Polar regions are critical in achieving global sustainable development goals

Domain: earth_science
Published: 2025-04-24
Editorial outcome: major_revision

Abstract
As important components of global commons, environmental changes in polar regions are crucial to the local and global sustainability. However, they have received little attention in the current framework of sustainable development goals (SDGs). This study examines the impacts of climate change in polar regions, emphasizing the interconnectedness of these areas with other parts of the global system. Here we show that polar regions are a limiting factor in achieving global SDGs, similar to the “shortest stave” in Liebig’s barrel, primarily due to the teleconnection effects of climate tipping elements. Proactive actions should ensure polar regions aren’t left behind in achieving global SDGs. We proposed a specific SDG target and five indicators for the interconnected effect of the cryosphere on climate actions and incorporate considerations for Indigenous peoples in polar regions. With the right actions and strengthened global partnerships, polar regions can be pivotal for advancing global sustainable development.

Introduction
The principle of “leaving no one behind” necessitates the equitable and uniform implementation of United Nations (UN) sustainable development goals (SDGs). Globally, socioeconomic resources are predominantly allocated following the Pareto principle, where a minority of high-income economies defined by World Bank Country and Lending Groups1 control a substantial portion of the global wealth2. Efforts to achieve SDGs should therefore prioritize addressing this imbalance, guided by Liebig’s law of the minimum. However, ameliorating the disparities in the pursuit of SDGs presents a considerable challenge, especially in polar regions, including the Arctic, the Antarctic, and the Third Pole (the Tibetan Plateau and surrounding high mountain areas)3–5. Polar regions, covering approximately 20.1% (or ~300×106 km2) of the global land area and 16.7% (or ~600×106 km2) of the ocean area3, are recognized as outposts (or early warning systems) of climate change6,7.

Meanwhile, these regions serve as biodiversity reservoirs, water towers, and storage of climate driving gases8. They also provide a diverse array of ecosystem services that are critical for global sustainable development. For example, the fisheries in the Arctic and Antarctic contribute to achieving zero hunger (SDG2). The sustainable management of these fisheries is of great values to conserving and sustainably using global marine resources (SDG14)9. The Third Pole, with its total annual runoff exceeding 650×109 m3, is vital for guaranteeing water security for downstream residents (SDG6)10. Furthermore, the protection and maintenance of high mountain vegetation and biodiversity are fundamental for the global protection and restoration of terrestrial ecosystems (SDG15).

However, sustainable development in polar regions has been largely overlooked in the formulation of global SDGs11. A mere 0.75% of the SDG-focused studies during 2015–2022 have considered polar regions, as indicated in our literature reviews (Supplementary Table 1). Furthermore, the marginalization of polar regions is also reflected in other international reports, such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Global Environment Outlook (GEO) series12. Beginning with GEO-213, polar regions have often been treated as side issues, highlighting their consistent underrepresentation in global environmental governance systems. In addition, there are currently no specific SDG indicators for the Arctic or Antarctic regions. Although mountain areas have garnered more attention than their polar counterparts, only 3 out of the 248 SDG indicators are associated with mountain regions14. This neglect of SDGs in polar regions is mainly due to the misapprehension that sustainable development in these areas is economically marginal and would contribute minimally to global SDG efforts, a belief stemming from their sparse populations and geographical remoteness.

Polar regions, as interconnected biophysical entities critical to planetary climate regulation, require governance models based on transnational collaboration and shared stewardship—principles central to SDG 17. However, current global environmental governance mechanisms often prioritize territorially bounded concerns over transboundary ecological interdependence. Existing frameworks lack institutional pathways to engage polar regions equitably in resource mobilization, knowledge co-creation, or technology transfer, despite their disproportionate climate-regulating functions. Therefore, the marginalization of these systems not only reflects ecological oversight but also a broader shortfall in operationalizing the cross-sectoral partnerships and policy coherence advocated by the SDG agenda.

In this study, we highlight the critical role of polar regions in global sustainable development in a teleconnection perspective using an online expert survey and bibliometric analysis. We posit that polar regions are the fragile boundaries of the planet’s climate commons15 because these regions are associated with 12 out of the 16 climate tipping elements identified thus far16,17. Furthermore, people living in these regions face heightened exposure to escalated risks attributable to dramatic climate change. These risks include thawing permafrost, reduced shore protection owing to the melting of sea ice and increased river flows, thereby leading to substantial climigration events18–20. However, the involvement of these communities in advancing the SDGs has been left behind11.

Therefore, given the fragilities in environmental, social, and economic sustainability, polar regions could be the “weakest link” in achieving global SDGs, akin to the “shortest stave” of Liebig’s barrel analogy. Neglecting these regions in the SDG framework could precipitate an unforeseen “tragedy of the commons”. More importantly, once polar regions are ‘left behind’, it might seriously impair the Earth’s sustainable future through the cascading effects of interconnected tipping elements21, thereby jeopardizing efforts to maintain planetary boundaries within a safe operating space22. If the right actions are implemented through global partnerships (SDG17), they would not only strengthen the sustainable development in polar regions, but also further enable the achievement of global SDGs.

Results
Impacts of climate change in polar regions and implications for global sustainable development

The polar regions have undergone catastrophic changes (Fig. 1) (See Methods) due to the amplification effect of warming23,24, profoundly impacting the achievement of SDG13—climate action. Beyond this, the teleconnection effects of polar climate tipping elements extend their influence on other SDGs. For example, the melting of polar glaciers and ice sheets alters global water distribution, directly impacting water resource management (SDG6) and exacerbating sea level rise, which threatens low-lying ecosystems (SDG15)25. Additionally, the reduction in polar sea ice has been linked to an increase in extreme weather events, destabilizing global ecosystems and indirectly affecting biodiversity and ecosystem services26.

The mean annual air temperature warming rate in the Arctic is 0.68°C per decade, exceeding the 99% statistical confidence level. In contrast, the Antarctic warming rate was 0.08°C per decade, which is not statistically significant with a p-value of 0.34. On the Tibetan Plateau, the warming rate from 1980 to 2022 is 0.35°C per decade. Notably, the maximum warming rates of 0.36°C per decade and 0.37°C per decade were observed in the region between 4500 to 5000 m and 5500 to 6000 m, respectively, a phenomenon referred to as “elevation-dependent warming”27,28, which remains a subject of ongoing debate.

Glaciers and ice sheets in polar regions have experienced remarkable retreat. Between 1972 and 2022, the Greenland Ice Sheet lost approximately 5467 ± 535 Gt, corresponding to a decadal loss of 1072 ± 105 Gt. Similarly, the Antarctic ice sheet lost a total of 4,790 ± 987 Gt of ice between 1979 and 2022, equating to a decadal loss of 1089 ± 224 Gt. The Third Pole exhibited a decadal mass-balance change rate of −210 ± 70 Gt from 2000 to 2021.

The Arctic continues to experience a decline in sea ice, with an average annual reduction in sea ice extent of –4.6 ± 0.2% per decade from 1979 to 2023. Meanwhile, sea ice thickness has decreased at a rate of –0.43 m per decade from 1997 to 2021. In contrast, the gradual expansion of Antarctic Sea ice ceased in 2014, and recent loss rates have surpassed those observed in the Arctic. Overall, the trend in Antarctic Sea ice extent from 1979 to 2023 reflects a decline of –0.28 ± 0.50% per decade.

Both the snow cover duration and snow depth decreased in last several decades. In the Arctic region (such as North Canada, Siberian region), the average snow depth during September–May decreased by 1–3 cm per decade from 1980 to 2023. In the Antarctic region, the annual average snow accumulation remained relatively constant at approximately 35 cm per year prior to 1900 but increased at a rate of approximately 1.4 cm per decade after 1900. During the most recent decade (2000–2009), snow accumulation increased by approximately 30% of the baseline values determined from 1712 to 1899. Over the Tibetan Plateau, the average area with snow cover days exceeding 60 days during 2001/2002–2020/2021 decreased by ~31.21×104 km2 compared to 1980/1981–2020/2021, and the average snow depth decreased by ~0.15 cm per decade.

The ground temperatures of permafrost in the three polar regions have increased in recent years. Notable permafrost warming has occurred in Arctic during 1981–2020, with a rate of 0.21 ± 0.24°C per decade. The most substantial warming was observed in northwestern Siberia, northeastern Siberia, and the Arctic Svalbard Archipelago. In Antarctic, permafrost ground temperature increased by 0.25 ± 0.27°C per decade during 2008–2020, with the most pronounced warming in the northeastern and eastern parts of the continent. In contrast, permafrost warming in the Third Pole was markedly lower than in the Arctic and Antarctic, with a rate of 0.06 ± 0.05°C per decade during 1981–2020. Several factors contribute to these observed differences, including the greater latent heat effect of the warm permafrost in the Third Pole and the faster warming in the Arctic due to polar amplification effects29. Notably, the permafrost regions of the Arctic and the Tibetan Plateau are confirmed to contain substantial carbon reserves, estimated at 1460–1600 Pg and 15.31 Pg, respectively. In contrast, the carbon storage in Antarctica remains unproven.

ERA5-Land dataset reveals a pronounced increase in evapotranspiration rates in response to rising temperatures, with a rate of 8.3 mm per decade in the Arctic (R²=0.67) and 9.0 mm per decade in the Tibetan Plateau (R²=0.57). In contrast, no clear trend in runoff depth was detected (0.7 mm per decade in the Arctic, R²=0.005; −6.7 mm per decade in the Tibetan Plateau, R²=0.06), indicating considerable spatial variability. It is important to note that recent studies reveal substantial regional variability in Arctic lake dynamics, with an overall increase in lake numbers and water volumes, contrary to decreasing trends in some lakes30. Permafrost degradation is identified as a major factor in the reduction of certain Arctic lake areas31. Conversely, lakes in the Third Pole region have notably expanded over recent decades, primarily due to increased precipitation, glacier melt32, and permafrost degradation33–36.

In subarctic regions (latitude >60° N), treelines have shifted upward at an average rate of 4.76 m per decade from 1981 to 2018, which is closely correlated with precipitation changes in autumn, winter, and annual37. In the Tibetan Plateau, the average rate of upward shift over the past 100 years has been much lower, at 2.9 ± 2.9 m per decade (range: 0–8.0 m per decade). Although climatic warming has generally promoted the upward migration of alpine treelines, the rate of upslope movement in this region is primarily influenced by species interactions38.

In the Arctic, the growing season has lengthened by an average of 8.58 days from 1982 to 2014, corresponding to an increase of 2.60 days per decade. However, changes in growing season duration were not consistent across the entire period. From 1982 to 1999, the growing season lengthened at a rate of 5.06 days per decade, while from 2000 to 2014, it actually shortened by −1.08 days per decade, largely due to a warming hiatus during the latter period39. In the Tibetan Plateau, the start of the growing season advanced by 8.3 ± 2.0 days between 2000 and 2020, while the end of the season was delayed by 8.2 ± 1.9 days, resulting in an overall extension of the growing season by 7.86 days per decade during this period40. The arctic warming leads the increasing greenness because of shifts in plant species from graminoids towards shrubs, as well as increases in snow water equivalent, soil moisture, and active layer thickness41. However, some tundra areas show browning due to the earlier snow cover and ground ice melting under the background of greenness42,43.

