1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
  4. Volume 49, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 49, 2024

Communication, Climate Mitigation, and Behavior Change Interventions: Understanding Message Design and Digital Media Technologies

Abstract

Using the socio-ecological model of social and behavior change communication, our review highlights current trends in understanding message design factors and media technologies promoting proenvironment and climate mitigative behaviors. We explain that much of this research has focused on the individual level, and relatively few studies have been conducted at the interpersonal and community levels. With respect to changing communication ecology, we note the potential for research on the use of social media platforms to influence positive behavior changes and, conversely, the challenges of misinformation and its impact on behavior shifts. This area requires further investigation as these communication platforms transform and become increasingly relevant. Additionally, we need to explicate the long-term shifts and impacts of behavior change interventions as well as track behaviors over time. Overall, our review underscores the continued need for research across different geographical, sociopolitical, and technological contexts.

Keyword(s): behavior change communication, climate change, digital media, message design, mitigation
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-121322-070317
2024-10-18
2025-02-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/49/1/annurev-environ-121322-070317.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-121322-070317&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Sukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdaije A, Hasija A, et al., eds. 2022.. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the 6th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK/New York:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Creutzig F, Niamir L, Bai X, Callaghan M, Cullen J, et al. 2022.. Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being. . Nat. Clim. Change 12:(1):36–46
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Bronfenbrenner U. 1996.. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    McKee N, Becker-Benton A, Bockh E. 2014.. Social and behavior change communication. . In The Handbook of Development Communication and Social Change, ed. KG Wilkins, T Tufte, R Obregon , pp. 278–97. New York:: Wiley
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Moran MB, Frank LB, Zhao N, Gonzalez C, Thainiyom P, et al. 2016.. An argument for ecological research and intervention in health communication. . J. Health Commun. 21:(2):135–38
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Sukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdaije A, Hasija A, et al., eds. 2022.. Annex I: glossary. . See Ref. 1 , pp. 1793–820
  7. 7.
    Chatterjee J, Bhanot A, Frank L, Murphy S, Power G. 2009.. The importance of interpersonal discussion and self-efficacy in knowledge, attitude, and practice models. . Int. J. Commun. 3::60734
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Suldovsky B. 2017.. The information deficit model and climate change communication. . In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.301
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Fishbein M, Cappella JN. 2006.. The role of theory in developing effective health communications. . J. Commun. 56:(Suppl. 1):S1–17
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Rice RE, Atkin CK. 2013.. Public Communication Campaigns. London: SAGE:
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Harrington NG. 2015.. Introduction to the special issue: Message design in health communication research. . Health Commun. 30:(2):103–5
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    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::53–77
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Koteyko N, Nerlich B, Hellsten I. 2015.. Climate change communication and the Internet: challenges and opportunities for research. . Environ. Commun. 9:(2):149–52
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Hicks D. 2014.. Educating for Hope in Troubled Times: Climate Change and the Transition to a Post-Carbon Future. London:: Inst. Educ.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    Ojala M, Lakew Y. 2017.. Young people and climate change communication. . In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.408
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Neuman WR, Guggenheim L, Jang SM, Bae SY. 2014.. The dynamics of public attention: agenda-setting theory meets big data: dynamics of public attention. . J. Commun. 64:(2):193–214
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Blennow K, Persson J, Tomé M, Hanewinkel M. 2012.. Climate change: Believing and seeing implies adapting. . PLOS ONE 7:(11):e50182
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Yang ZJ, Rickard LN, Harrison TM, Seo M. 2014.. Applying the risk information seeking and processing model to examine support for climate change mitigation policy. . Sci. Commun. 36:(3):296–324
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Brügger A, Dessai S, Devine-Wright P, Morton TA, Pidgeon NF. 2015.. Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. . Nat. Clim. Change 5:(12):1031–37
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Van Valkengoed AM, Steg L. 2019.. Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. . Nat. Clim. Change 9:(2):158–63
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Zanocco C, Boudet H, Nilson R, Flora J. 2019.. Personal harm and support for climate change mitigation policies: evidence from 10 U.S. communities impacted by extreme weather. . Glob. Environ. Change 59::101984
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Treen KMD, Williams HTP, O'Neill SJ. 2020.. Online misinformation about climate change. . Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 11:(5):e665
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Dang HL, Li E, Nuberg I, Bruwer J. 2014.. Understanding farmers’ adaptation intention to climate change: a structural equation modelling study in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. . Environ. Sci. Policy 41::11–22
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Gao Y, Tavoni M. 2023.. Forget-me-not: the persistent effect of information provision for adopting climate-friendly goods. . Manag. Sci. 70:(7):4480501
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Adam S, Häussler T, Schmid-Petri H, Reber U. 2019.. Coalitions and counter-coalitions in online contestation: an analysis of the German and British climate change debate. . New Media Soc. 21:(11/12):2671–90
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Kaiser J. 2017.. Public spheres of skepticism: climate skeptics’ online comments in the German networked public sphere. . Int. J. Commun. 11::1661–82
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Zerback T, Töpfl F, Knöpfle M. 2021.. The disconcerting potential of online disinformation: persuasive effects of astroturfing comments and three strategies for inoculation against them. . New Media Soc. 23:(5):1080–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Matthews P. 2015.. Why are people skeptical about climate change? Some insights from blog comments. . Environ. Commun. 9:(2):153–68
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Atanasova D, Koteyko N. 2015.. Metaphors in Guardian Online and Mail Online opinion-page content on climate change: war, religion, and politics. . Environ. Commun. 11:(4):452–69
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Swim JK, Clayton S, Howard GS. 2011.. Human behavioral contributions to climate change: psychological and contextual drivers. . Am. Psychol. 66:(4):251–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Howell RA. 2013.. It's not (just) “the environment, stupid!” Values, motivations, and routes to engagement of people adopting lower-carbon lifestyles. . Glob. Environ. Change 23:(1):281–90
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Lu H, Schuldt JP. 2016.. Compassion for climate change victims and support for mitigation policy. . J. Environ. Psychol. 45::192–200
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Goldberg MH, Gustafson A, Ballew MT, Rosenthal SA, Leiserowitz A. 2019.. A social identity approach to engaging Christians in the issue of climate change. . Sci. Commun. 41:(4):442–63
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Elias T, Blaine M, Morrison D, Harris B. 2019.. Media use, cross-national samples, and the theory of planned behavior: implications for climate change advocacy intentions. . Int. J. Commun. 13::3694–718
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Xue M, Zhao Y, Wang Z, Zhang B. 2021.. Behavioural determinants of an individual's intention to adapt to climate change: both internal and external perspectives. . Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 91::106672
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Bloodhart B, Swim JK. 2010.. Equality, harmony, and the environment: an ecofeminist approach to understanding the role of cultural values on the treatment of women and nature. . Ecopsychology 2:(3):187–94
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Kasser T. 2011.. Cultural values and the well-being of future generations: a cross-national study. . J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 42:(2):206–15
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Niederdeppe J, Bu QL, Borah P, Kindig DA, Robert SA. 2008.. Message design strategies to raise public awareness of social determinants of health and population health disparities. . Milbank Q. 86:(3):481–513
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Scheufele DA. 1999.. Framing as a theory of media effects. . J. Commun. 49:(1):103–22
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Entman RM. 1993.. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. . J. Commun. 43:(4):51–58
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Hart PS, Feldman L. 2021.. The benefit of focusing on air pollution instead of climate change: how discussing power plant emissions in the context of air pollution, rather than climate change, influences perceived benefits, costs, and political action for policies to limit emissions. . Sci. Commun. 43:(2):199–224
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Bernauer T, McGrath LF. 2016.. Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. . Nat. Clim. Change 6:(7):680–83
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Thornes JE. 2008.. A rough guide to environmental art. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33::391–411
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Hart PS, Feldman L. 2016.. The impact of climate change-related imagery and text on public opinion and behavior change. . Sci. Commun. 38:(4):415–41
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Murphy ST, Frank LB, Chatterjee JS, Baezconde-Garbanati L. 2013.. Narrative versus nonnarrative: the role of identification, transportation, and emotion in reducing health disparities. . J. Commun. 63:(1):116–37
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Wang H, Singhal A. 2016.. East Los High: transmedia edutainment to promote the sexual and reproductive health of young Latina/o Americans. . Am. J. Public Health 106:(6):1002–10
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Zwarun L, Hall A. 2012.. Narrative persuasion, transportation, and the role of need for cognition in online viewing of fantastical films. . Media Psychol. 15:(3):327–55
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Sangalang A, Bloomfield EF. 2018.. Mother Goose and Mother Nature: designing stories to communicate information about climate change. . Commun. Stud. 69:(5):583–604
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Bloomfield EF, Manktelow C. 2021.. Climate communication and storytelling. . Clim. Change 167:(3/4):34
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Chen M, Wang J, Yin Z. 2024.. Identifying the active ingredients of climate change narratives: a model of temporal perspective, narrator perspective, and psychological distance. . Sci. Commun. 46:(2):123–50
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Neset T-S, Andersson L, Uhrqvist O, Navarra C. 2020.. Serious gaming for climate adaptation—assessing the potential and challenges of a digital serious game for urban climate adaptation. . Sustainability 12:(5):1789
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Singhal A, Wang H. 2009.. Entertainment-education through digital games. . In Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects, ed. U Ritterfeld, MJ Cody, P Vorderer , pp. 271–92. New York:: Routledge. , 1st ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Ouariachi T, Olvera-Lobo MD, Gutiérrez-Pérez J. 2017.. Analyzing climate change communication through online games: development and application of validated criteria. . Sci. Commun. 39:(1):10–44
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Peattie K. 2010.. Green consumption: behavior and norms. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 35::195–228
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Roeser S. 2012.. Risk communication, public engagement, and climate change: a role for emotions. . Risk Anal. 32:(6):1033–40
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    O'Neill S, Nicholson-Cole S. 2009.. “ Fear won't do it”: promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. . Sci. Commun. 30:(3):355–79
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Duan R, Hepworth KJ, Ormerod KJ, Canon C. 2021.. Promoting concern for climate change: a study of wildfire photographs using Q methodology. . Sci. Commun. 43:(5):624–50
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Morss RE, Mulder KJ, Lazo JK, Demuth JL. 2016.. How do people perceive, understand, and anticipate responding to flash flood risks and warnings? Results from a public survey in Boulder, Colorado, USA. . J. Hydrol. 541::649–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    Bodoque JM, Díez-Herrero A, Amerigo M, García JA, Olcina J. 2019.. Enhancing flash flood risk perception and awareness of mitigation actions through risk communication: a pre-post survey design. . J. Hydrol. 568::769–79
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    Poberezhskaya M. 2017.. Blogging about climate change in Russia: activism, scepticism and conspiracies. . Environ. Commun. 12:(7):94255
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    Knobloch-Westerwick S, Lavis SM. 2017.. Selecting serious or satirical, supporting or stirring news? Selective exposure to partisan versus mockery news online videos. . J. Commun. 67:(1):54–81
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Bore I-LK, Reid G. 2014.. Laughing in the face of climate change? Satire as a device for engaging audiences in public debate. . Sci. Commun. 36:(4):454–78
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Becker AB, Anderson AA. 2019.. Using humor to engage the public on climate change: the effect of exposure to one-sided versus two-sided satire on message discounting, elaboration and counterarguing. . J. Sci. Commun. 18:(4):A07
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Feldman L. 2013.. Cloudy with a chance of heat balls: the portrayal of global warming on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. . Int. J. Commun. 7::430–51
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Zwickle A, Wilson RS. 2014.. Construing risk: implications for risk communication. . In Effective Risk Communication, ed. J Árvai, L Rivers , pp. 190–203. London:: Taylor & Francis
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Spence A, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N. 2012.. The psychological distance of climate change. . Risk Anal. 32:(6):957–72
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Chu H, Yang JZ. 2019.. Emotion and the psychological distance of climate change. . Sci. Commun. 41:(6):761–89
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Swim JK, Bloodhart B. 2015.. Portraying the perils to polar bears: the role of empathic and objective perspective-taking toward animals in climate change communication. . Environ. Commun. 9:(4):446–68
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    Myers TA, Nisbet MC, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz AA. 2012.. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change: a letter. . Clim. Change 113:(3/4):1105–12
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Geiger N, Swim JK, Fraser J, Flinner K. 2017.. Catalyzing public engagement with climate change through informal science learning centers. . Sci. Commun. 39:(2):221–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Vrain E, Wilson C, Kerr L, Wilson M. 2022.. Social influence in the adoption of digital consumer innovations for climate change. . Energy Policy 162::112800
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Southwell BG, Murphy J. 2014.. Weatherization behavior and social context: the influences of factual knowledge and social interaction. . Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2::59–65
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Bale CSE, McCullen NJ, Foxon TJ, Rucklidge AM, Gale WF. 2013.. Harnessing social networks for promoting adoption of energy technologies in the domestic sector. . Energy Policy 63::833–44
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Hargreaves T, Middlemiss L. 2020.. The importance of social relations in shaping energy demand. . Nat. Energy 5:(3):195–201
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Lakew Y. 2020.. The elusiveness of communicative influence: how key socializers influence adolescents’ proenvironmental engagement. . Int. J. Commun. 14::2383–402
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Besta T, Mattingly B, Błażek M. 2016.. When membership gives strength to act: inclusion of the group into the self and feeling of personal agency. . J. Soc. Psychol. 156:(1):56–73
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Jugert P, Greenaway KH, Barth M, Büchner R, Eisentraut S, Fritsche I. 2016.. Collective efficacy increases pro-environmental intentions through increasing self-efficacy. . J. Environ. Psychol. 48::12–23
