Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks

Nature Climate Change volume 1, pages 35–41 (2011)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

A major challenge facing climate scientists is explaining to non-specialists the risks and uncertainties surrounding potential changes over the coming years, decades and centuries. Although there are many guidelines for climate communication, there is little empirical evidence of their efficacy, whether for dispassionately explaining the science or for persuading people to act in more sustainable ways. Moreover, climate communication faces new challenges as assessments of climate-related changes confront uncertainty more explicitly and adopt risk-based approaches to evaluating impacts. Given its critical importance, public understanding of climate science deserves the strongest possible communications science to convey the practical implications of large, complex, uncertain physical, biological and social processes. Here, we identify the communications science that is needed to meet this challenge and the ambitious, interdisciplinary initiative that its effective application to climate science requires.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Shifting public opinion.
Figure 2: Sources of uncertainty in climate assessments.
Figure 3: The existing Thames flood-protection barrier at Greenwich, East London, UK.

© ISTOCKPHOTO.COM / RSARAIVA

Figure 4: The recent UK climate projections in 2009 use probability assessments to represent the modelling uncertainty for a range of variables and with a grid resolution of 25 km2.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lorenzoni, I. & Pidgeon, N. F. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim. Change 77, 73–95 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brechin, S. R. in Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society (ed. Lever Tracey, C.) 179–209 (Routledge, 2010).The most complete current analysis of public beliefs and attitudes regarding climate change, with good international coverage including the developing world.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Compston, H. & Bailey, I. (eds) Turning Down the Heat: The Politics of Climate Policy in Affluent Democracies (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Lorenzoni, I., Nicolson-Cole, S. & Whitmarsh, L. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob. Environ. Change 17, 445–459 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dunlap, R. & McCright, A. in Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society (ed. Lever Tracey, C.) 240–259 (Routledge, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Merchants of Doubt (Bloomsbury, 2010).A provocative historical and political analysis of attempts to create uncertainty and interpret it as reason for inaction.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Corner, A. Do climate change skeptics give skepticism a bad name? Guardian Environment Blog Online (22 February 2010); available via http://go.nature.com/MoX91n.

    Google Scholar 

  8. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee The Disclosure of Climate Data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. 8th Report of Session 2009–2010, HC-387-1 (Stationary Office, 2010).

  9. Nehrlich, B. 'Climategate': paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis. Environ. Values 19, 419–442 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Climate of fear. Nature 46, 141 (2010).

  11. Spence, A., Venables, D., Pidgeon, N. F., Poortinga, W. & Demski, C. Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Energy Futures in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted in January-March 2010. Understanding Risk Working Paper 10–01 (Cardiff University, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Krosnick, J. The climate majority. The New York Times (10 June 2010); available via http://go.nature.com/uJJGSt.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Market & Opinion Research International Science in Society: Findings from Qualitative and Quantitative Research (Office of Science and Technology, 2005).

  14. National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators Ch. 7, 7.1–7.46 (National Science Foundation, 2006).

  15. Poortinga, W. & Pidgeon, N. F. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal. 23, 961–972 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kunzig, R. & Broecker, W. Fixing Climate (Profile Books, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Oppenheimer, M. Defining dangerous anthropogenic interference: the role of science, the limits to science. Risk Anal. 25, 1399–1407 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schellnhuber, H. J. (ed.) Dangerous Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  19. National Research Council Advancing the Science of Climate Change (National Academies Press, 2010).An important recent statement of the US National Academies, emphasizing the integration of natural, social and decision sciences in advancing climate science and policy.

  20. Bony, S. et al. How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J. Clim. 19, 3445–3482 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pidgeon, N. F. & Butler, C. Risk analysis and climate change. Environ. Polit. 18, 670–688 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Trenberth, K. More knowledge, less certainty. Nature Rep. Clim. Change 4, 20–21 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Somerville, R. C. J. How much should the public know about climate science? Clim. Change 104, 509–514 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. IPCC Climate Change 2007: Fourth Assessment Report (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  25. Budescu, D. V & Wallsten, T. S. in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (eds Busemeyer, J. R., Hastie, R. & Medin, D.) 275–316 (Academic, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Budescu, D. V., Broomell, S. B. & Por, H. Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the IPCC. Psychol. Sci. 20, 299–308 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Corell, R. W. & Lee, K. N. (eds) Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate (National Academies Press, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dietz, S., Hope, C. & Patmore, N. Some economics of 'dangerous' climate change: reflections on the Stern review. Glob. Environ. Change 17, 311–325 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. L. & Keeney, R. L. Acceptable Risk (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981).A critical analysis of fundamental approaches to making decisions about risk, treating risks as acceptable only in the context of compensating benefits.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nordhaus, W. D. A review of the Stern review of the economics of climate change. J. Econ. Lit. 45, 686–702 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Weitzmann, M. A review of the Stern review of the economics of climate change. J. Econ. Lit. 45, 703–724 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dessai, S. et al. Defining and experiencing dangerous climate change. Clim. Change 64, 11–25 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N. F. & O'Connor, R. Dangerous climate change: the role for risk research. Risk Anal. 25, 1387–1398 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Estuary, T. 2100 Plan: Managing Flood Risk Through London and the Thames Estuary (Environment Agency, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Adapting to Climate Change: UK Climate Projections (DEFRA, 2009).

