Assessing and communicating the risk of, say, space debris impacting the International Space Station can be studied and then visualized fairly easily. Background information (what is space debris/junk after all?) and potential consequences, which are potentially catastrophic, are elements that an illustration, such as the one above, can then provide the visual context for.

As we know, assessing and then communicating risk to non-technical audiences, is non-trivial, as the on-going situation at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant reminds us. How serious is the radiation coming from the plant? Where is it going? Should I worry… and if so, how much?

Conveying climate change risks is a particularly tough challenge, for multiple reasons we’ve explored in past posts.  A recent article in Nature’s new Climate Change publication jumps into the fray to explore: “The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks.”  Written by Nick Pidgeon from the School of Psychology at Cardiff University and Baruch Fischhoff at Carnegie Mellon University, the article delves in depth into the challenges that climate scientists face in explaining to non-specialists the risks and uncertainties of climate change.

The authors begin by noting the good news: scientists are well respected and trusted.

So far, few institutions have been as trusted as science. The public knows scientists primarily from positive contexts, such as classrooms, news reports of breakthroughs and the many ways that science has improved their lives. Indeed, the recent stories drew such attention precisely because they depicted some scientists as violating society’s expectation of independent, competent, trustworthy behaviour, untainted by politics. One sign of public faith in science is that even those who criticize climate science on ideological grounds use science-like language, seeking to reject the conclusions of specific scientists rather than the idea of climate science.

But thus far, scientists have largely been ineffective in communicating risks, in part because they often fall victim to the “deficit model” of climate communication and lack the skills in conveying complex science (and risk) to non-technical audiences.

Of course, information alone will not ensure wise climate-related decisions. Social scientists have documented a range of structural, political and economic barriers to strong action affecting both institutions and individuals…Whatever the barriers might be, scientists’ obligation is to provide the information that is necessary, if not sufficient, for informed choices….

These research results, and others like them, belie the simple behavioural theory underlying the ‘deficit model’ of the public understanding of science, which assumes that simply teaching more science will bring lay behaviour into line with scientists’ expectations. Although the limits to this model are well documented, it has such strong intuitive appeal that communication must explicitly adopt an alternative strategy if it is to respect audiences’ values, feelings and need for dialogue and engagement.

They note that conveying risk and uncertainty is certainly an enormous challenge:

Unless scientists can convey the nature of these processes, others may over- or underestimate the definitiveness of their claims; either accepting them on faith or rejecting them outright. These uncertainties are likely to grow, as climate science extends to incorporate the socio-economic processes that drive climate changes and determine their impacts. Depending on how they are communicated, these complications may further fuel fatalistic acceptance of climate-related changes (on the grounds that people and society cannot change their ways), or alternatively may highlight the fact that people, by their decisions and actions, do ultimately have the ability to avert dangerous climate change.

They point out the the “black box” of climate simulation modeling must be demystified otherwise the simulations, like those being used for the IPCC fifth assessment, may further confuse the public and decision-makers:

In addition to its unfamiliar subject matter, much climate science relies on simulation modelling that is an unfamiliar form of inference not just for lay people but even for scientists whose disciplines use observational methods. Unless the logic of that modelling is conveyed, people may discount its conclusions. Communicating the value of climate modelling thus requires confronting such apparent contradictions as the fact that increasing a model’s complexity — by adding the behaviour of clouds, people or ecosystem feedbacks, for example — may actually increase the uncertainty in climate projections.

Pidgeon and Fischhoff go beyond pointing out the challenges by making specific suggestions on a strategic approach to climate communication that includes the emotional realm.

Recent advances in behavioural and decision science also tell us that emotion is an integral part of our thinking, perceptions and behaviour, and can be essential for making well-judged decisions. Although it can cloud judgment, emotion can provide cues valuable to evaluating evidence and the people who provide it. Emotion creates the abiding commitments needed to sustain action on difficult problems, such as climate change. It motivates climate scientists, as well as their audiences and critics. Clear, respectful messages can reduce the destructive emotions of impatience, frustration and anger, and appropriately framed emotional appeals can motivate action, given the right supporting conditions (in particular a sense of personal vulnerability, viable ways to act, feelings of personal control and the support of others).

They recommend using strategic listening and organization for a more coordinated and effective approach to climate change communication, with on-going evaluation as a crucial key to assessing the needs and measuring the success of engaging with the public in general and decision-makers in particular.  They also recommend collaborative teams that include 1) subject matter experts (physical scientists,) 2) decision scientists, who can synthesize and summarize the science, 3) social and communication experts, who can assess needs and measure progress, and 4) managers/designers who can orchestrate the process “so that mutually respectful consultations occur, messages are properly delivered and policymakers hear their various publics.”

Such an interdisciplinary, coordinated, strategic approach must, they conclude,

maintain a rhetorical stance of non-persuasive communication, trusting the evidence to speak for itself, without spin or colouring. Although there is an important place for persuasive communication, encouraging individual behaviours and public policies, it must be distinct, lest scientists come to be seen as inept politicians. If climate scientists passionately offer dispassionate accounts of the evidence, it will preserve their uniquely trusted social position and avoid the advocacy that most are ill-suited to pursue by disposition, experience and training.

In a related article in the same issue, Psychology: Climate Change Hits Home, Elke Weber comments on a recent study in the UK where recent experiences with flooding have brought climate change close to home.

One might expect concern about climate change to go up in response to a recent experience of severe flooding, if indeed this experience is connected to climate change. One might also expect uncertainty about whether climate change is really happening to go down. Both of these reactions were observed. What is less obvious is that residents who had experienced flooding also felt more confident that their behaviour could have an effect on climate change, which in turn translated into greater preparedness to conserve energy, through efforts such as turning down the thermostat and not using ‘standby’ on electrical appliances.

But clearly our collective ability to mitigate and adapt to global change is in its infancy, and a long term, strategic, integrated approach is necessary for real progress to occur.