Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter,
Sina Weibo, and Other Social Media Platforms
Edson C. Tandoc Jr. and Nicholas Eng
Subject: Communication Online Publication Date: Apr 2017
DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.361
Summary and Keywords
While initial research on climate change communication focused on traditional media,
such as news coverage of climate change and pro-environmental campaigns, scholars are
increasingly focusing on the role of social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter,
YouTube, and Sina Weibo. Social media platforms provide a space for three important
domains of climate change communication: information, discussion, and mobilization.
First, social media platforms have been used by scientists, activists, journalists, and
ordinary people to share and receive reports about climate change. Policymakers and
academics also use social media for climate change research. Second, social media
platforms provide users with a space to discuss climate change issues. Scientists and
journalists use social media to interact with the public, who also use social media to
criticize policies, as well as media coverage. Finally, social media platforms have been
used to coordinate rescue and relief operations in the aftermath of climate change–
related disasters, as well as to organize movements and campaigns about climate change.
However, most research about climate change communication in social media spaces are
based on quantitative analysis of tweets from Western countries. While this body of work
has been illuminating, our understanding of social media’s increasingly important role in
climate change communication will benefit from a more holistic research approach that
explores social media use in climate change communication across a variety of platforms,
cultures, and media systems.
Keywords: Blogs, climate change, Facebook, social media, Twitter, Weibo, YouTube
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the United States made
headlines in April 2016 for something that it did in cyberspace. When climate change
doubters started posting comments on a thread started by science educator and former
television host Bill Nye, the Facebook account NASA Climate Change stepped in
(Samenow, 2016). In response to one commenter who claimed that NASA had confirmed
that fossil fuels “were actually cooling the planet,” NASA’s Facebook account immediately
responded: “Do not misrepresent NASA. Fossil fuels are not cooling the
planet” (Samenow, 2016, para. 3). The federal agency’s account went on to respond to
Page 1 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
other climate change doubters in the thread. Others might dismiss this as a small
incident but it is actually emblematic of how climate change discourse has shifted online.
Scholars have paid a lot of attention to climate change communication, recognizing the
role of mass communication in not only informing people about a pressing—and
depressing—problem, but also influencing public knowledge, attitudes, and behavior
toward the environment (Russill & Nyssa, 2009). But most of these studies focused on
traditional forms of mass communication, such as newspapers and television. While these
are important platforms to study, given their influence on the public, technological
developments have provided the public with alternative sources of information, as well as
more active ways of interacting with information. Social media sites, in particular, have
become deeply embedded in social life. They have become easy and popular platforms for
different levels of communication: from self-expression, to mediated interpersonal and
group communication, to news distribution. For instance, Facebook, the most popular
social media site, has more than 1.23 billion daily active users as of December 2016
(Facebook, 2016). Such reach highlights the important role of social media sites as
platforms for information exchange, an integral process for discussing and understanding
complex global issues such as climate change (Schafer, 2012).
This article explores the role of these new information platforms in climate change
communication. Sites such as Facebook and Twitter allow ordinary citizens not only to
share news articles and other secondhand information with one another, but also to
publicize their own opinions, thoughts, and feelings on issues that they care about, as
well as distribute information on events that they happen to witness or experience
firsthand (Hermida, 2012; Jewitt, 2009). These new ways of information and opinion
distribution have important implications across different domains, especially in the area
of climate change communication.
Climate Change and Social Media
Climate Change Communication
Climate change is a complex topic where various issues, such as science, health,
environment, economy, human development, public policy, and foreign relations intersect
(Takahashi, Edwards, Roberts, & Duan, 2015). It is as complex as it is relevant, and so
research on climate change communication has grown and broadened over the years
(Russill & Nyssa, 2009). In the field of communication, researchers and policymakers
have paid attention to the role of the news media on public understanding of science in
general, and climate change in particular (Liao, Ho, & Yang, 2016; Russill & Nyssa, 2009;
Takahashi & Tandoc, 2016; Weingart, Engels, & Pansegrau, 2000). But while the news
media play an important role in informing the public, studies have also found that media
coverage of environmental issues and risks is marked by “problems of inaccuracy, bias,
and sensationalism” (Carvalho & Burgess, 2005, p. 1457).
Page 2 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
Climate change communication is complex not only because climate change itself is a
complex issue, but also because communication is equally complex (Nerlich, Koteyko, &
Brown, 2010). For example, studies have pointed out gaps between how scientists,
politicians, and the media discuss and present climate change issues (Russill & Nyssa,
2009; Weingart et al., 2000). While scientists deal with complex processes, the media
have to simplify information to attract audience attention. But an important factor to
consider is how early research in climate change communication assumed a linear, topdown approach to communication and information flow—one that starts from
policymakers and scientists, then flows to the media, and ultimately trickles down to the
members of the public (Nerlich et al., 2010; Weingart et al., 2000). This assumption,
however, is no longer tenable, considering how the media environment has evolved.
“Thus, rather than seeing the audience as ignorant or in need of instruction from expert
communicators, maybe one way forward is to grasp the possibilities offered by a more
deliberative model of the policymaking process” (Nerlich et al., 2010, p. 106). This idea of
a deliberative process is potentially served by new communication and information
technologies, such as social media.
Social Media Platforms
Social network sites are “web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a
public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users
with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections
and those made by others within the system” (boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 211). Not only do
social media platforms allow users to generate original messages outside the traditional
control of journalists and media organizations, they also allow participation and
collaboration among users (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Facebook, for example, allows
users to create individual accounts where they can share comments, photos, and videos,
connect with other users, and see what other users are posting. Twitter allows users to
share 140-character messages and follow other users as well as participate in trending
topics using the hashtag function (Louis, 2013).
The rise of social media has spawned numerous streams of studies. For example, scholars
have sought to describe the types of people who use social media (e.g., Hargittai, 2007;
McAndrew & Jeong, 2012). Others focused on explaining the motivations and reasons
users turn to social media (Hogan, 2010; Ledbetter et al., 2011; Zhao, Grasmuck, &
Martin, 2008), while others also studied how the different ways people use social media
affect their personal well-being (Mahmoud, Staten, Hall, & Lennie, 2012; Moreno,
Jelenchick, Koff, & Eickhoff, 2012; Tandoc, Ferrucci, & Duffy, 2015). Others have
expanded research on social media by studying them as platforms to distribute news
(Tandoc & Vos, 2016), organize campaigns (Vergeer, Hermans, & Sams, 2013), and
mobilize the public around certain issues (Lim, 2012; Uldam & Askanius, 2013).
Social media users can share both personal updates to express themselves and connect
with their friends, as well as factual information they find elsewhere, such as news
articles (Westerman, Spence, & Van Der Heide, 2014). Social media platforms can also
Page 3 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
transcend geographical boundaries. For example, climate change activists used the videosharing platform YouTube to mobilize protests against the United Nations Climate
Change Conference in December 2009 (Uldam & Askanius, 2013). The video sparked
debate and provided a space where “alternative viewpoints have potential to circulate
and be negotiated among transnational publics” (Uldam & Askanius, 2013, p. 1190).
Social media platforms have also facilitated information flow in countries where
mainstream media channels are under tight state control. For example, while the
government in China tries to control discussions on the microblogging site Sina Weibo,
the most popular social media site in China, which merges the functions of Twitter and
Facebook, users still get to discuss sensitive topics on the platform, such as food safety
and climate change, that do not get much attention from traditional media (Rauchfleisch
& Schäfer, 2015). Such varied uses of social media for intrapersonal, interpersonal, and
mass forms of communication make these platforms important for climate change
communication.
Communicating Climate Change on Social
Media
Scholarly focus on environmental communication in general is hinged upon its impact on
environmental citizenship (Burgess, Harrison, & Filius, 1998; Takahashi, Tandoc, Duan, &
Van Witsen, 2017). This is particularly salient for climate change, a global problem that
requires immediate response and large-scale participation from the public. Studies on
environmental citizenship have focused on three important concepts: environmental
knowledge, attitude, and behavior (Duerden & Witt, 2010; Kuhlemeier, Van Den Bergh, &
Lagerweij, 1999; Levine & Strube, 2012). These concepts correspond to information,
opinion, and mobilization with regard to climate change communication. This section
provides an overview of the different uses of social media in the context of climate
change communication in these three conceptual domains.
Information About Climate Change
Blogging
Initially called web logs, blogs are “frequently updated websites in which messages are
posted in reverse chronological sequence, typically by a single author” (Herring, 2004, p.
31). While other bloggers treat their blogs as personal diaries, others blog about public
issues, such as politics or business (Cenite, Detenber, Koh, Lim, & Ng Ee Soon, 2009).
Others have also used blogging specifically for environmental issues and advocacies, such
as discussing climate change (Merry, 2010) or promoting environmentally friendly
lifestyles (Haider, 2015). Scientists, environmental activists, and even skeptics have used
blogs to disseminate information about climate change.
Page 4 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
Studies have found gaps between how scientists and the news media discuss climate
change (Russill & Nyssa, 2009; Weingart et al., 2000). Scientists often speak in technical
language, given the complexity of the issues that they study, and this presents a challenge
to journalists who need to simplify complex issues for their audiences. This is a possible
reason for the problems that studies have found regarding the news coverage of climate
change (Boykoff, 2007; Carvalho & Burgess, 2005). Thus, some scientists have turned to
blogging to reach the public directly and bypass journalists. Scientists engage in climate
change communication online for a variety of reasons, such as to educate the public,
further scientific discussion, and allow for public participation in science (Schafer, 2012).
An analysis of 50 Antarctic blogs published during the International Polar Year (2007–
2008) found that scientists themselves acted as citizen journalists (Thorsen, 2013). Some
of them uploaded captivating photos and videos and wrote in accessible language that
allowed simple explanations of complex processes (Thorsen, 2013). Through blogging,
these scientists were able to condense scientific terms into more interesting and
accessible terms that were more palatable for laypeople so they could understand the
effects of climate change (Thorsen, 2013).
Many environmental bloggers also tend to be environmental activists, and they see
blogging as another platform to reach out to the general public to communicate their
advocacies (Tandoc & Takahashi, 2014). Compared with environmental journalists, who
value the norm of being objective in their output, environmental bloggers tend to see
their social role more as being advocates for the environment and mobilizers of the public
(Tandoc & Takahashi, 2014). Nongovernmental organizations engage in online climate
change communication for numerous reasons, such as providing information, addressing
the news media, increasing outside support for their causes, and changing people’s
behavior and mobilizing them into action (Schafer, 2012). Similarly, climate change
skeptics have also used blogging to communicate their stance. Climate change skepticism
is defined as “doubting certain aspects of a generally accepted body of climate scientific
research” (Koteyko, Nerlich, & Hellsten, 2015, p. 150). For example, Stephen McIntyre,
who is well known for questioning an early statistical model used to support the
conclusion of human-induced global warming, communicates most of his arguments and
challenges through his blog (Jolis, 2009). Some traditional news outlets, such as the Los
Angeles Times and the Sydney Morning Herald, have publicly refused to publish letters to
the editor that deny climate change, citing the scientific consensus on human-made
global warming, which partly explains why some climate change skeptics have turned to
blogging. These skeptic blogs tend to focus mostly on the scientific elements of climate
change, often presenting the issue as a debate. They tend to use scientific terms rather
than emotional language to express their opinions (Sharman, 2014). While there are
relatively few barriers to blogging, maintaining a blog requires time and personnel. These
requirements can mirror the political economy of traditional media, where economic
capital can determine the extent of one’s reach and influence. Thus, “[n]ot surprisingly,
the groups that are most likely to blog and to post frequently are the large, well-financed
organizations that have dominated in the environmental policy domain for
decades” (Merry, 2010, p. 653).
Page 5 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
Reporting
Social media are also used to report quickly about climate change events. For example,
Twitter is often used to share information in the context of climate change–related
disasters (Acar & Muraki, 2011; Sakaki, Okazaki, & Matsuo, 2010; Takahashi, Tandoc, &
Carmichael, 2015). The term reporting can refer to either firsthand or secondhand
information. First, studies have documented how populations affected by natural
disasters have turned to social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, to ask for immediate
help (Takahashi, Tandoc, & Carmichael, 2015). In the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan,
which hit the Philippines in November 2013, survivors turned to Facebook to seek
assistance from their relatives and friends (Tandoc & Takahashi, 2016). Real-time
reporting during disasters has become useful for scientists and responders as well. When
an earthquake occurs in quake-prone Japan, many tweets originate close to the actual
location (Sakaki et al., 2010). This provides scientists and responders additional
information from people on the ground. There are also many Twitter accounts that
primarily report on earthquake occurrence. One example would be the U.S. Geological
Survey, which tweets information on earthquakes around the world. While this might not
be useful for prediction or early warning, it shows that the nature of Twitter allows realtime information to spread to the larger public.
Second, studies have documented how users turn to social media during disasters to
share news reports. Indeed, a study found that information sharing and news reporting
are among the top reasons that people use Twitter (Java, Song, Finin, & Tseng, 2007). For
example, during Typhoon Haiyan, one of the strongest tropical storms recorded on the
planet, many users turned to Twitter to also share secondhand information about the
disaster, such as links to news articles, breaking news stories, and YouTube videos
(Takahashi, Tandoc, & Carmichael, 2015). A study in South Africa also documented how
tweets about the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in
Durban in 2011, were mostly based on reports from mainstream news media (Bosch,
2012). However, news events on climate change are covered in the mainstream media
differently from how they are reported on Twitter (Olteanu, Castillo, Diakopoulos, &
Aberer, 2015). For example, mainstream media coverage is usually based on
governmental meetings and publications, while Twitter news about climate change
usually refers to legal actions and official statements (Olteanu et al., 2015). Another study
found that Twitter is also prone to hoax stories, just like traditional news media (Clark,
2009; Niederer, 2013).
Researching
Social media have changed not only how people communicate, but also how
communication can be studied. “Just as social media technologies have changed the ways
we interact, consume, and create in everyday life, these Internet-based platforms, which
share attributes both with interpersonal and mass communication, have also opened up
new areas for researching public engagement with climate science” (Koteyko et al., 2015,
p. 150). For example, some scholars have argued that Twitter offers a platform to study
climate change discourse efficiently (Kirilenko & Stepchenkova, 2014). While public
Page 6 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
opinion on issues are usually measured using surveys, Twitter offers a less intrusive way
of capturing a snapshot of public sentiment on particular issues, such as climate change.
Twitter data is readily available and is relatively simple to collect (Kirilenko &
Stepchenkova, 2014). The inclusion of geolocation information in tweets also allows
comparative studies (Kirilenko & Stepchenkova, 2014).
A study also proposed a way to classify users’ stage of environmental behavior based on
their tweets (Fernandez et al., 2016). By analyzing tweets around two climate change
events in 2015—Earth Hour and the United Nations Climate Change Conference—the
study found that most social media participants to those events were at a stage where
“they want to change but do not know how” (Fernandez et al., 2016, p. 93). Such use of
social media in research can help environmental campaigners in tailoring messages to
particular groups of social media users based on their social media behavior (Fernandez
et al., 2016).
Twitter also allows users to group posts by using hashtags. For example, a user wanting
to join conversations on climate change can use a certain hashtag. When other users
search for that hashtag, Twitter displays tweets that used the hashtag. One of the earliest
documented hashtags on Twitter focused on monitoring wildfires in southern California in
October 2007 (Clark, 2009). Thus, a study argued that Twitter “may be a useful asset in
the ongoing battle against anthropogenic climate change, as well as a useful research
source for social scientists, an unsolicited public opinion tool for policy makers, and
public engagement channel for scientists” (Cody, Reagan, Mitchell, Dodds, & Danforth,
2015, p. 15).