  37. Pidgeon, N. F., Lorenzoni, I. & Poortinga, W. Climate change or nuclear power — no thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Glob. Environ. Change 18, 69–85 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rosa, E. A. & Clarke, D. L. in Research in Social Problems and Public Policy Vol. 7 (eds Youn, T. I. K. & Freudenburg, W. R.) 21–57 (JAI, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Shanahan, J., Brossard, D. & Nesbitt, C. (eds) The Public, the Media and Agricultural Biotechnology (CABI, 2007).

  40. Pidgeon, N. F., Harthorn, B., Bryant, K. & Rogers-Hayden, T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnology for energy and health applications in the US and UK. Nature Nanotech. 4, 95–98 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. & Atman, C. J. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).This book develops a methodological approach to integrating risk analysis and risk communication, focusing analysis on decision-makers' needs and communication on critical gaps.

  42. Stern, P. C. & Fineberg, H. V. (eds) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (National Academy Press, 1996).An influential report identifying the essential role of values in setting the terms of risk analysis and advocating an analytic-deliberative approach to resolving them.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Nisbet, M. C & Myers, T. Twenty years of public opinion about global warming. Public Opin. Q. 71, 1–27 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B. & Read, D. What do people know about global climate change? 1. Mental models. Risk Anal. 14, 959–970 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kempton, W. Public understanding of global warming. Soc. Nat. Resour. 4, 331–345 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Bord, R. J., Fisher, A. & O'Connor, R. E. Public perceptions of global warming: United States and international perspectives. Clim. Res. 11, 75–84 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Douglas, M. & Wildavsky, A. Risk and Culture: An Essay in the Selection of Technological Dangers (Univ. California Press, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hulme, M. Why We Disagree About Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E. & Roser-Renouf, C. Yale Project on Climate Change: Global Warming's Six Americas, January 2010 (Yale Univ. & George Mason Univ., 2010); available at http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/SixAmericasJan2010.pdf.

  50. Bickerstaff, K., Simmons, P. & Pidgeon, N. F. Constructing responsibility for risk(s): negotiating citizen-state relationships. Environ. Plan. A 40, 1312–1330 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. The Royal Society Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management Ch. 5, 89–134 (The Royal Society, 1992).

  52. Fischhoff, B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: 20 years of process. Risk Anal. 15, 137–145 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Slovic, P. The Perception of Risk (Earthscan, 2000).A collection of core readings in risk perception and communication.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Marx, S. B. et al. Communication and mental processes: experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate information. Glob. Environ. Change 17, 47–58 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Slovic, P. The Feeling of Risk (Earthscan, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Janis, I. & Mann, L. Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Commitment (Free Press, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Risbey, J. S. The new climate discourse: alarmist or alarming? Glob. Environ. 18, 26–37 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Spence, A. & Pidgeon, N. F. Framing and communicating climate change: the effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 656–667 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Pidgeon, N. F., Kasperson, R. K. & Slovic, P. (eds.). The Social Amplification of Risk (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).A collection of research into the social dimensions of risk communication.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. Renn, O. Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World (Earthscan, 2008).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  61. Wynne, B. & Irwin, A. Misunderstanding Science (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Sturgis, P. & Allum, N. Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understand. Sci. 13, 55–74 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Arvai, J., Gregory, R. & McDaniels, T. Testing a structured decision-aiding approach: value-focused thinking for deliberative risk communication. Risk Anal. 21, 1065–1076 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Clemen, R. Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis (Duxbury, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Thorgerson, J. & Ölander, F. Spillover of environmentally friendly consumer behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 23, 225–236 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Moser, S. Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions. WIREs Clim. Change 1, 1–27 (2010).An informative review of basic research findings on risk communication as applied to climate change.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Fischhoff, B. Non-persuasive communication about matters of the greatest urgency: climate change. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 7204–7208 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Guston, D. H. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 26, 399–408 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Lorenzoni, I., Jones, M. & Turnpenny, J. Climate change, human genetics, and post-normality in the UK. Futures 39, 65–82 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. http://www.ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Work for this paper was supported by a Personal Fellowship to N.P. from the UK Economic and Social Research Council (RES-066-27-0013), with additional support from the Leverhulme Trust (F/00 407/AG) and the US National Science Foundation (SES-0949710). We wish to thank I. Hall and P. Stern for comments on earlier versions, together with attendees at a workshop held at Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK in the summer of 2010.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Understanding Risk Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, UK

    Nick Pidgeon

  2. Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 15213, Pennsylvania, USA

    Baruch Fischhoff

Authors
  1. Nick Pidgeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Baruch Fischhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Nick Pidgeon or Baruch Fischhoff.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pidgeon, N., Fischhoff, B. The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Clim Change 1, 35–41 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1080

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1080

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing