Messaging on Slow Impacts: Applying Lessons Learned from Climate Change Communication to Catalyze and Improve Marine Nutrient Communication.

Katherine Nicole Canfield,Kate Mulvaney,Nathaniel Merrill

doi:10.3389/fenvs.2021.619606

Katherine Nicole Canfield, Kate Mulvaney + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.619606

Copy DOI

Abstract

Building publics’ understanding about human-environmental causes and impacts of nutrient pollution is difficult due to the diverse sources and, at times, extended timescales of increasing inputs, consequences to ecosystems, and recovery after remediation. Communicating environmental problems with “slow impacts” has long been a challenge for scientists, public health officials, and science communicators, as the time delay for subsequent consequences to become evident dilutes the sense of urgency to act. Fortunately, scientific research and practice in the field of climate change communication has begun to identify best practices to address these challenges. Climate change demonstrates a delay between environmental stressor and impact, and recommended practices for climate change communication illustrate how to explain and motivate action around this complex environmental problem. Climate change communication research provides scientific understanding of how people evaluate risk and scientific information about climate change. We used a qualitative coding approach to review the science communication and climate change communication literature to identify approaches that could be used for nutrients and how they could be applied. Recognizing the differences between climate change and impacts of nutrient pollution, we also explore how environmental problems with delayed impacts demand nuanced strategies for effective communication and public engagement. Applying generalizable approaches to successfully communicate the slow impacts related to nutrient pollution across geographic contexts will help build publics’ understanding and urgency to act on comprehensive management of nutrient pollution, thereby increasing protection of coastal and marine environments.

Highlights

There is a large disparity between the scientific and public understanding of the consequences of nutrient pollution
We argue that the similar challenges in communication for climate change and nutrient pollution of the slow impact, shifting baselines, and diversity of sources create an opportunity for nutrient communication to learn from climate change communication and apply best practices
Effective science communication for reducing nutrient pollution is important, but best practices remain greatly understudied, with only five papers found that review nutrient communications

Summary

Introduction

There is a large disparity between the scientific and public understanding of the consequences of nutrient pollution. Given the scarcity of this engagement, there is a need for more effective science communication about nutrient pollution and its impacts. We use “nutrient communication” to refer to this needed increase in translation of science and engagement with publics to address nutrient pollution. The primary nutrients of concern are reactive nitrogen and phosphorus These nutrients occur naturally throughout the biosphere, but the levels of both have been increased significantly through various human activities to the point of polluting our environment. Nonpoint sources are the extensive inputs of nutrients without a single “point” of origin This nonpoint nature makes nutrients more difficult to manage, as all the diffuse small sources must be managed among many individual actors, often without legal mandate, rather than addressing a singular potent polluting site (EPA, 2020b). While addressing nutrient pollution across the range of sources and impaired waterbodies is important, this article focuses on communicating the impacts of nonpoint source nutrient pollution on coastal water quality

Methods

Results

Conclusion