Climate Change and the Individual

Project Guideline

Author

Affiliation

Byeong-Hak Choe

SUNY Geneseo

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.

Proposal Expectations

Your team’s proposal should demonstrate critical engagement with a climate change issue by:

1. Explaining the central dilemma or challenge facing society.
   
2. Identifying the key questions that must be addressed to develop workable solutions, including any trade-offs between competing objectives.
   
3. Presenting relevant evidence that highlights the competing interests involved.
   
4. Formulating policy recommendations that logically follow from your analysis.

📘 Final Research Proposal — Structure & Formatting Guidelines

(Total Length: 6–8 pages, excluding References)

Your Final Research Proposal builds directly on your Research Kick-off Report and serves as a complete, well-developed plan for your research project. This is not yet the full term paper, but it must clearly demonstrate:

• A well-defined economic question
• A solid theoretical foundation
• A feasible methodological plan
• Clear policy or behavioral relevance

You are strongly encouraged to incorporate figures, tables, or diagrams used in your presentation when they help clarify concepts, mechanisms, data patterns, or policy implications.

---

1. Introduction (1–1.5 pages)

• Background & Context
  • Introduce the real-world issue you are studying.
  • Explain why it matters in the context of climate change and the individual.
• Statement of the Problem
  • Clearly define the economic or behavioral problem.
  • Identify the key inefficiency, risk, incentive problem, or behavioral bias.
• Research Question & Objectives
  • State your primary research question precisely.
  • List 2–3 specific objectives or testable sub-questions.

Optional figure suggestion:
A conceptual diagram, infographic, or motivating data figure from your presentation may be placed here to illustrate the real-world problem.

---

2. Literature Review (1–1.5 pages)

• Summarize and synthesize:
  • Core academic studies related to your topic
  • Relevant policy reports or institutional sources (e.g., IPCC, EPA, FEMA, IEA)
• Explain:
  • What is already known
  • What remains unresolved or under-explored
• Clearly position your proposed research contribution within this literature.

Optional figure suggestion:
You may include a summary table or conceptual comparison figure used in your presentation to organize prior findings.

---

3. Conceptual Framework / Economic Model (1.5–2 pages)

• Present the economic logic behind your research question.
• Identify:
  • Key agents (households, firms, governments, etc.)
  • Key variables (prices, emissions, risk, probability, costs, incentives)
• Specify the central economic mechanism:
  • Externalities
    
  • Behavioral biases
    
  • Market failures
    
  • Strategic interaction
    
• (Optional) If applicable:
  • Provide basic equations, payoff structures, or diagrams.
  • Clearly describe assumptions and expected theoretical outcomes.

---

4. Proposed Data, Methodology, or Empirical Strategy (1–1.5 pages)

• Describe how you would study your research question:
  • Conceptual analysis
  • Experimental/Survey design
  • Secondary data analysis
• Specify:
  • Unit of analysis
  • Type of data required
  • Key variables of interest
• Explain:
  • Empirical strategy
  • How your approach will test or illustrate the model’s predictions.

✅ Figure expectation: You may include:

• Data workflow diagrams
  
• Survey instruments or experimental designs
  
• Sample data visualizations from your presentation

---

5. Expected Results & Policy Relevance (1–1.5 pages)

• Describe the expected economic insights:
  • Behavioral responses
  • Welfare implications
  • Efficiency consequences
• Discuss:
  • Implications for individual behavior
  • Implications for firms
  • Implications for public policy
• Clearly connect your findings to:
  • Climate adaptation
  • Risk management
  • Market design
  • Regulation or subsidy design

Optional figure suggestion:
Policy comparison charts, or scenario outcome visuals from your presentation may be included here.

---

6. Conclusion & Research Roadmap (0.5–1 page)

• Summarize:
  • Central research question
  • Theoretical contribution
  • Empirical or conceptual strategy
• Provide a brief roadmap toward the final term paper:
  • What remains to be developed?
  • What data or analysis would come next?

---

7. References (No page limit)

• Use a consistent citation format.
• For all online sources, include:
  • Full URL
    
  • Date and time of access
• All sources cited in the text must appear here.

---

📊 Where to Place Figures in the Final Research Proposal

Figures should be placed only where they directly support the narrative. In most cases, figures belong in the following sections:

✅ Primary Locations (Recommended)

1. Section 1 — Introduction
   • Use figures to motivate the research question.
   • Appropriate examples:
     • Trend plots showing growth or decline
     • Maps illustrating exposure or risk
     • Before–after comparisons
   • Purpose: Show why the problem matters.
2. Section 4 — Proposed Data & Methodology
   • Use figures to illustrate how the study would be conducted.
   • Appropriate examples:
     • Data workflow diagrams
     • Survey or experimental design schematics
     • Sample variable visualizations
   • Purpose: Show how the research would be executed.

---

⚠️ Limited or Optional Use

3. Section 2 — Literature Review
   • Only if a figure helps summarize prior findings (e.g., a comparison table).
   • Use sparingly.
4. Section 3 — Conceptual Framework / Model
   • Only if a simple conceptual diagram helps explain intuition.
   • Formal model figures are not required.
5. Section 5 — Expected Results & Policy Relevance
   • Only if a policy comparison chart or scenario visualization helps interpretation.

---

✅ Formatting Rules for All Figures

• Every figure must:
  • Be numbered and titled
  • Have a caption
  • Be explicitly discussed in the text
• Figures must support the argument, not decorate the paper.

---

✅ General Formatting Requirements

• Total length: 6–8 pages (excluding references)
• Font: 12-point Calibri, Cambria, Georgia, Garamond, or Lucida Sans
• Spacing: Double-spaced
• Margins: 1 inch on all sides
• File format: Word document (.docx) or PDF (.pdf)
• Use:
  • Clear section headings
  • Formal academic tone
  • Proper citations throughout
  • Properly labeled figures and tables with captions
  • All figures must be discussed in the text (no standalone images)

---

Note

💡 This Final Research Proposal should read like a serious academic project in preparation.
You are not required to produce full results yet, but your question, model, and research plan must be fully developed and economically rigorous.
Well-integrated figures from your presentation are encouraged when they strengthen clarity and economic intuition.

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.

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 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