1932

Abstract

Environmental governance occurs through and is shaped by communication. We propose a typology of public communication, classifying it by directionality (one-way or two-way) and objective (informational or operational). We then review how communication types influence individuals’ conceptual frames, values, and environmental behaviors. Though one-way communication is common, its impact is often limited to influencing conceptual frames. Research on two-way informational communication demonstrates a greater ability to align conceptual frames and values among individuals, and research on two-way operational communication demonstrates the greatest impact on conceptual frames, values, and environmental behaviors. Factors that affect the impact of communication include the medium through which it occurs, trust, timing, and social-material context. Among these, our review considers new directions in public communication research that focus on the role of digital platforms, misinformation, and disinformation. We conclude by synthesizing research on deliberative communication, a case of communication among citizens guided by democratic ideals.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-082450
2024-10-18
2025-02-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/49/1/annurev-environ-112321-082450.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-082450&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Irvin RA, Stansbury J. 2004.. Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort?. Public Adm. Rev. 64:(1):5565
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Newell P, Pattberg P, Schroeder H. 2012.. Multiactor governance and the environment. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37::36587
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Sanyal P, Rao V. 2018.. Oral Democracy. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Schmidt VA. 2008.. Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse. . Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 11::30326
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Lemos MC, Agrawal A. 2006.. Environmental governance. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31::297325
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Newig J, Jager NW, Challies E, Kochskämper E. 2023.. Does stakeholder participation improve environmental governance? Evidence from a meta-analysis of 305 case studies. . Global Environ. Chang. 82::102705
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    McLuhan M. 1964.. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York:: McGraw-Hill
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Boykoff MT. 2009.. We speak for the trees: media reporting on the environment. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34::43157
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Boykoff MT, Boykoff JM. 2007.. Climate change and journalistic norms: a case-study of US mass-media coverage. . Geoforum 38:(6):1190204
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Akin H, Scheufele DA. 2017.. Overview of the science of science communication. . In The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, ed. KH Jamieson, DM Kahan, DA Scheufele , pp. 2533. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Maibach EW, Uppalapati SS, Orr M, Thaker J. 2023.. Harnessing the power of communication and behavior science to enhance society's response to climate change. . Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 51::5377
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Masuda YJ, Scharks T. 2017.. Science communication is receiving a lot of attention, but there's room to improve. . In Effective Conservation Science: Data Not Dogma, ed. P Kareiva, M Marvier, B Silliman , pp. 11520. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Scheufele DA. 2013.. Communicating science in social settings. . PNAS 110:(suppl_3):1404047
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Janssen MA, Holahan R, Lee A, Ostrom E. 2010.. Lab experiments for the study of social-ecological systems. . Science 328:(5978):61317
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    Masuda YJ, Waterfield G, Castilla C, Kang S, Zhang W. 2022.. Does balancing gender composition lead to more prosocial outcomes? Experimental evidence of equality in public goods and extraction games from rural Kenya. . World Dev. 156::105923
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Ostrom E. 2005.. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    List C, Luskin RC, Fishkin JS, McLean I. 2013.. Deliberation, single-peakedness, and the possibility of meaningful democracy: evidence from deliberative polls. . J. Politics 75:(1):8095
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Goodin RE, Dryzek JS. 2006.. Deliberative impacts: the macro-political uptake of mini-publics. . Politics Soc. 34:(2):21944
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Dryzek JS, Bächtiger A, Chambers S, Cohen J, Druckman JN, et al. 2019.. The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. . Science 363:(6432):114446
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Erbaugh JT. 2019.. Responsibilization and social forestry in Indonesia. . Forest Policy Econ. 109::102019
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Soneryd L, Uggla Y. 2015.. Green governmentality and responsibilization: new forms of governance and responses to ‘consumer responsibility. .’ Environ. Politics 24:(6):91331
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Agrawal A. 2005.. Environmentality. Durham, NC:: Duke Univ. Press. 326 pp.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Hammett D. 2018.. Engaging citizens, depoliticizing society? Training citizens as agents for good governance. . Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Human Geogr. 100:(2):6480
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Fox JA. 2015.. Social accountability: What does the evidence really say?. World Dev. 72::34661
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Ribot J. 2022.. Violent silence: framing out social causes of climate-related crises. . J. Peasant Stud. 49:(4):683712
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Kiss B, Sekulova F, Hörschelmann K, Salk CF, Takahashi W, Wamsler C. 2022.. Citizen participation in the governance of nature-based solutions. . Environ. Policy Gov. 32:(3):24772
