Seven Strategies of Climate Change Science Communication for Policy Change: Combining Academic Theory with Practical Evidence from Science–Policy Partnerships in Canada

  • Garrett Ward Richards
  • Rebecca Carruthers Den Hoed
Chapter
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

Abstract

Science–policy communication around climate change is complicated. Climate science communicators would benefit from a synthesized list of messaging strategies that is accessible and practical, but still supported by robust theory. We conducted interviews with participants in partnerships between climate scientists and climate policy makers in Canada. This revealed a number of favoured messaging techniques, which we then analyzed through the lens of communication theory (based on a combination of relevant literatures). The result is a set of seven ready-to-use science–policy messaging strategies vetted both empirically and theoretically. They acknowledge the contextual richness of the Canadian cases being studied but are also sufficiently based on abstract theory to be applied to climate change communication in other cases. Namely, it is important to (1) use the language of “risk” instead of “uncertainty”; (2) highlight effects on everyday activities; (3) emphasize short-term impacts, which can then be linked to the long-term issue; (4) highlight success stories of adapting to the problem; (5) focus on local solutions, which can then be tied to national or global solutions; (6) target politically tractable issues to trigger progress on intractable ones; and (7) facilitate audience ownership of both the problem and its potential solutions.

Keywords

Canada Climate change Communication theory Messaging strategies Science–policy interfaces 

References

  1. Bradshaw G, Borchers J (2000) Uncertainty as information: narrowing the science–policy gap. Ecol Soc 4(1). www.ecologyandsociety.org
  2. Cash D, Clark W, Alcock F, Dickson N, Eckley N, Jäger J (2002) Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: linking research, assessment and decision making. Faculty research working paper. Harvard University JFK School of Government, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Danisch R (2010) Political rhetoric in a world risk society. Rhetoric Sci. Q. 40(2):172–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Foust C, Murphy W (2009) Revealing and reframing apocalyptic tragedy in global warming discourse. Environ. Commun. 3(2):151–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Howlett M, Ramesh M, Perl A (2009) Studying public policy: policy cycles & policy subsystems, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Don MillsGoogle Scholar
  6. Innocenti B (2011) A normative pragmatic model of making fear appeals. Philos Rhetoric 44(3):273–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jarreau P, Altinay Z, Reynolds A (2015) Best practices in environmental communication: a case study of Louisiana’s coastal crisis. Environmental Communication (online article)Google Scholar
  8. Kock C (2014) Aristotle on deliberation: its place in ethics, politics and rhetoric. In: Van Belle H, Rutten K, Gillaerts P, Van De Mieroop D, Van Gorp B (eds) Let’s talk politics: new essays on deliberative rhetoric. John Benjamins Publishing Company, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  9. Lawton J (2007) Ecology, politics and policy. J Appl Ecol 44(3):465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Likens G (2010) The role of science in decision making: does evidence-based science drive environmental policy? Front Ecol 8(6). www.frontiersinecology.orgCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mead L (2015) Only connect: why government often ignores research. Policy Sci 48(2):257–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nunes F, Rajão R, Soares-Filho B (2016) Boundary work in climate policy making in Brazil: reflections from the frontlines of the science–policy interface. Environ Sci Policy 85(1):85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. O’Leary S (1993) A dramatistic theory of apocalyptic rhetoric. Q J Speech 79(4):385–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. O’Leary S (1997) Apocalyptic argument and the anticipation of catastrophe: the prediction of risk and the risks of prediction. Argumentation 11(3):293–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. O’Neill S, Nicholson-Cole S (2009) Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Sci Commun 30(3):355–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pfau M (2007) Who’s afraid of fear appeals? Contingency, courage and deliberation in rhetorical theory and practice. Philos Rhetoric 40(2):216–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Richards G (2015) Climate change action through co-productive design in science–policy partnerships at municipal, provincial, and national levels of government. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Victoria, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  18. Richards G, Belcher K, Noble B (2013) Informational barriers to effective policy–public communication: a case study of wind energy planning in Saskatchewan, Canada. Can Public Policy 39(3):431–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Russill C, Nyssa Z (2009) The tipping point trend in climate change communication. Glob Environ Change 19(3):336–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schwarze S (2006) Environmental melodrama. Q J Speech 92(3):239–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Timmerman D (2002) The Aristotelian fix. Rhetoric Soc Q 32(3):77–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yack B (2006) Rhetoric and public reasoning: an Aristotelian understanding of political deliberation. Polit Theory 34(4):417–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Garrett Ward Richards
    • 1
  • Rebecca Carruthers Den Hoed
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Environment and SustainabilityUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Communication, Media, and FilmUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations