.

Keywords

1 Introduction

Mental health and psychosocial impacts of climate change are increasingly recognized as a critical component of the climate crisis. Climate disasters (i.e., hurricanes, wildfires) can lead to serious mental health consequences, including PTSD, depression, and anxiety (Balbus et al., 2016; Cordiner and Gillingham, 2025; Hawkins, 2025; Pihkala, 2022). Difficult emotional experiences in response to climate change have also been conceptualized (i.e., “eco-anxiety,” “solastalgia”) and empirically documented (Galway et al., 2019; Kurth and Pihkala, 2022; Palinkas and Wong, 2020). However, existing literature predominantly highlights individual psychopathological impacts of this systemic, global issue. The current literature has thus been important – but insufficient – in capturing the vast, collective impacts of climate change.

Meanwhile, Global South and Indigenous scholarship has long studied the collective nature of catastrophes (Atallah and Abu-Jamei, 2025; Mercado, 2026; Somasundaram, 2003). Experiences of war, genocide, or systems of oppression such as colonization, have been conceptualized and studied as “collective trauma” – a “tearing of the social fabric” (Erikson, 1976) in which the “collective psyche” can be traumatized (Masson and Harms Smith, 2019). Collective trauma literature suggests that the psychosocial impacts of large-scale disasters include individual psychological impacts but transcend them to have interpersonal (e.g., increased conflict), familial (e.g., family separations), community (e.g., loss of communal practices) and societal (e.g., mass suicide) effects (Somasundaram and Sivayokan, 2013; Woodbury, 2019). Collective trauma frames offer three ideas currently absent from dominant perspectives on climate change’s psychosocial effects: (1) the shared, collective exposure to climate change, (2) which includes but transcends individual-level impacts, and (3) the existence of a collective psyche which can be wounded or traumatized (Koh, 2021).

Simultaneously, while climate change is a global phenomenon, it is also differential in impact. Globally, those who have contributed to climate change the least experience the worst impacts (Mikulewicz et al., 2023). Pre-existing structural oppression creates differential vulnerability to the climate crisis, along racial, caste, gendered, and class lines (Thomas et al., 2019). An intersectional framework (Crenshaw, 1989), in addition to a collective one, is thus necessary to appropriately frame climate change’s psychosocial impacts.

2 Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems and collective trauma

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) is a widely used framework to map the interdependent, bi-directional factors across individual (micro), family and school/work (meso), community (exo), sociopolitical (macro), time (chrono) levels that shape individual development (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Bronfenbrenner and Ceci, 1994; Boon et al., 2012; Eriksson et al., 2018). Individuals at the micro level interact within family (meso) and community (exo) contexts, influenced by society (e.g., and shared belief systems (macro) developed over time (chrono; Eriksson et al., 2018; Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Boon et al., 2012). A disruption at any level has implications for all the others, and structural factors especially cannot be extricated from lower levels.

Ecological Systems Theory has previously been used in (1) collective trauma literature to delineate the multilevel nature of other catastrophes (Somasundaram and Sivayokan, 2013), and occasionally in the context of (2) climate research (Xue et al., 2024). However, all three of these elements have yet to be comprehensively integrated. Due to the bidirectional interactions between levels, it is also difficult to draw distinct boundaries; the individual’s psychology influences the collective’s, and the collective psyche influences individuals.

Reimagining climate change as a collective trauma through Ecological Systems thus acknowledges a social fabric (Erikson, 1976) and collective psyche (Masson and Harms Smith, 2019) that exist and experience trauma as an ongoing wounding (Alvarez and Farinde-Wu, 2022; Woodbury, 2019). Impacts and interventions occur at each level, which bidirectionally influence each other, and all levels together due to climate change. The amalgamation of these experiences together constitute the collective traumatic experience of climate change (see Table 1 for terms). Drawing inspiration from previous work (Somasundaram and Sivayokan, 2013; Xue et al., 2024), we apply Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory to illustrate individual, community, and systemic impacts of climate change that together constitute a collective traumatic experience (Figure 1). This framework is then used to discuss possible clinical and community interventions.

Table 1. Definitions of key terms.

TermDefinition
Climate AnxietyThe threat-related emotion and mental state related to the climate crisis (Pihkala, 2022).
Collective TraumaA shared experience of a large-scale catastrophic event, often resulting in a tear in the social fabric (Erikson, 1976; Somasundaram, 2003) or wounding to the collective psyche (Koh, 2021; Masson and Harms Smith, 2019)
Collective DissociationOne manifestation of the psychosocial impacts of climate change at the macro level, marked by a collective apathy or numbing in response to the existential threat of climate change (Bednarek, 2021; Shomuyiwa and Lucero-Prisno, 2025)
Climate Change through the lens of Collective Trauma and Ecological SystemsAn ongoing wounding to the social fabric and collective psyche, caused by the devastating psychosocial impacts of climate change at each level (micro, meso, exo, macro, chrono), interacting across levels, and all levels together.

Table 1 provides an overview of key terms and their definitions. We distinguish between climate anxiety, collective trauma, collective dissociation, and our framing of Climate Change through the lens of Collective Trauma and Ecological Systems.

Multilevel psychosocial impacts and interventions for climate change. **Figure 1** provides examples of psychosocial impacts of and interventions for climate change at each level – micro, meso, exo, marco, and chrono.
Figure 1. Multilevel psychosocial impacts and interventions for climate change. Figure 1 provides examples of psychosocial impacts of and interventions for climate change at each level – micro, meso, exo, marco, and chrono.

3 Climate change through the lens of collective trauma and ecological systems theory

3.1 Microsystem – individual

3.1.1 Impacts

At the Micro/Individual level, climate change is associated with numerous deleterious mental health effects (Balbus et al., 2016). In particular, acute weather events are often associated with post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as mood disorders (depression, anxiety), substance use and/or suicidality (Cianconi et al., 2020). Meanwhile, the existential threat of long-term and permanent climate catastrophe is associated with “psychoterratic syndromes” such as eco-anxiety, eco-paralysis, and solastalgia – emotions related to the potential loss of one’s home or environment (Albrecht, 2011; Cianconi et al., 2023; Palinkas and Wong, 2020).

While everyone is susceptible to these impacts, an intersectional analysis notes that marginalized and vulnerable populations are at greater risk for exposure and acute impacts (McMichael, 2017; Hayes et al., 2018). Nevertheless, the individual-level impacts of climate change are not only deleterious; climate change can also facilitate psychosocial growth, such as post-traumatic growth, increased empathy and compassion, and resilience (Sattler et al., 2023; Sholomon et al., 2025).

3.1.2 Interventions

Individual-level interventions have focused on building inner resources to support mental health. Traditional psychotherapeutic interventions (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, etc.) are widely accepted interventions to reduce individual negative psychosocial impacts of climate change (Cordiner and Gillingham, 2025). Other interventions, such as interacting with greenspace and blue space (Masterton et al., 2021; Grace et al., 2024), and engaging in deep ecology movement principles (Baard, 2015) also benefit mental health. Additionally, increasing social connection, joining support groups, and engaging in climate activism are found to be supportive (Baudon and Jachens, 2021; Lawrance et al., 2022). This importantly highlights the bidirectional nature of our framework, where engaging with meso- and exo-systems can benefit individual mental health, and in reverse, individuals can contribute to supportive community and social change.

3.2 Mesosystem - families

3.2.1 Impacts

At the Meso/Family level, we explore impacts on individual roles within family systems (i.e., caregivers, children), and the family system as a whole.

Children and Caregivers. Climate change events are associated with increased rates of health and mental health disorders amongst children, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, respiratory illness, increased malnutrition, etc (Proulx et al., 2024). Further, children are more vulnerable to these impacts because of their ongoing physiological development (Sanson et al., 2018). Despite perceptions that children may be unaware of the existential nature of climate change, research shows that children as young as eight years old endorse worry about the status of the planet, with one study finding 70% of those aged 8–16 expressing such concerns (Léger-Goodes et al., 2022; Atherton, 2020). Children and youth endorse significant eco-anxiety, and Indigenous youth are especially susceptible (Léger-Goodes et al., 2022).