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Kymlicka W, Norman W. 2000.. Citizenship in culturally diverse societies: issues, contexts, concepts. . In Citizenship in Diverse Societies, ed. W Kymlicka, W Norman , pp. 142. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Bächtiger A, Dryzek JS, Mansbridge J, Warren M. 2018.. Introduction. . In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, ed. A Bächtiger, JS Dryzek, J Mansbridge, M Warren , pp. 132. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Dryzek JS. 2002.. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press. 306 pp.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Landemore H. 2020.. Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the 21st Century. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Polletta F, Gardner B. 2018.. The forms of deliberative communication. . In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, ed. A Bächtiger, JS Dryzek, J Mansbridge, M Warren , pp. 6985. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Gastil J. 2008.. Political Communication and Deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA:: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Newell A, Simon HA. 1972.. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:: Prentice-Hall
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Simon HA. 2000.. Bounded rationality in social sciences. . Mind Soc. 1:(1):17189
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Newell BR, McDonald RI, Brewer M, Hayes BK. 2014.. The psychology of environmental decisions. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39::44367
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Goffman E. 1974.. Frame Analysis? An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston:: Northeastern Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Benford RD, Snow DA. 2000.. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. . Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26::61139
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Lakoff G. 2010.. Why it matters how we frame the environment. . Environ. Commun. 4:(1):7081
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R. 2005.. Environmental values. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30::33572
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Palmer C, McShane K, Sandler R. 2014.. Environmental ethics. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39::41942
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Maund PR, Irvine KN, Lawson B, Steadman J, Risely K, et al. 2020.. What motivates the masses: understanding why people contribute to conservation citizen science projects. . Biol. Conserv. 246::108587
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Steg L, Vlek C. 2009.. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. . J. Environ. Psychol. 29:(3):30917
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Nisa CF, Bélanger JJ, Schumpe BM, Faller DG. 2019.. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change. . Nat. Commun. 10:(1):4545
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Bolderdijk JW, Gorsira M, Keizer K, Steg L. 2013.. Values determine the (in)effectiveness of informational interventions in promoting pro-environmental behavior. . PLOS ONE 8:(12):e83911
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    D'Amato A, Giaccherini M, Zoli M. 2019.. The role of information sources and providers in shaping green behaviors. Evidence from Europe. . Ecol. Econ. 164::106292
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Rode JB, Dent AL, Benedict CN, Brosnahan DB, Martinez RL, Ditto PH. 2021.. Influencing climate change attitudes in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis. . J. Environ. Psychol. 76::101623
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Bithas K, Latinopoulos D, Mentis C, Chatzivasileiadis T. 2023.. Reshaping preferences over coastal and marine environment. Evaluating temporal effects on preferences raised by information campaigns. . Ocean Coast. Manag. 243::106740
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Chen W, Cho FHT. 2019.. Environmental information disclosure and societal preferences for urban river restoration: latent class modelling of a discrete-choice experiment. . J. Clean. Prod. 231::1294306
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Kikuchi-Uehara E, Nakatani J, Hirao M. 2016.. Analysis of factors influencing consumers’ proenvironmental behavior based on life cycle thinking. Part I: effect of environmental awareness and trust in environmental information on product choice. . J. Clean. Prod. 117::1018
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Asensio OI, Delmas MA. 2015.. Nonprice incentives and energy conservation. . PNAS 112:(6):E51015
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Buntaine MT, Nielson DL, Skaggs JT. 2021.. Escaping the disengagement dilemma: two field experiments on motivating citizens to report on public services. . Br. J. Political Sci. 51:(2):685705
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Banerjee AV, Banerji R, Duflo E, Glennerster R, Khemani S. 2010.. Pitfalls of participatory programs: evidence from a randomized evaluation in education in India. . Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 2:(1):130
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Buntaine MT, Daniels B, Devlin C. 2018.. Can information outreach increase participation in community-driven development? A field experiment near Bwindi National Park, Uganda. . World Dev. 106::40721
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Jablonski RS, Buntaine MT, Nielson DL, Pickering PM. 2022.. Individualized text messages about public services fail to sway voters: evidence from a field experiment on Ugandan elections. . J. Exp. Political Sci. 9:(3):34658
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Keefer P, Khemani S. 2012.. Do informed citizens receive more…or pay more? The impact of radio on the government distribution of public health benefits. Policy Res. Work. Pap. Ser. 592 , World Bank Group, Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Lieberman ES, Posner DN, Tsai LL. 2014.. Does information lead to more active citizenship? Evidence from an education intervention in rural Kenya. . World Dev. 60::6983