Trends in tweet sentiments and patterns across hashtags and searches can also give
scientists clues on what is about to come. For example, scholars have argued that Twitter
activity around specific events at particular locations, such as an earthquake, can
complement sensor systems for event monitoring and awareness (Crooks, Croitoru,
Stefanidis, & Radzikowski, 2013). Sentiments about worldwide events can also be
collected by searching particular hashtags, just like during Earth Day celebrations, which
was marked by the hashtag #EarthDay (Hamed et al., 2015). “Twitter data allow studying
manifestations of public opinion as they naturally occur” (Kirilenko & Stepchenkova,
2014, p. 181). However, scholars should use Twitter for research with caution, since in
many countries, only a fraction of the actual population uses Twitter. Gauging public
attitudes about climate change using social media platforms might not accurately reflect
the whole range and actual distribution of public opinion on this issue (Resnyansky,
2014).
Opinions About Climate Change
Reacting
Climate change discussion “is abundant on Twitter” (Cody et al., 2015, p. 15). However,
studies have found that the largest spikes in tweeting activity about climate change were
linked to news, weather events, or a combination of both. One study found that the most
Page 7 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
authoritative sources of information on climate change in Twitter discussions were the
Guardian and the Huffington Post, showing that the most frequently referenced sources
were traditional media (Kirilenko & Stepchenkova, 2014). This reinforces the fact that
discussions on Twitter continue to react to traditional media. However, social media
provide users a platform to react to mainstream coverage of climate change issues. For
example, in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan, survivors used Facebook and Twitter to
critique government response, question mainstream media coverage, and discuss the
larger issue of climate change (Takahashi, Tandoc, & Carmichael, 2015; Tandoc &
Takahashi, 2016).
Sina Weibo also provided a space for such opinions in China in the aftermath of the Yushu
earthquake in 2010. Many users used the social platform to question the stability of
structures in China and comment on the government’s role in keeping citizens safe (Qu,
Huang, Zhang, & Zhang, 2011). In a media system such as China, where traditional media
rarely criticize the state, social media sites such as Sina Weibo provide a platform for
ordinary citizens to air their grievances. Sina Weibo also functioned as a platform for
survivors to vent their emotions. Users did not just memorialize victims and expressed
their grief, but they also communicated their anger and frustration (Qu et al., 2011).
Discussing
Social media have also served as platforms for the online public to discuss climate
change. For example, most blogs allow readers to leave their comments as well as
respond to others, helping facilitate public discussion on climate change. A study of blogs
by scientists found that some scientists respond to reader comments, creating a bridge of
communication between scientists and the general public. “This emergent form of science
reporting provides an important contrast to traditional forms of journalism, where the
process of climate change is a difficult fit for conventional, event-led news
agendas” (Thorsen, 2013, p. 98). Despite its 140-character limit, Twitter is also used as a
space to discuss climate change. A sentiment analysis of tweets containing the word
climate found that those tweets, in general, “are less happy than all tweets” (Cody et al.,
2015, p. 15). Many of these tweets were about the consequences of climate change, such
as extreme weather events and threats to particular species.
While a study that examined tweets about a landmark report released by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in September 2013 found that “users were
most likely to converse with users holding similar views,” a small community of users also
interacted with those who hold contrasting views (Pearce, Holmberg, Hellsten, & Nerlich,
2014, p. 1). Another study that focused on tweets that used climate change–related
hashtags also found a similar pattern, finding a “strong attitude-based homophily and
widespread segregation of users into like-minded communities” (Williams, McMurray,
Kurz, & Hugo Lambert, 2015, p. 135). Most users interacted with those who think like
them. However, a minority of users interacted with those with differing views (Williams et
al., 2015). These findings demonstrate a potential for opinion exchange about climate
change on social media. However, another study found that while Twitter allows
interpersonal communication among users, majority of the 1.8 million tweets about
Page 8 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
climate change included links or mentions that referred to only a small group of
information sources, composed of mainstream media, news aggregators, celebrities,
prominent organizations, and elite bloggers (Kirilenko & Stepchenkova, 2014). It appears
that even on Twitter, “opinion leaders remain important to the discourse on climate
change” (Kirilenko & Stepchenkova, 2014, p. 180).
Framing
The reactions and discussions on social media about climate change also involved
framing. In simple terms, framing refers to the process of making one aspect of an issue
more salient than others, affecting how others subsequently understand the significance
of the issue (Nisbet, 2009). For example, the use of the terms climate change and global
warming involve some degree of framing, and which term is used has significant
implications. A survey conducted in southern England found that the term global warming
tends to be associated with human causes, while climate change tends to be associated
with natural causes (Whitmarsh, 2009). The former also evoked a higher degree of
concern than the latter (Whitmarsh, 2009). A study based on sentiment analysis of tweets
also found that climate change tends to be discussed in a slightly more positive manner
than global warming (Lineman, Do, Kim, & Joo, 2015, p. 9). Such differences in framing
also occur on social media. For example, an analysis of tweets from Australia, Canada, the
United Kingdom, and the United States examined “hoax frames,” or discourse that
questions the reality of climate change. The study found that “hoax frames were more
frequent in the U.S. than in the other countries and were particularly prevalent in
traditionally Republican-leaning states” (Jang & Hart, 2015, p. 15). Twitter users who
used the hoax frame also tend to use global warming rather than climate change (Jang &
Hart, 2015).
Scholars have found that attitudes toward climate change on Twitter have a high degree
of polarization—tweets with strong opinions far outnumber neutral views (Williams et al.,
2015). A potential explanation is that activists are among the most active users of Twitter
(An et al., 2014). Climate change activists are believed to be more active on Twitter than
skeptics (Cody et al., 2015). This conclusion was based on the words commonly found in
the tweets analyzed in the study, such as crisis and combat (Cody et al., 2015, p. 7). In
contrast, climate change deniers tend to use the words fraud, lie, and scandal (Cody et al.,
2015, p. 7). The study also found that while skeptics tend to use the term global warming
more than climate change in their tweets, activists use both terms (Cody et al., 2015).
Mobilization About Climate Change
Facebook can also serve as a platform to encourage pro-environmental behavior. This is
because individual behavior is influenced largely by what one’s peers are doing, rather
than by a top-down approach of spreading information (Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini,
Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2008). For example, Greenpeace, a popular environmental
activist group, used Facebook in its environmental campaigns (Katz-Kimchi &
Manosevitch, 2015). A study on how Greenpeace used Facebook in its International
Unfriend Coal protest against Facebook’s energy policy, for example, found that Facebook
Page 9 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
“complemented news media, rather than replaced it” (Katz-Kimchi & Manosevitch, 2015,
p. 262). The group “introduced a new line of e-tactics that were based on the affordances
of the Facebook platform” (Katz-Kimchi & Manosevitch, 2015, p. 262). For example,
Facebook’s “like,” “share,” and “comment” functions provided an easy way to encourage
public support for and participation in the online campaign. Greenpeace also used
Facebook to organize events, such as a photo competition, in support of the protest (KatzKimchi & Manosevitch, 2015). The study argued that “the use of Facebook not only
transmitted a message that the public is an active participant, but actually enabled and
encouraged such participation via empowering rhetoric and mobilizing technical
features” (Katz-Kimchi & Manosevitch, 2015, p. 263). Facebook’s affordances for
organizing were also useful for coordinating rescue and relief efforts following climate
change–related disasters. In the aftermath of the 2010 Yushu earthquake in China, for
instance, many users used Sina Weibo to organize donation drives to help survivors.
Social media platforms provide both big and small environmental groups a way to reach
more people with their campaigns. For example, Greenpeace used various platforms,
including YouTube, to campaign against the oil company Shell’s operations in the Arctic
Circle (Dosemagen, 2016). A YouTube video uploaded by the account Greenpeace Video
that targeted the toy company Lego, a partner of Shell, has gotten more than 7 million
views since it was uploaded in July 2014. An updated description of the video said that
Lego has announced that it would not renew its contract with Shell. In Singapore, social
media was credited to have complemented traditional media reporting in 2015 in
mobilizing consumers to boycott companies based in Indonesia that contributed to the
haze problem that has plagued many parts of Southeast Asia (Mumbrella, 2015). Thus,
“[s]ocial media has become an important tool for providing a space and means for the
public to participate in influencing or disallowing environmental decisions historically
made by governments and corporations that affect us all” (Dosemagen, 2016, para. 2).
A study on the use of Facebook for a nationwide climate change challenge for students in
Canada also found that the platform was “effective in informing students about upcoming
events and provided a way to quickly invite people to attend” (Senbel, Ngo, & Blair, 2014,
p. 91). This is facilitated by Facebook’s “event” function, where users can create an event
and invite other users, who can then indicate if they are joining or not, as well as share
the event with their other friends, thereby increasing its reach. However, while Facebook
can be particularly effective in organizing events, awareness does not automatically
translate into discussion. The same study in Canada, for example, found that Facebook
“was not effective as a discursive platform for peer engagement” (Senbel et al., 2014, p.
91). However, the study was based on a formally organized competition, when most
discussions on Facebook tend to be organic, especially among friends. Future research on
climate change communication should investigate the impact on peer discussion of
personal posts about climate change.
Page 10 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
Moving Forward
While initial research on climate change communication has focused on traditional media,
such as news coverage of climate change and pro-environmental campaigns, scholars are
increasingly focusing on the role of online communication platforms, such as blogs and
social media, on climate change discourse. This is a timely and important shift in the
study of climate change communication, especially because social media sites have
become embedded in people’s everyday lives. This article reviewed the different ways
that these platforms have been used in climate change communication, demonstrating
how useful and widespread these platforms are in the context of climate change
discourse.
Issues with Social Media
Social media platforms have provided a faster, more efficient, and arguably more
inclusive venue for climate change discourse. Blogs allowed scientists to bypass
journalists to reach the public and explain complex information and processes in their
own words (Nisbet & Kotcher, 2009). Facebook allowed discussion through posting and
exchange of comments about climate change (Senbel et al., 2014). Twitter also provided a
network through which different discourses about climate change can cascade to users
(An et al., 2014; Cody et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2015). Thus, in general, these platforms
provide alternatives to traditional news media, which have been criticized for sensational,
incomplete, or even biased reporting of climate change (Boykoff, 2007; Boykoff & Boykoff,
2004). Climate change discourse is complex, and social media and blogs provide a
complementary platform to traditional media where people can share, discuss, deliberate,
and mobilize on an issue as complex and important as climate change (Gess, 2012;
Schafer, 2012).
