1. Introduction
In 2018 and 2019, climate change was brought to fore by the global youth strikes for climate initiated by Greta Thunberg, the civil protests by environmental movements such as Extinction Rebellion, and campaigning by other international influencers such as Sir David Attenborough. In the context of this increased public awareness of climate change, this study examines climate change communication by the U.K. and Hong Kong governments. Arguably, as leaders of their nations, governments have the prime responsibility to communicate climate change in order to raise public awareness of future risks and also motivate actions and change beliefs (Bingham 2007). Indeed, without the actions of individuals (e.g., to insulate their homes or to travel less by private car) and organizations (e.g., to reduce their carbon emissions or develop climate adaptation strategies) within their country or region, a government will be unable to meet international targets such as the 2016 Paris Agreement or achieve national, regional, and local ambitions to reduce carbon emissions or become climate resilient.
In the past decade, climate change communication has developed as a branch of multidisciplinary academic research (Ballantyne 2016; Moser 2016). Previous studies have examined the communicators including local governments, scientists, celebrities, and the media (e.g., Albright et al. 2020; Anderson 2011; Corner et al. 2018; McLoughlin et al. 2018); the audiences and public perceptions of climate change (e.g., Brechin and Bhandari 2011; Levine and Kline 2017; Ojala 2012; Pearson et al. 2017; Porter et al. 2015; Wang and Zhou 2020; Wibeck 2014); and the theories, frames, and paradigms supporting their communication approaches (see reviews by Ballantyne 2016; Ponce de Leon and Gotangco 2018). However, despite a global increase in climate action including more than 1500 climate laws and policies worldwide (Nachmany and Setzer 2018), there has been little consideration of the communications approach of national governments, or cross-country or cross-culture comparisons, a gap noted by Moser and Dilling (2007) and Moser (2016) and notable by its absence from the comprehensive Handbook of Climate Change Communication edited by Leal Filho et al. (2018a,b,c).
Addressing this gap, this study compares the modes and content of climate change communication by the governments of the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. Although the United Kingdom and Hong Kong are different in terms of size and population, they have similar climate change agendas to communicate to similarly educated and prosperous populations (see Table 1 and references there in). For example, both United Kingdom and Hong Kong are high-income countries/regions, with above global average carbon emissions per capita. They have similar education systems, and highly educated populations that are aware of global warming (Lee et al. 2015). Both the United Kingdom and Hong Kong have well-regarded government funded meteorological institutions, namely, the Met Office and Hong Kong Observatory (HKO), which have studied the physical observations of climate change within each country/region. Both governments have identified future climate change risks and opportunities (Table 1). Last, both the United Kingdom and Hong Kong are signatories to the 2016 Paris Agreement; Hong Kong has acceded to the Paris Agreement as an administrative region of China [Environment Bureau (ENB) 2017] but has autonomy to implement its own measures (Mayer 2017). Both countries have therefore committed to global collaborative action to prevent dangerous climate change and keep warming below 2°C above preindustrial levels.
Comparing the context for government communication of climate change in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong (references for the different sources are shown in parentheses).
To meet their global and national climate change ambitions both governments will need to communicate climate change information clearly and effectively to their citizens to motivate individuals and organizations to mitigate and adapt. Instigating citizen action on climate change requires overcoming the paradox of climate inaction, namely, that in spite of the overwhelming evidence for urgency with which we need to take climate actions (e.g., IPCC 2018), “knowledge itself is insufficiently motivating to take action” (Moser 2016, p. 351). Naustdalslid (2011) characterizes climate change as a “modern environmental problem” and theorizes six paradoxes at the interface between nature and society that illuminate the reasons for inaction. These provide a framework to analyze the modes and content of climate change communication from the U.K. and Hong Kong governments and explore whether communication efforts by the governments address or deepen this paradox. Accordingly, this comparative study examines the following research questions within the theoretical context provided by Naustdalslid (2011): (i) How do the governments communicate climate change? (ii) How do the messages and methods differ between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong? (iii) What can be suggested to improve their communication of climate change? It draws on previous studies of best practice in climate communication (e.g., Corner et al. 2018; McLoughlin et al. 2018; Richards and Den Hoed 2018; Schweizer et al. 2009) to provide practical recommendations to respective governments. In doing so, this cross-national and cross-cultural comparison enhances existing studies of climate change communication and discusses future steps for expanding this research.
2. Communicating climate change
Communication can be face to face or mediated, using three modes: written, verbal, or nonverbal language (Moser 2010). For governments, through their designated secretaries and departments, climate change can be communicated through policies, plans, projects, stakeholder consultation, participation in national and international forums and agreements, public outreach activities, and school curricula (Anup 2018). The type of communication mode used depends on the message, time, space, cost, number and type of recipients, and effectiveness including reliability, speed, and efficiency (Moser 2010; Sanina et al. 2017); although one-way communication typically predominates rather than more engaging dialogic or participatory approaches (McLoughlin et al. 2018). Communicating climate change information with lay audiences can be challenging because climate science contains uncertainties, abstract statistics, and intangible knowledge, which may not be understood or personally relatable (Corner et al. 2018). Simply providing data and facts does not stimulate a public response despite scientific evidence being the heart of climate communication (Korte 2016; McLoughlin et al. 2018). Apart from the complexity and uncertainty of science, ineffective communication of climate change can make the topic feel distant, unreal, or delayed, and the audience uninterested, unwilling, or limited to improve the situation (Moser 2010).
In addition to conveying information and raising awareness, the ultimate purpose of climate change communication is to motivate actions and change beliefs (Moser and Dilling 2007). This is particularly pertinent for governments for without the actions of individuals (e.g., to reduce personal emissions of greenhouse gases) and organizations (e.g., make infrastructure resilient to extreme weather) a country cannot meet net-zero targets or adapt to minimize the impacts of climate change on society or economy. Previous research has explored this conceptually to theorize and articulate the reasons for inaction (e.g., Adger et al. 2009; Naustdalslid 2011; Rühlemann and Jordan 2021), and practically (e.g., Corner et al. 2018; Richards and Den Hoed 2018; Schweizer et al. 2009) in order to develop best practice recommendations for climate change communication. In his 2015 essay, Hulme argues “it is necessary to reveal the underlying reasons for disagreement about how to act in response to climate change before it is possible to find constructive ways of acting politically in the world” (Hulme 2015; p. 894). Naustdalslid (2011) does this by conceptualizing climate change as a “modern environmental problem”; unlike “traditional environmental problems” such as sewage pollution or industrial smoke, modern environmental problems are not easy to perceive in time and space and are built into the structure and ways of modern society. Urban air pollution can be considered another modern environmental problem; air pollution has a well-understood negative impact on human health from gestation to death, and in urban areas, reducing emissions from road transport would bring immediate health benefits (e.g., Ferranti et al. 2019 and references therein), but inaction prevails. To articulate this paradox, Naustdalslid (2011) provides six paradigms (or reasons for disagreement; Hulme 2015), which are detailed in Table 2. These are the competition between traditional and modern environmental problems, the paradox of the irrelevance of tacit knowledge, specialization versus the need to integrate knowledge, the impossibility of scientific solutions to modern environmental problems, top-down versus bottom-up approaches, and the self-perception of scientists. These paradigms provide a useful framework for this study comparing governmental approaches to climate change communication, to examine whether current approaches reinforce or break down these paradigms, ultimately to evaluate current practice and provide recommendations.
The six paradigms of translating scientific knowledge into action [summarized from Naustdalslid (2011)].
In terms of academic research into best practices, there are numerous strategies and principles to effectively communicate climate change. For example, Richards and Den Hoed (2018) suggest focusing on “risk” rather than “uncertainty,” creating audience ownership of the problem and solutions, providing success stories, and making it local/personable. Schweizer et al. (2009) notes the importance of systems thinking, partnerships with other organizations and stakeholders, and involving senior leaders to inspire actions. Corner et al. (2018) sets out six techniques for effective communication: being a confident communicator, talking about the real world, connecting with what matters to the audience, telling a human story, focusing on the “knowns,” and using effective visual communication. Indeed, there is a growing use of visuals to convey climate change, such as photographs, maps, three-dimensional visualizations, infographics, graphs, cartoons, videos, documentary, and fictional films, covering a range of content like human and natural impacts, causes, and actions (Chapman et al. 2016; Cortese 2018; McLoughlin et al. 2018). Moser (2016) draws on existing work to approach this problem from the perceiver’s perspective, and defines five psychological defenses related to climate change, with guidance on when communication can trigger such responses, and help overcome them. These include (i) distance—defense against thinking, feeling, and knowing about climate change; (ii) doom—defense against thinking about the loss associated with climate change; (iii) dissonance—defense against the guilt of inaction; (iv) denial—defense linked to the loss of social standing and social dissonance of views on climate change; (v) identity—resistance to changing who we are to act on climate change (see Moser 2016, and references therein). Governments need to be aware of the potential psychological defenses that their communication materials can trigger, and alternative improved communication approaches.
3. Method
This study used a qualitative approach of three stages to analyze climate change communication by U.K. and Hong Kong governments. Stage 1 identified and sampled key documents; stage 2, coded selected documents as part of a textual analysis; and a visual analysis comprised stage 3. The method for each stage follows below.
Initially, those government departments responsible for climate change communication were identified (Tables 3 and 4). In Hong Kong, these are defined by their membership in the Steering Committee on Climate Change (Table 4). In the United Kingdom, there is no central governmental working group for climate action, and thus relevant departments were selected based on their remit and responsibilities. Next, search engines and filter functions on government websites and social media pages were used to collect samples in their archives by entering key words (e.g., climate change, mitigation, adaptation). The search produced a range of communication materials (e.g., including formal reports, websites, campaigns, and social media), and the search was stopped once data saturation was reached, that is, continuing the search ceased to reveal new information. After this, the communication materials were purposefully selected by availability, timeliness, relatedness, and representativeness (Flick 2014) and were categorized into five categories using the criteria shown in Table 5. These categories, developed from reflecting on the sampled material, are exhaustive, sensitizing, mutually exclusive, and conceptually congruent and were developed in line with the research questions (Merriam and Tisdell 2015). The study sought to balance the number of samples between the two regions for analyses. Note that category 5, official statements and press releases, are not included within this preliminary study due to time constraints. Future work will seek to code these data to examine these communication approaches. Sampling of news and social media took place between 1 January 2018 and 31 July 2019; Cantonese content was translated by author Wong. By its design, the sampling and categorization process can introduce bias, and these are acknowledged and discussed in section 5c.
U.K. key government departments in responding to climate change (correct as of 2019 when the research was undertaken).
Members of the Hong Kong Steering Committee on Climate Change (correct as of 2019 when the research was undertaken).
Category descriptors used to organize the qualitative data collection.
The second stage examined three key policy documents for each government using a contents analysis, that is, a systematic and robust examination of textual material for themes in order to interpret subjective meaning or social construction of issues, events, or practices (Flick 2014). The three documents were chosen for coding based on their strategic importance, and their relevance to the governmental climate change agenda. For the United Kingdom, these included the Climate Change Act and two reporting documents mandated by the Climate Change Act that form the basis of policy making, namely, the U.K. Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA), which feeds into the National Adaptation Programme (NAP; primarily England, but some United Kingdom–wide matters; adaptation policy is a devolved matter). For Hong Kong, documents of equivalent importance include the Hong Kong Climate Change Report, Hong Kong Action Plan 2030+, and the Long-Term Decarbonisation Strategy. The latter was selected for its broader remit in comparison to other mitigation-focused documents that tended to focus on a specific sector (e.g., built environment). The text was coded to capture the relevant characteristics, and enable a quantifiable comparison of different documents, themes, and messages (Merriam and Tisdell 2015). The study used inductive codes decided prior to analysis from literature review and discussions, and were orientated to answer the research questions, and deductive codes, which are key themes and messages that emerged during the coding process (Braun and Clarke 2006). Examples of inductive codes include “climate change,” “public,” “awareness” and “communication,” and of deductive codes include “community,” “opportunity,” and “science.” Words with similar meanings or implications were grouped as one code (Tables 6 and 7). These were then counted and analyzed to illustrate how the governments communicate climate change to the public and which messages are contained in each method. For instance, the more frequent occurrence of the words “impact” or “risk” implied more focus on risk communication, whereas more instances of “health” entailed more attention on how climate change relates to people personally.
Codes in the three U.K. policy papers.
Codes in the three Hong Kong policy papers.
Third, the visual content of material from policy documents and social media was considered. Visual approaches communicate differently than verbal and create feelings and texture, speaking directly to viewer’s inner self, evoking memories and reflections (Spencer 2011). They can be effective mechanisms to provoke emotions, motivate behavioral and value changes (Green 2018), and engage people more effectively than texts because they draw attention through vivid portrayals and help viewers remember information and transcend linguistic and geographical obstacles (O’Neill and Smith 2014). Here, visual content was analyzed following a procedure outlined by Flick (2014): first, observe the content; second, analyze its formal composition; third, ask for the intentions behind production; and finally, analyze its reception and social use from the audience perspective. Visual analysis was applied to the categories of policy, campaigns, and media platforms because they are communicated with obvious visual materials. Visuals were collected using screen capture function of Microsoft’s Snipping Tool, and leading (e.g., front cover/main campaign image) images were prioritized. For example, cover and content pages with visual elements were captured from policy papers; relevant department and campaign web pages were captured as samples; social media sites were chosen according to the location popularity such as Twitter in the United Kingdom and Facebook in Hong Kong, and then posts were selected depending on the timeliness and relatedness.
To ensure rigor in the collection, sampling, and coding of the qualitative data, the researchers used several strategies proposed by Noble and Smith (2015) to ensure validity (i.e., the degree to which the findings represent the data) and reliability (i.e., consistency in approach and bias reduction). This included regular debriefing during the sampling between researchers to ensure the approach was collecting the data required to address research aims and being aware of sampling biases during data collection (section 5c). The majority of data came from official government sources, while the rest were supporting data from verified or authoritative sources, and all were taken in legal and ethical means. Coding was undertaken systematically by one researcher but cross-checked with other members of the team. Where new codes evolved (e.g., community, opportunity), these were retrospectively applied to previously coded work, and emerging findings were discussed as a team to reach a consensus. For the visual analysis, the team discussed the sampled materials to reflect on whether they were representative of the broader materials available for sampling and how they fit the research aims, and to discuss the results of the visual analysis to understand how individual beliefs and judgments could introduce phenomenological bias.
4. Comparing climate change communication in United Kingdom and Hong Kong
a. Policy and reporting
In the United Kingdom, the 2008 Climate Act mandates emissions reductions by 100% (originally 80%) by 2050 as compared to the 1990 baseline, with 5-yearly carbon budgets, and 5-yr cycles of adaptation programs and risk assessment. The independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC) advises the government on targets and progress, and the Adaptation Subcommittee undertakes risk assessments, and monitors climate change impacts, opportunities, and adaptation progress. Policy and reporting are led by the Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS); Table 8 shows all recent reports that mention climate change. The governments of the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Island are legally bound by the Climate Change Act but have separate climate change policies and reports; these are not included in this study.
Classification of climate change communication in United Kingdom and Hong Kong. The most popular social media sites are shown in italics.
In Hong Kong, ENB is responsible for developing policy and reporting on climate change. They established the Steering Committee on Climate Change (SCCC) that reports directly to the Hong Kong Chief Executive and includes representatives from the 13 policy bureaus (e.g., Food and Health Affairs; Transport and Housing, and 11 more) and three departments (Table 4). The SCCC coordinates climate actions, formulates strategies to meet the carbon reduction target, enhances public awareness and understanding, and promotes collaboration with private sectors. Within the ENB, the Council for Sustainable Development (SDC) advises on decarbonization strategies and facilitates community participation whereas the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) develops and enforces policies. The 2017 Climate Action Plan 2030+ outlines how Hong Kong can reduce its carbon intensity by 65%–70% using 2005 as the baseline by 2030 (ENB 2017). There is no target post-2030, and targets are not mandated.
The textual content and characteristics of the three most relevant climate change documents were analyzed for each country/region (Tables 6 and 7). Analysis of the U.K.’s Climate Change Act revealed the government viewed publishing reports and creating programs and plans to be fundamental. The impacts and risks of climate change were clearly and frequently stated, but with less discussion of the opportunities, and the responsibilities are mostly delegated to different government departments or local authorities. The Act lays the responsibility for communicating with the CCC and does not consider the role of governmental departments in communication. The 2017 Climate Change Risk Assessment (Defra 2017) is a scientific report that communicates and scores the impacts and opportunities of climate change to people, public health and wellbeing, ecosystems, businesses, buildings, and water supply. It is factual and nonemotive in content, and communication of the content is taken as given, with no explicit consideration given to communication of the material. The National Adaptation Plan (Defra 2018) is the only document that explicitly considers communication with a subchapter on “raising awareness and promoting action.” There are several statements noting the importance of community action to strengthen resilience, for example, “An important aspect of adaptation is communication and we will work to ensure that across society people understand the challenges and risks which may lie ahead. Government will look to improve communication channels and work with professional bodies . . . to engage ever more people to take action” (Defra 2018, p. i).
The Hong Kong Climate Change Report 2015, Hong Kong Climate Action Plan 2030+, and Long-Term Decarbonisation Strategy, all introduce the concept of climate change and its relationship with Hong Kong. The Climate Change Report outlines the climate actions of the government and stakeholders in private sectors and highlights the importance of public awareness of climate change, with raising public awareness and understanding as one of their targets and responsibilities. “The more we are aware of climate risks, the better our people can contribute to mitigation and adaptation, which would increase the city’s overall ability to deal with climate change” (ENB 2015, p. 10).
The Climate Action Plan 2030+ proposes a new target and detailed plans responding to the Paris Agreement whereas the Long-Term Decarbonisation Strategy, is a public engagement to formulate the city’s future decarbonization plan. Neither document explicitly considers communication to the public. In comparison to the United Kingdom, all three documents use more emotive words to describe the risks of climate change and extreme weather events, such as “onslaught,” “strike,” “danger,” “multiplier,” “defend,” “vulnerabilities,” “unmistakable,” and “battle.” They also note that HKs largest source of carbon emissions comes from electricity generation, and the high carbon footprint per capita (Table 1), implying the responsibilities of the city and individuals to mitigate climate change. Personal responsibility is also a theme in other documents such as Energy Saving Plan for Hong Kong’s Built Environment, and Deepening Energy Saving in Existing Buildings (Table 8).
b. Education
Education in the United Kingdom is devolved, with separate systems for separate regions, administered by the U.K. governments (England), Welsh and Scottish governments, and Northern Ireland Executive. In England, as part of the national curriculum, climate change is part of broader compulsory topics within science (chemistry of Earth and atmosphere) at key stages 3 (age 11–14) and 4 (ages 14–16), and in geography at key stage 3 geography as “part of changes in climate from the Ice Age to the present” and understanding how “human and physical processes interact to influence, and change landscapes, environments and the climate” (Department for Education 2014). In Scotland, climate change is part of several curriculum areas including science, technology, social studies, health and well-being, and religious and moral education, as part of the “sustainability” theme (Education Scotland 2019). In Wales, education follows the national curriculum for children ages 7 to 16. In Northern Ireland, climate change is only part of statutory requirements for geography at key stage 3, as part of consideration of local and global conflict between social, economic, and environmental needs. To support climate change education, the Met Office (an executive agency of government sponsored by BEIS) produces noncompulsory educational resources for schools related to climate change, including a lesson plan on climate impacts for ages 7–11 and 11–14.