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Ravallion M, van de Walle D, Dutta P, Murgai R. 2013.. Testing information constraints on India's largest antipoverty program. Policy Res. Work. Pap. 6598 , World Bank, Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Anderson SE, Buntaine MT, Liu M, Zhang B. 2019.. Non-governmental monitoring of local governments increases compliance with central mandates: a national-scale field experiment in China. . Am. J. Political Sci. 63:(3):62643
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    Buntaine MT, Greenstone M, He G, Liu M, Wang S, Zhang B. 2024.. Does the squeaky wheel get more grease? The direct and indirect effects of citizen participation on environmental governance in China. . Am. Econ. Rev. 114:(3):81550
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    Buntaine MT, Zhang B, Hunnicutt P. 2021.. Citizen monitoring of waterways decreases pollution in China by supporting government action and oversight. . PNAS 118:(29):e2015175118
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    Buntaine MT. 2015.. Accountability in global governance: civil society claims for environmental performance at the World Bank. . Int. Stud. Q. 59:(1):99111
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Gundersen T, Alinejad D, Branch TY, Duffy B, Hewlett K, et al. 2022.. A new Dark Age? Truth, trust, and environmental science. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 47::529
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Allbrook DL, Quinn JL. 2020.. The effectiveness of regulatory signs in controlling human behaviour and Northern gannet (Morus bassanus) disturbance during breeding: an experimental test. . J. Nat. Conserv. 58::125915
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Marschall S, Granquist SM, Burns GL. 2017.. Interpretation in wildlife tourism: assessing the effectiveness of signage on visitor behaviour at a seal watching site in Iceland. . J. Outdoor Recreation Tour. 17::1119
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Weston MA, Dodge F, Bunce A, Nimmo DG, Miller KK. 2012.. Do temporary beach closures assist in the conservation of breeding shorebirds on recreational beaches?. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 18:(1):4755
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Ostrom E. 1990.. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press. 289 pp.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Agrawal A. 2014.. Studying the commons, governing common-pool resource outcomes: some concluding thoughts. . Environ. Sci. Policy 36::8691
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J. 1994.. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor:: Univ. Mich. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    Mansbridge J. 1999.. Everyday talk in the deliberative system. . In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, ed. S Macedo , pp. 21139. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Duffy J, Feltovich N. 2002.. Do actions speak louder than words? An experimental comparison of observation and cheap talk. . Games Econ. Behav. 39:(1):127
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Farrell J, Rabin M. 1996.. Cheap talk. . J. Econ. Perspect. 10:(3):10318
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Bingler JA, Kraus M, Leippold M, Webersinke N. 2022.. Cheap talk and cherry-picking: What ClimateBert has to say on corporate climate risk disclosures. . Financ. Res. Lett. 47::102776
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Ardoin NM, Bowers AW, Gaillard E. 2020.. Environmental education outcomes for conservation: a systematic review. . Biol. Conserv. 241::108224
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Weber JM, Kopelman S, Messick DM. 2004.. A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: applying a logic of appropriateness. . Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8:(3):281307
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Liebrand WBG, Messick DM, Wilke HAM, eds. 1992.. Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research Findings. London:: Garland Science. 242 pp.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Lopez MC, Villamayor-Tomas S. 2017.. Understanding the black box of communication in a common-pool resource field experiment. . Environ. Sci. Policy 68::6979
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Balliet D. 2010.. Communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: a meta-analytic review. . J. Confl. Resolut. 54:(1):3957
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Koessler A-K, Page L, Dulleck U. 2021.. Public cooperation statements. . J. Econ. Interact. Coord. 16:(4):74767
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Andersson KP, Cook NJ, Grillos T, Lopez MC, Salk CF, et al. 2018.. Experimental evidence on payments for forest commons conservation. . Nat. Sustain. 1:(3):12835
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Gardner R, Ostrom E, Walker J. 1994.. Social capital and cooperation: communication, bounded rationality, and behavioral heuristics. Paper presented at Inequality and the Commons, the Third Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Washington, DC:, Sep. 17–20
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Oprea R, Charness G, Friedman D. 2014.. Continuous time and communication in a public-goods experiment. . J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 108::21223
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Palfrey T, Rosenthal H, Roy N. 2017.. How cheap talk enhances efficiency in threshold public goods games. . Games Econ. Behav. 101::23459
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Travers H, Clements T, Keane A, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2011.. Incentives for cooperation: the effects of institutional controls on common pool resource extraction in Cambodia. . Ecol. Econ. 71::15161
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Brzezinski DT, Wilson J, Chen Y. 2010.. Voluntary participation in regional fisheries management council meetings. . Ecol. Soc. 15:(3):2
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Hoffmann P, Villamayor-Tomas S, Lopez MC. 2023.. Analyzing group communication dynamics and content in a common-pool resource experiment. . PLOS ONE 18:(5):e0283196
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Fishkin J, Siu A, Diamond L, Bradburn N. 2021.. Is deliberation an antidote to extreme partisan polarization? Reflections on “America in One Room. .” Am. Political Sci. Rev. 115:(4):146481
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Mason L. 2015.. “I disrespectfully agree”: the differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. . Am. J. Political Sci. 59:(1):12845