Environmental changes in these regions are constitutionally interconnected, often abrupt, and could lead to disastrous consequences for humanity22. Amplified by climate change and the “telecoupling effects”44,45, shifts in polar environment pose severe threats to long-term climate goals and jeopardize the attainment of global SDGs. A salient example is that the rapid loss of ice sheet in Antarctic and Greenland, which contributes to a sea-level rise of 0.1–0.5 m46, potentially leading to coastal flooding and erosion. As a consequence, it is projected that by 2100, ~600 million people and 20% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) will be at risk47,48. Fortunately, substantial adaptation strategies have already been explored to mitigate these impacts49. However, a more alarming concern is that the meltwater from Arctic sea ice and Antarctic ice sheet could diminish seawater density and deep convection, potentially weakening or even halting the thermohaline circulation50, thus triggering abrupt temperature decreases51. A historical precedent for such is the Younger Dryas event, which occurred approximately 12,900 to 11,700 years before present and resulted in temperature plummet by several degrees Celsius within decades52. Indigenous peoples, who are intimately connected to environment and resources in polar regions, are among the earliest to confront the direct impacts of pole climate change. For instance, in the Third Pole, nearly 2 billion people depend on freshwater provided by the Asian’s water towers4. However, the cascading effect of increasing disasters such as avalanche and glacial lake outburst in these areas may amplify the damage to the downstream populations and infrastructure53.

Polar regions are teleconnected with other parts of the global system

We carried out an online expert survey to quantify the relationship between the polar regions and the realization of global SDGs from the polar and mountain research communities (see Methods). This survey reflects the current understanding of the scientific community on this teleconnection (Fig. 2).

The results indicated that all 17 SDGs are potentially affected by polar regions, with mean teleconnection effect scores (TES) ranging from 5.9 to 8.8 and associated uncertainties spanning from 1.9 to 3.0. Notably, climate action (SDG13) received the highest score with mean TES value (TESmean) of 8.8 and median TES value (TESmedia) of 10, underscoring the great influence of polar regions on global SDGs through climate action. This is partially linked to the presence of climate tipping elements in polar regions. Following closely was clean water and sanitation (SDG6), with a TESmean of 8.5, aligning with pivotal role of polar regions in sustaining global water resource. Life on land (SDG15) and life below water (SDG14) attained scores of 8.1 and 7.9, respectively, ranking third and fourth and highlighting the critical contribution of polar region ecosystem services and biodiversity to global sustainability. Interestingly, most participants stated the criticality of SDG17—global partnership, reflecting the importance of polar regions in achieving global sustainable development fairly and evenly. The relatively low standard deviations for these five SDG goals further corroborate a widespread consensus on their importance. For societal SDGs, responses of participants indicated that SDG3—good health is important (TESmean=7.4), suggesting the potential of polar regions to impact global health and well-being. However, SDGs related to social fairness (SDG4: quality education; SDG5: gender equality; and SDG10: reduced inequalities) were scored lower (6.3, 5.9, and 6.3) with high uncertainties (2.9, 3.0, and 2.8), indicating that these goals hold lesser relevance for polar regions in achieving global SDGs, albeit with a recognition of limited consensus. These reports also implied the importance of considering this issue in a perspective of social equality.

To further substantiate that climate action (SDG13) can influence the other SDGs54 and to determine which polar regions are most critical, we conducted an analysis based on the SDG-related keywords of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports (see Methods, Supplementary Tables 2–6).

The concept of SDG has emerged as the most frequently mentioned topic in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC), and the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5). Particularly, the AR6 report on Mitigation of Climate Change and SR1.5 highlight the intricate interconnections between climate actions and SDGs. SR1.5 includes a dedicated chapter on SDGs, elucidating that synergies dominate the relationship between climate action and the other SDGs, and that trade-offs can be effectively managed through enhanced capacity building, governance, and technology.

In these reports, polar regions and mountains are highlighted as outposts of climate change. The IPCC SROCC states that intensifying changes in the ocean and cryosphere poses great challenges to achieving all SDG goals. The IPCC AR6 report on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability includes dedicated chapters on Polar regions and Mountains. These sections demonstrate that strengthening climate action can reduce the risks associated with failing to achieve other SDGs. Furthermore, social system transformation, particularly in terms of justice and equity (with a special focus on Indigenous people), can strengthen climate resilient capacity, advancing the achievement of SDGs. Consequently, given the critical role of polar regions in climate action, ensuring sustainable development in these regions is not only contributory but also a facilitator in the achievement of global SDGs.

Revising and localizing the SDGs for polar regions

Our analysis underscores the urgent need to revise and localize the SDGs for polar regions, which are confronted by unique challenges, such as tipping elements, sparse populations, harsh environmental conditions, and the critical role of Indigenous cultures and knowledge55–57. Although these regions hold immense global importance, current UN SDG indicators inadequately address these unique aspects, with only five indicators (SDG2.3, 2.5, 6.6, 15.1, 15.4) directly applicable to the polar regions57. Our findings highlight the necessity of introducing a specific SDG target and five additional indicators (Table 1) that resonate with the specific characteristics and telecoupling effects seen in polar regions, as evidenced by the survey results (Fig. 2). These initiatives are designed to refine existing SDGs to better address the unique needs of polar regions, ensuring that the global commitment to “leave no one behind” is truly inclusive.

Considering the pivotal role of the cryosphere in climate actions and its connection to critical tipping elements vital for global sustainability, we recommend adding a dedicated target for the cryosphere under SDG 13 (climate action), designated as SDG 13.4. We further propose a specific indicator to monitor cryosphere’s key components —ice sheets, glaciers, snow, permafrost, and sea ice— across both polar and high mountain areas. This indicator would provide a more accurate assessment of the changes in these critical systems.

The well-being and health of Indigenous peoples, as well as the preservation of their cultures, are of paramount importance. In polar regions, life expectancy is remarkably lower compared to other regions, attributable to the harsh natural environment, scarce medical resources, and widely dispersed populations. Besides, resident health in these regions faces additional threats from the impacts of climate change. To address these challenges, we propose a specific indicator under SDG 3.4 to enhance the awareness and support for human health in extreme environments. The traditional lifestyles and culture of Indigenous peoples in polar regions are also being transformed by climate change and the forces of globalization. To preserve these cultural heritages, we recommend adding a specific indicator under SDG 4.7, specifically aimed at promoting education in traditional cultural practices within polar communities.

Since biodiversity conservation in polar regions requires a unified global effort, we propose the inclusion of a specific indicator of SDG 15.a.2, aimed at increasing attention and securing funding for biodiversity protection in these fragile ecosystems. Data is a cornerstone for effective evaluation and management. To deepen our understanding of polar environments, we propose a specific indicator of SDG 17.6.2 to promote the development of robust information infrastructure in polar regions, thereby facilitating data sharing and fostering collaborative innovation.

Figure 3 outlines the strategic roadmap for integrating these proposed targets and indicators with existing SDG framework. The figure highlights the critical role of tipping elements, placing them within the broader climate context and emphasizing the intricate interactions between natural and human systems. It emphasizes the destabilizing effects of natural system tipping elements while also acknowledging the potential of social tipping points in protecting polar regions and supporting the achievement of SDGs. The figure also stresses the importance of addressing both nature-related and human-related aspects, proposing concrete goals for clean water, life below water and on land, as well as health, education, and equality for Indigenous peoples. Central to this framework is the proposed climate action target (SDG 13.4) and the fostering of global partnerships to ensure fair and equitable progress across these dimensions.

Methods
Air temperature changes in polar regions
The ERA5 monthly average surface air temperature dataset (1980–2023) was used to calculate the annual mean temperature change rate in both the Arctic (north of 66°N) and Antarctic (south of 66°S), utilizing a resolution of 0.25° (https://www.ecmwf.int)73. For the Tibetan Plateau, an near-surface meteorological forcing dataset for the Third Pole region (TPMFD, 1980–2022) was employed, due to its higher resolution of 1/30° (https://data.tpdc.ac.cn)74,75. Temperature trends were determined using least-squares linear regression, and statistical significance was evaluated with the two-tailed Student’s t test75,76. For polar regions, ERA5 remains one of the most widely used and reliable reanalysis products despite some inherent limitations. Previous studies have demonstrated that ERA5 effectively represents temperature variations in polar areas when compared with ground-based observations77–79. In the Third Pole region specifically, ERA5 and TPMFD display comparable temperature increase trends, although discrepancies exist in their absolute mean temperature values. Benefiting from finer spatial resolution and improved accuracy, TPMFD provides enhanced capability to resolve spatial details of climate warming patterns.

Glacier and ice sheet changes in polar regions
The dataset provides reconciled ice mass balance estimates for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets, derived from three independent satellite techniques: gravimetry, altimetry, and the input-output method. This dataset updates from Otosaka et al.80, which is part of the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE). A detailed synthesis of satellite datasets, Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) and Surface Mass Balance (SMB) models used to derive the individual estimates of ice sheet mass balance is available in Zhao et al.81. For Greenland, the dataset includes 26 individual surveys, while 24 surveys were used for Antarctica. For the Third Pole, the glacier mass change was estimated using the large-scale glacier evolution model Open Global Glacier Model (OGGM), which was driven by monthly temperature and precipitation data from ERA5-Land reanalysis dataset for the historical simulations (2000–2021) as well as 10 bias-corrected General Circulation Models (GCMs).

Sea ice changes in polar regions
The sea ice extent was calculated using passive microwave brightness temperature data from SMMR, SSM/I and SSMIS82,83. Sea ice thickness data were derived from ICESat and CryoSat-2 data from 2011-2021 and combined with submarine cruise measurements from 1958–1976 to 1993–1997 using regression analysis, resulting in a regression residual with a standard deviation of 0.46 m. Linear trend analysis was conducted to assess the trends in Arctic and Antarctic Sea ice extent and thickness.

Snow cover changes in polar regions
The Daily 5-m Gap-free AVHRR snow cover extent (SCE) product over China (1980–2021)84 and the long-term time series of daily snow depth data in China (1980–2023)85,86 were utilized to analyze the spatial and temporal variations in snow cover area and snow depth in the Tibetan Plateau. The SCE data and snow depth data are archived in the National Tibetan Plateau Data Center, China. The temporal resolution is daily, and the spatial resolutions of them are 5 km (SCE) and 25 km (snow depth), respectively. The simulated snow depth data from ERA5-Land product were used to analyze the snow depth variation in the Arctic regions87. This data ranges spans from January 1950 to 2023, with spatial and temporal resolutions of 0.1° and hourly, respectively. For Antarctica, no long-term snow accumulation data are available. Therefore, we referred to the results of Thomos et al.88, which are based on 300 years of snow accumulation records from two ice cores drilled in Ellsworth Land, West Antarctica.

Permafrost changes in polar regions
The warming rates of permafrost in the Arctic, Antarctic, and the Third Pole were derived from ground temperature measurements at a depth of 10 m using linear regression. The ground temperature measurement data were sourced from the Global Terrestrial Network for Permafrost (GTN-P) and the National Tibetan Plateau Data Center (https://data.tpdc.ac.cn). However, the original measurement data cover a short timespan and contain substantial gaps. To address these issues, we reconstructed and extended the original ground temperature time series from 1981 to 2020, excluding Antarctic, using a physically informed machine learning model89. The root mean square error (RMSE) of the reconstructed ground temperatures for the Arctic and the Third Pole are 0.15 ± 0.12°C and 0.11 ± 0.003°C, respectively. The number of observation sites in the Arctic, Antarctic, and the Third Pole are 79, 5, and 5.

