The profound effects of climate change jeopardise the ability of housing to protect human health and wellbeing. Citizen science, with its potential for generating data and engaging individuals and communities in action, is an important addition to the suite of tools needed to prepare our housing for this reality. Our scoping review assessed how citizen science approaches have been used to identify and address climate-related housing risk factors that impact upon health. We searched five electronic databases and conducted forwards and backwards citation searching to identify studies for inclusion. We synthesised data on key study characteristics, as well as their focus, methods, and reported impacts. Fifty-six studies were included. Most studies focused on water quality (53.6 %), followed by toxic substances (35.7 %), air quality (19.6 %), noise (7.1 %), and indoor temperature (1.8 %). Studies utilised quantitative (100 %) and, to a much lesser extent, qualitative data collection methods (8.9 %). Over one-third of studies reported impacts, ranging from benefits to citizen scientists through to influencing government action. Citizen science holds great potential for collecting large amounts of data, incorporating diverse perspectives, generating awareness of issues, and catalysing action to improve housing in the face of climate change. By focusing on a broad set of risk factors and methods, integrating mechanisms to improve data quality, and articulating impacts, citizen science approaches could better meet the needs of research that seeks to involve communities and create change. • A scoping review of citizen science approaches to identify and address climate-related housing risk factors was undertaken. • Citizen science approaches tend to focus on a narrow set of risk factors. • Studies seldom utilise qualitative research methods and instead predominantly rely on quantitative data collection methods. • Citizen science can help to engender change among various actors – from citizens through to policymakers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mansour et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: