News

The first global stocktake of urban climate change research has found a critical blind spot, with rapidly growing cities from the Global South underrepresented in studies.

New analysis from the University of Sussex and the University of Bern, covering more than 53,000 scientific publications, highlights a fundamental imbalance in where climate science is focused—and where it is not.

The researchers found fast-growing, smaller cities, especially in Africa and Asia, are significantly underrepresented. Out of nearly 20,000 spatially specific case studies, only a tiny fraction address these rapidly urbanising areas, despite their importance for climate mitigation and adaptation.

"This is a major blind spot," said Prof Felix Creutzig, Chair of the Bennett Institute at the University of Sussex. "These cities are where the bulk of future emissions and climate vulnerabilities will be concentrated. Yet they’re missing from our global knowledge bank."

The study reveals that less than one in twelve African cities is covered by more than one piece of climate change research, with many absent from the evidence base altogether. Across much of South and South East Asia coverage is similarly sparse. In contrast, cities in Europe, North America, and Oceania—many of which have slower growth rates and well-established infrastructures—are far more frequently studied.

In fact cities that are growing fastest are significantly less likely to be studied. Those with no more than one climate study have markedly higher average population growth than those with more than five studies. This means some of the fastest-growing urban areas on the planet remain largely unexamined by climate scientists, while the per capita research coverage in the Global North is roughly double that of the Global South.

The authors believe this skew may be rooted in academic geography, with researchers more likely to study places near where they live or those they are institutionally connected to. As Prof Creutzig put it, "Academia knows New York, Berlin, and London—but it does not know Kisumu, Khulna, or Kandahar."

The implications are serious. Without better representation of fast-growing cities, global science assessments such as those by the IPCC risk being based on biased evidence. The study finds that only 4.6% of the available literature on urban climate change was cited in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), with strong preferences for large, well-documented cities.

Despite a rapidly growing literature—84% of which has emerged since 2012—urban climate research remains fragmented. Technology-focused solutions such as smart energy grids, radiative cooling, or efficient public transport systems are underrepresented in assessments, despite showing promising climate benefits in the wider research.

To address these issues, the authors call for better synthesis of existing case studies, especially those relevant to adaptation and mitigation in the Global South, the creation of city typologies to facilitate cross-city learning and targeted efforts to fill geographic data gaps. This also follows a recent call by Creutzig and colleagues, also published in Nature Cities, asking for better evidence assessments on cities and climate change.

The researchers have published an interactive evidence map to help scientists, policymakers, and city planners access relevant research more easily. This includes city-specific and general urban climate studies, enabling better assessments to support the upcoming IPCC Special Report on Cities.