Abstract
Public engagement on socioscientific issues is crucial to explore solutions to different crises facing humanity today. It is vital for fostering transformative change. Yet, assumptions shape whether, when and how engagement happens on a pressing issue like climate change. Here we examine three dominant assumptions—engaging the public involves power-sharing and not just information, investing in relationships can lead to mutually desirable outcomes, and more interaction is better to support engagement in climate change governance. Furthermore, we explore the implications of these assumptions and related contradictions. We offer insights to stimulate discussion on the need to understand, assess and revise implicit assumptions that might undermine the capacity to transform public engagement on climate change.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Sovacool, B. K. et al. Conflicted transitions: exploring the actors, tactics, and outcomes of social opposition against energy infrastructure. Glob. Environ. Change 73, 102473 (2022).
Norström, A. V. et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190 (2020).
Sachs, J. D. et al. Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nat. Sustain. 2, 805–814 (2019).
Meadow, A. M. et al. Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather Clim. Soc. 7, 179–191 (2015).
Mach, K. J. et al. Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 30–37 (2020).
Delgado, A., Kjølberg, K. L. & Wickson, F. Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Underst. Sci. 20, 826–845 (2011).
Johnston, K. A. in The Handbook of Communication Engagement (eds Johnston, K. A. & Taylor, M.) 17–32 (John Wiley & Sons, 2018).
Murunga, M. Public engagement for social transformation: informing or empowering? Environ. Sci. Policy 132, 237–246 (2022).
Pascual, U. et al. Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nat. Sustain. 4, 567–572 (2021).
Cinner, J. E. et al. Building adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 117–123 (2018).
Cottrell, R. S. et al. Food production shocks across land and sea. Nat. Sustain. 2, 130–137 (2019).
Hurlbert, M. & Gupta, J. The split ladder of participation: a diagnostic, strategic, and evaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary. Environ. Sci. Policy 50, 100–113 (2015).
Arnstein, S. R. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 35, 216–224 (1969).
Rowe, G. & Watermeyer, R. P. Dilemmas of public participation in science policy. Policy Stud. 39, 204–221 (2018).
Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. & Louder, E. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 15–21 (2020).
Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. J. & Wilsdon, J. Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Underst. Sci. 23, 4–15 (2014).
Weingart, P., Joubert, M. & Connoway, K. Public engagement with science—origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PLoS ONE 16, e0254201 (2021).
Termeer, C. J. A., Dewulf, A., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., Vink, M. & van Vliet, M. Coping with the wicked problem of climate adaptation across scales: the Five R Governance Capabilities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 154, 11–19 (2016).
Leventon, J., Suchá, L., Nohlová, B., Vaňo, S. & Harmáčková, Z. V. in Advances in Ecological Research (eds Holzer, J. M. et al.) 175–199 (Elsevier, 2022).
Borie, M., Gustafsson, K. M., Obermeister, N., Turnhout, E. & Bridgewater, P. Institutionalising reflexivity? Transformative learning and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environ. Sci. Policy 110, 71–76 (2020).
Pieczka, M. in The Handbook of Communication Engagement (eds Johnston, K. A. & Taylor, M.) 549–579 (John Wiley and Sons, 2018).
Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. in Participation: The New Tyranny? (eds Cooke, B. & Kothari, U.) 1–13 (ZED Books, 2001).
Lucas, C. H. Climate friction: how climate change communication produces resistance to concern. Geogr. Res. 60, 371–382 (2022).
Bobbio, L. Designing effective public participation. Policy Soc. 38, 41–57 (2019).
Leal Filho, W. et al. Whose voices, whose choices? Pursuing climate resilient trajectories for the poor. Environ. Sci. Policy 121, 18–23 (2021).
Sultana, F. Critical climate justice. Geogr. J. 188, 118–124 (2022).
Rudge, K. Leveraging critical race theory to produce equitable climate change adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 623–631 (2023).
Westoby, R., McNamara, K. E., Kumar, R. & Nunn, P. D. From community-based to locally led adaptation: evidence from Vanuatu. Ambio 49, 1466–1473 (2020).
Booth, A. & Halseth, G. Why the public thinks natural resources public participation processes fail: a case study of British Columbia communities. Land Use Policy 28, 898–906 (2011).
Masud-All-Kamal, M. & Nursey-Bray, M. Best intentions and local realities: unseating assumptions about implementing planned community-based adaptation in Bangladesh. Clim. Dev. 14, 794–803 (2022).
Chambers, J. M. et al. Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 4, 983–996 (2021).
O’Brien, K. Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate transformation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36, 667–676 (2012).
Ennis, R. H. Identifying implicit assumptions. Synthese 51, 61–86 (1982).
Delin, P. S., Chittleborough, P. & Delin, C. R. What is an assumption? Informal Log. 16, 115–122 (1994).
Dietz, T. Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14081–14087 (2013).
Lemos, M. C. et al. The closer, the better? Untangling scientist–practitioner engagement, interaction, and knowledge use. Weather Clim. Soc. 11, 535–548 (2019).
Burke, N. J., Joseph, G., Pasick, R. J. & Barker, J. C. Theorizing social context: rethinking behavioral theory. Health Educ. Behav. 36, 55S–70S (2009).
Aklin, M. & Mildenberger, M. Prisoners of the wrong dilemma: why distributive conflict, not collective action, characterizes the politics of climate change. Glob. Environ. Politics 20, 4–26 (2020).
Rose, D. C. et al. Calling for a new agenda for conservation science to create evidence-informed policy. Biol. Conserv. 238, 108222 (2019).
Puskás, N., Abunnasr, Y. & Naalbandian, S. Assessing deeper levels of participation in nature-based solutions in urban landscapes—a literature review of real-world cases. Landsc. Urban Plan. 210, 104065 (2021).
Liu, L., Bouman, T., Perlaviciute, G. & Steg, L. The more public influence, the better? The effects of full versus shared influence on public acceptability of energy projects in the Netherlands and China. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 81, 102286 (2021).
Fung, A. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm. Rev. 66, 66–75 (2006).
Murunga, M. Towards a better understanding of gendered power in small scale fisheries of the Western Indian Ocean. Glob. Environ. Change 67, 102242 (2021).
Lau, J. D., Kleiber, D., Lawless, S. & Cohen, P. J. Gender equality in climate policy and practice hindered by assumptions. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 186–192 (2021).
Lawless, S. et al. Tinker, tailor or transform: gender equality amidst social-ecological change. Glob. Environ. Change 72, 102434 (2022).
IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum (IAP2 International, 2018); https://iap2.org.au/
Nabatchi, T. Putting the ‘public’ back in public values research: designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Adm. Rev. 72, 699–708 (2012).
Wellstead, A. M. & Biesbroek, R. Finding the sweet spot in climate policy: balancing stakeholder engagement with bureaucratic autonomy. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 54, 101155 (2022).
Bochsler, D. & Juon, A. Power-sharing and the quality of democracy. Eur. Political Sci. Rev. 13, 411–430 (2021).
Lukes, S. Power: A Radical View (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
Dahl, R. A. The concept of power. Behav. Sci. 2, 201–215 (1957).
Hayward, C. & Lukes, S. Nobody to shoot? Power, structure, and agency: a dialogue. J. Power 1, 5–20 (2008).
Barnett, M. & Duvall, R. Power in international politics. Int. Organ. 59, 39–75 (2005).
Avelino, F. Theories of power and social change. Power contestations and their implications for research on social change and innovation. J. Political Power 14, 425–448 (2021).
Lauria, M. & Slotterback, C. S. in Learning from Arnstein’s Ladder (eds Lauria, M. & Slotterback, C. S.) 89–90 (Routledge, 2020).
Njoroge, J. M., Ratter, B. M. W. & Atieno, L. Climate change policy-making process in Kenya: deliberative inclusionary processes in play. Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag. 9, 535–554 (2017).
Bennett, N. J. & Dearden, P. Why local people do not support conservation: community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Mar. Policy 44, 107–116 (2014).
Love, T. & Tilley, E. Acknowledging power: the application of Kaupapa Māori principles and processes to developing a new approach to organisation–public engagement. Public Relat. Inq. 3, 31–49 (2014).
Coleman, S. & Firmstone, J. Contested meanings of public engagement: exploring discourse and practice within a British city council. Media Cult. Soc. 36, 826–844 (2014).
Perlaviciute, G. Contested climate policies and the four Ds of public participation: from normative standards to what people want. WIREs Clim. Change 13, e749 (2022).
Colvin, R. M., Witt, G. B. & Lacey, J. How wind became a four-letter word: lessons for community engagement from a wind energy conflict in King Island, Australia. Energy Policy 98, 483–494 (2016).
Murunga, M. et al. More than just information: what does the public want to know about climate change? Ecol. Soc. 27, art14 (2022).
Corry, O. & Jørgensen, D. Beyond ‘deniers’ and ‘believers’: towards a map of the politics of climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 32, 165–174 (2015).
Niemeyer, S. A defence of (deliberative) democracy in the Anthropocene. Ethical Perspect. 21, 15–45 (2014).
Rutjens, B. T., Sutton, R. M. & van der Lee, R. Not all skepticism is equal: exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection. Per. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 44, 384–405 (2018).
King, M. M. & Gregg, M. A. Disability and climate change: a critical realist model of climate justice. Sociol. Compass 16, e12954 (2022).
Ogar, E., Pecl, G. & Mustonen, T. Science must embrace Traditional and Indigenous knowledge to solve our biodiversity crisis. One Earth 3, 162–165 (2020).
Reid, A. J. et al. “Two‐Eyed Seeing”: an Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish Fish. 22, 243–261 (2021).
Bartlett, C., Marshall, M. & Marshall, A. Two-Eyed Seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together Indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2, 331–340 (2012).
Chibvongodze, D. T. Ubuntu is not only about the human! An analysis of the role of African philosophy and ethics in environment management. J. Hum. Ecol. 53, 157–166 (2016).
Villalba, U. Buen Vivir vs development: a paradigm shift in the Andes? Third World Q. 34, 1427–1442 (2013).
Kelly, R. et al. Connecting to the oceans: supporting ocean literacy and public engagement. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 32, 123–143 (2022).
Haas, B. et al. The future of ocean governance. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 32, 253–270 (2022).
Giddens, A. The Consequences of Modernity (Polity Press, 1990).
Iyengar, S. & Massey, D. S. Scientific communication in a post-truth society. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 7656–7661 (2019).
Patterson, J. et al. The political effects of emergency frames in sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 4, 841–850 (2021).
Runnebaum, J. M., Maxwell, E. A., Stoll, J. S., Pianka, K. E. & Oppenheim, N. G. Communication, relationships, and relatability influence stakeholder perceptions of credible science. Fisheries 44, 164–171 (2019).
Leshner, A. I. Trust in science is not the problem. Issues Sci. Technol. 37, 16–18 (2021).
Felt, U. & Fochler, M. Machineries for making publics: inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagement. Minerva 48, 219–238 (2010).
Abson, D. J. et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39 (2017).
Vincent, K., Carter, S., Steynor, A., Visman, E. & Wågsæther, K. L. Addressing power imbalances in co-production. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 877–878 (2020).
Murunga, M., Partelow, S. & Breckwoldt, A. Drivers of collective action and role of conflict in Kenyan fisheries co-management. World Dev. 141, 105413 (2021).
Willis, R., Curato, N. & Smith, G. Deliberative democracy and the climate crisis. WIREs Clim. Change 13, e759 (2022).
Munshi, D., Kurian, P., Cretney, R., Morrison, S. L. & Kathlene, L. Centering culture in public engagement on climate change. Environ. Commun. 14, 573–581 (2020).
Dryzek, J. S. et al. The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science 363, 1144–1146 (2019).
Oliver, K. & Cairney, P. The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Commun. 5, 21 (2019).
Kawaka, J. A. et al. Developing locally managed marine areas: lessons learnt from Kenya. Ocean Coast. Manag. 135, 1–10 (2017).
Fischer, M. et al. Empowering her guardians to nurture our ocean’s future. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 32, 271–296 (2022).
Frainer, A. et al. Cultural and linguistic diversities are underappreciated pillars of biodiversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 26539–26543 (2020).
Leitner, H., Sheppard, E. & Sziarto, K. M. The spatialities of contentious politics. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 33, 157–172 (2008).
Chilvers, J. & Longhurst, N. Participation in transition(s): reconceiving public engagements in energy transitions as co-produced, emergent and diverse. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 18, 585–607 (2016).
Ecker, U. K. H. et al. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 13–29 (2022).
Scheufele, D. A. & Krause, N. M. Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 7662–7669 (2019).
Kelty, C. M. Too much democracy in all the wrong places: toward a grammar of participation. Curr. Anthropol. 58, S77–S90 (2017).
Rowe, G. & Frewer, L. J. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 30, 251–290 (2005).
Warner, M. Publics and counterpublics. Public Cult. 14, 49–90 (2002).
Rahman, M. F. et al. Locally led adaptation: promise, pitfalls, and possibilities. Ambio 52, 1543–1557 (2023).
Acknowledgements
We thank E. Ogier for feedback on an early draft. This work was supported by the Tasmanian Research Graduate Scholarship (TGRS) to M.M. and an Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellowship to G.P.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.M. conceived the initial idea and led the writing. M.M., G.P. and C.M. contributed critically to the development of the study. All authors contributed to writing and revising the drafts, and gave final approval for publication.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Climate Change thanks Dominique Coy, Lucilla Losi, Debashish Munshi and Heidi Roop for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Murunga, M., Macleod, C. & Pecl, G. Assumptions and contradictions shape public engagement on climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 14, 126–133 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01904-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01904-0
- Springer Nature Limited