Citizens and science: media, communication and conservation

Abstract

In 2016 a full-page advertisement was placed by 56 Australian scientists in the Brisbane Courier Mail. The context of the advertisement was the continuing commitment of Australian governments, federal and state, to coal mining and coal-fired power stations despite overwhelming evidence connecting this activity to the severe damage being suffered by the Great Barrier Reef (Hoegh-Guldberg, 2015). As well as presenting their scientific credentials in the advertisement-together they had devoted more than 1200 years to studying climate change, marine ecosystems and the Great Barrier Reef-the scientists prioritised the Reef's economic value over its conservation values. The burning of fossil fuels, they wrote, is 'directly threatening a major economic resource. The World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef earns multiple billions for the economy and provides jobs to tens of thousands of Australians' (Courier Mail, 2016). '[T]here can be no new coal mines. . .', the scientists demanded, and 'No new coal-fired power stations'. This attempt to influence public opinion and thus political outcomes through media appeared in the face of what is now recognised as one of the world's most notable failures in conservation: the continuing destruction of a global nature 'superstar'. We suggest in this chapter that such public acts are often rendered futile because of a poor understanding of the communicative processes underpinning the research-to-policy pathway. This is troubling given the risks some scientists-working within expectations of independence and measured professional response-take when entering public debate. But this is only part of the story. While many scientists do not have the necessary communication skills or knowledge to join controversial debates (Besley & Tanner, 2011) or have been

Stakeholder discourse coalitions and polarisation in the hen harrier conservation debate in news media

“…This might be the case given that the mitigation of the hen harrier conflict has been historically slow despite some substantial scientific (Thirgood & Redpath, 2008). Yet, this might hint at the recognised disconnect between academic and public debate (Lester & Foxwell‐Norton, 2020). It is also important to consider that actors' roles can vary across arenas.…”

“…Yet, this might hint at the recognised disconnect between academic and public debate (Lester & Foxwell-Norton, 2020). It is also important to consider that actors' roles can vary across arenas.…”

Do environmental researchers from marginalized groups experience greater interference? Understanding scientists' perceptions

“…For example, leading to ill-informed public and decision/policy-makers regarding current environmental issues, concerns, and solutions (Lester and Foxwell-Norton 2020;Driscoll et al 2021;Qaiser et al 2022;Robertson 2022). This can lead to erosion of democratic processes, which are reliant on transparent information (McNie 2007;Douglas 2012;Hahn 2019;Lester and Foxwell-Norton 2020;Qaiser et al 2022), lack or misinformation about environmental issues (Measham et al 2011;Treen et al 2020), and (or) less effective environmental and conservation policies (PIPSC 2013;Driscoll et al 2021).The increased experience of interference by marginalized groups can also FACETS Downloaded from www.facetsjournal.com by 44.224.250.200 on 05/31/24 have broader implications for society as limited representation of marginalized groups may lead to reduced scientific novelty (Hofstra et al 2020) and lower quality, quantity, and impact of the research (Hong and Page 2004;Freeman and Huang 2014). As well, limited representation could lead to environmental policies that do not reflect marginalized communities' environmental concerns (Masuda et al 2008;Taylor 2018;Apakupakul 2020;Massey et al 2021).…”

California Condors, Source Credibility, and Wildlife Conservation Messaging

“…30, 23). Highlighting the relational basis of communication, Lester and Foxwell-Norton (2020) thus propose that "public understandings of science cannot be divorced from . .…”