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Anderies JM, Janssen MA, Bousquet F, Cardenas J-C, Castillo D, et al. 2011.. The challenge of understanding decisions in experimental studies of common pool resource governance. . Ecol. Econ. 70:(9):157179
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Newig J, Fritsch O. 2009.. Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level – and effective?. Environ. Policy Gov. 19:(3):197214
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Marlin-Tackie FA, Polunci SA, Smith JM. 2020.. Fracking controversies: enhancing public trust in local government through energy justice. . Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 65::101440
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    Saif O, Keane A, Staddon S. 2022.. Making a case for the consideration of trust, justice, and power in conservation relationships. . Conserv. Biol. 36:(4):e13903
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    Birnbaum S. 2016.. Environmental co-governance, legitimacy, and the quest for compliance: When and why is stakeholder participation desirable?. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 18:(3):30623
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    Birnbaum S, Bodin Ö, Sandström A. 2015.. Tracing the sources of legitimacy: the impact of deliberation in participatory natural resource management. . Policy Sci. 48:(4):44361
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Knobloch KR, Gastil J. 2015.. Civic (re)socialisation: the educative effects of deliberative participation. . Politics 35:(2):183200
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    Cattino M, Reckien D. 2021.. Does public participation lead to more ambitious and transformative local climate change planning?. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 52::10010
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Ribot J, Agrawal A. 1999.. Accountability in decentralization: a framework with South Asian and West African cases. . J. Dev. Areas 33:(4):473502
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Ece M, Murombedzi J, Ribot J. 2017.. Disempowering democracy: local representation in community and carbon forestry in Africa. . Conserv. Soc. 15:(4):35770
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Ribot JC. 1995.. From exclusion to participation: turning Senegal's forestry policy around?. World Dev. 23:(9):158799
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    Ribot JC. 1999.. Decentralisation, participation and accountability in Sahelian forestry: legal instruments of political-administrative control. . Africa 69:(1):2365
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Ribot JC. 2004.. Waiting for Democracy: The Politics of Choice in Natural Resource Decentralization. Washington, DC:: World Resources Inst.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    Przeworski A, Stokes SC, Manin B, eds. 1999.. Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    Camilleri S, Agius MR, Azzopardi J. 2020.. Analysis of online news coverage on earthquakes through text mining. . Front. Earth Sci. 8::141
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.
    Martin C, MacDonald BH. 2020.. Using interpersonal communication strategies to encourage science conversations on social media. . PLOS ONE 15:(11):e0241972
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.
    Dilling L, Lemos MC. 2011.. Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. . Global Environ. Chang. 21:(2):68089
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.
    Lemos MC, Kirchhoff CJ, Ramprasad V. 2012.. Narrowing the climate information usability gap. . Nat. Clim. Chang. 2:(11):78994
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.
    Shyamsundar P, Sauls LA, Cheek JZ, Sullivan-Wiley K, Erbaugh JT, Krishnapriya PP. 2021.. Global forces of change: implications for forest-poverty dynamics. . Forest Policy Econ. 133::102607
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.
    Vu HT, Blomberg M, Seo H, Liu Y, Shayesteh F, Do HV. 2021.. Social media and environmental activism: framing climate change on Facebook by global NGOs. . Sci. Commun. 43:(1):91115
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.
    Nyhan B. 2020.. Facts and myths about misperceptions. . J. Econ. Perspect. 34:(3):22036
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.
    Ballew MT, Omoto AM, Winter PL. 2015.. Using Web 2.0 and social media technologies to foster proenvironmental action. . Sustainability 7:(8):1062048
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. 110.
    Bergman JN, Buxton RT, Lin H-Y, Lenda M, Attinello K, et al. 2022.. Evaluating the benefits and risks of social media for wildlife conservation. . FACETS 7::36097
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.
    Pearce W, Niederer S, Özkula SM, Sánchez Querubín N. 2019.. The social media life of climate change: platforms, publics, and future imaginaries. . WIREs Clim. Chang. 10:(2):e569
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.
    Bayer JB, Triu P, Ellison NB. 2020.. Social media elements, ecologies, and effects. . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 71::47197
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.
    Ellison NB, Boyd DM. 2013.. Sociality Through Social Network Sites, Vol. 1. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 114.
    Chang CH, Armsworth PR, Masuda YJ. 2022.. Twitter data reveal six distinct environmental personas. . Front. Ecol. Environ. 20:(8):48187
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  115. 115.
    Newell R, Dale A. 2015.. Meeting the Climate Change Challenge (MC3): the role of the internet in climate change research dissemination and knowledge mobilization. . Environ. Commun. 9:(2):20827
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  116. 116.
    Peter M, Diekötter T, Höffler T, Kremer K. 2021.. Biodiversity citizen science: outcomes for the participating citizens. . People Nat. 3:(2):294311
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  117. 117.
    Schuttler SG, Sorensen AE, Jordan RC, Cooper C, Shwartz A. 2018.. Bridging the nature gap: Can citizen science reverse the extinction of experience?. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16:(7):40511
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  118. 118.
    Crain R, Cooper C, Dickinson JL. 2014.. Citizen science: a tool for integrating studies of human and natural systems. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39::64165
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  119. 119.
    McKinley DC, Miller-Rushing AJ, Ballard HL, Bonney R, Brown H, et al. 2017.. Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. . Biol. Conserv. 208::1528
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  120. 120.
    Bonney R, Phillips TB, Ballard HL, Enck JW. 2016.. Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?. Public Underst. Sci. 25:(1):216
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  121. 121.
    Chase SK, Levine A. 2018.. Citizen science: exploring the potential of natural resource monitoring programs to influence environmental attitudes and behaviors. . Conserv. Lett. 11:(2):e12382
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  122. 122.
    Byrnes JEK, Ranganathan J, Walker BLE, Faulkes Z. 2014.. To crowdfund research, scientists must build an audience for their work. . PLOS ONE 9:(12):e110329
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  123. 123.
    Gallo-Cajiao E, Archibald C, Friedman R, Steven R, Fuller RA, et al. 2018.. Crowdfunding biodiversity conservation. . Conserv. Biol. 32:(6):142635
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  124. 124.
    Wheat RE, Wang Y, Byrnes JE, Ranganathan J. 2013.. Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding. . Trends Ecol. Evol. 28:(2):7172
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  125. 125.
    Ladle RJ, Correia RA, Do Y, Joo G-J, Malhado AC, et al. 2016.. Conservation culturomics. . Front. Ecol. Environ. 14:(5):26975
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  126. 126.
    Hopke JE, Paris L. 2021.. Environmental social movements and social media. . In The Handbook of International Trends in Environmental Communication, ed. B Takahashi, J Metag, J Thaker, SE Comfort , pp. 35772. Abingdon, UK:: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  127. 127.
    Painter J, Kristiansen S, Schäfer MS. 2018.. How ‘digital-born’ media cover climate change in comparison to legacy media: a case study of the COP 21 summit in Paris. . Global Environ. Chang. 48::110
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  128. 128.
    Nulman E, Özkula SM. 2016.. Environmental nongovernmental organizations’ digital media practices toward environmental sustainability and implications for informational governance. . Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 18::1016
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  129. 129.
    Soroye P, Edwards BPM, Buxton RT, Ethier JP, Frempong-Manso A, et al. 2022.. The risks and rewards of community science for threatened species monitoring. . Conserv. Sci. Pract. 4:(9):e12788
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  130. 130.
    Niemiller KDK, Davis MA, Niemiller ML. 2021.. Addressing ‘biodiversity naivety’ through project-based learning using iNaturalist. . J. Nat. Conserv. 64::126070
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  131. 131.
    Sullivan BL, Wood CL, Iliff MJ, Bonney RE, Fink D, Kelling S. 2009.. eBird: a citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. . Biol. Conserv. 142:(10):228292
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  132. 132.
    Segerberg A. 2017.. Online and social media campaigns for climate change engagement. . In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science, ed. H von Storch. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.398
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 133.
    Fisher DR. 2019.. The broader importance of #FridaysForFuture. . Nat. Clim. Chang. 9:(6):43031
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  134. 134.
    Marris E. 2019.. Why young climate activists have captured the world's attention. . Nature 573:(7775):47172
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  135. 135.
    Estes N. 2019.. Our History Is the Future: Standing Rock Versus the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition of Indigenous Resistance. Brooklyn, NY:: Verso. 310 pp.
    [Google Scholar]
  136. 136.
    Hodges HE, Stocking G. 2016.. A pipeline of tweets: environmental movements’ use of Twitter in response to the Keystone XL Pipeline. . Environ. Politics 25:(2):22347
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  137. 137.
    Collins L, Nerlich B. 2015.. Examining user comments for deliberative democracy: a corpus-driven analysis of the climate change debate online. . Environ. Commun. 9:(2):189207
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  138. 138.
    Williams HTP, McMurray JR, Kurz T, Hugo Lambert F. 2015.. Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. . Global Environ. Chang. 32::12638
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  139. 139.
    Treen K, Williams H, O'Neill S, Coan TG. 2022.. Discussion of climate change on Reddit: polarized discourse or deliberative debate?. Environ. Commun. 16:(5):68098
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  140. 140.
    Duarte ME. 2017.. Connected activism: Indigenous uses of social media for shaping political change. . Australas. J. Inform. Syst. 21:. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v21i0.1525
    [Google Scholar]
  141. 141.
    Kaur K. 2015.. Social media creating digital environmental publics: case of Lynas Malaysia. . Public Relat. Rev. 41:(2):31114
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  142. 142.
    Liu J. 2016.. Digital media, cycle of contention, and sustainability of environmental activism: the case of anti-PX protests in China. . Mass Commun. Soc. 19:(5):60425
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  143. 143.
