About

Rachael L. Shwom is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Human Ecology at Rutgers University. Her research focuses on risk, energy, climate, and society, with a particular emphasis on sustainability governance. She is involved in interdisciplinary social science research that develops and assesses new forms of environmental governance, especially in the context of the Anthropocene. This work requires innovations across knowledge systems, coproduction of solutions with multiple empowered stakeholders, and advances in understanding desirable futures and how to achieve them. Shwom is part of a National Science Foundation funded planning grant for the Centers for Research and Innovation in Science, the Environment and Society (CRISES), which is developing a Center on Sustainability and Governance in the Anthropocene (C-SAGA). She also contributes to training early career Ph.D. students in governance and sustainability through workshops and summer schools that emphasize interdisciplinary scholarship, collaboration, and essential skills such as collaborative governance, science communication, social science methods, and grant and publication guidance. Her scholarly work engages with the complexities of climate change, including exploring climate tipping points and the conditions under which societies act proactively to address long-term risks before crises occur. Shwom's research draws from economics, psychology, sociology, and political science to understand factors influencing long-term risk governance, highlighting the fragmented nature of existing theories and the need for cohesive, empirically grounded approaches. She has also contributed to the field of human ecology by examining the interactions among humans, animals, and the biophysical environment, emphasizing the role of human values, social structures, and social psychological constructs in shaping environmental behavior and attitudes. Her work is characterized by a commitment to both quantitative and qualitative methods and incorporates critical realist and social constructionist paradigms.

Research topics

• Political Science
• Sociology
• Economics
• Ecology
• Social Science
• Marketing
• Psychology
• Business
• Computer Science
• Geography
• Engineering
• Environmental ethics
• Political economy
• Public relations
• Gender studies
• Environmental resource management
• Environmental planning
• Econometrics
• Public economics
• Microeconomics
• Environmental economics

Selected publications

• Decision-Making Under Organized Irresponsibility: Climate Change and Extreme Weather

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2026-01-01

  preprintOpen access
  PublisherDOI

• Survey Sampling and Gauging the American Public's Energy Preferences – are We Missing Voices?

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2025-01-01

  preprintOpen access1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Climate change will surprise us, but so-called ‘tipping points’ may lead us astray

  Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists · 2025-03-04 · 1 citations

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Reflections on Energy Efficiency Policies in Sustainable Transition: Bedrock, Gamechanger, or More of the Same?

  Environmental Policy and Governance · 2025-09-16

  articleOpen access

  ABSTRACT In this study, we analyze how energy efficiency actions, policies, and outcomes are tied to wider socio‐economic and political contexts that are important from a sustainable energy transition perspective. In our two‐part study, we first conduct a bibliometric analysis of 206 publications to identify some of the dominant discourses in the literary construction of energy efficiency actions and outcomes from a sustainable energy transition policy perspective using keywords–energy efficiency, energy policy, sustainable transition, political, conflict, consumption, and equity. Next, we identify and take up five comparatively understudied themes to understand the how and why questions surrounding residential energy efficiency actions, policies, and outcomes for sustainable transition‐(i) efficiency versus consumption; (ii) barriers and conflicts at the individual, household, and institutional levels; (iii) policy processes and heterogeneity; (iv) demonstrable savings versus normative ethics and equity ideals; and (v) public policy and market‐based frameworks. Using a multi‐disciplinary lens, we explore the underlying paradigms, dynamics, synergies, and trade‐offs between different actors, institutions, and situational contexts influencing complex energy efficiency policy processes. We note the role of bargaining, negotiations, and political dynamics as important elements of policy processes that influence adoption, applicability, and jurisdictions of energy efficiency policies. Our study also highlights the need for policies that target absolute energy consumption and careful balancing of socially equitable objectives with economically efficient outcomes in a market‐based framework. We believe that a better understanding and comprehensive discussion of these challenges will inform policymaking and ensure better outcomes.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Comparing the Effects of Information on Geoengineering Options Support Across Four Online Samples

  Research Square · 2025-04-29

  preprintOpen accessSenior author
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• 'Tipping points' confuse and can distract from urgent climate action

  2024-01-16 · 6 citations

  preprintOpen access

  Tipping points have gained substantial traction in climate change discourses, both as representing the possibility of catastrophic and irreversible physical and societal impacts and as a way to set in motion positive, rapid and self-sustaining responses, such as the adoption of new technologies, practices, and behaviors. As such, tipping points appear ubiquitous in natural and social systems. Here, we critique 'tipping point' framings, specifically their insufficiency for describing the diverse dynamics of complex systems; their reductionist view of individuals, their agency and their aspirations; and their tendency to convey urgency without fostering a meaningful basis for climate action. We argue for clarifying the scientific discussion of the phenomena lumped under the 'tipping point' umbrella by using more specific language to capture relevant aspects (e.g., irreversibility, abruptness, self-amplification, potential surprise) and for the critical evaluation of whether, how and why the different framings can support accurate scientific understanding and effective climate risk management. Multiple social scientific frameworks suggest that deep uncertainty and perceived abstractness associated with many proposed Earth system 'tipping points' make them both unlikely to provoke effective action and not helpful for setting governance goals that must be sensitive to multiple constraints. The mental model of a 'tipping point' does not align with the multifaceted nature of social change; a broader focus on the dynamics of social transformation is more useful. Temperature-based benchmarks originating in a broad portfolio of concerns already provide a suitable guide for global mitigation policy targets and should not be confused with physical thresholds of the climate system.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Public opinion about solar radiation management: A cross-cultural study in 20 countries around the world

  Climatic Change · 2024-03-29 · 13 citations

  articleOpen access

  Abstract Some argue that complementing climate change mitigation measures with solar radiation management (SRM) might prove a last resort to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. To make a socially responsible decision on whether to use SRM, it is important to consider also public opinion, across the globe and particularly in the Global South, which would face the greatest risks from both global warming and SRM. However, most research on public opinion about SRM stems from the Global North. We report findings from the first large-scale, cross-cultural study on the public opinion about SRM among the general public ( N = 2,248) and students ( N = 4,583) in 20 countries covering all inhabited continents, including five countries from the Global South and five ‘non-WEIRD’ (i.e. not Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic) countries from the Global North. As public awareness of SRM is usually low, we provided participants with information on SRM, including key arguments in favour of and against SRM that appear in the scientific debate. On average, acceptability of SRM was significantly higher in the Global South than in the ‘non-WEIRD’ Global North, while acceptability in the ‘WEIRD’ Global North was in between. However, we found substantial variation within these clusters, especially in the ‘non-WEIRD’ Global North, suggesting that countries do not form homogenous clusters and should thus be considered individually. Moreover, the average participants’ views, while generally neither strong nor polarised, differed from some expert views in important ways, including that participants perceived SRM as only slightly effective in limiting global warming. Still, our data suggests overall a conditional, reluctant acceptance. That is, while on average, people think SRM would have mostly negative consequences, they may still be willing to tolerate it as a potential last resort to fight global warming, particularly if they think SRM has only minor negative (or even positive) impacts on humans and nature.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Effectiveness of conservation messages to reduce households' GHG emissions: A serious-gaming experiment

  Journal of Environmental Management · 2024-01-01 · 11 citations

  article
  PublisherDOI

• ‘Tipping points’ confuse and can distract from urgent climate action

  Nature Climate Change · 2024-12-03 · 39 citations

  articleOpen access
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• ‘Being able to work has kept our life fairly constant:’ reconciling social practice models to assess the impact of (infra)structural inequities on household wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic

  Environmental Research Infrastructure and Sustainability · 2023-03-01 · 2 citations

  articleOpen access

  Abstract Social practice theory offers a multidisciplinary perspective on the relationship between infrastructure and wellbeing. One prominent model in practice theory frames systems of provision as the rules, resources, and structures that enable the organization of social practices, encompassing both material and immaterial aspects of infrastructures. A second well-known model frames social practices in terms of their constituent elements: meanings, materials, and competences. Reconciling these two models, we argue that household capacity to respond to shifting systems of provision to maintain wellbeing is profoundly tied to the dynamics of privilege and inequity. To examine these dynamics, we propose a new analytical tool utilizing the Bourdieuian conceptualization of forms of capital, deepening the ability of social practice theory to address structural inequities by re-examining the question of who is able to access specific infrastructures. To illustrate this approach, we examine how households adapted to shifting systems of provision during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from 183 households in the Midwestern United States, we apply this tool to analyze adaptations to disruptions of multiple systems of provision, including work, school, food, and health, from February 2020 to August 2021. We highlight how household wellbeing during the pandemic has been impacted by forms of capital available to specific households, even as new social practices surrounding COVID-19 prevention became increasingly politicized. This research provides insight into both acute challenges and resilient social practices involving household consumption, indicating a need for policies that can address structural inequities across multiple systems of provision.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

Recent grants

• Between State and Profit: An Analysis of Changes in Nonprofit Interorganizational Networks and Tactics in the Energy Efficiency Field 1973-2006

  NSF · $132k · 2009–2012

Frequent coauthors

• Robert E. Kopp

  Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

  31 shared

• Kristin Floress

  Northern Research Station

  17 shared

• Chelsea Schelly

  Michigan Technological University

  14 shared

• Michael Oppenheimer

  14 shared

• Cara L. Cuite

  Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

  13 shared

• Thomas Dietz

  Michigan State University

  12 shared

• Kathleen E. Halvorsen

  Michigan Technological University

  12 shared

• William Lytle

  Michigan Technological University

  12 shared

Labs

• Rutgers University Sustainability Governance LabPI

Education

• PhD Sociology, Environmental Science and Policy Specialization, Sociology

  Michigan State University

  2008

• Masters of Environmental Management - Resource Economics and Policy Concentration, Nicholas School of Environment

  Duke University

  2001

• BA English and Textual Studies, English

  Syracuse University

  1999

Awards & honors

• Member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee to Advi…
• Co-author of the National Climate Assessment’s Chapter 5 (Hu…