Among caregivers, reduced responsiveness and capacity are observed due to increased stress and anxiety from climate-events (Proulx et al., 2024). For example, low-income mothers experiencing financial strain following Hurricane Katrina were found to have decreased parenting efficacy, or families with greater hurricane exposure and decreased social support in Puerto Rico were found to have decreased parent-child relationship quality and involvement (Proulx et al., 2024). These examples highlight differential vulnerability within families based on intersecting, structural factors.

Family Systems. At the family system level, climate change has been found to impact fertility decisions, marriage rates, and separations. A rapid review found that drought exposure amongst women in 17 African countries predicted a desire to delay child-bearing, while flood and drought exposure in several South Asian countries was associated with increased early marriage and teenage pregnancies (Cuartas et al., 2026). Disruptions in family closeness and connectedness may also occur. Increased drought experiences in India are associated with a higher likelihood of family separation, especially among poorer families (Cuartas et al., 2026; Sarkar et al., 2022). In other contexts, the opposite may be true – a study from the United States found that familial physical closeness increased post-tornado experience (Cuartas et al., 2026; Wang et al., 2022). While these climate events are different types of exposures, they demonstrate structural differences among Global South vs Global North experiences, and once again emphasize a need for an intersectional analytic lens.

3.2.2 Interventions

At the meso level, interventions within family systems and school contexts support wellbeing and climate action. Preliminary studies find that discussions about climate change in the family context and parental behaviors predict children’s increased participation in climate change mitigation behaviors (Lawson et al., 2019). Family therapists may also play a role in introducing ecological considerations to families in nondirective, non-coercive ways (Palmer, 2025), or embodying relational approaches that foster conversation and curiosity about tackling the climate crisis (Dunk et al., 2025). Further, solutions-oriented classroom discussions that emphasize youth’s ability to make change are beneficial (Léger-Goodes et al., 2022). Empowering parents and educators to discuss climate change from a positive, solutions-focused perspective may support youth wellbeing by reinforcing their efficacy, and lead to more youth engaging in climate action.

3.3 Exosystem – communities

3.3.1 Impacts

Notably, psychosocial impacts at the Exo/Community level and above are significantly undertheorized and understudied (Hayes et al., 2018; Li et al., 2023). Nevertheless, preliminary research suggests community-level impacts primarily manifest as increased social disconnection, interpersonal and interpersonal conflict, decreased community cohesion, and loss of community identity (Dorji et al., 2023; Hayes et al., 2018; Li et al., 2023). One study identified 14% increases in intergroup conflict for each standard deviation change in temperatures (Hsiang et al., 2013; Lawrance et al., 2022). Other community impacts involve forced displacement and migration of entire communities, leading to group disconnection from homelands and loss of communal belonging (Fatima, 2022; Hayes et al., 2018; Lawrance et al., 2022). Once again, an intersectional analysis indicates that communities facing structural oppression in the form of poverty, social inequality and environmental injustice are most likely to experience the brunt of these impacts in addition to grappling with long-standing legacies of exploitation and historical oppression (Alvarez and Farinde-Wu, 2022; González-Hidalgo et al., 2022; Hayes et al., 2018). For example, Northern First Nations and Inuit Indigenous communities are at heightened risk of livelihood disruption due to climate change disrupting wildlife and sea ice, as well as a disruption to communal identity and connection to place (Dorji et al., 2023; Kipp et al., 2019).

3.3.2 Interventions

A loss, or traumatic experience at this community level is best approached through a community level healing intervention (Hubl, 2020) that facilitates community cohesion, connection, and identity (Lawrance et al., 2022; Qamar, 2023).This has been identified by some as a “Social Capital Approach” (Qamar, 2023). In post-conflict contexts, such interventions have involved reviving lost and suppressed community practices and rituals (or creating novel ones; Somasundaram and Sivayokan, 2013). In climate change contexts, exploratory interventions have involved community gardens and kitchens, reviving Indigenous practices through intergenerational knowledge transfer in Indigenous communities, and creation of collaboratives and co-ops, such as the Sonoma Wildfire Mental Health Collaborative (Xue et al., 2024). In conjunction with individual healing, such as encouraging individuals to join community action, this supports a sense of solidarity, reduces isolation by building social ties, promotes shared identities, and supports sustainable changes at both micro and exo levels (Shomuyiwa and Lucero-Prisno, 2025). Community organizing, mutual aid networks, and community-led resilience hubs are also examples of community-led interventions at this level (Xue et al., 2024).

