Browse

Social scientists and media critics have often been befuddled about how and why news coverage of important issues takes the shapes that it does. While some issues seem to behave according to well-established patterns, others don’t. The issue of climate change is one that has been explained in numerous ways, often from a cyclical perspective. This perspective suggests that news attention naturally varies up and down, often cued by certain focusing events that draw attention for a time, after which attention wanes again. These observations are usually matched with the perspective that attention should normatively not be cyclical, that the issue is one that deserves continuous attention until it is resolved.

All of this is in the context that there are significant doubts about the objective role of newsmakers in this process. Climate change is an issue that has cut across a period of news evolution in which objectively neutral news has become even less prominent than it once was, if it ever was. News outlets with specific ideological agendas, a plethora of bloggers and websites with an axe to grind, and a variety of conspiracy theories about climate have obscured how news can even hope to cover this issue. With “belief” in climate change now becoming an important token of how one identifies oneself politically, we can wonder whether the issue can ever receive a fair hearing from a scientific perspective.

This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Please check back later for the full article.

Agricultural extension has evolved over the last 200 years from a system of top-down dissemination of information, from experts to farmers, to a more complex system in which a diversity of knowledge producers and farmers work together to co-produce information. An example from the Southeastern United States illustrates how innovative institutional arrangements enable land-grant universities to actively engage farmers and extension agents as key partners in the knowledge generation process. A second U.S. example shows that private retailers are more influential than extension in influencing farm management decisions of the large scale farmers in the Midwestern United States. However, these private retailers trust extension as a source of climate change information, and thus partnerships are important for extension. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have been an important source of extension services for small holder farmers across the world, and examples from the NGO CARE (Cooperative Assistance for Relief Everywhere) indicate that a participatory and facilitative approach works well for climate change communication. Collectively these examples emphasize that the role of agricultural extension in climate change communication is essential in both developed and developing contexts and with both small holder farmers and large scale farmers. These case studies illustrate the effectiveness of a co-production approach, the importance of partners and donors, and the changing landscape of agricultural extension delivery.

Scientists and policy makers face significant challenges when attempting to engage the public about climate change. An important first step is to understand the number and nature of the audiences one plans to target—a process known as audience segmentation. Segmentation involves identifying, within an audience or target population, homogenous subgroups that share similar demographic and/or psychographic profiles. After segmenting an audience, climate change communicators can target their messages based on the unique characteristics of each subgroup. For example, to stimulate engagement and behavior change, messages aimed at audiences that are skeptical about climate change may require different content and framing than messages aimed at audiences already deeply concerned about climate change.

The notion of matching message content to audience characteristics has a long history, dating back to the Ancient Greeks. More recently, audience segmentation has played a central role in targeted advertising and also social marketing, which uses marketing principles to help “sell” ideas and behaviors that benefit society. Applications to climate change communication are becoming more common, with major segmentation and communication initiatives being implemented across the globe.

Messages crafted to meet the needs of specific audience segments are more likely to be read, understood, and recalled than generic ones, and are also more likely to change behavior. However, despite these successes, the approach has not been uniformly embraced. Controversies have emerged related to the cost effectiveness of segmentation strategies, choice of segmentation variables, potential effects related to social stigmatization, whether segmentation encourages shallow (as opposed to deep) change, the extent to which segments are “found” as opposed to socially constructed by researchers, and whether interindividual differences are best conceptualized in terms of categories or dimensions.

This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Please check back later for the full article.

Public engagement refers to processes that provide a distinct role for citizens or stakeholder groups to contribute to policy making. Such engagement is distinctive because it aims to create opportunities for mutual learning among policy makers, scientists, stakeholders, and members of the public. In so doing, public engagement involves a particular type of voice in public debate and policy making that is different from more established discourses, such as those expressed through official policy-making channels, among scientific institutions, by civil society activists, or in the public media. By the early 1970s, public engagement had emerged in the context of an overall democratization movement in Western societies through such innovations as the “Citizen Jury” in the United States and “Planning Cells” in Germany. Today it is often more pragmatically motivated, as for example in the European Commission, where public engagement is seen as tool for ”responsible research and innovation” that helps to anticipate and assess potential implications and societal expectations of research and innovation, and to design more inclusive and sustainable research policies.

The first global public engagement processes in history were created to incorporate citizen voices into United Nations conventions on biodiversity and climate change. Building on theories of deliberative democracy and tested practices of public engagement, a new World Wide Views process was developed to provide informed and considered input from ordinary citizens to the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference. This and subsequent World Wide Views deliberations have demonstrated that public engagement can potentially open up policy discourses that are constricted and obfuscated by organized interests. A telling example is provided by the World Wide Views on Climate and Energy deliberation held on June 5, 2015, where nearly 10,000 ordinary citizens gathered in 76 countries to consider and express their views on the issues to be addressed at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris later that year. In a noteworthy departure from prevailing media and policy discourses, two thirds of the participating citizens saw climate change as “mostly an opportunity to improve our quality of life,” while only a quarter saw it as “mostly a threat to our quality of life,” a result that was consistent across high, middle, and low income countries.