Education in Hong Kong is overseen by the Education Bureau, part of the SCCC (Table 4). Climate change is compulsory within primary and secondary education, within general studies, science, and liberal studies. Specifically, children aged 5–8 should understand “climate and weather changes in Hong Kong and how they affect everyday life” (general studies); children aged 8–11 should understand the “effects of natural changes of the environment (e.g., climate change, natural hazards) on people and how people respond to these changes,” be aware that “global issues that are the common concerns of mankind (e.g., climate change)” (general studies), and “show concern for the environment and climate changes” (science) [Education Bureau (EDB) 2017a]. Older children aged 11–14 should “recognize the effects of human activities on the environment, climate” and “act responsibly in conserving the environment for sustainable development” (science); ages 11–16 should “understand climate change, basic environmental protection, as well as the interdependence of living things and their environment” (liberal studies) (EDB 2017b). The HKO (a government department) has educational material linked to their climate change website and undertakes climate change talks at schools.
c. Campaigns
At national level within the United Kingdom, there were three separate campaigns during the study period that are relevant to the governmental climate change agenda. Regional campaigns by local authorities are not included in this study. Campaigns by the U.K. government include Green Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Green GB∋ since 2018). This is a week of events and activities, where the government, businesses, academia, and civil society come together to explore clean growth, climate science, and current and potential actions on climate change as well as opportunities and challenges. In 2019, Defra launched the Year of Green Action (YoGA) environmental campaign to coincide with 25 Year Environment Plan; this does not explicitly consider climate change nor link with Green Great Britain week. In 2019, BEIS collaborated with Smart Energy GB to use television (TV) and billboard advertising to promote energy efficiency and the use of smart meters (Fig. 1c), but there are no specific advertising campaigns on other aspects of climate change, such as future risks, or personal action to mitigate and adapt.
Since 2016, the ENB have used ClimateReady@HK, the governmental campaign to raise public awareness and understanding on climate change by providing a range of resources and information, and public tools such as the Carbon Footprint Repository and Low Carbon Living Calculator. The campaign web page includes climate change–related news, an agenda of events, workshops and seminars organized by different government departments, and uses a cartoon mascot called “Big Waster,” or Hanson (meaning saving master) (Fig. 1). Videos from the ClimateReady@HK are broadcasted as 30-s TV advertisements with themes ranging from energy saving, green and low-carbon living, and food waste reduction. The Climator is one promotional film introducing the concept of climate change, inviting the Hong Kong public to be the “guardians of mother Earth” and take decarbonized actions, while pointing out their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions (Fig. 1d).
Visual comparison of climate change communication. (a) The front cover and a typical page from the three U.K. policy documents selected for contents analysis. (b) The front cover and a typical page from the three Hong Kong policy documents selected for contents analysis. (c) (clockwise from top left) The Green GB&NI campaign homepage, the YoGA campaign homepage, billboard featuring Smart Energy campaign, YouTube video from Smart Energy campaign, YouTube video from Smart Energy campaign, and billboard featuring Smart Energy campaign. (d) (clockwise from top left) Campaign poster from ClimateReady@HK, promotional film to accompany the decarbonization strategy, ClimateReady@HK “Let’s save 10 L water campaign,” The Climator promotional film, ClimateReady@HK featuring a celebrity rap song, and ClimateReady@HK “Energy Saving for All” campaign banner. (e) Selected social media posts from U.K. government accounts captured during the sampling period. (f) Selected social media posts from U.K. government accounts captured during the sampling period. Note the repeated occurrence of the Hong Kong mascot Big Waster in features on Hong Kong decarbonization strategy, campaign materials, and a social media post.
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 13, 2; 10.1175/WCAS-D-20-0123.1
d. Internet and social media platforms
Both U.K. and Hong Kong governments have websites (GOV.UK; GOV.HK) that host all official documents related to climate change. Neither have a climate change tab on their homepage; the search function is required to local documents related to climate change. The search function in GOV.UK enables filtering by date, topic, and media type, and there were 16 974 between January 2018 to July 2019, related to “climate change” including news and communications (49%), guidance and regulation (20%), research and statistics (7%), policy papers and consultations (4%), services (1%), Freedom of Information releases (1%), and others (17%). On GOV.HK, there were more than 1000 results under “climate change” between January 2018 and July 2019, including relevant news, reports, and websites. Unlike the United Kingdom, GOV.HK has a dedicated home page for climate change, which overviews the topic, and provides hyperlinks for more information.
Both the Met Office and HKO host their own websites that contain comprehensive written and visual material on climate change. The Met Office provide information for lay audiences, such as factual videos and infographics, and technical reports summarizing recent scientific research under the key subheadings: What is climate change?; Causes of climate change; Effects of climate change; U.K. climate; Climate science; Organizations and reports. The Met Office also hosts the U.K. Climate Projections (UKCP) program that supports climate change risk assessments and adaptation, and enables users to download data, associated scientific reports and infographics. The Met Office does not provide information on how individuals or organizations can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions or adapt to climate change. The HKO also uses videos, infographics, and reports to communicate climate change information, subdivided into similar headings: Global climate change; Climate change in Hong Kong; Causes of climate change; Climate projection; Education resources; Vital indicators of climate change. There is less material available from HKO, particularly with regard to research, as expected given their comparative size and resources; Met Office has ~2000 employees, whereas HKO has ~350 employees.
With regard to social media, in the United Kingdom, the Met Office accounts available via Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube have the greatest followings and most frequent updates, about 20 Twitter posts per day, whereas the other accounts have lower or irregular post frequency (Table 2). That said, the majority of Met Office messaging contains meteorological content such as weather forecasts; Defra and BEIS social media sites only convey climate change messages occasionally besides their main working areas. In Hong Kong, HKO has the greatest following on social media, but like the Met Office, posts are not solely about climate change. Big Waster used as a mascot by ClimateReady@HK also has a substantive following, and the campaign also has a YouTube channel with 35 promotional videos and clips. For example, The Climator is one promotional film introducing the concept of climate change, inviting the Hong Kong public to be the “guardians of mother Earth” and take decarbonized actions. It gives a clear message of responsibly acting on climate change.
e. Visual analysis (policy, campaigns, and media platforms)
Figure 1 compares the visual differences between the policy documents, campaigns and social media posts used by the U.K. and Hong Kong governments. The U.K. documents (Fig. 1a) are plain in design, with some information summarized in tables in the CCRA and NAP, showing the government’s motivation to deliver the policies in a serious and important manner, but in a way that may not attract the public attention (after Flick 2014). The CCRA was released with infographics and animations but these were produced by the nongovernmental CCC. In contrast, the 2019 TV and billboard advertising by Smart Energy GB and BEIS featured children who “want a beautiful world” in the narratives and imagery (Fig. 1c) to form a connection and emotive response in audiences. Figure 1c shows the U.K. homepages for the Green GB&NI and YoGA campaigns. These campaigns used a color scheme of green and short and simple language to attract the audience and disseminate the message of acting on climate change.
The documents produced by the Hong Kong government are more colorful with infographics and pictures, and written in simple language, showing the government’s motivation to deliver the policies and climate change message in an attractive and vivid way that the public can understand (Fig. 1b). The Action Plan and Strategy also have supplementary graphical pamphlets that summarize key information. Visually, the Hong Kong campaigns (Fig. 1d) use various colors, short slogans, local images, or funny characters to attract and encourage the audience to take climate actions and protect the environment. The Climator film features a heroic storyline, background music, narratives, and colorful animation that can arouse the interest of the public regardless of age and education background. Other promotional films also convey a similar message but show real shots of local extreme weather and feature a local celebrity singing a Cantonese rap song.
Both U.K. and Hong Kong government social media posts use infographics and short animations (Figs. 1e,f), albeit with different styles. As with the policy documents, the U.K. social media posts are factual, communicating climate change in an informative, scientific, and neutral manner. Hong Kong posts are less formal, with cartoon animations and more personable images, albeit combined with educational content and the message of social responsibility.
5. Discussion
a. Comparing the methods and messages of climate change communication in United Kingdom and Hong Kong
This work has highlighted important similarities and differences in climate change communication between the U.K. and Hong Kong governments. First, both governments communicate climate change information using similar modes as outlined in section 4 and Table 8, and communication via social media is led by the meteorological agencies. In Hong Kong, climate change communication coalesces around the ClimateChange@HK campaign using the mascot Big Waster across multiple communication platforms (official documents, social media, TV advertising, billboard); there is no equivalent broad-reaching campaign specific to climate change within the United Kingdom. There is also a notable difference in approaches to education; in Hong Kong, climate change is embedded in the compulsory curriculum from an earlier age and from a scientific and societal context. The United Kingdom has specific legislation on climate change and more ambitious targets than Hong Kong.
With regard to messaging, both governments focus on actions via strategies and action plans and consider the opportunities of a changing climate. This solution-oriented message is very important, enabling the audience to envision a positive and desirable future, and promoting engagement (Markowitz and Guckian 2018). As compared to the United Kingdom, Hong Kong has a greater focus on personal responsibility and behavioral change in all categories of communication. Giving a sense of personal responsibility can connect with the audience to create ownership of the problem and solutions, incite emotions, and urge behavioral change (Bulkeley and Newell 2010; Richards and Den Hoed 2018). Providing positive actions for the public to undertake can be empowering and instructs people to reach the goal (Moser and Dilling 2007; Schweizer et al. 2009).
Visually, Hong Kong policy papers are more colorful with infographics and local pictures, using simple language, with stories of recent typhoon and flooding damage linking to future climate change; this approach can be more effective and appealing to the wider public who have limited knowledge and interest (Green 2018). Moreover, by localizing the climate change agenda to the Hong Kong audience, the content becomes meaningful to the audience (Schweizer et al. 2009) and using stories is more likely to provoke emotions and encourage proenvironmental behavior in comparison to information narratives (Morris et al. 2019). The visual content of the Met Office website was not considered in this study; however, this contains a range of visual resources to communicate the science of climate change.
This comparison highlights several elements of good practice. The ClimateChange@HK campaign demonstrates a systems approach to climate communication that draws together multiple communications modes (social media, TV, workshops, seminars) and messages to create meaningful material specific to Hong Kong, that connects to local cultural values and beliefs, and gives Hong Kong residents specific actions to mitigate their climate impact (e.g., low-carbon living). This embodies many aspects of good climate communication (e.g., Corner et al. 2018; Schweizer et al. 2009), and the use of emotive language, people, place, and personal behavior helps to reduce the psychological distance to climate change (Moser 2016). Indeed, themes of people, place, and personal behavior are prevalent within Hong Kong’s 2015 Climate Change Report, and personal responsibility and the role of humans in anthropogenic climate change are at the core of the compulsory climate change education.
The approach of the Hong Kong government helps to address several of the paradigms of climate change inaction raised by Naustdalslid (2011; Table 2). Namely, by using stories and localizing the impacts of and actions for climate change, in policy, campaigns, and social media, the communication material gives the audience a tacit understanding of the problem (paradigm 2) and raises awareness of individual action to mitigate climate change (paradigm 4). Hong Kong’s national curriculum also addresses these paradigms, and by focusing climate change education on the nexus of nature and society (in liberal arts topics as well as science), it is providing future generations with the scientific knowledge and societal responsibility to respond to climate change (paradigms 2, 3, and 4). However, in Hong Kong there is potential for improvement by mandating climate action, setting ambitions targets, and thereby making climate change of equivalent importance to those traditional environmental problems for which legislation currently exists. Although the Hong Kong Climate Action Plan 2030+ and Long-Term Decarbonisation Strategy outline the actions that need to be taken by public and private stakeholders, there is less emphasis on personal responsibility in these policies suggesting an implementation gap. Strengthening this top-down approach would complement the current fundamentally bottom-up approach to climate communication (paradigm 5).
In contrast, the United Kingdom has a strong top-down approach that mandates emissions reductions and climate adaptation via the 2008 Climate Change Act. These policies and the social media communication materials produced by the Met Office overtly address Moser’s (2016) psychological defense of dissonance in the understanding and knowledge of climate change, by emphasizing the evidence and scientific consensus and outlining a course of viable action to build resilience and reduce emissions using factual and nonemotive language. There is clear advice for infrastructure and built environment practitioners, but without the element of personal responsibility. The BEIS Smart Energy GB campaign for energy efficiency stands alone in its connection to people, emotive visual messaging (Fig. 1c) and desire to initiate individual action. Overall, despite strong rhetoric and mandatory action, the U.K. approach is potentially reinforcing several of the paradigms of climate inaction by failing to consider the science–society nexus. Without using stories, emotive language, or materials that make climate change real and understandable for a general audience, the United Kingdom does not provide the tacit understanding of the topic needed for general action (paradigm 2). This is reinforced by the minimal and purely scientific consideration of climate change in the national curriculum for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which does not provide the future generations with a broad understanding of the science of climate change, thereby increasing its status as a specialized subject for experts (paradigm 3). Nor does the national curriculum provide an understanding of the role individuals can have mitigating or adapting to climate change (paradigm 4). Last, there is a sense that without consideration of the science–society nexus, combined with the nonpersonalized communication materials, and the delegation of many of the climate change actions to other bodies and local authorities, that the U.K. government remains locked in the traditional paradigm, providing knowledge for others to provide the solution (paradigm 6). On a practical level, this inhibits a systems approach to communication, as exemplified by the parallel campaigns of Green GB&NI, YoGA and energy efficiency that do not interlink, or connect to social media material produced by the Met Office or the education curriculum.