    Sun X, Huang R. 2020.. Spatial meaning-making and urban activism: two tales of anti-PX protests in urban China. . J. Urban Aff. 42:(2):25777
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  144. 144.
    King G, Pan J, Roberts ME. 2013.. How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. . Am. Political Sci. Rev. 107:(2):32643
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  145. 145.
    Boulianne S, Ohme J. 2022.. Pathways to environmental activism in four countries: social media, environmental concern, and political efficacy. . J. Youth Stud. 25:(6):77192
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  146. 146.
    Scherman A, Valenzuela S, Rivera S. 2022.. Youth environmental activism in the age of social media: the case of Chile (2009–2019). . J. Youth Stud. 25:(6):75170
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  147. 147.
    Coppock A, Guess A, Ternovski J. 2016.. When treatments are tweets: a network mobilization experiment over Twitter. . Political Behav. 38:(1):10528
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  148. 148.
    Foos F, Kostadinov L, Marinov N, Schimmelfennig F. 2021.. Does social media promote civic activism? A field experiment with a civic campaign. . Political Sci. Res. Methods 9:(3):50018
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  149. 149.
    Kubo T, Yokoo H-F, Veríssimo D. 2023.. Conservation fundraising: evidence from social media and traditional mail field experiments. . Conserv. Lett. 16:(1):e12931
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  150. 150.
    Freelon D, Marwick A, Kreiss D. 2020.. False equivalencies: online activism from left to right. . Science 369:(6508):1197201
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  151. 151.
    Sankaranarayanan A, Hemberg E, O'Reilly U-M. 2023.. The Facebook algorithm's active role in climate advertisement delivery. . arXiv:2308.03191 [cs.HC]
  152. 152.
    Chang CH, Deshmukh NR, Armsworth PR, Masuda YJ. 2023.. Environmental users abandoned Twitter after Musk takeover. . Trends Ecol. Evol. 38:(10):89395
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  153. 153.
    King G, Pan J, Roberts ME. 2014.. Reverse-engineering censorship in China: randomized experimentation and participant observation. . Science 345:(6199):1251722
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  154. 154.
    Supran G, Oreskes N. 2021.. Rhetoric and frame analysis of ExxonMobil's climate change communications. . One Earth 4:(5):696719
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  155. 155.
    Treen K, Williams H, O'Neill SJ. 2020.. Online misinformation about climate change. . WIREs Clim. Chang. 11:(5):e665
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  156. 156.
    Schäfer MS. 2012.. Online communication on climate change and climate politics: a literature review. . Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 3:(6):52743
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  157. 157.
    Bennett WL. 2012.. The personalization of politics: political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. . Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 644:(1):2039
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  158. 158.
    Friel S, Arthur M, Frank N. 2022.. Power and the planetary health equity crisis. . Lancet 400:(10358):108587
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  159. 159.
    Walker M, Matsa KE. 2021.. News consumption across social media in 2021. . Pew Research Center, Sep. 20. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/09/20/news-consumption-across-social-media-in-2021/
    [Google Scholar]
  160. 160.
    Marlow T, Miller S, Roberts JT. 2021.. Bots and online climate discourses: Twitter discourse on President Trump's announcement of U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. . Clim. Policy 21:(6):76577
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  161. 161.
    Eco-bot.net. 2021.. Data archive. . Eco-bot.net. https://eco-bot.net/archive
    [Google Scholar]
  162. 162.
    Aïmeur E, Amri S, Brassard G. 2023.. Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review. . Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 13:(1):30
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  163. 163.
    Lamb WF, Mattioli G, Levi S, Roberts JT, Capstick S, et al. 2020.. Discourses of climate delay. . Global Sustain. 3::e17
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  164. 164.
    King J, Janulewicz L, Arcostanzo F. 2022.. Deny, Deceive, Delay: Documenting and Responding to Climate Disinformation at COP26 and Beyond. London:: Institute for Strategic Dialogue
    [Google Scholar]
  165. 165.
    Ozawa JVS, Woolley SC, Straubhaar J, Riedl MJ, Joseff K, Gursky J. 2023.. How disinformation on WhatsApp went from campaign weapon to governmental propaganda in Brazil. . Soc. Media Soc. 9:(1):20563051231160632
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  166. 166.
    Dunlap RE, McCright AM. 2011.. Organized Climate Change Denial. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  167. 167.
    Farrell J. 2019.. The growth of climate change misinformation in US philanthropy: evidence from natural language processing. . Environ. Res. Lett. 14:(3):034013
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  168. 168.
    Lewandowsky S. 2021.. Climate change disinformation and how to combat it. . Annu. Rev. Public Health 42::121
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  169. 169.
    Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Schmid P, Fazio LK, et al. 2022.. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. . Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1:(1):1329
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  170. 170.
    Farrell J. 2016.. Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. . PNAS 113:(1):9297
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  171. 171.
    Tabuchi H. 2021.. In your Facebook feed: oil industry pushback against Biden climate plans. . The New York Times, Sep. 30. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/climate/api-exxon-biden-climate-bill.html
    [Google Scholar]
  172. 172.
    Arechar AA, Allen J, Berinsky AJ, Cole R, Epstein Z, et al. 2023.. Understanding and combatting misinformation across 16 countries on six continents. . Nat. Hum. Behav. 7:(9):150213
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  173. 173.
    Hansson SO. 2018.. Dealing with climate science denialism: experiences from confrontations with other forms of pseudoscience. . Clim. Policy 18:(9):1094102
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  174. 174.
    Cook J, Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH. 2017.. Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. . PLOS ONE 12:(5):e0175799
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  175. 175.
    van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Rosenthal S, Maibach E. 2017.. Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. . Global Chall. 1:(2):1600008
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  176. 176.
    van der Linden S, Maibach E, Cook J, Leiserowitz A, Lewandowsky S. 2017.. Inoculating against misinformation. . Science 358:(6367):114142
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  177. 177.
    Farrell J, McConnell K, Brulle R. 2019.. Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation. . Nat. Clim. Chang. 9:(3):19195
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  178. 178.
    Chan MS, Albarracín D. 2023.. A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation. . Nat. Hum. Behav. 7:(9):151425
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  179. 179.
    Drouin M, Miller D, Wehle SMJ, Hernandez E. 2016.. Why do people lie online? “Because everyone lies on the internet. .” Comput. Hum. Behav. 64::13442
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  180. 180.
    Semaan BC, Robertson SP, Douglas S, Maruyama M. 2014.. Social media supporting political deliberation across multiple public spheres: towards depolarization. . In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pp. 140921. New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
    [Google Scholar]
  181. 181.
    Alexander M, Doorn N, Priest S. 2018.. Bridging the legitimacy gap—translating theory into practical signposts for legitimate flood risk governance. . Reg. Environ. Chang. 18:(2):397408
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  182. 182.
    Fung A. 2008.. Democratizing the policy process. . In The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, ed. R Goodin, M Moran, M Rein , pp. 66986. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  183. 183.
    Dryzek JS, Bowman Q, Kuyper J, Pickering J, Sass J, Stevenson H. 2019.. Deliberative Global Governance. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  184. 184.
    Tesler M. 2018.. Elite domination of public doubts about climate change (not evolution). . Political Commun. 35:(2):30626
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  185. 185.
    Wilfahrt M. 2018.. The politics of local government performance: elite cohesion and cross-village constraints in decentralized Senegal. . World Dev. 103::14961
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  186. 186.
    Pomeranz EF, Stedman RC. 2020.. Measuring good governance: piloting an instrument for evaluating good governance principles. . J. Environ. Policy Plann. 22:(3):42840
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  187. 187.
    Thompson DF. 2008.. Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. . Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 11::497520
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  188. 188.
    el-Wakil A, Strebel MA. 2022.. Participatory processes and their outcomes: comparing assembly and popular vote decisions. . Eur. Political Sci. Rev. 14:(3):44158
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  189. 189.
    Kersting N. 2021.. Participatory democracy and sustainability. Deliberative democratic innovation and its acceptance by citizens and German local councilors. . Sustainability 13:(13):7214
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  190. 190.
    Giraudet L-G, Apouey B, Arab H, Baeckelandt S, Bégout P, et al. 2022.. “ Co-construction” in deliberative democracy: lessons from the French Citizens’ Convention for Climate. . Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9:(1):207
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  191. 191.
    Warren ME, Gastil J. 2015.. Can deliberative minipublics address the cognitive challenges of democratic citizenship?. J. Politics 77:(2):56274
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  192. 192.
    Habermas J. 1984.. The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston:: Beacon Press
    [Google Scholar]
  193. 193.
    Gastil J. 2022.. Survey methods. . In Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy, ed. SA Ercan, H Asenbaum, N Curato, RF Mendonça , pp. 20417. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  194. 194.
    Grönlund K, Herne K. 2022.. Experimental methods. . In Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy, ed. SA Ercan, H Asenbaum, N Curato, RF Mendonça , pp. 16374. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  195. 195.
    Kingzette J, Neblo M. 2022.. Deliberative field experiments. . In Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy, ed. SA Ercan, H Asenbaum, N Curato, RF Mendonça , pp. 17588. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  196. 196.
    Grillos T. 2022.. Participation improves collective decisions (when it involves deliberation): experimental evidence from Kenya. . Br. J. Political Sci. 52:(4):172847
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  197. 197.
    Murphy M, Mavrommati G, Mallampalli V, Howarth R, Borsuk M. 2017.. Comparing group deliberation to other forms of preference aggregation in valuing ecosystem services. . Ecol. Soc. 22:(4):17
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  198. 198.