Recent research on public engagement has indicated that, when effectively implemented, such processes can increase the legitimacy, quality, and capacity of decision making. The specific impacts include cognitive and attitudinal changes (e.g., better awareness of environmental and scientific issues), development of new capacities (e.g., new professional skills, methods, and platforms of collaboration), and mobilization of resources for addressing scientific and societal challenges (e.g., research funding, political commitment, public awareness, and social acceptance). Earlier aspirations for broader impacts, such as the democratization of policy making at all levels, are now less prominent, but arguably, are indispensable for achieving both immediate and longer-range goals. The relatively new concept of a deliberative system captures this complexity by moving beyond the narrow focus on single public engagement events encountered in much research to date, recognizing that single events rarely affect the course of policy making. The evolving prospects for public engagement in biodiversity and climate change policy can therefore be seen as requiring ongoing improvements in the capacities of the deliberative system.

Climate change communication in Japan is characterized by governmental campaigns for carbon dioxide emission reduction and mass media coverage of international events on climate change issues. A series of governmental campaigns included “Cool Biz,” “Warm Biz,” and “Team Minus 6%” for the Kyoto protocol; “Challenge 25” for the Hatoyama initiative; “Fun to Share” and “Cool Choice” for the new mid-term Greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of 26%. Those campaigns are popular among public. As for media coverage of international events on climate change issues, one of the biggest events was the COP3 in Kyoto, in 1997; another is the release of AR5 from 2006 to early 2007, and following events of the G8 summits of Heiligendamm, Germany in 2007, and of Toyako, Japan in 2008.

Until now, not much attention has been paid to climate change communication research, as social scientists seldom join research projects concerning climate change science. But recent severe weather, such as stronger or early-season typhoons, heavier rainfalls, early arrival of spring (e.g., earlier bloom of cherry blossoms), and the bleaching of coral reefs bring awareness not only to the general public but also to social scientists. Lack of participation by social scientists in climate change communication research has meant a very narrow range of communication with the public. Experts try to “teach” the science of climate change, and actions such as “50 easy things for tackling global warming,” but it seems those are not what ordinary people want to know. Furthermore, there seems to be no debate on what climate change will bring us, what kinds of energy we should choose, who might be more vulnerable. Debate on ethical issues, justice issues, and sharing of responsibility will be need to be part of future climate change communication.

Research on climate change communication is a neglected field in Austria. Only slowly, scientists as well as policy makers are entering the domain of communicating climate change, especially in subprojects of larger funding initiatives by the Austrian Environment Ministry and the Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology. In the field of communication research, only sporadic studies can be found: Some of them are investigating science-policy-interfaces and communication among stakeholders; others are focusing on awareness of climate change, especially in climate sensitive areas like (winter) tourism, agriculture, and forestry, which are significant economic fields in Austria and in which major efforts have to be taken to enhance adaptive capacities. Only a few studies are dealing with media representations of climate. Therefore, this article outlines a future research program, based on the assessment of existing scholarship. More scientific efforts should be given to the following fields of research: public communication of stakeholders, studies on media representation of climate change and framing and its effects as well as comparative studies with countries sharing comparable climate scenarios, and the strong need for adapting to climate change (e.g., from Alpine regions) as well as similar political structures.

This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Please check back later for the full article.

Climate change communication in Belgium has experienced upward and downward cycles over the past three decades. During this period, the United Nations climate change process set the agenda and the terms of the debate. A broad social consensus has emerged amongst most political elites, business leaders, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), journalists, and academics about the importance of climate change action. However, disagreements still exist with respect to the choice of technologies, the importance of equity, the distribution of responsibilities, and the urgency of their timing and implementation. The few remaining skeptics are increasingly marginalized and form the exception to the rule of consent. This is also reflected in the findings of public opinion surveys, which show that the public is largely aware of the anthropogenic causes and negative consequences of climate change and is supportive of individual and political action.

A closer look at climate change communication and public outreach by governments, media, scientific institutes, and NGOs reveals an instrumental, top-down view of communication. These campaigns assume that the effective dissemination of climate science will convince people to support individual and political action against climate change. However, climate change communication efforts also increasingly aim to seduce people to adopt greener lifestyles by highlighting the co-benefits of such actions. Meanwhile, grassroots citizens’ initiatives increasingly adopt a conflict approach to mobilize citizens for alternative climate policies.

Research about climate change communication is sparse in Belgium. Media research about climate change emerged only very recently and examined the production, content, and consumption of representations of climate change in news media. These studies revealed that ideological differences can explain the differences in news coverage and that mainstream media can impede democratic debate between alternative interests and ideological standpoints. Alternative news media provide more space for ideologically pluralist debate by revealing the power relations, (conflicting) interests, and exclusions that shape climate discourse. This research has built further on the work of a school of Belgian authors, from a variety of academic disciplines, who problematize the depoliticization of mainstream discourse on climate change for impeding democratic debate between alternative political projects beyond the political-economic status quo.

Colombia is in a privileged position to take advantage of international climate agreements to finance sustainable development initiatives. The country is a signatory of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreements. As a non-Annex I party to the UNFCCC, Colombia produces low emissions in relation to global numbers (0.46% of total global emissions for 2010) and exhibits biogeographical conditions that are ideal for mitigation of climate change through greenhouse gas sequestration and emission reductions. Simultaneously, recent extreme climatic events have harshly compromised the country’s economy, making Colombia’s vulnerability to climate change evident.

While these conditions should justify a strong approach to climate change communication that motivates decision making and leads to mitigation and adaptation, the majority of sectors still fall short of effectively communicating their climate change messages. Official information about climate change is often too technical and rarely includes a call for action. However, a few exceptions exist, including environmental education materials for children and a noteworthy recent strategy to deliver the Third Communication to the UNFCCC in a form that is more palatable to the general public. Despite strong research on climate change, particularly related to agricultural, environmental, and earth sciences, academic products are rarely communicated in a way that is easily understood by decision makers and has a clear impact on public policy. Messages from the mass media frequently confuse rather than inform the public. For instance, television news refers to weather-related disasters, climate variability, and climate change indiscriminately. This shapes an erroneous idea of climate change among the public and weakens the effectiveness of communications on the issue.

The authors contrast the practices of these sectors with those of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working in Colombia to show how they address the specific climate communication needs facing the country. These NGOs directly face the challenge of working with diverse population groups in this multicultural, multiethnic, and megadiverse country. NGOs customize languages, channels, and messages for different audiences and contexts, with the ultimate goal of building capacity in local communities, influencing policymakers, and sensitizing the private sector. Strategies that result from the work of interdisciplinary groups, involve feedback from the audiences, and incorporate adaptive management have proven to be particularly effective.

Climate-change communication in Denmark was initially related to a broader environmental agenda and to discussions surrounding U.N. charters on sustainability, reflecting a traditional strong Scandinavian commitment to U.N. institutions. Although climate-change communication has since developed into an independent field among academics and environmentalists, some of the earlier links to questions of sustainability and development have been preserved.

Consequently, climate-change communication has been studied in a variety of public arenas in addition to the media system. These venues include parliamentary debates, regional discussions of renewable energy systems, cultural and artistic representations, as well as commercial and strategic discourses on green technologies—the latter representing an important Danish export market. Thus, climate-change communication is studied in several academic disciplines involving both quantitative and qualitative research strategies.

Media representations of climate change comprise the largest area of research on climate-change communication and have been investigated by media, communication, and journalism studies. Climate-change reporting is marked by substantial public consensus concerning the scientific evidence of climate change and the moral obligations of the industrialized world. It reflects a Scandinavian culture based on political corporatism in both the political system and the media system, which under normal circumstances results in a moderate rather than polarized public debate. Outright climate-change denial has consequently been marginal, although the controversies generated by Bjørn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, on how to prioritize climate change in relation to other global problems, can be regarded as the Danish equivalent to climate skepticism.

Another characteristic of Danish climate change communication is the imprint left by the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (COP15), which was experienced as particularly traumatic in the host country. Like most countries, Denmark experienced a sharp decline in climate change coverage in the aftermath of COP15. However, whereas other countries have slowly picked up the intensity of media reporting following COP15, a similar increase has not materialized in Denmark, illustrating how a failed climate (and media) event can have lasting effects on a nation’s climate change communication.

Climate change communication has a long history in Germany, where the so-called “climate catastrophe” has received widespread public attention from the 1980s onwards. The article reviews climate change communication and the respective research in the country over the last decades. First, it provides a socio-political history of climate change communication in Germany. It shows how scientists were successful in setting the issue on the public and policy agendas early on, how politicians and the media emphasized the climate change threat, how corporations abstained from interventions into the debate and how skeptical voices, as a result, remained marginalized. Second, the article reviews scholarship on climate change communication in Germany. It shows how research on the issue has expanded since the mid-2000s, highlights major strands and results, as well as open questions and ongoing debates.