However, social media are not without problems. One issue is the concept of self-selection
bias. Social media discussion about climate change is marked by a high degree of
polarization. Social media users usually have strong views on climate change, rather than
having a neutral stance, and so the Internet is divided into climate change skeptics or
activists (Williams et al., 2015). Since sites such as Facebook and Twitter allow users to
self-select other users to include in their network, users can decide to engage only with
people who share similar views as them. This can result in silos in terms of climate
change perspectives (Williams et al., 2015), instead of people engaging in rational
dialogue about climate change. The nature of discussion, the range of perspectives, and
the quality of climate change discourse on social media are important since “discussion of
climate change on social media is likely to affect the wider ‘offline’ climate
debate” (Williams et al., 2015, p. 136). Social media users can function as opinion leaders,
influencing other people’s opinions based on what they know from the information
sources that they use.
Page 11 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
Future Research
Most of the studies that informed this review focused on Twitter. But while this body of
work is illuminating, focusing only on Twitter has limitations. The number of studies done
about Twitter can be explained by the relative ease of access and analysis involved in
studying tweets: They are short messages by definition, and they can be collected and
analyzed quickly. However, Twitter users do not necessarily represent the whole
population of social media users. For example, when researchers set out to do fieldwork
in Tacloban City, which was ravaged by Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, they originally
planned to focus on Twitter, only to find out later that most people in the region used
Facebook (Tandoc & Takahashi, 2016). As new social media platforms emerge and the
popularity of existing ones declines, the focus of research on the role of social media in
climate change communication should be not only on specific social media brands, but
also on the nature of affordances they provide and the interactions they facilitate.
The body of research in this area is also highly skewed toward Western countries. An
analysis of tweets about climate change found that more than 40% came from the United
States. In contrast, the Philippines, one of the countries considered most vulnerable to
the effects of climate change, only contributed 1.4% of the total tweets (Kirilenko &
Stepchenkova, 2014). A potential explanation for this unequal geographic focus in climate
change communication research, particularly in the area of social media, is the diversity
of languages involved, which presents challenges to analyzing and comparing social
media messages. However, capturing such diversity is essential because while climate
change is a global problem, climate change communication occurs in different cultures,
media systems, and political climates. More cross-country collaborations will expand our
understanding of social media’s role in the various facets of climate change
communication.
Finally, most social media research in the context of climate change communication is
based on large-scale, quantitative analyses, facilitated by the increasing sophistication in
much of the software used in scraping and analyzing social media posts. However, many
studies recognize that online behavior is not exactly the same as offline behavior
(Fernandez et al., 2016). Such a gap is particularly salient in studying climate change
communication and its impact on knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. As social media
platforms become increasingly embedded into people’s daily routines, a more holistic
research approach is needed—one that can examine climate change communication as
individuals weave in and out of social media platforms.
Social media sites are likely to play a more central role in communication in the years to
come. Scholars have found that media coverage of climate change directly affected level
of public concern (e.g., Brulle, Carmichael, & Jenkins, 2012). This is also true about the
effect of climate change discourse online, as more and more people interact through
blogs and social media. Considering how important climate change communication is,
more effort should be channeled into understanding climate change discourse in social
Page 12 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
media and how such mediated discourse can affect people’s knowledge, attitudes, and
behavior toward climate change (Schafer, 2012).
References
Acar, A., & Muraki, Y. (2011). Twitter for crisis communication: Lessons learned from
Japan’s tsunami disaster. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 7(3), 392–402.
An, X., Ganguly, A. R., Fang, Y., Scyphers, S. B., Hunter, A. M., & Dy, J. G. (2014). Tracking
climate change opinions from Twitter data. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
Workshop on Data Science for Social Good at KDD ’14, New York City.
Bosch, T. (2012). Blogging and tweeting climate change in South Africa. Ecquid
Novi: African Journalism Studies, 33(1), 44–53.
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
Boykoff, M. (2007). Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate
change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area, 39(4), 470–
481.
Boykoff, M., & Boykoff, J. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige
press. Global Environmental Change Part A, 14(2), 125–136.
Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, J. C. (2012). Shifting public opinion on climate
change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate
change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Climatic Change, 114(2), 169–188.
Burgess, J., Harrison, C. M., & Filius, P. (1998). Environmental communication and
the cultural politics of environmental citizenship. Environment and Planning A,
30(8), 1445–1460.
Carvalho, A., & Burgess, J. (2005). Cultural circuits of climate change in U.K.
broadsheet newspapers, 1985–2003. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1457–1469.
Cenite, M., Detenber, B. H., Koh, A. W. K., Lim, A. L. H., & Soon, N. E. (2009). Doing the
right thing online: A survey of bloggers’ ethical beliefs and practices. New Media
& Society, 11(4), 575–597.
Clark, G. E. (2009). Environmental Twitter. Environment: Science and Policy for
Sustainable Development, 51(5), 5–7.
Cody, E. M., Reagan, A. J., Mitchell, L., Dodds, P. S., & Danforth, C. M. (2015). Climate
change sentiment on Twitter: An unsolicited public opinion poll. PLoS ONE, 10(8),
1–18.