To conclude by drawing on Naustdalslid (2011), the United Kingdom approaches climate change communication more from the perspective of a “traditional environmental problem” to which there are top-down scientific (e.g., Met Office) and engineering solutions (e.g., CCRA/NAP), and legislation, but the bottom-up role of individual action is less considered. Accordingly, the focus of U.K. communication materials lies in policy, reporting, and the factual communication of science via the Met Office, a world-leading research institution on climate change. In contrast, Hong Kong approaches communication with a greater consideration of the science–society nexus and the role of personal responsibility, but without any top-down legal responsibility to undertake actions or meet targets. Their communication approach emphasizes the importance of education, and tailoring the content of communication materials (e.g., reports, campaigns, social media) to connect the public to the problem. Last, in the broadest sense, this comparative study illustrates both sides of Naustdalslid fourth paradox; should this action on climate change be driven by top-down policies such as the Paris Agreement or bottom-up alternatives likes the School Strikes for Climate?
b. Recommendations for U.K. and Hong Kong governments
Building on the analysis within paradigms of climate inaction, this study has several recommendations. First, the U.K. government should embed climate change across the national curriculums from preschool onward in a greater range of learning contexts. This would reduce the specialization of the topic (paradigm 3) and define climate change as a science–society problem to which collective individual action is required (paradigm 4). Contextualizing the education materials, for example, in terms of extreme weather events, can provide the tacit knowledge of the problem (paradigm 2). Early education can fundamentally influence behavior and shape lifestyles, and effective environmental education creates ecological identity and responsibility (Bateson 2007; Moser 2010). Education has a vital role in raising awareness of climate change and transitioning to low-carbon, sustainable lifestyles and should feature in societal curricula, in addition to geography and science, from early years (paradigm 4). Second, the U.K. government should incorporate behavior and personal responsibility within communication messages (paradigms 4 and 6). To achieve net-zero targets and adapt to future climate change will require actions from individuals. This is touched on in the BEIS Smart Meter campaign (i.e., emissions reductions by energy efficiency), but the role of individuals and the action they can take is not clearly communicated by the U.K. government in policy, or via social media, which often focuses on the neutral communication of the science.
In Hong Kong, the government should create targets that are more ambitious, enhance departmental involvement, and prioritize climate change in policy making. This will prioritize climate action, giving it equivalent status to other environmental problems for which legislation exists (paradigm 1). Although Hong Kong has targets for reducing carbon intensity and a climate action plan, these are regulatory frameworks and are not legally enforced. Previous studies have criticized the government for weak targets, prioritizing the economy first, and doing “too little, too late” (Ng 2012; Mayer 2017). Besides the ENB, departments should be more proactive and involved in communicating climate change (paradigm 6). An effective communication needs credible messengers and interdisciplinary collaboration (Korte 2016; Schweizer et al. 2009).
In general, both U.K. and Hong Kong governments should increase dialogic conversation and usage of other modes of communication. Although two-way communication is possible via education, and in part by social media, there is scope to increase dialogic communication of climate change, perhaps via other modes such as museums or interactive plays (e.g., Where’s My Igloo Gone?; Ledger 2018). Dialogic communication allows communities to frame their own problems and solutions thereby exploring their tacit understanding of climate change (paradigm 2; e.g., Nursey-Bray et al. 2019; Rudiak-Gould 2012) and options for climate action (paradigm 4; e.g., Nursey-Bray et al. 2012). Dialogue can also overcome the psychological defenses to climate inaction by focusing on aspects such as community well-being (reducing defense—distance), the immediate community benefits for adaptation (reducing defense—doom) and creating shared visions of better future (reducing defense denial and identity) (Moser 2016). Both governments also need more engagement and longer-term dialogues with the climate protesters. Dialogic or interactive communication are more likely to increase involvement, understanding, and social unity than one-way written or verbal communications (Moser 2010; Corner et al. 2018) and could motivate the individual actions required to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change.
Last, both governments must evaluate the effectiveness of communication methods. As leaders of civil society, a government has the prime responsibility for raising awareness of climate change and motivating action (Bingham 2007) and thereby responding to what is commonly called the “climate emergency.” Accordingly, government should evaluate their own communication approaches to understand if their communication raises awareness and encourages positive climate action and adjust methodology accordingly (paradigm 6).
c. Limitations
This study overviews the methods by which the two governments communicate climate change (Table 8) and considers the different messaging via a contents analysis of key policy documents and visual analysis of policy documents/reports and social media content (Fig. 1). This is a scoping study to explore research methodology and draw preliminary conclusions. It has not considered how devolved administrations in the United Kingdom communicate climate change in their policy documents, nor has it undertaken textual or visual analysis of the substantive material available via the Met Office web page, or governmental press releases, or transcripts of speeches. The materials were sampled purposefully, often via objective internet search engines in order to reduce bias (while being aware that search engines can be biased), and the data and themes were discussed between the researchers to minimize individual subjectivity. There was significantly more communication material for the United Kingdom than Hong Kong (e.g., ~17 000 from GOV.UK as compared with ~1000 from GOV.HK), and, excepting social media, communication material in Cantonese was not included. Note that social media freedoms are different in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong [see Luqui (2017) for the role of media censorship in Hong Kong]. A future study must undertake more exhaustive contents analysis of all governmental communication materials, including social media, press releases, and government speeches.
6. Conclusions
This study compares the modes and styles of climate change communication used by the U.K. and Hong Kong governments in order to address three research questions: 1) How do the governments communicate climate change? 2) How do the messages and methods differ between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong? 3) What can be suggested to improve their communication of climate change? Concerning question 1, both governments use similar means: policy, education, campaigns, internet, and social media, which are described in section 4 and summarized in Table 8. Addressing research question 2, these have different characteristics, and give different emphases in their climate change message. The United Kingdom is more prominent in its legally binding policy, and well-defined programs for adaptation and risk assessment, whereas Hong Kong has more effectively embedded climate change education in the school curricula and thereby its future decision-makers, and has a more centralized and consistently branded campaign, with widespread use of visual language, and increased focus on self-responsibility and behavioral change. These differences arise from the fundamentally different ways the two governments frame the problem and solutions to climate change. The U.K. approach considers climate change more a “traditional environmental problem” to which there are top-down scientific, engineering and policy responses. Contrastingly, Hong Kong approaches communication with a greater consideration of the science–society nexus and the role of personal responsibility, but without any top-down legal responsibility to undertake actions or meet targets. Accordingly, there are strong elements of best practice in both approaches, and the recommendations (research question 3) outlined in section 5b take these into account.
This novel scoping study provides an interesting and insightful reference for academics and practitioners in the fields of environment, health, communication, sociology, or psychology who are addressing climate change through better policy making and public communication. By considering climate change communication within the context of the problem of climate change inaction, governments can understand where there is scope to develop their approach to instigate action and gain insight into the effectiveness of their current materials. This study is therefore a useful resource for regional or national bodies wishing to develop climate change communication strategies. Further research should undertake questionnaires, interviews, or mixed methods to collect public feedback from the United Kingdom and Hong Kong to understand the effectiveness of government communication of climate change. It would also be pertinent to compare the methods and effectiveness between the government and other influential communicators of climate change, such as activists, green groups, scientists, or the press within the context of inaction on climate change.
Acknowledgments
This research was undertaken as part of an MSc in Public and Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Birmingham funded by a Hong Kong postgraduate scholarship awarded to Joanna Ho Yan Wong in 2018/2019. Emma Ferranti’s time is provided by EPSRC Fellowship EP/R007365/1. We are grateful for the kind and constructive comments provided by three anonymous reviewers that have undoubtedly improved the quality of this paper.
Data availability statement
This study analyzed freely available documents and text from official government websites and social media outlets. Sources of information are cited in the text.
REFERENCES
Adger, W. N., and Coauthors, 2009: Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change, 93, 335–354, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z.
Albright, K., P. Shah, M. Santodomingo, and J. Scandlyn, 2020: Dissemination of information about climate change by state and local public health departments: United States, 2019–2020. Amer. J. Public Health, 110, 1184–1190, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305723.
Anderson, A., 2011: Sources, media, and modes of climate change communication: The role of celebrities. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 2, 535–546, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.119.
Anup, K. C., 2018: Climate change communication in Nepal. Practice of Climate Change Communication, W. Leal Filho et al., Eds., Vol. 2, Handbook of Climate Change Communication, Springer, 21–35.
Ballantyne, A. G., 2016: Climate change communication: What can we learn from communication theory? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 7, 329–344, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.392.
Bateson, M. C., 2007: Education for global responsibility. Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change, S. C. Moser and L. Dilling, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 281–291.
Bingham, S., 2007: Climate change: A moral issue. Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change, S. Moser and L. Dilling, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 153–166.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke, 2006: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol., 3, 77–101, https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Brechin, S. R., and M. Bhandari, 2011: Perceptions of climate change worldwide. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 2, 871–885, https://doi.org/10.1002/WCC.146.
Bulkeley, H., and P. Newell, 2010: Governing Climate Change. Routledge, 180 pp.
CCC, 2016: UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 synthesis report: Priorities for the next five years. Committee on Climate Change Rep., 86 pp., https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/UK-CCRA-2017-Synthesis-Report-Committee-on-Climate-Change.pdf.
Chapman, D. A., A. Corner, R. Webster, and E. M. Markowitz, 2016: Climate visuals: A mixed methods investigation of public perceptions of climate images in three countries. Global Environ. Change, 41, 172–182, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.003.
Corner, A., C. Shaw, and J. Clarke, 2018: Principles for effective communication and public engagement on climate change: A handbook for IPCC authors. Climate Outreach Doc., 28 pp., https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/Climate-Outreach-IPCC-communications-handbook.pdf.
Cortese, M., 2018: Reconsidering fictional films for communicating climate change issues: An analysis of the filmmaking strategies behind sustainable energy narratives. Theory of Climate Change Communication, W. Leal Filho et al., Eds., Vol. 1, Handbook of Climate Change Communication, Springer, 123–136.
Defra, 2017: UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017. HM Government Doc., 24 pp., https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584281/uk-climate-change-risk-assess-2017.pdf.
Defra, 2018: The National Adaptation Programme and the Third Strategy for Climate Adaptation Reporting: Making the country resilient to a changing climate. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Rep., 128 pp., https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/727252/national-adaptation-programme-2018.pdf.
Department for Education, 2014: National curriculum. DfE, accessed 2 May 2020, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-curriculum.
EDB, 2017a: General studies curriculum guide for primary schools (primary 1–primary 6). Curriculum Development Council Doc., 226 pp., https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/renewal/GS/GS_KLACG_P1-6_Eng_2017.pdf.
EDB, 2017b: Science education: Key learning area curriculum guide (primary 1–secondary 6). Curriculum Development Council Doc., 188 pp., https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/renewal/SE/SE_KLACG_P1-S6_Eng_2017.pdf.
Education Scotland, 2019: Climate change and education in Scotland. Education Scotland Doc., 8 pp., https://education.gov.scot/improvement/Documents/ClimateChangeinScottishEducationBriefing140819new.pdf.
ENB, 2015: Hong Kong Climate Change Report 2015. ENB Doc., 122 pp., https://www.enb.gov.hk/sites/default/files/pdf/ClimateChangeEng.pdf.
ENB, 2017: Hong Kong Climate Action Plan 2030+. ENB Doc., 102 pp., https://www.climateready.gov.hk/files/report/en/Hong Kong_Climate_Action_Plan_2030+_booklet_En.pdf.
Ferranti, E. J. S., A. R. MacKenzie, J. G. Levine, K. Ashworth, and C. N. Hewitt, 2019: First steps in air quality for built environment practitioners. University of Birmingham & TDAG Tech. Rep., 4 pp., http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/3069/.
Flick, U., 2014: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage, 696 pp.
Green, R., 2018: How aesthetic style can influence reception of visual communications of climate change. Theory of Climate Change Communication, L. W. Filho et al., Eds., Vol. 1, Handbook of Climate Change Communication, Springer, 77–93.
HKO, 2015: Hong Kong in a warming world. Hong Kong Observatory Doc., 17 pp., https://www.hko.gov.hk/climate_change/climate_change_e.pdf.
HKO, 2019: Climate change. Hong Kong Observatory, accessed 24 April 2019, https://www.hko.gov.hk/en/climate_change/climate_change.htm.
Hulme, M., 2015: (Still) disagreeing about climate change: Which way forward? J. Religion Sci., 50, 893–905, https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12212.
IPCC, 2018: Summary for policymakers. Global Warming of 1.5°C, WMO, 32 pp., https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_SPM_version_report_LR.pdf.
Kendon, M., M. McCarthy, S. Jevrejeva, A. Matthews, and T. Legg, 2019: State of the UK climate 2018. Int. J. Climatol., 39, 1–55, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6213.
Korte, A., 2016: AAAS Pacific Division explores climate-change communication. Science, 353, 455–456, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.353.6298.455.
Leal Filho, W., E. Manolas, A. M. Azul, U. M. Azeiteiro, and H. McGhie, Eds., 2018: Theory of Climate Change Communication. Vol. 1, Handbook of Climate Change Communication, Springer, 397 pp.
Leal Filho, W., E. Manolas, A. M. Azul, U. M. Azeiteiro, and H. McGhie, Eds., 2018b: Practice of Climate Change Communication. Vol. 2, Handbook of Climate Change Communication, Springer, 419 pp.
Leal Filho, W., E. Manolas, A. M. Azul, U. M. Azeiteiro, and H. McGhie, Eds., 2018c: Case Studies in Climate Change Communication. Vol. 3, Handbook of Climate Change Communication, Springer, 398 pp.
Ledger, A., 2018: Essais. Theatre Dance Perform. Train., 9, 282–286, https://doi.org/10.1080/19443927.2018.1475161.
Lee, T. M., E. M. Markowitz, P. D. Howe, C. Y. Ko, and A. A. Leiserowitz, 2015: Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nat. Climate Change, 5, 1014–1020, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2728.
Levine, A. S., and R. Kline, 2017: A new approach for evaluating climate change communication. Climatic Change, 142, 301–309, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1952-x.
Luqiu, L. R., 2017: The elephant in the room: Media ownership and political participation in Hong Kong. Chin. J. Commun., 10, 360–376, https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2017.1371783.
Markowitz, E. M., and M. L. Guckian, 2018: Climate change communication: Challenges, insights, and opportunities. Psychology and Climate Change, S. Clayton and C. Manning, Eds., Elsevier, 35–63.
Mayer, B., 2017: Climate change mitigation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Climate Law, 7, 65–96, https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-00702001.
McLoughlin, N., A. Corner, S. Capstick, H. Richardson, A. Bell, C. Muller, and S. Illingworth, 2018: Climate communication in practice: How are we engaging the UK public on climate change? Climate Outreach Doc., 32 pp., https://theclimatecommsproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Climate-communication-in-practice.pdf.
Merriam, S. B., and E. J. Tisdell, 2015: Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. John Wiley and Sons, 368 pp.
Morris, B. S., P. Chrysochou, J. D. Christensen, J. L. Orquin, J. Barraza, P. J. Zak, and P. Mitkidis, 2019: Stories vs. facts: Triggering emotion and action-taking on climate change. Climatic Change, 154, 19–37, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02425-6.
Moser, S. C., 2010: Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 1, 31–53, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.11.
Moser, S. C., 2016: Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: What more is there to say? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 7, 345–369, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.403.
Moser, S. C., and L. Dilling, 2007: Toward the social tipping point: Creating a climate for change. Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change, S. Moser and L. Dilling, Eds., Cambridge, 516 pp.
Nachmany, M., and J. Setzer, 2018: Global trends in climate change legislation and litigation: 2018 snapshot. Grantham Research Center on Climate Change and the Environment and Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy Doc., 8 pp., https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Global-trends-in-climate-change-legislation-and-litigation-2018-snapshot-3.pdf.
Naustdalslid, J., 2011: Climate change—The challenge of translating scientific knowledge into action. Int. J. Sustainable Dev. World Ecol., 18, 243–252, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2011.572303.
Ng, M. K., 2012: A critical review of Hong Kong’s proposed climate change strategy and action agenda. Cities, 29, 88–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2011.08.001.
Noble, H., and J. Smith, 2015: Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evid. Based Nurs., 18, 34–35, https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102054.
Nursey-Bray, M., and Coauthors, 2012: Communicating climate change: Climate change risk perceptions and rock lobster fishers, Tasmania. Mar. Policy, 36, 753–759, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.10.015.
Nursey-Bray, M., R. Palmer, T. F. Smith, and P. Rist, 2019: Old ways for new days: Australian indigenous peoples and climate change. Local Environ., 24, 473–486, https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1590325.
O’Neill, S. J. and N. Smith, 2014: Climate change and visual imagery, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Climate Change, 5, 73–87, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.249.
Ojala, M., 2012: Hope and climate change: The importance of hope for environmental engagement among young people. Environ. Educ. Res., 18, 625–642, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.637157.
Pearson, A. R., M. T. Ballew, S. Naiman, and J. P. Schuldt, 2017: Race, class, gender and climate change communication. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.412.
Ponce de Leon, I. P., and C. K. Gotangco, 2018: Balancing paradigms in climate change communication research to support climate services. Theory of Climate Change Communication, L. W. Filho et al., Eds., Vol. 1, Handbook of Climate Change Communication, Springer, 187–199.
Porter, J. J., D. Demeritt, and S. Dessai, 2015: The right stuff? Informing adaptation to climate change in British local government. Global Environ. Change, 35, 411–422, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.10.004.
Pugliese, A., and J. Ray, 2009: Top-emitting countries differ on climate change threat. Gallup, accessed 22 April 2020, https://news.gallup.com/poll/124595/Top-Emitting-Countries-Differ-Climate-Change-Threat.aspx#2.
Richards, G. W., and R. C. Den Hoed, 2018. Seven strategies of climate change science communication for policy change: Combining academic theory with practical evidence from science–policy partnerships in Canada. Theory of Climate Change Communication, L. W. Filho et al., Eds., Vol. 1, Handbook of Climate Change Communication, Springer, 147–160.
Ritchie, H., 2018: Who emits more than their share of CO2 emissions? Our World in Data, University of Oxford Oxford Martin Programme on Global Development, accessed 22 April 2020, https://ourworldindata.org/share-co2-emissions.
Rudiak-Gould, P., 2012: Promiscuous corroboration and climate change translation: A case study from the Marshall Islands. Global Environ. Change, 22, 46–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.011.
Rühlemann, A., and J. C. Jordan, 2021: Risk perception and culture: Implications for vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Disasters, https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12429, in press.
Sanina, A., A. Balashov, M. Rubtcova, and D. M. Satinsky, 2017: The effectiveness of communication channels in government and business communication. Inf. Polity: Int. J. Gov. Democracy Inf. Age, 22, 251–267, https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170415.
Schweizer, S., J. L. Thompson, T. Teel, and B. Bruyere, 2009: Strategies for communicating about climate change impacts on public lands. Sci. Commun., 31, 266–274, https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009352971.
SDC, 2019: Long-Term Decarbonisation Strategy: Public engagement. Council for Sustainable Development Doc., 56 pp., https://www.susdev.org.hk/download/pe_document_e.pdf.
Spencer, S., 2011: Visual Research Methods in the Social Sciences: Awakening Visions. Routledge, 296 pp.
Wang, B., and Q. Zhou, 2020: Climate change in the Chinese mind: An overview of public perceptions at macro and micro levels. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 11, e639, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.639.
Welford, R., 2008: Climate change challenges for Hong Kong: An agenda for adaptation. CSR Asia and Hong Kong University Doc., 14 pp., https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/24460873/climate-change-challenges-for-hong-kong-an-agenda-csr-asia.
Wibeck, V., 2014: Enhancing learning, communication and public engagement about climate change—Some lessons from recent literature. Environ. Educ. Res., 20, 387–411, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.812720.
World Population Review, 2020: High income countries. Accessed 22 April 2020, http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/high-income-countries/.