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Ockwell D, Whitmarsh L, O'Neill S. 2009.. Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation: forcing people to be green or fostering grass-roots engagement?. Sci. Commun. 30:(3):305–27
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Hayward B, Roy J. 2019.. Sustainable living: bridging the north-south divide in lifestyles and consumption debates. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44::157–75
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Mercea D. 2011.. Digital prefigurative participation: the entwinement of online communication and offline participation in protest events. . New Media Soc. 14:(1):153–69
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Hestres LE. 2014.. Preaching to the choir: Internet-mediated advocacy, issue public mobilization, and climate change. . New Media Soc. 16:(2):323–39
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Specht D, Ros-Tonen MA. 2016.. Gold, power, protest: digital and social media and protests against large-scale mining projects in Colombia. . New Media Soc. 19:(12):1907–26
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Chinn S, Hart PS, Soroka S. 2020.. Politicization and polarization in climate change news content, 1985–2017. . Sci. Commun. 42:(1):112–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Walter S, Brüggemann M, Engesser S. 2018.. Echo chambers of denial: explaining user comments on climate change. . Environ. Commun. 12:(2):204–17
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Porten-Cheé P, Eilders C. 2015.. Spiral of silence online: how online communication affects opinion climate perception and opinion expression regarding the climate change debate. . Stud. Commun. Sci. 15:(1):143–50
     [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Chen K, Jeon J, Zhou Y. 2023.. A critical appraisal of diversity in digital knowledge production: segregated inclusion on YouTube. . New Media Soc. 25:(11):2855–76
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Brewer PR, McKnight J. 2015.. Climate as comedy: the effects of satirical television news on climate change perceptions. . Sci. Commun. 37:(5):635–57
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Esteves Gonçalves da Costa B, Cukierman HL. 2019.. How anthropogenic climate change prevailed: a case study of controversies around global warming on Portuguese Wikipedia. . New Media Soc. 21:(10):2261–82
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Feldman L, Myers TA, Hmielowski JD, Leiserowitz A. 2014.. The mutual reinforcement of media selectivity and effects: testing the reinforcing spirals framework in the context of global warming. . J. Commun. 64:(4):590–611
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    van Eck CW, Mulder BC, Dewulf A. 2020.. Online climate change polarization: interactional framing analysis of climate change blog comments. . Sci. Commun. 42:(4):454–80
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    Cargnino M, Neubaum G. 2022.. Is it better to strike a balance? How exposure to congruent and incongruent opinion climates on social networking sites impacts users’ processing and selection of information. . New Media Soc. 26:(5):242947
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    Stier S, Schünemann WJ, Steiger S. 2018.. Of activists and gatekeepers: temporal and structural properties of policy networks on Twitter. . New Media Soc. 20:(5):1910–30
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    Masullo GM, Lu S, Fadnis D. 2021.. Does online incivility cancel out the spiral of silence? A moderated mediation model of willingness to speak out. . New Media Soc. 23:(11):3391–414
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Yuan S, Chen Y, Vojta S, Chen Y. 2022.. More aggressive, more retweets? Exploring the effects of aggressive climate change messages on Twitter. . New Media Soc. 26:(8):440928
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    Elgesem D, Steskal L, Diakopoulos N. 2015.. Structure and content of the discourse on climate change in the blogosphere: the big picture. . Environ. Commun. 9:(2):169–88
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    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):208–27
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Shapiro MA, Park HW. 2017.. Climate change and YouTube: deliberation potential in post-video discussions. . Environ. Commun. 12:(1):115–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Ferguson MA, Branscombe NR. 2010.. Collective guilt mediates the effect of beliefs about global warming on willingness to engage in mitigation behavior. . J. Environ. Psychol. 30:(2):135–42
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    Ojala M. 2015.. Hope in the face of climate change: associations with environmental engagement and student perceptions of teachers’ emotion communication style and future orientation. . J. Environ. Educ. 46:(3):133–48
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Ho SS, Detenber BH, Rosenthal S, Lee EWJ. 2014.. Seeking information about climate change: effects of media use in an extended PRISM. . Sci. Commun. 36:(3):270–95
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    Roy J, Prakash A, Some S, Singh C, Bezner Kerr R, et al. 2022.. Synergies and trade-offs between climate change adaptation options and gender equality: a review of the global literature. . Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9:(1):251
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    Lyver PO, Timoti P, Davis T, Tylianakis JM. 2019.. Biocultural hysteresis inhibits adaptation to environmental change. . Trends Ecol. Evol. 34:(9):771–80
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-121322-070317
Loading
Communication, Climate Mitigation, and Behavior Change Interventions: Understanding Message Design and Digital Media Technologies
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 49, 655 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-121322-070317
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-121322-070317
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-121322-070317
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

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