Climate Change in the Public Sphere
How to study "glocal" issues? An analysis of public
communication about (global) climate change and
(local) coastal protection
Harald Heinrichs
Hans Peter Peters
(Program Group Humans, Environment, Technology at the Research Center
Juelich, Germany)
Abstract
Social responses to global environmental risks, like climate change and its local consequences for coastal protection, are not
exclusively determined by knowledge from natural sciences. In contrary, social actors shape in complex communication
processes the cultural meaning of natural events. Diverse patterns of interpretation from experts, policymakers, journalists
and citizens meet in the public arena and create social risk constructs. Finally these risk constructs are regulated in cultural
specific decision-making processes. The analysis of societies' ability to adjust to global climate change and natural hazards
releis on knowledge about the interpretative processes, how scientific knowledge is used in social and individual sensemaking and potentially modifies the existing patterns.
Besides the risk assessment of policy options it is important to study the development of interpretations of climate change
and natural hazards in public communication processes. Therefore a conceptual approach is needed, which covers the entire
communication chain from experts to journalists up to the media consumers. This approach is realized in three empirical
studies with specific methods of communications- and social research:



The coverage of the press, of radio and of television on national, regional and local level about climate change and
coastal protection is analyzed by content analysis. (media study)
The relationship of experts and journalists during the production of the media coverage and their perceptions of the
coverage is investigated by surveys of both actors. (interaction study)
It is analyzed, how readers, listeners and viewers receive and process the information offered by the media. (reception
study).
This conceptual and methodological approach enables a comprehensive analysis of the development of interpretations
regarding global climate change and local coastal protection in the public sphere. The expected results are expected to lead to
a better understanding of the dynamic processes between experts, journalists and the public and to recommendations, how to
improve such communication processes.
Natural Hazard - Natural Risk - Environmental Risk
Natural processes influence the chances and dangers of life and human societies. On the one hand
nature provides the basis of life itself, and the sophisticated technological use and processing of
natural resources makes our civilization possible. On the other hand there are natural events, which
have negative consequences for humans.
Since the mid of the 20th century the research on natural disasters has explored systematically the
occurance of natural disasters and their meaning for societies (Overview: Karger 1996). Beside the
scientific analysis of natural events, the studies stressed, that natural hazards are not determined by
geo-physical processes alone, but depend on specific social contexts. Within the "vulnerability-
school", the "desaster-school" and the "Chicago-school" the structural conditions, the perceptions and
coping with natural disasters were analysed from different social scientific perspectives (e.g.: Torry
1979; Susman, O'Keefe & Wiesner 1983; Kreps 1989; Palm 1990; Kates 1994). In addition to the
description and explanation of natural hazards by natural scientific dimensions, the analysis of social
aspects of natural dangers gained importance.
In contrasts to technological risks, which are man-made and decision-depending, natural hazards were
originally described as dangers of nature: the dangers are external of human societies and humans can
not be held responsible for potential damages. Earthquakes, floods, comets are natural hazards,
meanwhile nuclear energy, genetic engineering and chemical processes and products are recognized as
technological risks caused by human action (e.g.: Cvetkovich & Earle 1985; Luhmann 1991). But the
definition of (natural) danger vs. (technological) risk is a social construct.
The research of natural hazards already recognized the interdependence of human actions and natural
hazards. And today many natural hazards can be described as environmental risks (Cutter, S.L. 1994).
The natural danger of floods is closely connected to land-use, and the global climate change is next to
natural variability - as far as we know - caused by anthropogenic green house gases. Societies are
more and more confronted with environmental risks, which are caused by nature and civilization
processes. And human beings are - at least in part - responsible for the causes as well as the solutions
of environmental risks. Regarding climate change and coastal protection as "glocal" environmental
risk, we can state: globally distributed causes (emission of greenhouse gases) influence global climate
variability, which leads to local consequences for coastal protection. Climate change and coastal
protection can be seen as glocal environmental risk, characterized by high uncertainty regarding
probability of occurrence as well as potential of damage and long-term consequences. To cope with
this type of risk, analysis from natural sciences and social sciences are needed, to assess risks, to
identify barriers of acting, and to propose social options to cope with this risk.
Scientific knowledge and its socio-cultural embeddedness
Natural sciences, engineering and economics are indispensable for a comprehensive assessment of the
environmental risk "climate change and coastal protection" as well as for the development of
protection measures. But the success of the proposed risk management strategies depends on its sociocultural connectivity. Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr stress within their model on the relation of the
socio-economic and climate system, the central role of "intepretative systems" (Stehr & von Storch
1995; von Storch & Stehr 1997; Stehr 1999). In this concept "climate" is seen as a social construct
which is created in social interpretation processes. The existing interpretative patterns then guide the
social response to climate change. In order to understand societies' ability to adapt to climate change
regarding coastal protection its necessary to analyze, how the knowledge of climate change research
and coastal engineering becomes integrated in existing social and individual patterns of sense-making.
Within the interdisciplinary cooperative project "KRIM" (Climate Change and Preventative Risk and
Coastal Protection Management on the German north Sea Coast") natural science, engineering and
social science will produce integrated policy-oriented knowledge regarding climate change and coastal
protection.1 Within the subproject "Climate Change in the Public Sphere" we analyze from
environmental sociology and communications research perspective the public communication about
climate change and coastal protection.2 We will identify, which patterns of interpretation are
communicated in the public sphere and how images about this environmental risk develop.
1
2
Internet: http://www.krim.uni-bremen.de
Internet: http://www.fz-juelich.de/mut/projekte/pro_klima.html
Interpretation of global climate change in the public sphere
In a media society as ours, mass media play a major role in creating a public sphere that serves as an
arena for problem definition and debate. While there are several other arenas involved in the
management of problems the public arena makes a number of distinct contributions: (1)
Communication processes taking place in the public arena help new concerns, actors and ideas to enter
the political agenda urging societal and political institutions to react ("agenda setting"). They, hence,
stimulate socio-political innovation in order to adapt to a changing environment. (2) Public
communication helps to create an issue-specific cultural context ("issue culture") providing e.g. shared
knowledge and problem frames serving as a common reference basis for all involved actors ("issue
framing"). (3) Public communication links political processes on the political "stage" - involving
mainly social actors and political decision-makers - to the broader population as a necessary (although
not sufficient) precondition of political participation.
The public sphere is not established by mass media alone but by a communication system
characterized above all by the interaction of journalism, social actors and media audience. Scientific
experts and institutions, politicians and political institutions, NGOs and citizen action groups
implement different kinds of public relations strategies and feed the media with information,
interpretations, demands, suggestions, criticism, metaphors and slogans. Furthermore, the media
public has to be taken into account. First, the anticipated interests of the media audience are an
important factor for decisions made by social actors as well as those made by journalists. Secondly,
the acquisition of media coverage is a highly selective and interpretative process which is not
dominated by the content but influenced, for example, by experiences, heuristics, values, interests,
preattitudes and socio-economic characteristics of the media audience.
This general mechanisms of public communication are especially relevant for topics like climate
change: since the understanding of climate change has to rely on scientific methods, experts play an
important role as sources for media coverage. Furthermore the "glocality" of this environmental risk,
in which global causes and local consequences are intertwined in complex ways, make clear, that
interpretations of climate change do not develop through cognitive processing of direct perception, but
through cognitive processing of media content.
This in mind our project ties on to studies in social and communication science, which have analyzed
global environmental problems like climate change regarding public communication (Bell 1989, 1994;
Rothmann 1992; Wilkins & Peterson 1990; Mazur & Lee 1993; Wiedemann 1992; Peters & Sippel
1998). We are going to analyze the production of public interpretation patterns of climate change and
their consequences for risk assessment and risk management concerning coastal protection. We are
especially looking at the communicative and cognitive processes, in which interpretations regarding
climate change are selected and modified. We are interested in interpretative processes within the
interaction of sources and journalists as well as within the reception of media coverage through media
consumers. In order to grasp the entire communication chain from experts to journalists to the media
consumer, we conduct three interconnected empirical studies.

At first we make a content analysis regarding the media coverage on climate change and coastal
protection. We will identify the actors and their pluralistic claims and analyze the inventory of
interpretative patterns about climate change and coastal protection circulated in public
communication. We analyze TV, radio and newspapers at national, regional and local level, to
explore the informational environment of citizens in our area of research (German north see
coast). Altogether we expect to analyze 800 reports.

Secondly we analyze expert-journalist relationship. We select articles from the media study and
identify the journalists responsible for the article as well as the experts quoted. Both groups get a
questionnaire, to evaluate the mutual expectations concerning the interaction and the media
coverage. The selection and re-interpretation of expert statements by journalists can be identified.