    Wells R, Howarth C, Brand-Correa LI. 2021.. Are citizen juries and assemblies on climate change driving democratic climate policymaking? An exploration of two case studies in the UK. . Clim. Chang. 168:(1–2):5
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  199. 199.
    . 2021.. Summaries of national climate assemblies. . KNOCA. https://www.knoca.eu/climate-assemblies#Summaries-of-national-climate-assemblies
    [Google Scholar]
  200. 200.
    Willis R, Curato N, Smith G. 2022.. Deliberative democracy and the climate crisis. . WIREs Clim. Chang. 13:(2):e759
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  201. 201.
    Tan C, Niculae V, Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil C, Lee L. 2016.. Winning arguments: interaction dynamics and persuasion strategies in good-faith online discussions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web, Montreal:, Apr. 11–15
    [Google Scholar]
  202. 202.
    Chandrashekeran S, Morgan B, Coetzee K, Christoff P. 2017.. Rethinking the green state beyond the Global North: a South African climate change case study. . WIREs Clim. Chang. 8:(6):e473
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  203. 203.
    Heller P, Rao V. 2015.. Deliberation and development. . In Deliberation and Development: Rethinking the Role of Voice and Collective Action in Unequal Societies, ed. P Heller, V Rao , pp. 126. Washington, DC:: World Bank
    [Google Scholar]
  204. 204.
    Dryzek JS, Nicol D, Niemeyer S, Pemberton S, Curato N, et al. 2020.. Global citizen deliberation on genome editing. . Science 369:(6510):143537
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  205. 205.
    Chatterton P, Featherstone D, Routledge P. 2013.. Articulating climate justice in Copenhagen: antagonism, the commons, and solidarity. . Antipode 45:(3):60220
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  206. 206.
    Leitheiser S, Trell E-M, Horlings I, Franklin A. 2022.. Toward the commoning of governance. . Environ. Plann. C Politics Space 40:(3):74462
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  207. 207.
    Partelow S, Manlosa AO. 2023.. Commoning the governance: a review of literature and the integration of power. . Sustain. Sci. 18:(1):26583
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  208. 208.
    Gastil J, Black L. 2018.. Deliberation in communication studies. . In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, ed. A Bächtiger, JS Dryzek, J Mansbridge, M Warren , pp. 50217. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  209. 209.
    Hering JG. 2018.. Implementation science for the environment. . Environ. Sci. Technol. 52:(10):555560
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  210. 210.
    Bourdieu P, Passeron J-C, Bourdieu P, Bourdieu P. 2000.. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London:: Sage Publ. 254 pp. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  211. 211.
    Bourdieu P. 1977.. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  212. 212.
    Foucault M. 1978.. Governmentality. . In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault, ed. G Burchell, C Gordon, P Miller , pp. 87104. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  213. 213.
    Lemke T. 2001.. “The birth of bio-politics”: Michel Foucault's lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality. . Econ. Soc. 30:(2):190207
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  214. 214.
    Gastil J, Richards RC. 2017.. Embracing digital democracy: a call for building an online civic commons. . Political Sci. Politics 50:(3):75863
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  215. 215.
    Suldovsky B. 2017.. The information deficit model and climate change communication. . In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science, ed. H von Storch. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.301
    [Google Scholar]
  216. 216.
    van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E. 2019.. The gateway belief model: a large-scale replication. . J. Environ. Psychol. 62::4958
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  217. 217.
    Reser JP, Bradley GL. 2017.. Fear appeals in climate change communication. . In The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication, ed. MC Nisbet, SS Ho, E Markowitz, S O'Neill, MS Schäfer, J Thaker . Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  218. 218.
    Smith N, Leiserowitz A. 2014.. The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. . Risk Anal. 34:(5):93748
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  219. 219.
    Maiella R, La Malva P, Marchetti D, Pomarico E, Di Crosta A, et al. 2020.. The psychological distance and climate change: a systematic review on the mitigation and adaptation behaviors. . Front. Psychol. 11::568899
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  220. 220.
    Wolsko C. 2017.. Expanding the range of environmental values: political orientation, moral foundations, and the common ingroup. . J. Environ. Psychol. 51::28494
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  221. 221.
    Albertson B, Busby JW. 2015.. Hearts or minds? Identifying persuasive messages on climate change. . Res. Politics 2:(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015577712
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  222. 222.
    Shin F, Preston JL. 2021.. Green as the gospel: the power of stewardship messages to improve climate change attitudes. . Psychol. Relig. Spiritual. 13:(4):43747
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  223. 223.
    Markowitz EM, Shariff AF. 2012.. Climate change and moral judgement. . Nat. Clim. Chang. 2:(4):24347
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-082450
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-082450
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error