Page 13 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
Crooks, A., Croitoru, A., Stefanidis, A., & Radzikowski, J. (2013). #Earthquake: Twitter
as a distributed sensor system. Transactions in GIS, 17(1), 124–147.
Dosemagen, S. (2016). Social media and saving the environment: Clicktivism or real
change? Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannondosemagen-/social-media-and-saving-t_b_9100362.html.
Duerden, M. D., & Witt, P. A. (2010). The impact of direct and indirect experiences
on the development of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 379–392.
Facebook. (2016). Stats. Retrieved from Facebook http://newsroom.fb.com/companyinfo/.
Fernandez, M., Piccolo, L. S. G., Maynard, D., Wippoo, M., Meili, C., & Alani, H. (2016).
Talking climate change via social media: communication, engagement and behaviour.
Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science (pp. 85–94). Hannover, Germany.
Gess, H. (2012). Climate change and the possibility of “slow journalism”. Ecquid
Novi: African Journalism Studies, 33(1), 54–65.
Haider, J. (2015). The shaping of environmental information in social media:
Affordances and technologies of self-control. Environmental Communication, 10(4),
473–491.
Hamed, A. A., Ayer, A. A., Clark, E. M., Irons, E. A., Taylor, G. T., & Zia, A. (2015).
Measuring climate change on Twitter using Google’s algorithm: Perception and events.
International Journal of Web Information Systems, 11(4), 527–544.
Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of
social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 276–297.
Hermida, A. (2012). Social journalism: Exploring how social media is shaping journalism.
In E. Siapera & A. Veglis (Eds.), The handbook of global online journalism. Malden, MA:
John Wiley & Sons.
Herring, S. C. (2004). Slouching toward the ordinary: Current trends in computermediated communication. New Media & Society, 6(1), 26–36.
Hogan, B. (2010). The presentation of self in the age of social media:
Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology
& Society, 30(6), 377–386.
Jang, S. M., & Hart, P. S. (2015). Polarized frames on “climate change” and “global
warming” across countries and states: Evidence from Twitter big data. Global
Environmental Change, 32, 11–17.
Page 14 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we Twitter: Understanding
microblogging usage and communities. Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNAKDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis (pp. 56–65), New York
City.
Jewitt, R. (2009). The trouble with twittering: Integrating social media into
mainstream news. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 5(3), 233–246.
Jolis, A. (2009). Revenge of the climate laymen. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748704335904574496850939846712.html.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
Katz-Kimchi, M., & Manosevitch, I. (2015). Mobilizing Facebook users against
Facebook’s energy policy: The case of Greenpeace Unfriend Coal Campaign.
Environmental Communication, 9(2), 248–267.
Kirilenko, A. P., & Stepchenkova, S. O. (2014). Public microblogging on climate
change: One year of Twitter worldwide. Global Environmental Change, 26, 171–182.
Koteyko, N., Nerlich, B., & Hellsten, I. (2015). Climate change communication and
the internet: Challenges and opportunities for research. Environmental
Communication, 9(2), 149–152.
Kuhlemeier, H., Van Den Bergh, H., & Lagerweij, N. (1999). Environmental knowledge,
attitudes, and behavior in Dutch secondary education. Journal of Environmental
Education, 30(2), 4–14.
Ledbetter, A. M., Mazer, J. P., DeGroot, J. M., Meyer, K. R., Yuping Mao, & Swafford, B.
(2011). Attitudes toward online social connection and self-disclosure as predictors
of Facebook communication and relational closeness. Communication Research,
38(1), 27–53.
Levine, D. S., & Strube, M. J. (2012). Environmental attitudes, knowledge, intentions
and behaviors among college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 152(3), 308–326.
Liao, Y., Ho, S. S., & Yang, X. (2016). Motivators of pro-environmental behavior:
Examining the underlying processes in the influence of presumed media
influence model. Science Communication, 38(1), 51–73.
Lim, M. (2012). Clicks, cabs, and coffee houses: Social media and oppositional
movements in Egypt, 2004–2011. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 231–248.
Lineman, M., Do, Y., Kim, J. Y., & Joo, G.-J. (2015). Talking about climate change and
global warming. PLoS ONE, 10(9), 1–12.
Page 15 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
Louis, T. (2013). Is Twitter the new LinkedIn or the new Facebook? Forbes. Retrieved
from http://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlouis/2013/10/05/is-twitter-the-newlinkedin-or-the-new-facebook/.
Mahmoud, J. S. R., Staten, R. T., Hall, L. A., & Lennie, T. A. (2012). The relationship
among young adult college students’ depression, anxiety, stress, demographics,
life satisfaction, and coping styles. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 33(3), 149–156.
McAndrew, F. T., & Jeong, H. S. (2012). Who does what on Facebook? Age, sex, and
relationship status as predictors of Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior,
28(6), 2359–2365.
Merry, M. K. (2010). Blogging and environmental advocacy: A new way to engage
the public? Review of Policy Research, 27(5), 641–656.
Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L. A., Koff, R., & Eickhoff, J. C. (2012). Depression and
internet use among older adolescents: An experience sampling approach.
Psychology, 3, 743–748.
Mumbrella. (2015). Singapore media has held companies to account for the haze with
help from social media: MP Louis Ng. Retrieved from http://www.mumbrella.asia/
2015/11/singapore-media-has-held-companies-to-account-for-the-haze-with-helpfrom-social-media-mp-louis-ng/.
Nerlich, B., Koteyko, N., & Brown, B. (2010). Theory and language of climate change
communication. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 97–110.
Niederer, S. (2013). Global warming is not a crisis! Studying climate change
skepticism on the Web. NECSUS. European Journal of Media Studies, 2(1), 83–112.
Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for
public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development,
51(2), 12–23.
Nisbet, M. C., & Kotcher, J. E. (2009). A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader
campaigns on climate change. Science Communication, 30(3), 328–354.
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008).
Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality & Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34(7), 913–923.
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diakopoulos, N., & Aberer, K. (2015). Comparing events coverage
in online news and social media: The case of climate change. Proceedings of the Ninth
International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (pp. 288–297). Oxford
University: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
Page 16 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
Pearce, W., Holmberg, K., Hellsten, I., & Nerlich, B. (2014). Climate change on Twitter:
Topics, communities and conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1
report. PLoS ONE, 9(4), 1–11.
Qu, Y., Huang, C., Zhang, P., & Zhang, J. (2011). Microblogging after a major disaster in
China: a case study of the 2010 Yushu earthquake. Proceedings of the ACM 2011
Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 25–34). Hangzhou, China.
Rauchfleisch, A., & Schäfer, M. S. (2015). Multiple public spheres of Weibo: A
typology of forms and potentials of online public spheres in China. Information,
Communication & Society, 18(2), 139–155.
Resnyansky, L. (2014). Social media, disaster studies, and human communication.
Technology and Society Magazine, IEEE, 33(1), 54–65.
Russill, C., & Nyssa, Z. (2009). The tipping point trend in climate change
communication. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 336–344.
Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M., & Matsuo, Y. (2010). Earthquake shakes Twitter users: Real-time
event detection by social sensors. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th
International Conference on World Wide Web, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Samenow, J. (2016). NASA smacks down climate change doubters in Facebook discussion.
Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capitalweather-gang/wp/2016/04/14/nasa-smacks-down-climate-change-doubters-infacebook-discussion/?utm_term=.c3d8cca054aa.
Schafer, M. S. (2012). Online communication on climate change and climate
politics: A literature review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(6),
527–543.
Senbel, M., Ngo, V. D., & Blair, E. (2014). Social mobilization of climate change:
University students conserving energy through multiple pathways for peer
engagement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 84–93.
Sharman, A. (2014). Mapping the climate skeptical blogosphere. Global
Environmental Change, 26, 159–170.
Takahashi, B., & Tandoc, E. (2016). Media sources, credibility, and perceptions of
science: Learning about how people learn about science. Public Understanding of
Science, 25(6), 674–690.
Takahashi, B., Tandoc, E., & Carmichael, C. (2015). Communicating on Twitter during
a disaster: An analysis of tweets during Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines.
Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 392–398.
Page 17 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
Takahashi, B., Edwards, G., Roberts, J. T., & Duan, R. (2015). Exploring the use of
online platforms for climate change policy and public engagement by NGOs in
Latin America. Environmental Communication, 9(2), 228–247.
Takahashi, B., Tandoc, E., Duan, R., & Van Witsen, A. (2017). Revisiting environmental
citizenship: The role of information capital and media use. Environment and
Behavior, 49(2), 111–135.
Tandoc, E., & Takahashi, B. (2014). The changing nature of environmental
discourse: An exploratory comparison of environmental journalists and bloggers.
Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies, 3(3), 405–423.
Tandoc, E., & Takahashi, B. (2016). Log in if you survived: Collective coping on social
media in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. New Media & Society
(pp. 1–16). Advanced online publication.
Tandoc, E., & Vos, T. P. (2016). The journalist is marketing the news: Social media in
the gatekeeping process. Journalism Practice, 10(8), 950–966.
Tandoc, E., Ferrucci, P., & Duffy, M. (2015). Facebook use, envy, and depression
among college students: Is Facebooking depressing? Computers in Human Behavior,
43(2015), 139–146.
Thorsen, E. (2013). Blogging on the ice: Connecting audiences with climate-change
sciences. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 9(1), 87–101.
Uldam, J., & Askanius, T. (2013). Online civic cultures? Debating climate change
activism on YouTube. International Journal of Communication, 7(2013), 1185–1204.
Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Sams, S. (2013). Online social networks and microblogging in political campaigning: The exploration of a new campaign tool and a
new campaign style. Party Politics, 19(3), 477–501.
Weingart, P., Engels, A., & Pansegrau, P. (2000). Risks of communication: discourses
on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Understanding
of Science, 9(3), 261–283.
Westerman, D., Spence, P. R., & Van Der Heide, B. (2014). Social media as information
source: Recency of updates and credibility of information. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 19(2), 171–183.
Whitmarsh, L. (2009). What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public
understanding of “climate change” and “global warming.” Public Understanding of
Science, 18(4), 401–420.
Williams, H. T. P., McMurray, J. R., Kurz, T., & Lambert, F. H. (2015). Network analysis
reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate
change. Global Environmental Change, 32, 126–138.
Page 18 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019
Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and
Other Social Media Platforms
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook:
Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior,
24(5), 1816–1836.
Edson C. Tandoc Jr.
Nanyang Technological University Singapore
Nicholas Eng
Nanyang Technological University Singapore
Page 19 of 19
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CLIMATE SCIENCE (oxfordre.com/climatescience). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see
Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 20 March 2019