A systematic review of 10 studies across 9,439 adolescents and young adults identifies five interconnected protective domains for climate resilience, though the evidence remains early-stage and lacks standardized measurement tools.
Climate-related stress is becoming a documented mental health concern for young people. This systematic review, which screened nearly 7,000 references to identify 10 rigorous studies, maps the current landscape of how adolescents and young adults develop resilience in the face of climate-related stressors. The research synthesizes findings from high-income countries (USA, Germany, Australia) alongside lower-income settings with greater climate vulnerability (Thailand, Nepal, South Africa, Uganda), providing a genuinely international perspective on a globally relevant problem.
The five protective domains that emerged represent interconnected psychological and social systems rather than isolated factors. First, connection to culture, community, and nature appeared consistently across studies as a foundation for climate resilience. This includes cultural identity, community belonging, and direct engagement with natural environments. Second, supportive social networks, particularly family and peer relationships, functioned as buffers against climate-related anxiety. Third, youth agency and engagement—the sense that young people could meaningfully participate in climate solutions—showed associations with better psychological outcomes. Fourth, education and preparedness, including climate literacy and disaster preparedness training, correlated with lower distress. Fifth, psychological skills like emotional regulation and coping strategies rounded out the protective constellation.
The evidence also identified vulnerability factors worth noting. Gender differences emerged as significant in some studies, though the direction and magnitude varied by context. Prior disaster experience operated inconsistently: some young people developed adaptive responses after exposure, while others showed increased vulnerability. This heterogeneity underscores that climate resilience is not a fixed trait but a dynamic process shaped by individual, social, and ecological contexts.
A critical limitation surfaces immediately: none of the 10 included studies provided a clear, consistent definition of resilience itself. Studies used different measurement approaches, including the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), the Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM-R), and related constructs like coping and self-efficacy. This conceptual fragmentation makes it difficult to synthesize findings or compare outcomes across populations. The authors highlight this as a significant gap: without standardized resilience definitions and measures specific to climate contexts, future research risks talking past itself. The studies rated as high quality (70% of the total) used more rigorous methods, but quality does not substitute for conceptual clarity.
This review does not establish that any specific intervention "prevents" climate anxiety or builds resilience in young people. Instead, it maps the terrain of protective factors and identifies promising directions for future work. Several implications emerge for parents, educators, and policy makers:
For parents and communities: The consistency of "connection to nature" and "supportive social networks" across studies suggests that facilitating nature exposure, forest bathing, and social connection are low-friction ways to support young people. These protective factors do not require specialized interventions; they reflect basic developmental needs.
For schools and educators: Climate literacy combined with emotional regulation skills appears in multiple studies. This is not about increasing climate anxiety through doom-focused education, but rather pairing factual climate information with concrete tools for emotional processing. The research suggests that participatory, action-oriented programs (where youth help design solutions rather than passively receiving information) may be more protective than information-only approaches.
For young people: The emphasis on "youth agency" is notable. Feeling heard, having input into decisions that affect you, and participating in collective action emerged as protective across studies. This points to the psychological benefit of moving from passive worry to active engagement, though the mechanisms remain incompletely understood.
Important caveat: The evidence base remains small and methodologically heterogeneous. The 10 included studies involved 9,439 total participants, but were spread across different designs, populations, and outcome measures. Claims about what "works" are premature. What the review establishes is: (1) climate-related stress among youth is real and measurable, (2) certain social and psychological factors correlate with better outcomes in current studies, and (3) more rigorous, standardized research is needed before drawing firm conclusions about intervention efficacy.
| Factor | Details |
|---|---|
| Study Type | Systematic review of 10 studies (2 qualitative, 4 quantitative, 4 mixed-method) |
| Total Sample | 9,439 participants across all 10 studies |
| Age Range | 10-25 years (adolescents and young adults) |
| Geographic Scope | High-income countries (USA, Germany, Australia), Asian LMICs (Thailand, Nepal), sub-Saharan Africa (South Africa, Uganda) |
| Gender Distribution | Approximately equal across included studies |
| Quality Assessment | 70% of studies rated as high quality using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool |
| Key Limitation | No standardized definition of resilience across studies; heterogeneous measurement approaches |
| Journal | BMC Public Health |
| Publication Year | 2025 |
| PROSPERO Registration |
Petzold MB, et al. Resilience of adolescents and young adults towards climate-related stressors: a systematic review. *BMC Public Health*. 2025. PubMed: 42168931
ProtocolEngine provides general health information based on published research. This is not medical advice. Consult a healthcare professional before starting any supplement or health protocol.
| CRD42025644668 |