Daizy Shoma Nalwamba, Desalegn Yayeh Ayal, Ulisses M. Azeiteiro, Henri-Count Evans, Inga Grinfelde, José Baltazar Salgueirinho Osório de Andrade Guerra, Jasenka Gajdoš Kljusurić, João Carlos Correia Leitão, Chunlan Li, Newton R. Matandirotya, Bethwel Mutai, Gustavo J. Nagy, Thierry Razanakoto, Jame Schaefer, Goran Trbic, Roberto Ariel Abeldaño Zuñiga, Sane Pashane Zuka, Charles Galdies, Adriana Consorte-McCrea, Francisco Platas, Mittul Vahanvati, Pedi Obani, Safwatun Nida, Lucas Gabriel Zanon, Mayara Régia Sousa de Melo, Alison Glover, Roman Vakulchuk
This chapter provides insights into how Zambian universities are responding to climate change precarities and inequalities. Drawing from one case study on the advancement of ecological capabilities for environmental sustainability undertaken in Zambia between 2022 and 2024, this chapter illuminates the various initiatives one public university has embarked on to bridge persisting knowledge and action gaps between universities and climate vulnerable communities. It engages a human-centered framework to suggest ways African universities can further enhance their contributions toward climate response. Specifically, a capability-based whole-of-university approach to climate change teaching, learning, research, and engagement is suggested. This project was conducted at one Zambian public university and included perspectives of 4 environmental education lecturers, 12 environmental education students, and 13 graduates, respectively. This chapter also includes insights from a government point of view on what universities can do respond to increased climate change-induced inequalities. This involves perspectives from three environmental industry experts in Zambia. Data was collected through a two-staged methodological process which combined review of documents and in-depth semistructured interviews. Findings indicate that the Zambian university demonstrates a notable contribution to climate action through on-campus and off-campus initiatives, a prioritization of sustainability teaching and research as response to bridge current ecological epistemic gaps. However, this is not without limitations warranting the need for universities to do better in enhancing these initiatives. Therefore, this chapter prompts a reimagination of the African university’s role in bridging epistemic gaps in view of climate change. This hinges on the evidence that climate change is already exacerbating preexisting socioeconomic development challenges, with implications for Zambia’s most vulnerable sectors, including food security, water resources, forestry, human health, and well-being. These dynamics shape the ecological-political economy of climate change in Zambia and exacerbate inequalities especially among those susceptible to climate threats. Notably, the gaps between the geosocioeconomically haves and have-nots, attributed to environmental and climate-induced concerns, are characterized by deprivations of access to pollution free water and air, access to food, quality education, and active participation in climate change discourse. In general, these gaps also highlight diverse constraints in the pursuit of lives one may have reason to value in view of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Therefore, in the absence of widened ecoepistemic freedoms, this chapter argues that climate change-induced inequalities in Zambia will only widen. Significantly, these inequalities point to the absence of ecoepistemic freedoms within Zambia’s ecopolitical economy of climate change. In the context of climate change, ecoepistemic freedoms are indicative of the ability of students, communities, and all vulnerable populations to have access [to], comprehend, and actively participate in producing climate change knowledge and effective response mechanisms within their lived contexts. Beyond academic teaching, universities should strengthen community-based informal initiatives, research inventories and financing, network support, and partnerships and decarbonize their institutions. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2026.
Institute of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Engineering, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, Jelgava, Latvia; Center for Sustainable Development (Greens), Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul), Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil; School of Urban and Regional Sciences, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China; Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Centre, Beitbridge, Zimbabwe; Kgotso Development Trust, Beitbridge, Zimbabwe; Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República Uruguay, Montevideo, Uruguay; CERED, University of Antananarivo, Antananarivo, Madagascar; Marquette University, Milwaukee, United States; University of Sierra Sur, Oaxaca, Mexico; University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; Department of Land Economy, University of Malawi, The Polytechnic, Blantyre 3, Malawi; Institute of Earth Systems, University of Malta, Msida, Malta; Academy for Sustainable Futures, Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom; Casa de Cultura de la UAEMéx en Tlalpan, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Ciudad de México, Mexico; School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom; Science Education Department of Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, Indonesia; University of São Paulo, São Carlos, Brazil; State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil; The Open University, Cardiff, United Kingdom; Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Oslo, Norway; Higher Education and Human Development Research Programme, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa; Center for Food Security Studies, College of Development Studies, Addis Ababa Univesity, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; The Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM) and Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal; Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Eswatini, Manzini, Kwaluseni Campus, Matsapha, South Africa
