Sustainability Communication: An Integrative Approach

Chapter

Abstract

Sustainability communication is a relatively new concept. Its roots can be found in a number of different discourses, such as environmental, risk and science communication. On the one hand these discourses show a number of similarities, for example a similar thematic focus and the central role of the media. There are however clear differences concerning their theoretical foundations, political reach and respective actors. This contribution argues that sustainability communication should be seen as an integrative approach uniting the core elements of a number of different communication perspectives.

Keywords

Environmental communication Risk communication Science communication Sustainability communication Integrative approach 

References

  1. Beck, U. (1992). World risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, U., & Kropp, C. (2007). Environmental risks and public perceptions. In J. Pretty, A. S. Ball, T. Benton, J. Guivant, D. Lee, D. Orr, M. Pfeffer, & H. Ward (Eds.), Handbook on environment and society (pp. 601–612). Los Angeles/London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. BMU – Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (Ed.) (2009). Environmental awareness and sustainable consumption. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from www.umweltbundesamt.de/umweltbewusstsein-e/umweltbewusstsein.htm.
  4. Coenen, F., Huitema, D., & O’Toole, L. J., Jr. (Eds.). (1998). Participation and the quality of environmental decision making (Environment & Policy, Vol. 14). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  5. Cox, R. (2007). Nature’s “crisis disciplines”: Does environmental communication have an ethical duty? Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 1(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
  6. Cox, R. (2010). Environmental communication and the public sphere (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2008). A framework for pro-environmental behaviours. Report. London.Google Scholar
  8. Depoe, S. P., Delicath, J., & Aepli Elsenbeer, M. (Eds.). (2004). Communication and public participation in environmental decision making. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  9. Doulton, H., & Brown, K. (2009). Ten years to prevent catastrophe? Discourses of climate change and international development in the UK press. Global Environmental Change, 19, 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ereaut, G. & Segnit, N. (2006). Warm words. How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better? (Institute for Public Policy Research) Retrieved July, 30, 2010, from www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports.
  11. Fischhoff, B. (2007). Nonpersuasive communication about matters of greatest urgency: Climate change. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(21), 7204–7208.Google Scholar
  12. Felt, U. (2002). Bildung durch Wissenschaft. DIE – Zeitschrift für Erwachsenenbildung, 9(2), 22–25.Google Scholar
  13. Göpfert, W., & Peters, P. (1996). Wissenschaftler und Journalisten – ein spannungsreiches Verhältnis. In W. Göpfert & S. Ruß-Mohl (Eds.), Wissenschaftsjournalismus: Ein Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis (3rd ed., pp. 21–27). Berlin: Econ.Google Scholar
  14. Grunwald, A. (2004). Die gesellschaftliche Wahrnehmung von Nachhaltigkeitsproblemen und die Rolle der Wissenschaften. In D. Ipsen & J. C. Schmidt (Eds.), Dynamiken der Nachhaltigkeit (pp. 313–341). Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  15. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Harriss, R. (2008). An ongoing dialogue on climate change: The Boulder Manifesto. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change (pp. 485–490). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Japp, K., & Kusche, I. (2008). Systems theory and risk. In J. O. Zinn (Ed.), Social theories of risk and uncertainty: An introduction (pp. 76–105). Malden: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Juntti, M., Russel, D., & Turnpenny, J. (2009). Evidence, politics and power in public policy for the environment. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kloprogge, P., van der Sluijs, J. P., & Wardekker, J. A. (2007). Uncertainty communication: Issues and good practice. Utrecht: Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  20. Lorenzoni, I., & Hulme, M. (2009). Believing is seeing: Laypeople’s views of future socio-economic and climate change in England and in Italy. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lundgren, R. E., & McMakin, A. H. (2009). Risk communication: A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks (4th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Maasen, S. (2009). Converging technologies – Diverging reflexivities? Intellectual work in knowledge-risk-media-audit societies. In M. Kaiser, M. Monika Kurath, & S. Maasen (Eds.), Governing future technologies, sociology of the sciences (Yearbook, Vol. 27). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Maasen, S., & Weingart, P. (Eds.). (2005). Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making (Sociology of the Sciences, Vol. 24). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Maibach, E., & Hornig Priest, S. (2009). No more “business as usual” addressing climate change through constructive engagement. Science Communication, 30(3), 299–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McDonald, S. (2009). Changing climate, changing minds: Applying the literature on media effects, public opinion, and the issue-attention cycle to increase public understanding of climate change. International Journal of Sustainability Communication, 4, 45–63.Google Scholar
  26. Mierheim, H. (2002). Der neue Stellenwert der Umweltkommunikation in der Umweltpolitik. In Umweltbundesamt (UBA) (Eds.). Perspektiven für die Verankerung des Nachhaltigkeitsleitbildes in der Umweltkommunikation – Chancen, Barrieren und Potenziale der Sozialwissenschaften (pp. 1–2). Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
  27. Milstein, T. (2009). Environmental communication theories. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (pp. 344–349). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Moser, S. C. (2010). Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews (WIREs) Climate Change, 1(1), 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moser, S. C., & Dilling, L. (2008). Toward the social tipping point: Creating a climate for change. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change (pp. 491–516). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. O’Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). “Fear won’t do it”: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oravec, C. L. (1984). Conservationism vs. preservationism: The “public interest” in the Hetch Hetchy controversy. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 444–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peterson, M. N., Peterson, M. J., & Peterson, T. R. (2007). Environmental communication: Why this crisis discipline should facilitate environmental democracy. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 1, 74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Phillips, L. J. (2009). Analyzing the dialogic turn in the communication of research-based knowledge: An exploration of the tensions in collaborative research. Public Understanding of Science, OnlineFirst, published on 18 Aug 2009, 1–21.Google Scholar
  34. Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (Eds.). (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse (Risk, Governance and Society, Vol. 10). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Schack, K. (2003). Umweltkommunikation als Theorielandschaft: Eine qualitative Studie über Grundorientierungen, Differenzen und Theoriebezüge der Umweltkommunikation. München: Oekom.Google Scholar
  36. Segnit, N. & Ereaut, G. (2007). Warm Words II: How the climate story is evolving and the lessons we can learn for encouraging public action. London. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports.
  37. Sellke, P., & Renn, O. (2010). Risk, society and environmental policy: Risk governance in a complex world. In M. Gross & H. Heinrichs (Eds.), Environmental sociology: European perspectives and interdisciplinary challenges (pp. 295–322). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Singer, E., & Endredy, P. (1987). Reporting hazards: Their benefits and costs. Journal of Communication, 37(3), 10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sonnett, J. (2009). Climates of risk: A field analysis of global climate change in US media discourse, 1997–2004. Public Understanding of Science, OnlineFirst, published on 9 Oct 2009, 1–19.Google Scholar
  40. Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Swanwick, C. (2009). Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  42. Wagner, T. (2008). Reframing ecotage as ecoterrorism: News and discourse of fear. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 2(1), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wardekker, J. A., van der Sluijs, J. P., Janssen, P. H. M., Kloprogge, P., & Petersen, A. C. (2009). Uncertainty communication in environmental assessments: Views from the Dutch science-policy interface. Environmental Science & Policy, 11, 627–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change). (2000). World in transition: Strategies for managing global environmental risks. Annual Report 1998. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Weingart, P. (2003). Wissenschaftssoziologie. Bielefeld: Transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Environmental and Sustainability CommunicationLeuphana UniversityLüneburgGermany
  2. 2.International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility (ICCSR)Nottingham University Business SchoolNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations