Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering

Climatic Change

Volumn 130, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 425-438

  Corner, Adam ^a,b   Pidgeon, Nick ^a,b  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b TYNDALL CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE MODELS;

EMPIRICAL TEST; GENERAL PUBLICS; GEOENGINEERING; NATURAL PROCESS; ON-LINE EXPERIMENTS; PUBLIC ATTITUDES; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

EID: 84930045657     PISSN: 01650009     EISSN: 15731480     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-014-1148-6     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Bain PG, Hornsey MJ, Bongiorno R, Jeffries C (2012) Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nat Clim Chang 2:600–603
2. Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2012) A review of climate geoengineering appraisals. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 3(6). doi:10.1002/wcc.197
3. Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan N, Lenton T (2013) ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate change. Glob Environ Chang. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.011
4. Belter C, Seidel D (2013) A bibliometric analysis of climate geoengineering research. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 4:417–427
5. Benford RD, Snow DA (2000) Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annu Rev Sociol 26:611–639
6. Boucher O et al (2014) Rethinking climate engineering categorization in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation. WIREs Clim Chang 5:23–35
7. Cairns R (2013) Examining framings of geoengineering using Q methodology. Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Paper Series: 002
8. Carr W, Mercer A, Palmer C (2012) Public concerns about the ethics of solar radiation management. In: Preston CJ (ed) Engineering the climate: the ethics of solar radiation management. Lexington Books, Lahham, pp 169–186
9. Cobb M (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27:221–237
10. Corner A, Markowitz E, Pidgeon N (2014) Public engagement with climate change: the role of human values. WIREs Clim Chang. doi:10.1002/wcc.269
11. Corner A, Pidgeon NF (2010) Geoengineering the climate: the social and ethical implications. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 52:24–37
12. Corner A, Pidgeon N (2012) Nanotechnologies and upstream public engagement: dilemmas, debates & prospects. In: Mohr J, Herr Harthorn B (eds) The social life of nanotechnology. Routledge, New York
13. Corner A, Pidgeon N, Parkhill K (2012) Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives & the challenge of ‘upstream’ engagement. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 3:451–466
14. Corner AJ, Parkhill K, Pidgeon NF, Vaughan NE (2013) Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Glob Environ Chang. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.06.002
15. Druckman JN (2001) On the limits of framing effects: who can frame? J Polit 63(4):1041–1066
16. Fiorino D (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 15:226–243
17. Gardiner SM (2011) Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: a commentary on the values of the royal society report. Environ Values 20:163–188
18. Hamilton C (2013) Earthmasters: the dawn of the age of climate engineering. Yale University Press, New Haven
19. Hartz-Karp J (2007) How and why deliberative democracy enables co-intelligence and brings wisdom to governance. J Public Deliberation 3:1–9
20. Hauser G (1999) Vernacular voices: the rhetoric of publics and public spheres. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia
21. Heyward C (2013) Situating and abandoning geoengineering: a typology of five responses to dangerous climate change. Polit Sci Polit 46(1):23–27
22. Kahan D (2012) Why we are poles apart on climate change. Nature 488(7411):255
23. Kahan D, Jenkins-Smith H, Tarantola T, Silva CL, Braman D (2012) Geoengineering and the science communication environment: a cross-cultural experiment. Cultural Cognition Working Paper 92
24. Kearnes M, Grove-White R, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J, Wynne B (2006) From bio to nano: learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy. Sci Cult 15(4):291–307
25. Luokkanen M, Huttunen S, Hildén M et al (2013) Geoengineering, news media and metaphors: framing the controversial. Public Underst Sci. doi:10.1177/0963662513475966
26. Macnaghten P (2010) Researching technoscientific concerns in the making: narrative structures, public responses, and emerging nanotechnologies. Environ Plan A 42:23–37
27. Macnaghten P, Szerszynski B (2013) Living the global social experiment: an analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Glob Environ Chang 23:465–474
28. Macnaghten P, Urry J (1998) Contested natures. Sage publications, London
29. Markusson N et al (2013) Bounding boundaries: the construction of geoengineering on wikipedia. Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Paper Series: 005
30. Markusson N, Ginn F, Ghaleigh N, Scott V (2013b) ‘In case of emergency press here’: framing geoengineering as a response to dangerous climate change. WIREs Clim Chang. doi:10.1002/wcc.263
31. Mercer AM, Keith D, Sharp JD (2011) Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ Res Lett 6(4). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/049001
32. Morton TA, Rabinovich A, Marshall T, Bretschneider P (2011) The future that may (or may not) come: how framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Glob Environ Chang 21(1):103–109
33. Nerlich B, Jaspal R (2012) Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor Symb 27(2):131–147
34. Nisbet MC, Brossard D, Kroepsch A (2003) Framing science: the stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Press/Politics 8:36–70
35. Parkhill KA, Pidgeon NF, Corner A, Vaughan N (2013) Deliberation and responsible innovation: a geoengineering case study’. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation. Wiley, London, pp 219–239
36. Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T (2009) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nanotechnol 4:95–98
37. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2007) Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering inquiry. Public Underst Sci 16:346–364
38. Pidgeon N, Parkhill KA, Corner A, Vaughan N (2013) Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering: the case of the UK SPICE project. Nat Clim Chang. http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nclimate1807
39. Pope FD, Braesicke P, Grainger R, Kalberer M, Watson IM, Davidson P, Cox R (2012) Stratospheric aerosol particles and solar radiation management. Nat Clim Chang 2:713–719
40. Porter K, Hulme M (2013) The emergence of the geoengineering debate in the UK print media: a frame analysis. The Geographical Journal
41. Preston C (2012) Beyond the end of nature: SRM and two tales of artificiality for the anthropocene. Ethics Policy Environ 15(2):188–201
42. Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. science policy centre report 10/09. The Royal Society, London
43. Scholte S, Vasileiadou E, Petersen AC (2013) Opening up the societal debate on climate engineering: how newspaper frames are changing. J Integr Environ Sci. doi:10.1080/1943815X.2012.759593
44. Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna MP (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 25. Academic, San Diego, pp 1–65
45. Sikka T (2012) A critical discourse analysis of geoengineering advocacy. Crit Discourse Stud 9(2):163–175
46. Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London
47. Stilgoe J (2011) A question of intent. Nat Clim Chang 1:325–326
48. Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2014) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42:1568–1580
49. Stirling A (2008) Opening up and closing down: power, participation and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 33:262–294
50. Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2011) A review of climate geoengineering proposals. Clim Chang 109:745–790
51. Walls J, Rogers-Hayden T, Mohr A, O’Riordan T (2005) Seeking citizens’ views on GM Crops—experiences from the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Environment 47(7):22–36
52. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London
53. Whitmarsh L (2011) Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: dimensions, determinants and change over time. Glob Environ Chang 21(2):690–700