3.4 Macrosystem – society/values/culture

The Macro/Society/Value level, similar to the exosystem, is where collective climate trauma has the power to be further entrenched, or recognized and addressed.

3.4.1 Impacts

The macrosystem interplays with every system nested within – micro, meso, exo.

While each individual, family, community experiences the ripple effects of affective states within their own context, at the societal level, they combine to co-create a collective affect. Similar to other post-disaster contexts (Somasundaram and Sivayokan, 2013), a collective hopelessness, nihilism, and distrust in society may present. Bednarek (2021) and Shomuyiwa and Lucero-Prisno (2025) name this as “collective dissociation,” a coping mechanism in which the existential threat of climate change is so overwhelming that there is a sense of dissociation and collective apathy.

These macro psychosocial impacts also manifest on the global stage. Deteriorating multilateralism and decreased global cooperation both impede efforts to address climate change and are a result of protectionist and isolationist policies pursued by countries in response to collective climate challenges (Martine and Alves, 2019). An intersectional analysis also necessitates again noting power differences, here between Global North and South countries. Global North countries (i.e., the United States, European countries) contribute 92% of excess carbon emissions (Pardikar, 2020), while Global South countries (i.e., in sub-Saharan Africa, Southwest Asia, South and Southeast Asia) bear a disproportionate share of climate-mortality (Singer and Negev, 2026). Yet, the United States has most aggressively pursued environmental deregulation, nationalism, isolationism, and reneged on climate commitments (Martine and Alves, 2019), while countries most vulnerable but least responsible for climate change bear the disproportionate impacts of such policies.

3.4.2 Interventions

Macro-level interventions require large-scale systemic and cultural change. A national level commitment to climate change related education, poverty reduction, sustainable capacity building, mental health and wellbeing support would be needed (Xue et al., 2024). Culturally, cultivating values of trust, diversity and decolonial, anti-racist practices could support the intergenerational trauma that may be impacting a climate of oppression, mistrust or threat (Linklater, 2014). Collective action and mass movements that channel feelings of disempowerment and dispossession towards change can counter collective despair and climate nihilism (Xue et al., 2024). In the face of deteriorating global multilateralism, “minilateralism” or ‘climate clubs’ composed of countries committed to climate mitigation may be desirable and politically feasible alternatives (Falkner et al., 2022). Implementing such interventions at the macro level may also lead to bidirectional change at the micro, meso, and exo levels.

3.5 Chronosystem – time

3.5.1 Impacts

At the Chrono/Time level, an understanding of the true breadth of collective trauma must include a longitudinal lens reflecting the timeline and scale of climate injustice (González-Hidalgo et al., 2022). The scale, severity, and extent of climate catastrophe is unlike anything ever seen before in human history. The existentially threatening nature of this circumstance disrupts all concepts of time and future planning for individuals, families, communities, and societies – all the levels nested within the chronosystem. Within families, children are found to have mass anxiety while parents are increasingly tasked with preparing their children for an uncertain future and world altered by climate catastrophes (Sanson et al., 2018). Unlike the generations that have come before us, the assumption that a livable planet capable of sustaining life will exist in fifty-years is no longer a guarantee. Youth in particular are most impacted by time and future-related impacts of climate change, and multiple generations over time may be exposed to traumatic-like conditioning (Hubl, 2020) if climate change continues unabated.

3.5.2 Interventions

Interventions at the chrono level involve a shift in temporal scales (Baard, 2015). This level of change requires a deep acceptance and understanding of individual impermanence and the role of generational stewardship. Taking guidance from Indigenous worldviews, in particular the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, the Seventh Generation Principle can support present day individuals, communities and governments to consider the impact of their behavior seven generations into the future (Law et al., 2025; Park et al., 2023). In this sense it is important to remember that while the global scale of climate catastrophe may be new, historically marginalized communities have faced catastrophe and have had to begin anew many times over. Recognizing these truths while embodying the principles of true interconnectedness of the individual and collective experience across place, space and time will support intergenerational equity (Park et al., 2023).

