Evidence-based communication on climate change and health: Testing videos, text, and maps on climate change and Lyme disease in Manitoba, Canada

impact because there were “real people” in the video. Interestingly, even the more climate skeptical participants preferred the video, as one Brandon participant explained: “I’m not nec- essarily a hundred percent onboard with the scientific data that you’re spelling out there, but the anecdotal situations on how somebody actually contracts the disease, and to look for that, hits me a lot better.” Several people suggested the video would be the best medium to reach younger audiences who are online frequently, though it was suggested that the tool needed to be shorter in length. A few people in two groups said that the article was the most effective material, explaining that they generally enjoy reading so they were most drawn to this format. The map was most com- monly identified as the least effective material. This was brought up across all three of the low cli- mate concern groups, with many claiming that it was missing data, was “fear-mongering,” “alarmist,” or looked like “propaganda,” with one participant even saying it should be “thrown in the garbage.” Compared to the video, the map was seen as less credible and believable. Limited attitude and behavioural change. When asked if any of the materials changed their attitudes, across all four groups outside of Winnipeg, many people mentioned that none of the materials changed their attitudes towards Lyme disease, climate change, or the link between them. In some cases, this was because they expressed already having this knowledge,

while for others the information was not sufficient to convince them of the link between Lyme disease and climate change. One person in a low climate concern group mentioned that they became less worried about ticks after watching the video. Others reported that the materials did change their attitude towards the issues, by making them more aware of the growing risks. For these participants, there was a range of responses to whether they would change their behaviours as a result of their shift in attitude. Some said they still did not perceive a big enough risk from Lyme disease to change their behaviour, while oth- ers said they would take more precautions against tick bites, particularly with children and pets. Similar to attitudes, many people, particularly in rural areas, expressed already having preventative habits, such as checking for ticks, dressing accordingly, and using bug spray. Confusion regarding the purpose of materials. The materials were commonly criticized for having an unclear purpose or “muddled message.” In four groups, participants were con- fused about the purpose of the materials, whether it was to motivate people to act on climate change or to adopt preventative behaviours in response to the increasing health risks from blacklegged ticks. As one participant articulated: “What’s the purpose?. . . Are you trying to activate people on a climate change question, or are you trying to activate them to take better care of themselves health-wise?” People from high and low climate concern groups suggested either separating the Lyme dis-

ease and climate change messages, or prioritizing one so that there is a clear focus. Multiple people said that if Lyme disease is the focus, then climate change should be excluded or mini- mized in the materials so as not to lose interest from climate skeptical audiences. A participant from one of the high climate concern groups explained: “I think most of us here agree with cli- mate change, [but] a lot of people out there don’t, so as soon as you try to frame this as ‘you better be scared of climate change because of ticks’ you’re going to have people ignore your information on ticks.” Others noted that if climate change is the main focus, then the materials should focus on other impacts because “there’s bigger issues than. . .ticks with climate change”. A few people argued that it is important to discuss both Lyme disease and climate change together to give context to why the ticks are spreading and increase awareness of climate impacts. As one person expressed, “I think it’s helpful that the climate change part of it is in there. . .it helps us understand why it’s increasing or where it’s coming from.” General recommendations for improving and sharing the materials. While offering critical feedback on the materials, participants were also generally supportive of the study and PLOS ONE Evidence-based communication on climate change and health PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252952 June 10, 2021 8 / 17