Abstract
Graphs are prevalent in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), often depicting key points and major results. However, the popularity of graphs in the IPCC reports contrasts with a neglect of empirical tests of their understandability. Here we put the understandability of three graphs taken from the Health chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report to an empirical test. We present a pilot study where we evaluate objective understanding (mean accuracy in multiple-choice questions) and subjective understanding (self-assessed confidence in accuracy) in a sample of attendees of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Marrakesh, 2016 (COP22), and a student sample. Results show a mean objective understanding of M = 0.33 for the COP sample, and M = 0.38 for the student sample. Subjective and objective understanding were unrelated for the COP22 sample, but associated for the student sample. These results suggest that (i) understandability of the IPCC health chapter graphs is insufficient, and that (ii) particularly COP22 attendees lacked insight into which graphs they did, and which they did not understand. Implications for the construction of graphs to communicate health impacts of climate change to decision-makers are discussed.
Highlights
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has arguably the most wide-spun process of assessing the current state of climate change knowledge
Graphs are prevalent in the IPCC reports, often depicting key points and major results
We evaluate understandability in a sample of attendees of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Marrakesh, 2016 (COP22), and a student sample by estimating: (i) Objective understanding: How well do recipients understand the messages conveyed by the graphs? (ii) Subjective understanding: How confident are recipients that they understood the message conveyed by the graphs? And (iii) Calibration: How well-aligned is recipients’ subjective confidence that they understood the graph with their actual, objective understanding?
Summary
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has arguably the most wide-spun process of assessing the current state of climate change knowledge. Its impacts on society, and ways to prevent them is a trans-disciplinary effort, IPCC chapters should be scientifically precise, yet understandable to the expert audience from a wide range of fields to ensure informed decision-making. Graphs are prevalent in the IPCC reports, often depicting key points and major results. The popularity of graphs in the IPCC reports contrasts with a neglect of empirical tests of their understandability. It has been argued before that communicating science requires the systematic feedback of empirical evaluation [2].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