Hydrological changes in polar regions
Runoff and evapotranspiration were obtained from the ERA5-Land dataset, spanning from 1981 to 2020 on a monthly basis (https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu). The Third Pole region is defined as the area above 4000 m elevation on the Tibetan Plateau1. The Arctic region boundary follows the delineation provided by the AMAP, as specified by the National Tibetan Plateau Data Center (https://data.tpdc.ac.cn). Simple linear regression analysis was employed to identify the trends in runoff and evapotranspiration.

Ecosystem changes in polar regions
For subarctic regions (latitude >60° N), treeline data from 28 sites were retained from articles and report published between 1986 and 2020. For the Tibetan Plateau, data were collected from 14 treeline plots located between 28.4°N and 38.5°N. A meta-analysis of annual treeline shift rates was then conducted for the subarctic regions, while for the Tibetan Plateau, the location of the treeline was reconstructed at 50-year intervals using standard dendrochronological methods.

To analyze phenology in these regions, global CSIF data from 2000 to 2020 were used to derive phenology metrics for the Arctic region. Meanwhile, for the Tibetan Plateau, phenology metrics were calculated from MODIS NDVI (normalized difference vegetation index) and EVI (enhanced vegetation index) data over the same period. The trends in phenology metrics were evaluated by calculating the slope of a simple linear regression between phenology metrics and year.

Bibliometric survey to explore the SDG knowledge in the polar regions
To explore how scientists advance sustainable development knowledge in the polar regions, we conducted a bibliometric analysis based on the core collection from the Web of Science (WoS). The numbers of publications with the given topics were counted for the period before 2015 and 2015–2022, the year when the SDGs were officially released. The total number of publications was identified by searching “SDGs” in WoS. Publications that also featured keywords related to polar region were categorized as polar SDG-related publications (Supplementary Table 1).

The four sets of keywords, each with multiple spelling variations, are listed below. SDG includes the keywords “SDG” and “SDGs”. Arctic includes the keywords Arctic, North Pole, North Polar, and North Magnetic Pole. Antarctic includes the keywords Antarctic, South Pole, South Polar, and South Magnetic Pole. Third Pole includes the keywords Third Pole, the Tibet Plateau, Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, Himalaya, and Hindu Kush Mountain.

The keywords based bibliometric analysis here may encompass all definitions of the polar regions, particularly in the Arctic72. This could lead to a slight discrepancy between the bibliometric analysis and the AMAP boundaries used for quantitative spatial statistics in the study. We assume that this difference will not affect the conclusion that sustainable development in polar regions has been largely overlooked in the formulation of global SDGs.

Quantifying the teleconnection effects of the polar regions in achieving SDGs
To empirically evaluate the importance of polar regions in achieving global SDGs, we conducted an online survey using Google Forms. Experts were invited to score the importance of polar regions (the Antarctic, Arctic, and Third Pole) in contributing to the SDGs. A global pool of 1173 experts, specializing on polar and mountain research, was selected globally. This selection included authors of the SROCC and contributors to four cryosphere-related journals: The Cryosphere, Journal of Glaciology, Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, and Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research. In total, we ultimately received 163 survey responses. For details about the survey process, refer to Supplementary Method 1. These responses provided a distribution of scores across all SDGs, as detailed in Supplementary Fig. 1.

Relationship analysis of climate action and other SDGs regarding polar regions
To explore the relationship between climate action (SDG13) and the other SDGs, as well as the importance of polar regions in reinforcing or undermining these relationship, the SDG keywords were counted and analyzed for each chapter in the sixth cycle of IPCC reports, including: the IPCC Sixth Assessment Reports (AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis90, IPCC AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability91, and IPCC AR6 Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change92), the IPCC SROCC93, and the IPCC SR1.594 (Supplementary Tables 2–6).

Peer review rounds
[{"round": 1, "reviewer_comments": {"reviewer_1": "I am pleased to review the manuscript titled \"Polar regions are critical in achieving global Sustainable Development Goals\" by Xin Li et al. This study examines the critical role of polar regions in achieving the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), emphasizing the interconnectedness of these regions with other parts of the global system. The authors present a novel perspective by suggesting that polar regions act as a limiting factor in global SDGs, similar to the \"shortest stave\" in Liebig’s barrel, due to the teleconnection effects of climate tipping elements. The paper proposes a new SDG target and five indicators that address the unique challenges posed by the cryosphere and the indigenous populations in polar regions. Overall, the paper is innovative and has significant academic and policy relevance.\nHowever, I have the following concerns that I believe should be addressed to strengthen the paper:\n1. The concept of \"teleconnection effects of climate tipping elements\" is introduced as a central theme, but further clarification is needed on how these teleconnections specifically influence other SDGs beyond climate action.\n2. The result of vegetation changes in the three polar regions focuses mainly on tree lines and the length of the growing season. However, there is a lack of analysis regarding the overall trend in vegetation change, such as browning or greening patterns. Additionally, the paper does not address the issue of species diversity, which is an important aspect of understanding the ecological consequences of climate change in polar regions.\n3. While the inclusion of indigenous populations is a positive aspect, the discussion of their role and rights in the context of SDGs could be expanded. More concrete examples of how indigenous knowledge and practices could contribute to climate action in polar regions would enrich the narrative.\n4. The call for strengthened global partnerships is essential but could be elaborated with specific examples of how international cooperation can be improved in the polar regions.\n5. Figure 3 appears somewhat cluttered and could benefit from a more streamlined design. The complex interactions depicted in the diagram may be difficult for readers to fully grasp at first glance. I recommend simplifying the figure by reducing the amount of text and improving the visual hierarchy. Key elements could be highlighted with clearer labels, and the relationships between the different components should be made more intuitive.\n6. Suggestions for sentence and formatting improvements:\nLine 12: The phrase \"among the three pole regions\" should be revised to \"in the three pole regions\" for better clarity.\nLines 125, 128, 130: There appear to be formatting issues that need to be addressed.\nIn the Results section, it is recommended that the author ensures consistency in the expression of time periods.", "reviewer_2": "This article provides valuable insights into the critical role of polar regions in global climate dynamics and offers targeted recommendations for aligning sustainable development goals (SDGs) with a focus on polar sustainability. It highlights the essential yet often overlooked contribution of polar regions to the progress of global SDGs. Overall, the paper is well-written, offering a thorough and detailed description. The following suggestions are provided for the authors’ consideration:\n(1) In the introduction, the authors state that the paper \"highlights the critical role of polar regions in global sustainable development from a teleconnection perspective.\" However, it is not entirely clear how the authors quantified the teleconnection effects in this context. Could the authors briefly clarify the methodology used to assess these effects?\n(2) Fig. 1: It might be more intuitive to plot temperature trends over time to better illustrate temperature variations. Additionally, some text in the figure is partially obscured by the chart, making it difficult to read. I recommend adjusting the layout, removing the gray border, and refining the text placement to enhance both clarity and visual appeal.\n(3) Fig. 2: The x-axis currently uses SDG icons, but the white text within these icons is difficult to read. I suggest replacing the icons with SDG numbers, and including the specific targets either in the figure title or within a legend for clarity.\n(4) Fig. 3(a): The text appears too small to read comfortably. Increasing the font size would improve readability.\n(5) The air temperature data for the polar regions and the Tibetan Plateau are sourced from separate datasets. I wonder whether the authors have evaluated the data quality of these datasets specifically for these regions. It would be helpful to understand if there are any inherent discrepancies between the datasets, and whether such a comparison is justified.", "reviewer_3": "## General comments\nThe manuscript \"Polar regions are critical in achieving global Sustainable Development Goals\" aims to portray the importance of including specified targets on polar regions and high mountain areas that share similar environmental features and challenges in climate warming.\nOverall, the manuscript provides a comprehensive foundation to support arguments for expanding the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with specific targets and indicators related to polar regions. The authors effectively emphasize the significance of this issue, particularly by highlighting the teleconnections between polar regions and the “Third Pole.” In this context, all high-altitude regions that influence distant regions through teleconnections, such as river discharges, are also included.\nThe main argument is that via these teleconnections and having overlooked the impact of proper sustainable development in these regions may weaken the whole concept of the SDGs and therefore it is sound to fill this gap.\nHowever, the paragraph from line 48 to 58 has some problems I lay out in the specific comments. It would need to be rewritten into a more targeted text that helps to schieve the major aim of the manuscript. At the moment, there are many contradictions and also misinterpretations on the SGDs roles in portraying sustainable development as a whole.\nI like the focus that is layed on the use data (line 269ff) and the outlined strategy figure that summarizes well the impacts of the interconnections between the polar regions and the rest of the globe.\n## Specific comments\nLine 43ff: Would you agree that the \"polar regions\" mentioned here span wider as the usual polar (arctic/antarctic) circle areas located above the 66°33'50.2 latitudes? Given the Tibetian Plateau included and the extent of permafrost regions and also the areas were snow cover occurs. I tried to check up your provided information but the reference 4 given as \"Science Press, 2021\" is a bit shady. There are some possible websites but none has a book/work with the given title. At least the \"early warning\" is covered by reference 5. Is there a DOI number for reference 4?\nLine 49: Your statement \"climate-driven gas storage facilities\" is very misleading. In the cited literature this reads as \"and storage of climate driving gases\"! First, there are no facilities, the storage meant in the cited literature is the permafrost and soil related storage of greehouse gases. Second, instead of \"climate driven gas storage\" the Arctic ecosystems store the \"climate driving gases\". As you anyway use the citation there is nothing wrong with using the proper wording given in the cited literature.\nLine 55ff: While your statement on fossil fuels is the sad status at the recent time it kind of contradicts the sustainable development and aims of SDGs in the polar regions you call for, especially in the light of Arctic warming at unprecedent rates and your own statements starting on line 81 about the risks of unsustainable practices in the polar region. SDG 7's goal is definitly to push towards access to sustainable and clean energy for everyone which is not achievable by ongoingly using fossil fuels and thus deepening the problems in the polar regions. I am also a bit astonished about the choice of mentioning only the \"sustained\" economic growth in context with SDG 8. SDG 8 also states \"inclusive and sustainable economic growth\" which means that unresponsible exploitation of the area should be changed so that, as you state prominently, no one is left behind. This one sentence with its, maybe a bit unreflected, statements hampers your aims to introduce a stronger polar region context on SDGs.\nLine 152ff: Statements on change in vegetation period could have also some citations. Even though you have calculated them from remote sensing data I guess there might be literature to compare to as well. In the paragraphs before and after you set nicely your results into context to published work.\nLine 250: The cryosphere's key components also entail snow! That is actually the component that has the largest spatial and temporal extent impacted by climate warming as you also show in figure 1 and the results. Maybe add it as well to here.\n## Technical\nLines 125, 128, 130: Some font problem, overlaying symbol.\nLine 313: double \"the interrelations\"", "reviewer_4": "Key results\nThis paper demonstrates the global dependency on polar regions as well as their interconnection. This is documented by summarizing multiple sources of climate related data as well as use of the SDG in IPCC reports, and expert view from a survey. In conclusion the paper suggests additional SDG indicators to address the apparent ignorance of the polar regions in the SDG.\nValidity\nThe paper provides reasonable documentation for the arguments used. The substantiation of the arguments, and conclusion could have been stronger (more data, increased precision, improvement in methodology, additional approaches).\nSignificance\nThe story told is compelling, reasonably documented, and addresses a problem that deserve attention; the polar regions (and other low populated paces on earth) are underrepresented, and partly forgotten in global governance systems – also in this case where the rest of the world is very dependent on these regions.\nThe paper addresses this important weakness by using the SDG system as the case. The paper reasonably well argue that this weakness can lead to unintended negative global climate, tipping point, and socioeconomic consequences.\nSome tendency towards alarmist approaches in selection of cited findings, and a modest independent data base weaken the strength of the paper.\nThe very specific argument for data cooperation and naming specific remote sensing programs seems arbitrary, as the authors could equally well have argued for other aspects of science, data, or human organisation, indigenous rights etc. being essential.\nData, methodology, and analytical approach\nUse of bibliometry on published science is a creative and good idea. The concrete approach has some significant weaknesses in keywords used for the selection of papers, at least for the Arctic where the authors argue it use the AMAP definition of Arctic. A narrow set of keywords has the tendency to selectively favour natural science papers, while disregard papers on local communities, indigenous peoples, humanities, as well as health science. A recent in depth bibliometry of Arctic Research (Aksnes et al, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7961981) represents a more solid solution to this, and indicate that there is over 10.000 scientific papers / year only for the Arctic. Similar challenges likely apply to the third pole, while the simpler search term may work better for Antarctica. A more precise search may lead to additional connections between SDG and the human dimension of polar regions.\nTo identify the SDG relevance by expert solicitation also represent a constructive approach. However, the selection of experts is implicit limited by the choice of journals (disciplines) used to identify experts. For the Arctic, and alternative could be using experts engaged in the ICARP process, an association like IASSA, and those involved, asking the same question, could possibly provide a broader input base. In a perfect world, random selection of authors from a dataset like the one by Aksnes et all would make a neutral selection.\nThe global dependency on polar regions is documented well trough a set of indicators, which at least to the knowledge of the reviewer is done in a clear and transparent manner. These indicators are further couped to global impact, and dependency on polar regions by referring to a set of relevant papers.\nFor some processes checked by this reviewer, the selected set of papers do not represent the only possible realty in the academic discussion it is set to represent. In case of global cost of sea level rise substantiated by reference to Kirezci et al and Neumann et al. ignore the argument provided by others that some of the sea level rise defence and adaptation system will be built or is already built, thus the global impact will be less. The point of the reviewer here is that the base argument of the authors is still valuable but could be regarded as weak as it chooses the more “alarmist” version of possible references to this field of study.\nClarity and context\nThe paper is clear and well written. References to earlier and similar work could be better (a quick search in tools like Scite.ai give very different set of references). As the scope of the work is very broad, it will remain impossible to provide a total overview so some impression can be excused.\nSee also notes on alternative approaches under “further potential” section of review.\nReferences\nWith a very multidisciplinary work like this it will remain a problem to deliver a complete, set of relevant references. The selection of references comes across a bit skewed, likely with some self-reference bias that could have been avoided.\nYour (reviewer) expertise\nThe reviewer has worked in all polar regions and been engaged with environmental and sustainability for all polar regions in a global setting for over three decades. The main area of expertise is to the Arctic and the reviewer do not claim to have full insight into these aspects for the third pole, or Antarctica.\nSuggested improvements\nSuggestions are embedded in the above. The paper can be acceptable without additional research or data collection as that will likely not change the conclusion, this however weakens an otherwise compelling and well-presented argument.\nIt is suggested to at a minimum revisit the set of references used for the various cases of global impacts of climate (tipping points) in polar regions (ref example on sea-level rise above) to avoid becoming classified as too much “alarmist” – thus reducing the strength of the overall argument.\nFurther potential – but could be seen as outside scope of this paper;\nA) The paper refers to a similar linkage to other low populated areas of the world but do not follow up this with a widening of the scope. This is understandable, to keep focus, but is still a compelling argument worth to follow (at least in a future paper).\nB) The paper argue that UN (and similar international systems) tend to ignore polar regions. The key documentation is the use of SDG’s. There are many alternative sets of data that could be used to document lack of polar priorities in global agreements, and the UN. One example could be the UNEP GEO reports published from 1997 onwards (presently GEO-7 is in progress) where polar regions have been presented as a side issue from GEO-2 onwards. This reflects the UN systems overall regional divisions, which as argued, implicit ignore polar regions (low population) with the risk of ignoring ecosystem services vital to the whole globe.\nSpecific Comments that need to be adressed\nLine 47: Reference use:\nSelection of references to document “Polar regions…are recognized as outposts (or early warning systems) of climate change” is weak, not good for Arctic.\nLine 60-61: Methodology problem.\n“A mere 2.15% of the SDG-focused studies during 2015–2022 have considered polar regions” this statement must reference a methodology problem. Only 0,5% of all science in the world is Arctic, assuming not much more is the other poles, only should only expect something like 1% or so of all global publications addressing SDG’s also address polar issues. Thus 2.15% indicate polar regions are overrepresented in SDG literature – not the opposite.\nLine 81-83: Not followed-up, or documented argument:\n“More importantly, unsustainable practices in the polar regions might seriously impair the Earth’s sustainable future”. The argument that the polar regions is a place of “unsustainable practices” with global consequences do at least not apply to the Arctic and Antarctic, if that is the argument, it need way better documentation. Elsewhere the authors make the point that polar regions are largely low in population, and with little “practices” in it self. The authors to the contrary argue that polar regions, suffer change imposed by external forces like climate change."}, "author_response": "Response: We are encouraged by the reviewer’s agreement on the value of this manuscript. Your feedback is invaluable and further reinforces our stance on the importance of polar regions within the global climate and sustainability framework. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestions, enhancing the argument and providing more detailed analysis.\nHowever, I have the following concerns that I believe should be addressed to strengthen the paper:\n1. The concept of \"teleconnection effects of climate tipping elements\" is introduced as a central theme, but further clarification is needed on how these teleconnections specifically influence other SDGs beyond climate action.\nResponse: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We fully understand your concern regarding the concept of \"teleconnection effects of climate tipping elements,\" and we agree that further clarification is essential on how these teleconnections specifically influence other SDGs beyond climate action. We have expanded on this aspect in the manuscript, particularly on how the teleconnections of polar climate tipping elements affect global environmental, social, and economic sustainability.\nSpecifically, the tipping elements in polar regions not only directly influence climate action (SDG13) but also indirectly impact other SDGs such as health (SDG3), poverty (SDG1), water resources (SDG6), and biodiversity (SDG15) through ecosystem changes, sea level rise, and extreme weather events. In response to your suggestion, we have provided more concrete examples to illustrate these effects and clearly outlined the integrated role of polar regions in achieving global SDGs.\nIn particular, we have added the following revisions:\nLines 96 – 102: Beyond this, the teleconnection effects of polar climate tipping elements extend their influence on other SDGs. For example, the melting of polar glaciers and ice sheets alters global water distribution, directly impacting water resource management (SDG6) and exacerbating sea level rise, which threatens low-lying ecosystems (SDG15) 22. Additionally, the reduction in polar sea ice has been linked to an increase in extreme weather events, destabilizing global ecosystems and indirectly affecting biodiversity and ecosystem services23.\nLines 327 –333: These tipping elements not only directly impact climate action (SDG13) but also trigger a series of indirect effects on other SDGs. For instance, sea level rise resulting from the melting of polar ice sheets threatens populations and ecosystems in low-lying areas, impacting poverty reduction (SDG1), health (SDG3), and food security (SDG2). Furthermore, changes in the cryosphere substantially affect global water cycles, complicating sustainable water management goals (SDG6), while disruptions to polar ecosystems contribute to biodiversity loss and ecosystem service decline (SDG15).\nReferences：\n22. Zemp, M. et al. Global glacier mass changes and their contributions to sea-level rise from 1961 to 2016. Nature 568, 382–386 (2019).\n23. Cohen J. et al. Linking Arctic variability and change with extreme winter weather in the United States. Science 373, 1116–1121 (2021).\n2. The result of vegetation changes in the three polar regions focuses mainly on tree lines and the length of the growing season. However, there is a lack of analysis regarding the overall trend in vegetation change, such as browning or greening patterns. Additionally, the paper does not address the issue of species diversity, which is an important aspect of understanding the ecological consequences of climate change in polar regions.\nResponse: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have expanded the discussion on vegetation changes in polar regions in the revised version, particularly focusing on greening and browning patterns in the Arctic. We highlight that the greening trend in the Arctic is driven by shifts in plant species from graminoids to shrubs, along with increases in snow water equivalent (SWE), soil moisture, and active layer thickness. However, some tundra areas show browning due to earlier snow cover melt and ground ice thaw. These points have been added to the text, and relevant references have been included to strengthen the analysis.\nThe revisions in the manuscript are as follows:\nLines 172 – 176: The arctic warming leads the increasing greenness because of shifts in plant species from graminoids towards shrubs, as well as increases in snow water equivalent, soil moisture, and active layer thickness38. However, some tundra areas show browning due to the earlier snow cover and ground ice melting under the background of greenness39,40.\nReferences：\n38. Myers-Smith, I. H. et al. Climate sensitivity of shrub growth across the tundra biome. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 887–891 (2015).\n39. Phoenix, G. K. & Bjerke, J. W. Arctic browning: extreme events and trends reversing Arctic greening. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22, 2960–2962 (2016).\n40. Bhatt, U. et al. Changing seasonality of panarctic tundra vegetation in relationship to climatic variables. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 055003 (2017).\n3. While the inclusion of indigenous populations is a positive aspect, the discussion of their role and rights in the context of SDGs could be expanded. More concrete examples of how indigenous knowledge and practices could contribute to climate action in polar regions would enrich the narrative.\nResponse: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We fully agree with your point regarding the importance of indigenous populations and their role in contributing to the achievement of the SDGs. We have expanded on this aspect in the revised version of the manuscript, specifically discussing how indigenous knowledge and practices can contribute to climate action, particularly with concrete examples related to polar regions. This not only helps to more comprehensively reflect the involvement of indigenous communities but also enriches our discussion on climate action. We have included specific examples of how indigenous knowledge can be applied in climate change adaptation, such as utilizing traditional environmental management practices to support ecosystem conservation and sustainable development in polar regions. Details in revised version are as follows:\nLines 334 – 343: Indigenous communities play a vital role in these processes. Their traditional ecological knowledge provides invaluable insights into local environmental changes, such as shifts in sea ice conditions and wildlife behaviors, which can improve early warning systems for climate adaptation55. In the Arctic, for instance, indigenous knowledge of ice conditions has long informed seasonal hunting practices. These knowledge could be used to enhance our understanding of polar tipping points, offering a unique perspective on long-term climatic features that may not be fully captured by scientific data alone. Additionally, these communities offer crucial perspectives on sustainable land and resource management, contributing to SDG15 (Life on Land) by preserving ecosystems through indigenous conservation practices.\nReferences：\n55. Galicia, M. P., Thiemann, G. W. & Dyck, M. G. Correlates of seasonal change in the body condition of an Arctic top predator. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 840–850 (2020).\n4. The call for strengthened global partnerships is essential but could be elaborated with specific examples of how international cooperation can be improved in the polar regions.\nResponse: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the need to elaborate on strengthened global partnerships. We agree that providing specific examples of international cooperation will enhance the discussion. In response, we have expanded the manuscript to include concrete examples, such as the development of shared observation systems, integrated data platforms, and successful cross-border collaborations. These initiatives illustrate how international partnerships can be strengthened to support the achievement of SDGs in polar regions. Details in revised version are as follows:\nLines 424 – 428: For instance, international cooperation could be enhanced through the development of shared observation systems and integrated data platforms that support collaborative research on polar ecosystems and climate change. Successful cross-border partnerships, such as 'Decade of Action for Cryospheric Sciences', could serve as models for cooperative action.\n5. Figure 3 appears somewhat cluttered and could benefit from a more streamlined design. The complex interactions depicted in the diagram may be difficult for readers to fully grasp at first glance. I recommend simplifying the figure by reducing the amount of text and improving the visual hierarchy. Key elements could be highlighted with clearer labels, and the relationships between the different components should be made more intuitive.\nResponse: Thank you for your valuable feedback on Figure 3. We understand that the complexity of the diagram may hinder readers from fully grasping its content at first glance. In the revised version, we have simplified the design by relocating the text to the bottom of the figure, reducing its impact on the overall composition. Additionally, we have adjusted the SDG icons to make the key elements more prominent. These changes have made the figure cleaner and clearer, with a more intuitive presentation of the relationships between the components.\nThe revised figure is shown as follows:\nSuggestions for sentence and formatting improvements:\n6. Line 12: The phrase \"among the three pole regions\" should be revised to \"in the three pole regions\" for better clarity.\nResponse: Agreed and done.\n7. Lines 125, 128, 130: There appear to be formatting issues that need to be addressed.\nResponse: Agreed and done.\n8. In the Results section, it is recommended that the author ensures consistency in the expression of time periods.\nResponse: Agreed and done.\nReviewer #2:\nThis article provides valuable insights into the critical role of polar regions in global climate dynamics and offers targeted recommendations for aligning sustainable development goals (SDGs) with a focus on polar sustainability. It highlights the essential yet often overlooked contribution of polar regions to the progress of global SDGs. Overall, the paper is well-written, offering a thorough and detailed description. The following suggestions are provided for the authors’ consideration:\nResponse: Thank you very much for your positive feedback and thoughtful comments. We also thank you for your recognition of the importance of our work in highlighting the critical role of polar regions in global climate dynamics and their connection to SDGs. Your suggestions will certainly help improve the paper further, and we have addressed them in detail.\n1. In the introduction, the authors state that the paper \"highlights the critical role of polar regions in global sustainable development from a teleconnection perspective.\" However, it is not entirely clear how the authors quantified the teleconnection effects in this context. Could the authors briefly clarify the methodology used to assess these effects?\nResponse: We have briefly clarified the methodology used to assess these effects in the revised manuscript according to your suggestion. We highlight the critical role of polar regions in global sustainable development from a teleconnection perspective using an online expert survey and bibliometric analysis. Specific modifications are as follows:\nLines 71 – 73: In this study, we highlight the critical role of polar regions in global sustainable development in a teleconnection perspective using an online expert survey and bibliometric analysis.\n2. Fig. 1: It might be more intuitive to plot temperature trends over time to better illustrate temperature variations. Additionally, some text in the figure is partially obscured by the chart, making it difficult to read. I recommend adjusting the layout, removing the gray border, and refining the text placement to enhance both clarity and visual appeal.\nResponse: Thank you for your advice about Fig.1. In the revised version, we have adjusted the layout of the figure and have refined the text placement to avoid overlap with the chart, improving readability. Additionally, we have removed the gray border and adjusted the placement of the text to enhance both clarity and visual appeal. Regarding the temperature trends over time, we here are expected to illustrate the amplification effect of warming in the three poles, particularly the “elevation-dependent warming” in the Tibetan Plateau regions, rather than presenting specific year-to-year temperature data. As other elements in Fig. 1 do not offer temporal trends, the figure is designed to show only the magnitude of temperature change across the three polar regions from 1980 to 2023.\nThe revised Fig.1 is shown below:\n3. Fig. 2: The x-axis currently uses SDG icons, but the white text within these icons is difficult to read. I suggest replacing the icons with SDG numbers, and including the specific targets either in the figure title or within a legend for clarity.\nResponse: Agreed and done. The revised Fig. 2 is shown below:\n4. Fig. 3(a): The text appears too small to read comfortably. Increasing the font size would improve readability.\nResponse: Thank you for your valuable feedback. To improve readability, we have made adjustments to the overall layout and structure of Figure 3. Specifically, we relocated the text to the bottom of the figure to reduce its impact on the overall composition and enhance legibility. This change addresses the issue of font size, as the text is now more comfortably readable.\nThe revised Fig. 3 is shown below:\n5. The air temperature data for the polar regions and the Tibetan Plateau are sourced from separate datasets. I wonder whether the authors have evaluated the data quality of these datasets specifically for these regions. It would be helpful to understand if there are any inherent discrepancies between the datasets, and whether such a comparison is justified.\nResponse: Thank you for your valuable comment. Different datasets were used to analyze air temperature in the polar regions (ERA5) and the Tibetan Plateau (TPMFD). The TPMFD dataset is derived from a combination of long-term ERA5 reanalysis data, short-term high-resolution atmospheric simulations, and in-situ observations. This combination results in a higher spatial resolution of 1/30°, which makes it particularly well-suited for mountainous regions like the Tibetan Plateau. Validation studies have demonstrated that the TPMFD dataset generally outperforms other widely used reanalysis datasets for the Tibetan Plateau, confirming its reliability and accuracy. Furthermore, since TPMFD is based on ERA5 data, there are no inherent discrepancies between the two datasets, particularly in the context of the Tibetan Plateau. It is important to note that the coarse-resolution ERA5 data cannot effectively capture the “elevation-dependent warming” in the Tibetan Plateau. Therefore, we selected ERA5 for the polar regions and TPMFD for the Tibetan Plateau due to their respective advantages in data quality and suitability for each region.\nReviewer #3:\n## General comments\nThe manuscript \"Polar regions are critical in achieving global Sustainable Development Goals\" aims to portray the importance of including specified targets on polar regions and high mountain areas that share similar environmental features and challenges in climate warming.\nOverall, the manuscript provides a comprehensive foundation to support arguments for expanding the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with specific targets and indicators related to polar regions. The authors effectively emphasize the significance of this issue, particularly by highlighting the teleconnections between polar regions and the “Third Pole.” In this context, all high-altitude regions that influence distant regions through teleconnections, such as river discharges, are also included.\nThe main argument is that via these teleconnections and having overlooked the impact of proper sustainable development in these regions may weaken the whole concept of the SDGs and therefore it is sound to fill this gap.\nResponse: Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging comments on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the manuscript’s comprehensive foundation and its emphasis on the critical role of polar regions and high mountain areas in achieving global SDGs. We agree with your assessment that addressing these gaps is essential for strengthening the overall concept of the SDGs. We have taken your comments into account as we further refine the manuscript.\n1. However, the paragraph from line 48 to 58 has some problems I lay out in the specific comments. It would need to be rewritten into a more targeted text that helps to schieve the major aim of the manuscript. At the moment, there are many contradictions and also misinterpretations on the SGDs roles in portraying sustainable development as a whole.\nResponse: We appreciate your insightful recommendations. In response, we have revised the phrasing concerning \"climate-driven gas storage facilities\" (lines 48 – 49) and removed the potentially conflicting statement regarding sustainable development in polar regions. Further details are provided in our point-by-point response.\n2. I like the focus that is layed on the use data (line 269ff) and the outlined strategy figure that summarizes well the impacts of the interconnections between the polar regions and the rest of the globe.\nResponse: Thank you very much for your positive feedback on our focus on the use of data and the strategy figure outlining the impacts of the interconnections between the polar regions and the rest of the globe. We are glad that you found the figure effective in summarizing these complex interconnections.\n## Specific comments\n3. Line 43ff: Would you agree that the \"polar regions\" mentioned here span wider as the usual polar (arctic/antarctic) circle areas located above the 66°33'50.2 latitudes? Given the Tibetian Plateau included and the extent of permafrost regions and also the areas were snow cover occurs. I tried to check up your provided information but the reference 4 given as \"Science Press, 2021\" is a bit shady. There are some possible websites but none has a book/work with the given title. At least the \"early warning\" is covered by reference 5. Is there a DOI number for reference 4?\nResponse: Thank you for your valuable feedback. Regarding your comment on the term \"polar regions\" mentioned in lines 43 and beyond, we agree that the scope extends beyond the traditional Arctic/Antarctic regions, especially in the case of the Arctic. In this manuscript, the definition and spatial coverage of the three poles follow Xin Li et al., (2020) (Figure 1 in this paper). The definition provided in Xin Li et al., (2020) is a comprehensive consideration, drawing on several key studies (e.g., AMAP, 1997; SCAR, 2004; Liu et al., 2014). In the revised manuscript, we have included the appropriate citation.\nRegarding Reference 4, which is a Chinese-language book, we understand that it may be difficult for some international readers to access due to language and regional barriers. To improve accessibility, we have replaced this reference with others that are more widely available, such as You et al. (2020) and Duarte et al. (2012). Unfortunately, we were unable to provide a DOI for Reference 4, but we have ensured that the new references are accessible and relevant.\nThe detailed revisions are as follows:\nLines 45 – 47: Polar regions, covering approximately 20.1% (or ~300×106 km2) of the global land area and 16.7% (or ~600×106 km2) of the ocean area1, are recognized as outposts (or early warning systems) of climate change4,5.\nReferences：\n1. Li, X. et al. CASEarth Poles: Big data for the three poles. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 101, E1475–E1491 (2020).\n4. You, Q. et al. Warming amplification over the Arctic Pole and Third Pole: Trends, mechanisms and consequences. Earth-Sci. Rev. 217, 103625 (2021).\n5. Duarte, C. M., Lenton, T. M., Wadhams, P. & Wassmann, P. Abrupt climate change in the Arctic. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 60–62 (2012).\nReferences for Response：\nArctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, (AMAP), Arctic pollution issues: A state of the Arctic environment report (AMAP, 1997). www.amap.no/documents/doc/arctic-pollution-issues-a-state-of-the-arctic-environment-report/67.\nScientific Committee on Antarctic Research, (SCAR), Strategic plan 2004–2010 (SCAR, 2004). https://scar.org/~documents/scar-publications/strategic-plans/strategic-plan-2004-10?layout=default.\nLiu, C., Shi, R. & Chen, W. Eco-regional boundary data of the Roof of the World. Acta Geogr. Sin. 69, 104–112 (2014).\n4. Line 49: Your statement \"climate-driven gas storage facilities\" is very misleading. In the cited literature this reads as \"and storage of climate driving gases\"! First, there are no facilities, the storage meant in the cited literature is the permafrost and soil related storage of greehouse gases. Second, instead of \"climate driven gas storage\" the Arctic ecosystems store the \"climate driving gases\". As you anyway use the citation there is nothing wrong with using the proper wording given in the cited literature.\nResponse: Thank you for your valuable feedback and for pointing out the issue with our phrasing. In the revised version, ‘climate-driven gas storage facilities’ has been corrected to ‘storage of climate driving gases’.\n5. Line 55ff: While your statement on fossil fuels is the sad status at the recent time it kind of contradicts the sustainable development and aims of SDGs in the polar regions you call for, especially in the light of Arctic warming at unprecedent rates and your own statements starting on line 81 about the risks of unsustainable practices in the polar region. SDG 7's goal is definitly to push towards access to sustainable and clean energy for everyone which is not achievable by ongoingly using fossil fuels and thus deepening the problems in the polar regions. I am also a bit astonished about the choice of mentioning only the \"sustained\" economic growth in context with SDG 8. SDG 8 also states \"inclusive and sustainable economic growth\" which means that unresponsible exploitation of the area should be changed so that, as you state prominently, no one is left behind. This one sentence with its, maybe a bit unreflected, statements hampers your aims to introduce a stronger polar region context on SDGs.\nResponse: Your views are insightful, thanks. In this paragraph, we intended to emphasize the importance of the polar regions to global sustainability but overlooked the trade-off effects among the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within this region. After further consideration, we deleted the expressions regarding fossil energy (SDG 7) and promoting sustained economic growth (SDG8). Regarding the term \"unsustainable exploitation,\" we believe this may have been a misunderstanding. As stated in our response to Comment 19, our goal is to highlight the importance of the Tripolar region for global sustainable development. In the context of global sustainability, we cannot afford to leave this region behind. See revised manuscript at Lines 84 – 85 for detail.\n6. Line 152ff: Statements on change in vegetation period could have also some citations. Even though you have calculated them from remote sensing data I guess there might be literature to compare to as well. In the paragraphs before and after you set nicely your results into context to published work.\nResponse: Thank you for your suggestion. As you pointed out regarding the change in the vegetation period, we indeed calculated these using remote sensing data. We have added relevant citations in the revised version to better compare our results with the existing literature.\nThe detailed revisions are as follows:\nLines 157 – 172: In subarctic regions (latitude > 60° N), treelines have shifted upward at an average rate of 4.76 m/decade from 1981 to 2018, which is closely correlated with precipitation changes in autumn, winter, and annual34. In the Tibetan Plateau, the average rate of upward shift over the past 100 years has been much lower, at 2.9 ± 2.9 m/decade (range: 0 - 8.0 m/decade). Although climatic warming has generally promoted the upward migration of alpine treelines, the rate of upslope movement in this region is primarily influenced by species interactions35.\nIn the Arctic, the growing season has lengthened by an average of 8.58 days from 1982 to 2014, corresponding to an increase of 2.60 days per decade. However, changes in growing season duration were not consistent across the entire period. From 1982 to 1999, the growing season lengthened at a rate of 5.06 days per decade, while from 2000 to 2014, it actually shortened by -1.08 days per decade, largely due to a warming hiatus during the latter period36. In the Tibetan Plateau, the start of the growing season advanced by 8.3 ± 2.0 days between 2000 and 2020, while the end of the season was delayed by 8.2 ± 1.9 days, resulting in an overall extension of the growing season by 7.86 days per decade during this period37.\nReferences:\n34. Lu, X. et al. Mountain treelines climb slowly despite rapid climate warming. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30, 305–315 (2021).\n35. Liang, E. et al. Species interactions slow warming-induced upward shifts of treelines on the Tibetan Plateau. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 4380–4385 (2016).\n36. Madani, N., Parazoo, N. C. & Miller, C. E. Climate change is enforcing physiological changes in Arctic Ecosystems. Environ. Res. Lett. 18, 074027 (2023).\n37. Shen, M. et al. Plant phenology changes and drivers on the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 3, 633–651 (2022).\n7. Line 250: The cryosphere's key components also entail snow! That is actually the component that has the largest spatial and temporal extent impacted by climate warming as you also show in figure 1 and the results. Maybe add it as well to here.\nResponse: We completely agree with your point that snow is a key component of the cryosphere, and it is indeed the component largely impacted by climate warming, both spatially and temporally, as we also demonstrate in Figure 1 and the results section. In the revised version, we have included snow as a key element.\nLines 272 – 273: We further propose a new indicator to monitor cryosphere’s key components —ice sheets, glaciers, snow, permafrost, and sea ice—across both polar and high mountain areas.\n## Technical\n8. Lines 125, 128, 130: Some font problem, overlaying symbol.\nResponse: They've been corrected, thank you.\n9. Line 313: double \"the interrelations\"\nResponse: It has been corrected, thank you.\nReviewer #4:\nKey results\n1. This paper demonstrates the global dependency on polar regions as well as their interconnection. This is documented by summarizing multiple sources of climate related data as well as use of the SDG in IPCC reports, and expert view from a survey. In conclusion the paper suggests additional SDG indicators to address the apparent ignorance of the polar regions in the SDG.\nResponse: Thank you very much for your positive and thoughtful feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the global importance and interconnection of polar regions, as well as the comprehensive approach we have taken by summarizing multiple sources of climate data and incorporating expert views. Your acknowledgement of our efforts to highlight the underrepresentation of polar regions in the SDGs and propose additional indicators to address this gap is highly valued.\nValidity\n2. The paper provides reasonable documentation for the arguments used. The substantiation of the arguments, and conclusion could have been stronger (more data, increased precision, improvement in methodology, additional approaches).\nResponse: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the documentation supporting our arguments. We understand your point regarding the need for stronger substantiation, and we have taken steps to improve the robustness of the data used. In response to your suggestion, we have ensured that the data we rely on in the revised manuscript are from more unified and carefully selected sources, enhancing both precision and reliability. We believe these revisions strengthen the overall argument and methodology.\nSignificance\n3. The story told is compelling, reasonably documented, and addresses a problem that deserve attention; the polar regions (and other low populated paces on earth) are underrepresented, and partly forgotten in global governance systems – also in this case where the rest of the world is very dependent on these regions.\nResponse: We agree with your assessment that the polar regions, as well as other sparsely populated areas, are often underrepresented and overlooked in global governance systems. This underrepresentation is especially concerning given the growing interdependence of the global community on these regions, which play a crucial role in regulating climate and supporting global sustainability efforts. Your insightful comments reinforce the significance of our work, and we appreciate your recognition of its relevance.\n4. The paper addresses this important weakness by using the SDG system as the case. The paper reasonably well argue that this weakness can lead to unintended negative global climate, tipping point, and socioeconomic consequences.\nResponse: We agree with your assessment that the underrepresentation of polar regions in the SDG system can indeed lead to unintended negative consequences, including potential tipping points in climate systems and socioeconomic instability. We are glad that our argument regarding these critical risks has been effectively communicated, and we appreciate your recognition of this important aspect of our paper.\n5. Some tendency towards alarmist approaches in selection of cited findings, and a modest independent data base weaken the strength of the paper.\nResponse: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our study. We understand your concern regarding the potentially “alarmist” tone in the selection of cited findings. In the revised manuscript, we have re-examined the references used and ensure a more balanced presentation of different research perspectives, avoiding an overemphasis on any single result or scenario. For more details, please see our follow-up responses to your specific comments.\n6. The very specific argument for data cooperation and naming specific remote sensing programs seems arbitrary, as the authors could equally well have argued for other aspects of science, data, or human organisation, indigenous rights etc. being essential.\nResponse: We appreciate your feedback and have removed the content pertaining to the SDGSAT-1 satellite and data cooperation.\nData, methodology, and analytical approach\n7. Use of bibliometry on published science is a creative and good idea. The concrete approach has some significant weaknesses in keywords used for the selection of papers, at least for the Arctic where the authors argue it use the AMAP definition of Arctic. A narrow set of keywords has the tendency to selectively favour natural science papers, while disregard papers on local communities, indigenous peoples, humanities, as well as health science. A recent in depth bibliometry of Arctic Research (Aksnes et al, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.7961981) represents a more solid solution to this, and indicate that there is over 10.000 scientific papers / year only for the Arctic. Similar challenges likely apply to the third pole, while the simpler search term may work better for Antarctica. A more precise search may lead to additional connections between SDG and the human dimension of polar regions.\nResponse: We fully agree with your comments. The boundaries used for the bibliometric analysis may indeed encompass various definitions of the polar regions, especially in the Arctic, where multiple definitions exist. This could lead to discrepancies between the bibliometric analysis and the AMAP boundaries used for quantitative spatial statistics in the manuscript. Additionally, the narrow set of keywords may introduce a disciplinary bias.\nHowever, adopting a more refined approach, such as the in-depth bibliometric analysis of Arctic Research mentioned in your comment (Aksnes et al., 2023), would not only increase the workload but could also impact the timeliness of the paper, particularly since we have already collected the key literature needed for our current analysis. While such an approach would offer a more comprehensive inclusion of relevant papers, we believe that this difference will not alter the conclusion that sustainable development in polar regions has been largely overlooked in the formulation of global SDGs.\nIn addition, we fully recognize the limitations this approach entails and have addressed them in detail in the limitations section, citing the reference you provided.\nDetailed revisions in limitations section as follow:\nLines 397 – 400: The timing of expert selection and the scope of literature review may also limit the robustness of the conclusions. Future studies could benefit from broader expert participation and a more comprehensive bibliometric approach, particularly by incorporating a wider range of keywords68.