Understanding scientists’ communication challenges at the intersection of climate and agriculture

Understanding an audience Effective communication requires the information provider understand what information the audience needs to inform decision-making; a substantial part of this is understanding what the audience already knows [39] in order to implement an effective communication strategy [40, 41]. However, the complexity of climate science compounds communication challenges as it is a difficult topic to communicate to nonscientists [42, 43]. There are multiple factors to con- sider to know an audience. Climate change communication entails risk communication, as a changing climate [43, 44] contributes to risks such as increased extremes in drought, heat, and precipitation and subsequent impacts [45]. People conceive of risks differently, depending on many factors such as social networks, education, values, and more [26, 46, 47]. One important aspect of communication broadly is to identify trusted messengers to deliver appropriate mes- sages, whether that be scientists, the media, family, neighbors, or other trusted advisors [19, 47]. Trusted messengers are especially important when linked to perceptions of risk, like cli- mate change risk, as people look to these trusted sources to aid in decision-making when the conditions of the risk are uncertain, or they do not have the knowledge to feel confident in their decision-making [48]. Indeed, the perceived credibility of a communicator can influence an audience’s interpretation of and belief in science, such that higher levels of perceived credi-

bility can increase the persuasiveness or acceptance of science messages [49, 50]. Bolsen, Palm, and Kingsland [51] found when messages were attributed to climate scientists, the messenger attribution had no or a negative effect on the audiences’ belief of the message (be it about national security, climate change, and/or scientific consensus on climate change). In addition to identifying trusted messengers, knowing an audience entails understanding how that audi- ence perceives risk; for example, how susceptible a particular audience thinks they are to a threat and how well they can cope with that threat [52]. Overall, knowing social factors that may influence an audience’s perceptions and opinions about science, as well people’s percep- tions of the threat as credible and their ability to act effectively, can aid in framing relevant messages about science facts to the audience [26, 53]. Message framing Message frames are used in communication to make complex science (such as climate change) and associated issues more comprehensible, relatable, and valued by lay audiences. This is done by putting emphasis on certain interpretations, concepts, and/or storylines depending on the audience to which information is communicated [54, 55]. There are a variety of framing techniques that can be utilized in communication [26, 56–59]. For example, Dickinson et al. [56] found birdwatchers were more interested in taking personal action on climate change when presented with a framing statement about danger to birds from climate change than

when presented with a framing statement about danger to humans from climate change. This example frames climate change in a manner that resonates more with a particular lay audience [57], by linking audience values to issues of climate change. Similarly, terms or concepts asso- ciated with science issues may have multiple understood meanings that lead to confusion [60]. Terms with multiple meanings have the ability to impact stakeholder perceptions, beliefs, and understanding of science issues differently. Particular to climate change communication, many studies highlight misinterpretations of certain terms and concepts [61–65]. For example, Howe et al. [66] illustrated the complications of explaining uncertainty to the public. Climate science often uses uncertainty to represent statistical probabilities, scientific confidence levels, model predictions, and possible risks due to the degree of warming, level of emissions, and cli- mate sensitivity to produced emissions. However, the public interpret uncertainty as if the experts do not know something will happen; uncertainty about climate change may mean that PLOS ONE Understanding scientists’ communication challenges at the intersection of climate and agriculture PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269927 August 2, 2022 4 / 22