Evaluating the impact of climate communication activities by scientists: what is known and necessary?
-
Published:2024-04-18
Issue:2
Volume:7
Page:91-100
-
ISSN:2569-7110
-
Container-title:Geoscience Communication
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Geosci. Commun.
Author:
Wijnen Frances, Strick Madelijn, Bos MarkORCID, van Sebille ErikORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Climate scientists and others are urged to communicate climate science in a way that non-scientific audiences can understand, that makes it more relevant to their lives and experiences, and that inspires them to act. To achieve this, climate scientists undertake a range of climate communication activities to engage people with climate change. With the effort and time spent on climate communication activities comes the need to evaluate the outcomes, impact, and effectiveness of such efforts. Here, we aimed to gain insight into the impact and effectiveness of climate communication efforts by scientists by conducting a systematic literature review. However, our most important finding is that there are hardly any studies in which climate communication activities by scientists are evaluated: we found only seven articles over the past 10 years. We analyze these articles for the role of the scientists, the audiences reached, and the reported outcomes and impact of the activities. We end our study with several recommendations that should be considered when setting up studies on evaluating the impact of climate communication activities by scientists.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference51 articles.
1. Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior, Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec., 50, 179–211, https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T, 1991. 2. Ajzen, I.: Nature and operation of attitudes, Annu. Rev. Psychol., 52, 27–58, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27, 2001. 3. Baram-Tsabari, A. and Lewenstein, B. V.: Preparing Scientists to Be Science Communicators, in: Preparing Informal Science Educators: Perspectives from Science Communication and Education, edited by: Patrick, P. G., Springer International Publishing, Cham, 437–471, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50398-1_22, 2017. 4. Boon, W., de Haan, J., Duisterwinkel, C., Gould, L., Janssen, W., Jongsma, K., Milota, M., Radstake, M., Stevens, S., Strick, M., Swinkels, M., van Mil, M., van Sebille, E., Wanders, N., and Yerkes, M.: Meaningful public engagement in the context of open science: reflections from early and mid-career academics, Res. All, 6, 23, https://doi.org/10.14324/RFA.06.1.23, 2022. 5. Bucchi, M.: Of deficits, deviations and dialogues – Theories of public communication of science, in: Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, edited by: Bucchi, M. and Trench, B., Routledge, London, 57–76, ISBN 9780203928240, 2008.
|
|