\nReferences:\n68. Aksnes, D. W., Blöcker, C., Colliander, C. & Nilsson, L. M. Arctic Research Trends: Bibliometrics 2016-2022 (Arctic Centre at Umeå University, 2023). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7961981.\n8. To identify the SDG relevance by expert solicitation also represent a constructive approach. However, the selection of experts is implicit limited by the choice of journals (disciplines) used to identify experts. For the Arctic, and alternative could be using experts engaged in the ICARP process, an association like IASSA, and those involved, asking the same question, could possibly provide a broader input base. In a perfect world, random selection of authors from a dataset like the one by Aksnes et all would make a neutral selection.\nResponse: Thank you for your insightful comment. As noted in our previous response, we acknowledge that biases in expert selection may arise from the use of journals and disciplines to identify experts. While alternative approaches, such as engaging experts from organizations like ICARP or IASSA, or utilizing datasets like Aksnes et al. (2023), could broaden the input base and enhance neutrality, these methods were beyond the scope of the current study due to practical constraints. We have clarified this limitation in the discussion section and cited relevant literature to acknowledge potential improvements in expert selection methodology. Nonetheless, we believe our findings remain robust in highlighting the underrepresentation of polar regions in the global SDG framework.\n9. The global dependency on polar regions is documented well trough a set of indicators, which at least to the knowledge of the reviewer is done in a clear and transparent manner. These indicators are further couped to global impact, and dependency on polar regions by referring to a set of relevant papers.\nResponse: Thank you for your positive feedback on our study, particularly regarding the documentation of global dependency on polar regions and the clarity and transparency with which the indicators are presented. We are pleased to know that you found our approach clear and transparent.\n10. For some processes checked by this reviewer, the selected set of papers do not represent the only possible realty in the academic discussion it is set to represent. In case of global cost of sea level rise substantiated by reference to Kirezci et al and Neumann et al. ignore the argument provided by others that some of the sea level rise defence and adaptation system will be built or is already built, thus the global impact will be less. The point of the reviewer here is that the base argument of the authors is still valuable but could be regarded as weak as it chooses the more “alarmist” version of possible references to this field of study.\nResponse: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We fully understand your concerns regarding the selection of references and appreciate you pointing out some relevant perspectives that we may have overlooked. In the revised version, we have provided a more balanced discussion of the global costs of sea level rise, taking into account the role of existing and ongoing adaptations in mitigating these impacts. We have included references to studies that highlight how these defense systems, which are already being built or planned, could reduce the effects of sea level rise, thus making our analysis more comprehensive.\nThe detailed revisions are as follows：\nLines 184 – 185: Fortunately, substantial adaptation strategies have already been explored to mitigate these impacts46.\nReferences:\n46. Hinkel, J. et al. The ability of societies to adapt to twenty-first-century sea level rise. Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 570–578 (2018).\nClarity and context\n11. The paper is clear and well written. References to earlier and similar work could be better (a quick search in tools like Scite.ai give very different set of references). As the scope of the work is very broad, it will remain impossible to provide a total overview so some impression can be excused.\nResponse: Thank you for your positive feedback on the clarity and writing of the paper. We appreciate your suggestion to improve the references to earlier and similar works. We agree that a more comprehensive literature review would enhance the study, especially considering its broad scope. As mentioned in our response to Comment 7, we recognize that this study would benefit from broader expert participation and a more detailed bibliometric analysis. However, providing a complete literature review, as you suggested, is quite challenging given the scope of the work. This is not the core focus of our study, but we did use tools such as Scite.ai to help identify key references. While these tools were helpful, the sheer volume of relevant literature was beyond our expectations. We believe a more in-depth bibliometric analysis would be more suitable for a dedicated study on this topic, and we are inspired by this approach for our future research.\nSee also notes on alternative approaches under “further potential” section of review.\nReferences\n12. With a very multidisciplinary work like this it will remain a problem to deliver a complete, set of relevant references. The selection of references comes across a bit skewed, likely with some self-reference bias that could have been avoided.\nResponse: We acknowledge that with a multidisciplinary study like this, providing a completely comprehensive set of relevant references can be challenging. We appreciate your observation regarding the selection of references and the potential for self-reference bias. Moving forward, we have carefully reviewed our reference list and reduced some self-reference to minimize bias.\nYour (reviewer) expertise\n13. The reviewer has worked in all polar regions and been engaged with environmental and sustainability for all polar regions in a global setting for over three decades. The main area of expertise is to the Arctic and the reviewer do not claim to have full insight into these aspects for the third pole, or Antarctica.\nResponse: Thank you for sharing your extensive experience in working with polar regions and environmental sustainability. We greatly appreciate your expertise, particularly regarding the Arctic. We fully understand that, given the vast and complex nature of the polar regions, it is challenging to have comprehensive insights into all aspects of the Third Pole and Antarctica. We do our best to ensure the reliability of data and references to reflect the distinct characteristics and challenges of all polar regions, while acknowledging the variability and gaps in available data for each region.\nSuggested improvements\n14. Suggestions are embedded in the above. The paper can be acceptable without additional research or data collection as that will likely not change the conclusion, this however weakens an otherwise compelling and well-presented argument.\nResponse: We truly value your feedback and believe it has contributed to improving the manuscript. Given the broad scope of the work, providing a comprehensive and detailed review is challenging, as mentioned earlier. Nonetheless, we have strengthened the manuscript by incorporating additional references.\nRegarding 'data collection,' although this aspect is not explicitly discussed in the manuscript, we conducted a thorough evaluation and selection of data prior to the study, and reviewed numerous relevant studies to ensure the reliability of the data. While we acknowledge that further data collection might not change the conclusions, we believe the rigorous preparatory steps we undertook support the reliability of our findings and reinforce the argument presented in the manuscript.\n15. It is suggested to at a minimum revisit the set of references used for the various cases of global impacts of climate (tipping points) in polar regions (ref example on sea-level rise above) to avoid becoming classified as too much “alarmist” – thus reducing the strength of the overall argument.\nResponse: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the selection of references. We understand your concern that some of the references, particularly those related to the global impacts of climate change (such as sea level rise), may present a more “alarmist” perspective. To strengthen the overall argument and provide a more balanced view, we have revised the references in the manuscript (see Comments 7 and 10). For example, we have included studies that discuss adaptation and mitigation measures, highlighting defense systems and strategies already in place or under development to mitigate the impacts of sea level rise. By incorporating these references, we aim to present a more comprehensive view that acknowledges both the risks of climate change and the global efforts to address them.\nFurther potential – but could be seen as outside scope of this paper\n16. A) The paper refers to a similar linkage to other low populated areas of the world but do not follow up this with a widening of the scope. This is understandable, to keep focus, but is still a compelling argument worth to follow (at least in a future paper).\nResponse: We appreciate your observation regarding the mention of other low-populated areas and the potential to broaden the scope. We understand the importance of considering a wider context, but to maintain focus, we chose not to extend the discussion in this paper. However, we plan to explore this aspect in future research, possibly by employing a comparative approach to similar regions, which could provide further insights.\n17. B) The paper argue that UN (and similar international systems) tend to ignore polar regions. The key documentation is the use of SDG’s. There are many alternative sets of data that could be used to document lack of polar priorities in global agreements, and the UN. One example could be the UNEP GEO reports published from 1997 onwards (presently GEO-7 is in progress) where polar regions have been presented as a side issue from GEO-2 onwards. This reflects the UN systems overall regional divisions, which as argued, implicit ignore polar regions (low population) with the risk of ignoring ecosystem services vital to the whole globe.\nResponse: Thank you for your insightful feedback and the valuable suggestion regarding the use of UNEP GEO reports. We fully agree with your point that the polar regions have often been relegated to secondary issues in global frameworks like the UN and related agreements. The UNEP GEO reports indeed represent another critical source that highlights this neglect. We have incorporated this reference in the revised manuscript to strengthen our argument about the underrepresentation of polar regions in global governance systems.\nDetails as follows:\nLines 60-64: Furthermore, the marginalization of polar regions is also reflected in other international reports, such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Global Environment Outlook (GEO) series9. Beginning with GEO-210, polar regions have often been treated as side issues, highlighting their consistent underrepresentation in global environmental governance systems.\nReferences:\n9. United Nations Environment Programme, (UNEP), Global Environment Outlook 6 (UNEP, 2019). https://www.unep.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-6.\n10. United Nations Environment Programme, (UNEP), Global Environment Outlook 2 (UNEP, 1999). https://www.unep.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-2.\nSpecific Comments that need to be addressed\nLine 47: Reference use:\n18. Selection of references to document “Polar regions…are recognized as outposts (or early warning systems) of climate change” is weak, not good for Arctic.\nResponse: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the selection of references, particularly regarding the statement that \"Polar regions… are recognized as outposts (or early warning systems) of climate change.\" Based on your comments, we have chosen more suitable references as stated in Comment 3 of Reviewer 3. The detailed revisions are as follows:\nLines 45 – 47: Polar regions, covering approximately 20.1% (or ~300×106 km2) of the global land area and 16.7% (or ~600×106 km2) of the ocean area1, are recognized as outposts (or early warning systems) of climate change4,5.\nReferences：\n1. Li, X. et al. CASEarth Poles: Big data for the three poles. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 101, E1475–E1491 (2020).\n4. You, Q. et al. Warming amplification over the Arctic Pole and Third Pole: Trends, mechanisms and consequences. Earth-Sci. Rev. 217, 103625 (2021).\n5. Duarte, C. M., Lenton, T. M., Wadhams, P. & Wassmann, P. Abrupt climate change in the Arctic. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 60–62 (2012).\nLine 60-61: Methodology problem.\n19. “A mere 2.15% of the SDG-focused studies during 2015–2022 have considered polar regions” this statement must reference a methodology problem. Only 0,5% of all science in the world is Arctic, assuming not much more is the other poles, only should only expect something like 1% or so of all global publications addressing SDG’s also address polar issues. Thus 2.15% indicate polar regions are overrepresented in SDG literature – not the opposite.\nResponse: Thank you for pointing this out. It was an error, and we have corrected it. Based on our Supplementary Information, 2.15% have been replaced by 0.75% (Line 58).\n20. Line 81-83: Not followed-up, or documented argument:\n“More importantly, unsustainable practices in the polar regions might seriously impair the Earth’s sustainable future”. The argument that the polar regions is a place of “unsustainable practices” with global consequences do at least not apply to the Arctic and Antarctic, if that is the argument, it need way better documentation. Elsewhere the authors make the point that polar regions are largely low in population, and with little “practices” in it self. The authors to the contrary argue that polar regions, suffer change imposed by external forces like climate change.\nResponse: Thank you for your valuable comment! We apologize for the confusion caused by the expression, \"unsustainable practices in the polar regions might seriously impair the Earth’s sustainable future.\" Upon reflection, we realize that this was a miscommunication. Our intention was to highlight that if polar regions are left behind in the global progress towards sustainable development, it could impair the Earth’s sustainable future through the cascading effects of interconnected tipping elements, rather than implying that polar regions themselves are inherently unsustainable. We have revised this statement to make it clearer and more accurate.\nIn the revised version, details are as follows\nLines 84 – 87: More importantly, once polar regions are ‘left behind’, it might seriously impair the Earth’s sustainable future through the cascading effects of interconnected tipping elements18, thereby jeopardizing efforts to maintain planetary boundaries within a safe operating space19.\nReferences：\n18. Liu, T. et al. Teleconnections among tipping elements in the Earth system. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 67–74 (2023).\n19. Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009)."}, {"round": 2, "reviewer_comments": {"reviewer_1": "The new version covers my comments well and I have no further more....", "reviewer_2": "While the authors have satisfactorily addressed some of my questions, I would like to raise several additional points that I believe are essential for ensuring the robustness of the conclusions drawn from the different datasets.\nThe higher resolution of TPMFD is invaluable for observing temperature variations in mountainous regions such as the Tibetan Plateau. However, it would be beneficial to explicitly discuss the potential biases that may arise from the fusion of multiple datasets. As noted in the study (https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/621/2023/#section7), while these fusion processes can correct biases in ERA5 data, they may also introduce inherent discrepancies between the datasets (https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/18/4089/2024/). Moreover, while the authors attribute the improved representation of \"elevation-dependent warming\" on the Tibetan Plateau to the higher resolution of TPMFD, it would be valuable to explore whether other factors related to the combination of data sources contribute to this enhancement. If TPMFD indeed outperforms ERA5 in this region, discussing the robustness of using ERA5 data for polar regions becomes critical. This discussion impacts the comparability of warming rates across the two regions.