4 Discussion and conclusion

This piece offers a novel, integrated perspective emphasizing the multilevel, intersectional, and collective traumatic nature of climate change. By bringing together Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, collective trauma literature, and intersectionality, we briefly illustrated climate psychosocial impacts and interventions at each level (micro, meso, exo, macro, chrono) and all levels together that combine to create the collective traumatic experience of climate change.

While we attempted to highlight the necessity of an intersectional analysis at every level, this piece provided only a broad, high-level perspective. Deeply-rooted research and interventions in partnership with and led by the most impacted communities are necessary to truly embody intersectionality and address inequitable climate impacts. Further, while we attempted to explicate impacts and interventions at every level, it is important to note that limited empirical literature exists on exo, macro, and chrono-levels. In conjunction with others (Li et al., 2023; Xue et al., 2024) we underscore the need for research beyond the individual level.

We hope the perspective offered here may be used to support and frame such future empirical work at the community and society levels. The use of collective trauma framing is not intended to endorse collective despair or feelings of helplessness, but the opposite. We hope that recognizing the collective wounding of climate change will add to the growing number of scholarly voices endorsing community-level research, community resistance, and collective action as legitimate interventions to the climate crisis. While the collective traumatic experience of climate change may be reality, so too is the possibility of collective action. By explicating impacts and interventions at every level, we hope policymakers, helping professionals, and communities have additional intellectual tools to begin to collectively tackle the climate crisis.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. No generative AI was used in the drafting of this manuscript. All written work in the body of the piece is our own. AI tools were used to reformat references from APA to Harvard styles during the final revision phases of the manuscript. References were then verified by the authors following AI-assisted reformatting.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Jamie K. Reaser, Rain Crow Consulting, United States

Reviewed by: Amjad Mizyed, Islamic University of Gaza, Palestine

Statements

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author contributions

MN: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Visualization. SE: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the reviewers and editors for their helpful feedback. We would especially like to thank Jamie K. Reaser for her support and guidance throughout the submission process of this manuscript. We also thank all of the researchers and practitioners who have theorized and researched climate change and collective trauma, making our work and future interventions possible.