Altogether we will analyze 500 interactions.

Finally we explore the cognitive processes of media consumers. We will confront 180 randomly
chosen test readers with articles of the media study. The test readers are asked to comment on the
articles. The cognitive reactions, which are evoked by the media content, are recorded. Thus we
can analyze the inventory and origin of interpretative patterns of the local public. Before and after
presenting the stimuli, we collect data regarding attitudes, values and personal characteristics by
questionnaire. By this design we can learn more about factors guiding cognitive processes of
media consumers and expectations of damage as well as attitudes to protection measures.
Outlook
We have argued in this paper, that the understanding of public communication is necessary for an
integrated assessment and management of the environmental risk "climate change and coastal
protection". With our research design basic mechanisms and factors of public environmental
communication can be identified. Based on the interdisciplinary cooperation with natural science,
engineering and economics the acceptability and acceptance of proposed measures for coastal
protection can be assessed. The project "Climate Change in the Public Sphere" aims at increasing our
understanding of how the "societal meaning" of glocal environmental risks is produced in the public
arena. Furthermore we provide policy-oriented knowledge for "issue management". It helps social
actors involved in public communication about global climate change to identify shortcomings and
inadequacies of public issue frame and to design messages for public communication that are relevant
and comprehensible. Finally, it will help to anticipate the compatibility of management strategies with
public perceptions and problem frames.
References
Bell, A. (1989): Hot News: Media Reporting and Public Understanding of the Climate Change Issue in
New Zealand. A Study in the (Mis)Communication of Science. Australia.
Cutter, S.L. (1994): Environmental risks and hazards. Englewood Cliffs.
Cvetkovich, G. / Earle, T.C. (1985): Classifying hazardous events. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 5. S. 5-35.
Karger, C. (1996): Wahrnehmung und Bewertung von "Umweltrisiken" - Was können wir aus der
Forschung zu Naturkatastrophen lernen? Arbeiten zur Risiko-Kommunikation. Heft 57. Jülich.
Kates, R.W. (1994): Natural hazard in human ecological perspective: hypotheses and models. In:
Cutter, S.L. (1994): Environmental risks and hazards. Englewood Cliffs.
Kreps, G.A. (1989): Social structure and disaster. Newark.
Luhmann, N. (1991): Soziologie des Risikos. Berlin, New York.
Mazur, A. / J. Lee (1993): Sounding the Global Alarm: Environmental Issues in the US National
News. In: Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23. S. 681-720.
Palm, R.I. (1990): Natural hazards. An integrative framework for research and planning. Baltimore.
Peters, H.P. / M. Sippel (1998): Der Treibhauseffekt als journalistische Herausforderung. In: Borsch,
P. / J.-F. Hake (Hg.): Klimaschutz: Eine globale Herausforderung. Landsberg am Lech. S. 293-316.
Rothman, S. (1992): Expertenurteil und Medienberichterstattung. In: Willke, J. (Hg.): Öffentliche
Meinung. Theorie, Methoden, Befunde. Freiburg, München. S. 143-155.
Stehr, N. / H. von Storch (1995): The social construct of climate and climate change. In: Climate
Research, Vol. 5, No. 2. S. 99-195.
Stehr, N. (1999): "Mastering" the Global Commons. In: von Storch, H. et al. (ed.): Anthropogenic
Climate Change. Berlin. S. 257-280.
Susman, P. et al (1983): Global disasters: a radical interpretation. In: Hewitt, K. (ed.): Interpretation of
calamity. Bostan. S. 263-283.
Torry, W.I. (1979): Hazards, Hazes and holes: a critique of the environment as hazard and general
reflections on disaster research. Canadian Geographer, 23. S. 368-383.
von Storch, H. / N. Stehr (1997): Climate Research: The Case for the Social Science. In: Ambio, Vol.
26, No. 1. S. 66-71.
Wiedemann, P.M. (1992): Klimaveränderungen: Risiko-Kommunikation und Risikowahrnehmung. In:
Borsch, P. / P. Wiedemann (Hg.): Was wird aus unserem Klima? München. S. 224-252.
Wilkins, L. / P. Patterson (1991): Science as Symbol: The Media Chills the Greenhouse Effect. In:
Wilkins, L. / P. Patterson (Hg.): Risky Business. Communicating Issues of Science, Risk, and Public
Policy. New York. S. 159-176.