Climate Change and the Individual
Project Guideline
Climate change is a defining global challenge with direct impacts on individuals, communities, and societies. This project invites you to explore the theme “Climate Change and the Individual” through research, analysis, and critical reflection.
Project topics should focus on individual and societal responses such as climate actions, advocacy, awareness, and outreach. For further inspiration, consider the problems and possibilities identified in the 2025–26 Common Read.
Team Formation and Scope
- Each project team will consist of three students.
- Teams must formulate a clear and compelling research question.
- Projects may be theoretical, empirical, or a blend of both.
- For empirical work, proposed datasets must receive prior approval from Byeong-Hak Choe.
Note: Any changes to team membership or research topic require prior approval from Byeong-Hak Choe.
Proposal Expectations
Your team’s proposal should demonstrate critical engagement with a climate change issue by:
- Explaining the central dilemma or challenge facing society.
- Identifying the key questions that must be addressed to develop workable solutions, including any trade-offs between competing objectives.
- Presenting relevant evidence that highlights the competing interests involved.
- Formulating policy recommendations that logically follow from your analysis.
Rubric for Team Project
| Attribute | Very Deficient (1) | Somewhat Deficient (2) | Acceptable (3) | Very Good (4) | Outstanding (5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Potential for success | - Little or no potential for success | - Tenuous potential for success | - Adequate potential for success | - High potential for success | - Excellent potential for success |
| 2. Quality of research question | - Unclear or unstated - Entirely derivative - No meaningful contribution expected |
- Somewhat unclear - Slight originality - Minor contribution expected |
- Clearly stated - Moderately original - Limited but plausible contribution expected |
- Very clear - Original and creative - At least one meaningful contribution expected |
- Exceptionally clear - Highly original - Multiple important contributions expected |
| 3. Quality of economic analysis (theoretical and empirical) | - Very weak or incorrect economic reasoning - Little or no understanding of relevant theory or empirical context - No empirical evidence provided |
- Rudimentary reasoning - Shaky understanding of concepts - Empirical evidence is minimal, unclear, or poorly justified |
- Adequate reasoning - Solid understanding of core concepts - Provides some empirical evidence that supports the main story |
- Strong reasoning - Clear grasp of theory and empirical methods - Provides credible and well-integrated empirical evidence supporting the analysis |
- Sophisticated reasoning - Superior mastery of theory and empirical methods - Provides compelling, persuasive empirical evidence that strengthens and validates the analysis |
| 4. Quality of policy recommendation | - No policy recommendation - Recommendation unrelated to analysis or unsupported |
- Recommendation stated but weakly justified - Limited connection to economic analysis |
- Policy recommendation generally appropriate - Connects to analysis with basic justification |
- Strong and well-supported recommendation - Clearly grounded in economic analysis and evidence |
- Excellent, insightful recommendation - Highly coherent with theoretical and empirical analysis - Demonstrates strong economic intuition and feasibility awareness |
| 5. Quality of oral presentation | - Very poorly organized - Weak slides or visuals - Unable to answer key questions |
- Somewhat disorganized - Several unclear slides - Difficulty answering questions |
- Mostly well organized - Generally clear slides - Adequate responses to most questions |
- Well organized - Strong visuals - Professional and confident responses |
- Exceptionally organized - Outstanding visuals - Excellent, well-supported responses to all questions |
| 6. Quality of writing | - Very poorly structured - Hard to understand - Many spelling/grammar errors |
- Somewhat disorganized - Some confusing sections - Numerous errors |
- Mostly organized - Mostly clear - Some errors present |
- Well organized - Clear and coherent - Very few errors |
- Extremely well organized - Very clear and polished - No errors |
| 7. Other — explain |
Additional Opportunity
Teams are strongly encouraged to submit their work to the campus-wide Ideas that Matter Student Challenge in Spring 2026. This competition shares the same theme, Climate Change and the Individual, providing an opportunity to showcase your research to a broader audience.