\nGiven these considerations, I recommend that the authors provide a more detailed discussion on their choice of data, particularly regarding the potential discrepancies between ERA5 and TPMFD. Clarifying the limitations of ERA5 in representing local temperature variations, especially in polar regions, would also be beneficial. Furthermore, validation studies comparing ERA5 with ground-based observations in both the Tibetan Plateau and polar regions would strengthen the argument that these datasets are suitable for use in their respective areas.", "reviewer_3": "The revised manuscript has included the suggestions and discussed the questions. It is improved and meets the requirements to be published.", "reviewer_4": "Remarks to the Author\nThank you for the thoughtful revisions, and responses to all four reviewers.\nRe. your response to Reviwer1: Lines 334 – 343: Indigenous communities play a vital role in these processes. Their traditional ecological knowledge provides invaluable insights into local environmental changes, such as shifts in sea ice conditions and wildlife behaviors, which can improve early warning systems for climate adaptation55. In the Arctic, for instance, indigenous knowledge of ice conditions has long informed seasonal hunting practices. These knowledge could be used to enhance our understanding of polar tipping points, offering a unique perspective on long-term climatic features that may not be fully captured by scientific data alone. Additionally, these communities offer crucial perspectives on sustainable land and resource management, contributing to SDG15 (Life on Land) by preserving ecosystems through indigenous conservation practices.\nThis Reviewer remark to the above:\nIt would be valuable, at least towards Indigenous Peoples (and their organisations) to somehow acknowledge that their “traditional ecological knowledge” do not only represents an observation competency, but also a tradition of being part of the nature / ecosystem. This include concepts like:\n• Reindeer herding peoples of the Arctic (Russia + Nordic), and same likely apply to nomadic people of 3rd pole. The tradition include to live with change, adapt to change, and even be part of change (nature has traditionally also been influenced by their way of living), tree line rise in Swedish Arctic is partly climate but also an effect of change in grazing pattern. This is an effect of change in legislation and system regulating traditional way of life (reducing resilience of indigenous communities). See publications like, Mathiesen et al. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-17625-8\n• Innuits, and coastal communities has a long culture of adaptation to variable climate (world has not been only stable). “indigenous knowledge of ice conditions has long informed seasonal hunting practices” is to some extend misleading, as modern climate change is “beyond” traditional knowledge domain (ref. initiatives like: https://smartice.org/)\nRe. your response to Reviwer1: Lines 424 – 428: For instance, international cooperation could be enhanced through the development of shared observation systems and integrated data platforms that support collaborative research on polar ecosystems and climate change. Successful cross-border partnerships, such as 'Decade of Action for Cryospheric Sciences', could serve as models for cooperative action.\nThis Reviewer remark:\nThe following example of successful partnership is likely more essential than “Decade of Action for Cryospheric Sciences” (a quite limited example). It is suggested to rather or in addition refer to initiatives like\n• Arctic Council, AMAP program,\n• International Polar Year (2007-2008, + next one 2032-33 ref: https://ipy5.net/ (a IASC, SCAR and partners initiative)\n• IASC data group, and academic collaboration in the system of\n• University of the Arctic (uarctic.org ), its 3rd pole parallel Himalaya Universities Consortium (https://www.icimod.org/initiative/huc/ ), and young researchers partnership like APECS\nRe. your response to Reviewer 4: Lines 60-64: Furthermore, the marginalization of polar regions is also reflected in other international reports, such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Global Environment Outlook (GEO) series9. Beginning with GEO-210, polar regions have often been treated as side issues, highlighting their consistent underrepresentation in global environmental governance systems.\nThis Reviewer remark:\nWhile UNEP GEO is an example of underrepresenting polar regions (like UNDP reports, IPCC reports etc.) the root issue is likely the structure of UN and the world.\nThe Arctic as well as 3rd pole (in particular understood as all high mountain parts of the world) is physically a part of other major countries (China, India, Pakistan) and Russia, USA, Canada and partly Nordic countries. Thus these two polar regions is only centre and core for a few small countries, but a side issue for global main powers. The case of Antarctica is different, but self marginalized by being regulated under a treaty of some nations, who do not wish Antarctica to become a global issue inside f.x. UN – and at the present they also block other countries from joining the treaty.\nThe Nation, and global geo-regions (Asia, Africa, Americas, Pacific, Europe) focus on UN and most international for by default and structure make polar regions to be less central. The concepts of defining nations into groups, like development countries, BRICS, G20 etc do not help either. Funding for ecosystem services (biodiversity cop as well as climate) is for example liked to a country being a developing country. Thus such money can not be used to f.x. pay Greenland to preserve its glaciers (because it is part of kingdom of Denmark)..\nIn short, this is a very important aspects of this paper, which should be communicated better."}, "author_response": "Response: We are pleased to hear that the new version addresses your comments satisfactorily. Your valuable insights during the review process have been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of our work.\nResponse: We appreciate your constructive comments regarding the datasets used in our study. We have conducted a detailed comparison of temperature trends between the TPMFD and ERA5 datasets in the Tibetan Plateau region. As shown in Fig R1, despite some differences in the absolute values of the mean temperature, both datasets exhibit similar trends in temperature increase. Furthermore, we compared the spatial distribution of temperature changes from both datasets (Fig R2), and the results showed high consistency in the spatial distribution patterns. This consistency in trends and spatial distribution across both datasets further supports the appropriateness of using these datasets. We also discussed this in the methodology section of the revised draft:\nLines 474-481: The ERA5 monthly average surface air temperature dataset (1980-2023) was used to calculate the annual mean temperature change rate in both the Arctic (north of 66°N) and Antarctic (south of 66°S), utilizing a resolution of 0.25° (https://www.ecmwf.int)70. For the Tibetan Plateau, a near-surface meteorological forcing dataset for the Third Pole region (TPMFD, 1980-2022) was employed, due to its higher resolution of 1/30° (https://data.tpdc.ac.cn)71, 72. Temperature trends were determined using least-squares linear regression, and statistical significance was evaluated with the two-tailed Student’s t-test72, 73. For polar regions, ERA5 remains one of the most widely used and reliable reanalysis products despite some inherent limitations. Previous studies have demonstrated that ERA5 effectively represents temperature variations in polar areas when compared with ground-based observations74–76. In the Third Pole region specifically, ERA5 and TPMFD display comparable temperature increase trends, although discrepancies exist in their absolute mean temperature values. Benefiting from finer spatial resolution and improved accuracy, TPMFD provides enhanced capability to resolve spatial details of climate warming patterns.\nReferences\n70. Hersbach, H. et al. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 146, 1999–2049 (2020).\n71. Jiang, Y. et al. TPHiPr: a long-term (1979–2020) high-accuracy precipitation dataset (1/30◦, daily) for the Third Pole region based on high-resolution atmospheric modeling and dense observations. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 15, 621–638 (2023).\n72. He, J. et al. The first high-resolution meteorological forcing dataset for land process studies over China. Sci. Data 7, 25 (2020).\n73. Yang, K. et al. A high-resolution near-surface meteorological forcing dataset for the Third Pole region (1979 – 2022), National Tibetan Plateau Data Center. https://doi.org/10.11888/Atmos.tpdc.300398 (2023).\n74. Bromwich, D. H., Ensign, A., Wang, S. H. & Zou, X. Major artifacts in ERA5 2-m air temperature trends over Antarctica prior to and during the modern satellite era. Geophys. Res. Lett. 51, e2024GL111907 (2024).\n75. Wang, C., Graham, R. M., Wang, K., Gerland, S. & Granskog, M. A. Comparison of ERA5 and ERA-Interim near-surface air temperature, snowfall and precipitation over Arctic sea ice: effects on sea ice thermodynamics and evolution. Cryosphere 13, 1661–1679 (2019).\n76. Yan, S. et al. Which global reanalysis dataset has better representativeness in snow cover on the Tibetan Plateau? Cryosphere 18, 4089–4109 (2024).\nFig R1. Temperature change over the Third Pole\nFig R2. Spatial distribution of temperature trends in the Third Pole derived from (a) ERA5 and (b) TPMFD datasets..\nResponse: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and for recognizing the improvements in our revised manuscript. We are delighted to hear that the revised version meets the requirements for publication and that the changes addressed your suggestions effectively.\nResponse: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback regarding our manuscript. We have carefully revised the relevant section to address your insightful suggestions.\nThe revisions in the manuscript are as follows:\nLines 345-369: Indigenous communities play a vital role in these processes, offering traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) that provides invaluable insights into local environmental changes, such as shifts in sea ice conditions and wildlife behaviors, which can improve early warning systems for climate adaptation55. In the Arctic, for instance, indigenous knowledge of ice conditions has long informed seasonal hunting practices, offering perspectives on polar tipping points that complement and enrich scientific data. Beyond observation, TEK embodies a profound tradition of coexistence, adaptation, and influence within nature, affirming indigenous communities as active participants in ecosystem dynamics. Reindeer herding peoples of the Arctic, such as those in Russia and Nordic countries, exemplify this interplay. Their adaptive practices, including shifting grazing patterns in response to tree line migration, reflect both natural climatic changes and anthropogenic impacts like policy shifts that have eroded community resilience56. Similarly, nomadic communities in the Third Pole demonstrate adaptive capacities shaped by their deep connection to dynamic landscapes. Coastal indigenous communities, such as the Inuit, further illustrate the enduring relevance of TEK in navigating climatic variability. Historically, their nuanced understanding of ice conditions has enabled sustainable hunting practices, showcasing resilience in variable climates. However, the unprecedented pace and scale of modern climate change have exceeded the domain of traditional knowledge. Initiatives like SmartICE (https://smartice.org/) demonstrate how TEK is being integrated with technological innovations, fostering new pathways for adaptation and resilience in a rapidly changing environment. Beyond adaptation, TEK offers vital contributions to sustainable land and resource management, aligning closely with SDG15 by preserving ecosystems through indigenous conservation practices. These cultural and ecological insights underscore the importance of safeguarding indigenous practices as a cornerstone of global sustainability efforts.\nResponse: Thank you for your insightful feedback and for suggesting additional examples of successful international partnerships. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate these broader and more impactful initiatives. These examples highlight diverse and effective approaches to fostering collaboration, advancing research, and supporting capacity-building in polar regions.\nThe revisions in the manuscript are as follows:\nLines 453-461: Successful cross-border initiatives, such as the Decade of Action for Cryospheric Sciences, the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), the International Polar Year (2007–2008) and its upcoming 2032–2033 successor, as well as academic networks like the University of the Arctic and the Himalayan Universities Consortium, serve as scalable models for polar cooperation. These initiatives, along with early-career programs such as Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS), play a crucial role in advancing collaborative research, enhancing data-sharing mechanisms, and building capacity for effective transboundary governance in polar regions.\nResponse: We sincerely appreciate your insightful analysis of the structural and institutional roots of polar regions' underrepresentation. To address this critique, we have reframed the discussion to explicitly link the governance gap to systemic failures in operationalizing the partnership principles enshrined in SDG 17. Specifically, we now emphasize how current governance architectures inadequately support transnational collaboration, knowledge co-creation, and equitable resource mobilization for transboundary systems like the polar regions—despite SDG 17’s mandate for inclusive, multi-stakeholder partnerships.\nThe revisions (Lines 71-80) anchor the marginalization of polar systems within the broader UN sustainability agenda, framing it as a failure to institutionalize SDG 17’s call for policy coherence and cross-sectoral cooperation. This approach allows us to critically engage with the structural barriers you highlighted (e.g., funding mechanisms tied to nation-state categories, jurisdictional fragmentation) while maintaining alignment with the paper’s scientific focus on environmental governance. We hope this SDG 17-oriented perspective strengthens the paper’s relevance to ongoing debates about reforming global sustainability frameworks.\nThe revisions in the manuscript are as follows:\nLines 71-80: Polar regions, as interconnected biophysical entities critical to planetary climate regulation, require governance models based on transnational collaboration and shared stewardship—principles central to SDG 17. However, current global environmental governance mechanisms often prioritize territorially bounded concerns over transboundary ecological interdependence. Existing frameworks lack institutional pathways to engage polar regions equitably in resource mobilization, knowledge co-creation, or technology transfer, despite their disproportionate climate-regulating functions. Therefore, the marginalization of these systems not only reflects ecological oversight but also a broader shortfall in operationalizing the cross-sectoral partnerships and policy coherence advocated by the SDG agenda."}, {"round": 3, "reviewer_comments": {"reviewer_2": "The authors have significantly improved the manuscript and now adequately discuss/address the issue raised by reviewers. I have no further comments and think the manuscript can be published.", "reviewer_4": "The paper is now well argued and is ready for publication but deserve a small technical correction::\nThe following includes a miss conception on tree line change that should be corrected:\nLine 354-356: \"Their adaptive practices, including shifting grazing patterns in response to tree line migration, reflect both natural climatic changes and anthropogenic impacts like policy shifts that have eroded community resilience 56\"\nSuggested change \"...shifting grazing patterns cause tree line migration, reflecting both natural climatic changes and anthropogenic impacts...\"\nRationale: Tree line migration (upwards) is more dependent on grazing pattern than climate change as such. Changes in grazing due to regulations (law, access et.) is thus important for vegetation change that generally tend to be attributed to only climate change.\nA change similar to the suggested change would fix this problem."}, "author_response": "Response: We are pleased to hear that the new version addresses your comments satisfactorily. Your valuable insights during the review process have been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of our work.\nResponse: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and for recognizing the improvements in our revised manuscript. We agree with and have adopted your suggestion."}]

Decision letter