References

  1. Albrecht G. (2011). “ Chronic environmental change: Emerging ‘psychoterratic’ syndromes,” in Climate Change and Human Well-Being. International and Cultural Psychology. Ed. Weissbecker I. (Springer, New York, NY). doi: doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-9742-5_3
  2. Alvarez A. J., Farinde-Wu A. (2022). Advancing a holistic trauma framework for collective healing from colonial abuses. Aera Open 8. doi: doi:10.1177/23328584221114416
  3. Atallah D. G., Abu-Jamei Y. M. (2025). Rethinking trauma against a genocidal world: Palestinian healing is a sound of our victory. J. Palest. Stud. 54, 51 – 61. doi: doi:10.1080/0377919X.2025.2481819
  4. Atherton R. (2020). Climate anxiety: Survey for BBC Newsround shows children losing sleep over climate change and the environment (BBC Newsround). Available online at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/51451737 (Accessed June 23, 2026).
  5. Baard P. (2015). Managing climate change: A view from deep ecology. Ethics Environ. 20, 23 – 44. doi: doi:10.2979/ethicsenviro.20.1.23
  6. Balbus J., Crimmins A., Gamble J. L., Easterling D. R., Kunkel K. E., Saha S.. (2016). “ Executive summary,” in The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment (U.S. Global Change Research Program).
  7. Baudon P., Jachens L. (2021). A scoping review of interventions for the treatment of eco-anxiety. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 9636. doi: doi:10.3390/ijerph18189636
  8. Bednarek S. (2021). Climate change, fragmentation and collective trauma: Bridging the divided stories we live by. J. Soc Work. Pract. 35, 5 – 17. doi: doi:10.1080/02650533.2020.1834835
  9. Boon H. J., Cottrell A., King D., Stevenson R. B., Millar J. (2012). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory for modelling community resilience to natural disasters. Nat. Hazards 60, 381 – 408. doi: doi:10.1007/s11069-011-0021-4
  10. Bronfenbrenner U. (1994). “ Ecological models of human development,” in International Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd, vol. 3. Eds. Husén T., Postlethwaite T. N.
  11. Bronfenbrenner U., Ceci S. J. (1994). Nature–nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychol. Rev. Oxford, United Kingdom and New York, New York: Elsevier Science. 101, 568 – 586. doi: doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568
  12. Cianconi P., Betrò S., Janiri L. (2020). The impact of climate change on mental health: A systematic descriptive review. Front. Psychiatry 11, 490206. doi: doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00074
  13. Cianconi P., Hanife B., Grillo F., Betro S., Lesmana C. B. J., Janiri L. (2023). Eco-emotions and psychoterratic syndromes: Reshaping mental health assessment under climate change. Yale J. Biol. Med. 96, 211 – 226. doi: doi:10.59249/EARX2427
  14. Cordiner R., Gillingham E. (2025). Climate Change and Mental Health: Thematic Assessment Report (UK Health Security Agency).
  15. Crenshaw K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. U. Chi. Legal F. 1, 139 – 167. doi: doi:10.4324/9780429499142-5
  16. Cuartas J., Ramírez-Varela L., Spitzer J., Brieant A., Ghazanfar A., Lansford J. E.. (2026). Climate change, families, and human development: Review of the evidence. J. Cogn. Dev. 27, 3 – 25. doi: doi:10.1080/15248372.2025.2468187
  17. Dorji T., Morrison-Saunders A., Blake D. (2023). Understanding how community wellbeing is affected by climate change: Evidence from a systematic literature review. Environ. Manage. 72, 568 – 586. doi: doi:10.1007/s00267-023-01833-w
  18. Dunk J., Watfern C., Falco C., Gillespie S., Monaghan G., Rhodes P.. (2025). Navigating family systems in climate catastrophe: An open dialogue. Aust. N. Z. J. Fam. Ther. 46, e70002. doi: doi:10.1002/anzf.70002
  19. Erikson K. T. (1976). Disaster at Buffalo Creek: Loss of communality at Buffalo Creek. Am. J. Psychiatry 133, 302 – 305. doi: doi:10.12987/yale/9780300106671.003.0005
  20. Eriksson M., Ghazinour M., Hammarström A. (2018). Different uses of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory in public mental health research. Soc Theory Health 16, 414 – 433. doi: doi:10.1057/s41285-018-0065-6
  21. Falkner R., Nasiritousi N., Reischl G. (2022). Climate clubs: Politically feasible and desirable ? Clim. Policy 22, 480 – 487. doi: doi:10.1080/14693062.2021.1967717
  22. Fatima E. (2022). Impact of climate change on individual and community mental health. J. Dev. Policy Res. Pract. 6, 85 – 103. doi: doi:10.59926/jodprp.vol06/06
  23. Galway L. P., Beery T., Jones-Casey K., Tasala K. (2019). Mapping the solastalgia literature: A scoping review study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, 2662. doi: doi:10.3390/ijerph16152662
  24. González-Hidalgo M., Del Bene D., Iniesta-Arandia I., Piñeiro C. (2022). Emotional healing as part of environmental and climate justice processes. Pol. Geogr. 98, 102721. doi: doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102721
  25. Grace M., Dickie J., Brown C., Bartie P., Oliver D. M. (2024). Using solicited research diaries to assess the restorative potential of exposure to inland blue space across time. Landsc. Urban Plan. 241, 104904. doi: doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104904
  26. Hawkins R. (2025). Mental Health Vulnerability Index (MHVI) (UCL Warning Research Centre).
  27. Hayes K., Blashki G., Wiseman J., Burke S., Reifels L. (2018). Climate change and mental health: Risks, impacts and priority actions. Int. J. Ment. Health Syst. 12, 28. doi: doi:10.1186/s13033-018-0210-6
  28. Hsiang S. M., Burke M., Miguel E. (2013). Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict. Science 341, 1235367. doi: doi:10.1126/science.1235367
  29. Hubl T. (2020). Healing Collective Trauma: A Process for Integrating Our Intergenerational and Cultural Wounds (Sounds True).
  30. Kipp A., Cunsolo A., Vodden K., King N., Manners S., Harper S. L. (2019). At-a-glance Climate change impacts on health and wellbeing in rural and remote regions across Canada: A synthesis of the literature. Health Promot. Chronic Dis. Prev. Can. 39, 122. doi: doi:10.24095/hpcdp.39.4.02
  31. Koh E. (2021). The healing of historical collective trauma. Gsp 15, 115 – 133. doi: doi:10.5038/1911-9933.15.1.1776
  32. Kurth C., Pihkala P. (2022). Eco-anxiety: What it is and why it matters. Front. Psychol. 13, 981814. doi: doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.981814
  33. Law K. F., Syropoulos S., Young L., O’Connor B. B. (2025). Mapping prescriptive beliefs on seventh generation stewardship. Sci. Rep. 15, 37618. doi: doi:10.1038/s41598-025-37618-0
  34. Lawrance E. L., Thompson R., Newberry Le Vay J., Page L., Jennings N. (2022). The impact of climate change on mental health and emotional wellbeing: A narrative review of current evidence, and its implications. Int. Rev. Psychiatry 34, 443 – 498. doi: doi:10.1080/09540261.2022.2128725
  35. Lawson D. F., Stevenson K. T., Peterson M. N., Carrier S. J., Seekamp E., Strnad R. (2019). Evaluating climate change behaviors and concern in the family context. Environ. Educ. Res. 25, 678 – 690. doi: doi:10.1080/13504622.2018.1490453
  36. Léger-Goodes T., Malboeuf-Hurtubise C., Mastine T., Généreux M., Paradis P. O., Camden C. (2022). Eco-anxiety in children. Front. Psychol. 13, 872544. doi: doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872544
  37. Li A., Toll M., Bentley R. (2023). Mapping social vulnerability indicators to understand the health impacts of climate change: A scoping review. Lancet Planet. Health 7, e925 – e937. doi: doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(23)00216-4
  38. Linklater R. (2014). Decolonizing Trauma Work: Indigenous Stories and Strategies (Fernwood Publishing).
  39. Martine G., Alves J. E. D. (2019). Disarray in global governance and climate change chaos. Rev. Bras. Estud. Popul. 36, e0075. doi: doi:10.20947/S102-3098a0075
  40. Masson F., Harms Smith L. (2019). “ Colonisation as collective trauma: Fundamental perspectives for social work,” in Handbook of Post-Colonial Social Work. Eds. Kleibl T., Lutz R., Noyoo N. (Routledge).
  41. Masterton W., Park K., Carver H., Parkes T. (2021). Greenspace programmes for mental health. Health Place 72, 102669. doi: doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2021.102669
  42. McMichael A. (2017). Climate Change and the Health of Nations: Famines, Fevers, and the Fate of Populations (Oxford University Press).
  43. Mercado R. H. M. (2026). Writing from colonial trauma: Land, knowledge, and indigenous refusal. Feminist Anthropol., e70043. doi: doi:10.1002/fea2.70043
  44. Mikulewicz M., Caretta M. A., Sultana F., Crawford N. J. W. (2023). Intersectionality & climate justice: A call for synergy in climate change scholarship. Environ. Polit. 32, 1275 – 1286. doi: doi:10.1080/09644016.2023.2188376
  45. Palinkas L. A., Wong M. (2020). Global climate change and mental health. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 32, 12 – 16. doi: doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.023
