Ecological Novelty: How Can We Deal With It?

You’ve just published two nature papers, one of them as the first author. Can you briefly outline what the study is about and what the key findings are?

Yes, both publications came about on my initiative – and they address two central aspects of global change. The first paper, which I authored as the lead author, is a study that examines the concept of “ecological novelty” in the context of climate change. The key finding is that climate change is altering ecosystems so drastically that conditions may arise that lie outside organisms’ “range of experience” – in other words, conditions that are entirely novel. This novelty arises not only from climate change itself but also from human adaptation measures: for example, entirely new habitats are emerging beneath solar farms or at the bases of offshore wind farms. And even in so-called “nature-based solutions,” ecological novelty is often created intentionally.

The study shows that we must learn to deal with this novelty in a nuanced way – it does not always have to be combated. It can also be tolerated or even promoted, depending on the context and objectives.

The commentary I co-authored with colleagues from political science and human geography takes it a step further: We show that climate change has not only ecological and economic impacts, but also profound emotional ones. I think of the heat waves, the drought – I see for myself how the forest around me is drying up. This isn’t just an ecological problem; it’s also an emotional experience. And even more dramatically: When forests burn down, people lose a piece of their home. But here lies the danger: This emotional reaction can lead to an overreaction. It gives rise to the desire to push everything back with technological solutions—as if one could simply “turn off” the change. But: Some changes can no longer be stopped. And technological solutions are often problematic in themselves – they bring new risks with them.

Our argument: Instead of clinging to a static, idealized image of “natural nature,” we must develop new ways of dealing with change. We should learn to recognize change – and where it cannot be prevented, to accompany it as positively as possible.

What might such positive support for change – and thus tolerance – look like? What do you mean by that?

That’s exactly the point: Tolerance doesn’t mean passivity. The emotional experience of change can certainly spur action – as the current climate protests show. This outrage and concern are necessary to drive structural change.  But: There are changes we can no longer stop – such as shifts in species distributions, changes to ecosystems in urban areas, or the emergence of new habitats beneath solar fields. The point here is not to fight change, but to deal with it actively and responsibly.

The golden mean lies between control and resignation: We must “take care” responsibly – not only of ourselves, but also of the non-human life forms affected by these changes. We must not merely endure change, but help shape it – as positively as possible.

What research topics do you focus on overall, and how did you arrive at this path?

I see myself as an interdisciplinary ecologist. My research focuses on the ecological and social impacts of global change and on current and potential future relationships between humans and nature. For example, another article has just been published in which, together with a designer and a philosopher, I present in the journal “People and Nature” a positive vision of an “Symbiocen” era, in which planetary thinking and regenerative human-nature relationships prevail. Another research topic is the question of how to better synthesize existing knowledge and make it available for environmental management.

You’ve been doing a lot of work on the topic of “ecological novelty” – could you explain that a bit?

The concept of “ecological novelty” describes conditions that differ significantly from the environmental conditions that have prevailed until now. From the perspective of insects in a given area, for example, the appearance of a plant that has never been there before can introduce novelty: this “non-native” plant may contain different compounds than any plants the insects have encountered so far. An ecosystem is considered novel when the combination of site conditions and species has not been observed historically; for example, urban wastelands on heavily altered soils with a wild mix of native and non-native species.

You began as a honorary professor at Leuphana in 2025. What does the collaboration look like, and how do you integrate your research into the broader context of the Leuphana Faculty of Sustainability?

I will once again be offering a seminar on invasive species and novel ecosystems in the upcoming winter semester. So far, as part of my research initiative EcoWeaver – which focuses on making knowledge available for restoration – I’ve been working primarily with Vicky Temperton and her group. However, I see numerous other points of connection with the Faculty of Sustainability, and I would be delighted if further research collaborations were to develop in the future.