  46. Palmer H. (2025). The pattern which connects: Drawing parallels between family systems and climate change through Bateson’s cybernetic epistemology. Aust. N. Z. J. Fam. Ther. 46, e70006. doi: doi:10.1002/anzf.70006
  47. Pardikar R. (2020). Global North is responsible for 92% of excess emissions. Eos 101. doi: doi:10.1029/2020eo150969
  48. Park J., Wilcox K., Ineese-Nash N. (2023). A world fit for the next seven generations: Upholding indigenous rights for the foundation of a sustainable future. Can. J. Child. Rights/Rev Can. droits enf. 10, 5 – 29. doi: doi:10.22215/cjcr.v10i2.4483
  49. Pihkala P. (2022). Toward a taxonomy of climate emotions. Front. Clim. 3, 738154. doi: doi:10.3389/fclim.2021.738154
  50. Proulx K., Daelmans B., Baltag V., Banati P. (2024). Climate change impacts on child and adolescent health and well-being: A narrative review. J. Glob. Health 14, 4061. doi: doi:10.7189/jogh.14.04061
  51. Qamar A. H. (2023). Social dimensions of resilience and climate change: a rapid review of theoretical approaches. Present Env. Sust. Dev. 17. doi: doi:10.47743/pesd2023171010
  52. Sanson A. V., Burke S. E., Van Hoorn J. (2018). Climate change: implications for parents and parenting. Parenting 18, 200 – 217. doi: doi:10.1080/15295192.2018.1465307
  53. Sarkar B., Dutta S., Singh P. K., Sarker M. N. I. (2022). Drought and temporary migration in rural India. PLoS One 17, e0275449. doi: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275449
  54. Sattler D. N., Graham J. M., Whippy A., Atienza R., Johnson J. (2023). Developing a climate change risk perception model in the Philippines and Fiji: posttraumatic growth plays central role. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 20, 1518. doi: doi:10.3390/ijerph20021518
  55. Sholomon L., Sikora M., Xue D., Moss R. A., Yu X., Murtezaoglu B.. (2025). Maternal Eco-Distress as catalyst for post-traumatic growth amidst climate change. Ecopsychology 17, 247 – 263. doi: doi:10.1089/eco.2024.0070
  56. Shomuyiwa D. O., Lucero-Prisno D. E. (2025). Climate change trauma and collective dissociation. Glob. Ment. Health (Camb.) 12, e5. doi: doi:10.1017/gmh.2025.5
  57. Singer M. E., Negev M. (2026). Disparate climate change health costs: the emissions, vulnerability, and readiness nexus. EcoHealth 23, 11 – 17. doi: doi:10.1007/s10393-025-01761-7
  58. Somasundaram D. (2003). Collective trauma in Sri Lanka. Intervention 1, 2 – 11. doi: doi:10.1186/1752-4458-4-22
  59. Somasundaram D., Sivayokan S. (2013). Rebuilding community resilience in a post-war context. Int. J. Ment. Health Syst. 7, 1 – 25. doi: doi:10.1186/1752-4458-7-3
  60. Thomas K., Hardy R. D., Lazrus H., Mendez M., Orlove B., Rivera-Collazo I.. (2019). Explaining differential vulnerability to climate change. WIREs Clim. Change 10, e565. doi: doi:10.1002/wcc.565
  61. Wang W., Foutz N. Z., Gao G., Sarker M. N. I. (2022). Huddling with families after disaster. PLoS One 17, e0273307. doi: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0273307
  62. Woodbury Z. (2019). Climate trauma: toward a new taxonomy of trauma. Ecopsychology 11, 1 – 8. doi: doi:10.1089/eco.2018.0021
  63. Xue S., Massazza A., Akhter-Khan S. C., Wray B., Husain M. I., Lawrance E. L. (2024). Mental health and psychosocial interventions in the context of climate change: a scoping review. NPJ Ment. Health Res. 3, 10. doi: doi:10.1038/s44184-024-00054-1

Citation

Nallajerla, M. & Engstrom, S. (2026). Climate change and the collective: understanding climate change through the lens of collective trauma and ecological systems theory. Frontiers in Conservation Science, Volume 7. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
7 - 2026

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Nallajerla and Engstrom.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Meghana Nallajerla

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

Original ResearchHuman-Hippopotamus conflicts and socio-ecological tensions in the Ruzizi plain: a one health and political ecology perspectiveEsther Mufungizi Ahana, Marie Shangalume Fadhili, François Mmunga Assumani, Christian Zagabe Muderhwa, Gustave Nachigera MushagalusaPerspectiveCyclic droughts, flooding and collective trauma: an environmental feedback loop to inform governance and socio-ecological resilience in Kenya’s rift valleyGilbert O. Obwoyere, Scott JonesHypothesis and TheoryThe Arid Zone Pollinator Paradox: hidden resilience erosion and structural-functional decoupling in dryland pollination systemsRachid Sabbahi