Climate communication is a thriving research area spanning science, social science, and humanities. The field has grown explosively in recent years, necessitating increased efforts to synthesize and make sense of the resulting profusion of studies. To support scholars navigating this quickly evolving knowledge domain, we developed a knowledge map of the climate communication research landscape by applying network analysis and data visualization techniques to the metadata from 2995 publications on climate communication. The map reveals a dense web of connections among five distinct knowledge communities, indicating a tightly knit and intensely collaborative knowledge domain, and suggests new avenues for the application of climate communication knowledge, in particular to support climate services and co-production. The climate communication knowledge map answers the call for synoptic perspectives on areas of science communication while demonstrating a novel visual approach to knowledge synthesis for science communication domains.
AndrésA (2009) Measuring Academic Research: How to Undertake a Bibliometric Study. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
2.
ArchambaultÉVignola-GagnéÉCôtéGLarivièreVGingrasbY (2006) Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics68(3): 329–342.
3.
AsmiFAnwarMAZhouRWangDSajjadA (2019) Social aspects of “climate change communication” in the 21st century: A bibliometric view. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management62(14): 2393–2417.
BaggioJABrownKHellebrandtD (2015) Boundary object or bridging concept? A citation network analysis of resilience. Ecology and Society20(2): 2.
6.
BallantyneAG (2016) Climate change communication: What can we learn from communication theory?Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change7(3): 329–344.
7.
Baram-TsabariALewensteinBV (2017) Science communication training: What are we trying to teach?International Journal of Science Education, Part B7(3): 285–300.
8.
Baram-TsabariAWolfsonOYosefRChapnikNBrillASegevE (2020) Jargon use in Public Understanding of Science papers over three decades. Public Understanding of Science29: 644–654.
9.
BartelsW-LFurmanCADiehlDCRoyceFSDourteDROrtizBV, et al. (2013) Warming up to climate change: A participatory approach to engaging with agricultural stakeholders in the Southeast US. Regional Environmental Change13(1): 45–55.
10.
BastianMHeymannSJacomyM (2009) Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In: Third international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (ed AdarEHurstMFininTGlanceNNicolovNTsengB), San Jose, CA, 17–20 May, pp. 361–362. Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
11.
BelterCWSeidelDJ (2013) A bibliometric analysis of climate engineering research. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change4(5): 417–427.
12.
BlondelVDGuillaumeJ-LLambiotteRLefebvreE (2008) Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2008(10): P10008.
13.
BrownMEIhliMHendrickODelgado-AriasSEscobarVMGriffithP (2016) Social network and content analysis of the North American Carbon Program as a scientific community of practice. Social Networks44: 226–237.
14.
BurtRS (2000) The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior22: 345–423.
15.
CagleLETilleryD (2015) Climate change research across disciplines: The value and uses of multidisciplinary research reviews for technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly24(2): 147–163.
16.
ChenC (2016) CiteSpace: A Practical Guide for Mapping Scientific Literature. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
17.
ChenCDubinRSchultzT (2014) Science mapping. In: Khosrow-PourM (ed.) Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 271–284.
18.
ComfortSEParkYE (2018) On the field of environmental communication: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature. Environmental Communication12(7): 862–875.
19.
CookBROverpeckJT (2019) Relationship-building between climate scientists and publics as an alternative to information transfer. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change10: e570.
20.
CornerAClarkeJ (2017) Talking Climate: From Research to Practice in Public Engagement. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
CouclelisH (1998) Worlds of information: The geographic metaphor in the visualization of complex information. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems25(4): 209–220.
22.
De NooyWMrvarABatageljV (2005) Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
De Solla PriceDJ (1963) Little Science, Big Science. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
24.
DonkorFKHaworthCEbhuomaEDalyMVaughanCPretoriusL, et al. (2019) Climate services and communication for development: The role of early career researchers in advancing the debate. Environmental Communication13(5): 561–566.
FabrikantSI (2000) Spatialized browsing in large data archives. Transactions in GIS4(1): 65–78.
27.
FabrikantSIMontelloDRMarkDM (2010) The natural landscape metaphor in information visualization: The role of commonsense geomorphology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology61(2): 253–270.
28.
FischhoffB (2011) Applying the science of communication to the communication of science. Climatic Change108(4): 701–705.
29.
FüchslinT (2019) Science communication scholars use more and more segmentation analyses: Can we take them to the next level?Public Understanding of Science28(7): 854–864.
30.
GarfieldE (1955) Citation indexes for science. Science122(3159): 108–111.
31.
GerberABroksPGabrielMLorenzLLorkeJMertenW, et al. (2020) Science communication research: An empirical field analysis. Report, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Bonn.
32.
HagbergAASchultDASwartPJ (2008) Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using networkx. In: Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference (ed VaroquauxGVaughtTMillmanJ), Pasadena, CA, 21 August, pp. 11–16. Pasadena: SciPy.
33.
HenryADVollanB (2014) Networks and the challenge of sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources39(1): 583–610.
34.
HepworthKJCanonC (2018) Improving science students’ data visualizations: A STEAM-based approach. Dialectic2(1): 51–78.
35.
HuoFXuLLiYFamigliettiJSLiZKajikawaY, et al. (2021) Using big data analytics to synthesize research domains and identify emerging fields in urban climatology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change12(1): e688.
36.
JensenEAGerberA (2020) Evidence-based science communication. Frontiers in Communication4: 78.
37.
JohnsonBB (2012) Climate change communication: A provocative inquiry into motives, meanings, and means. Risk Analysis32(6): 973–991.
38.
KahanDM (2014) Making climate—science communication evidence—based—All the way down. In: CrowDBoykoffM (eds) Culture, Politics and Climate Change. London: Routledge, pp. 203–220.
39.
KajikawaYOhnoJTakedaYMatsushimaKKomiyamaH (2007) Creating an academic landscape of sustainability science: An analysis of the citation network. Sustainability Science2(2): 221–231.
40.
KrukMCParkerBMarraJJWernerKHeimRVoseR, et al. (2017) Engaging with users of climate information and the coproduction of knowledge. Weather, Climate, and Society9(4): 839–849.
41.
LambiotteRPanzarasaP (2009) Communities, knowledge creation, and information diffusion. Journal of Informetrics3(3): 180–190.
42.
LarosaFMysiakJ (2019) Mapping the landscape of climate services. Environmental Research Letters14(9): 093006.
43.
LemosMEakinHDillingLWorlJ (2019) Social sciences, weather and climate change. Meteorological Monographs59: 26.1–26.25.
44.
LindenfeldLHallDMMcGreavyBSilkaLHartD (2012) Creating a place for environmental communication research in sustainability science. Environmental Communication6(1): 23–43.
45.
LindenfeldLSmithHMNortonTGrecuNC (2014) Risk communication and sustainability science: Lessons from the field. Sustainability Science9(2): 119–127.
46.
McLeveyJMcIlroy-YoungR (2017) Introducing metaknowledge: Software for computational research in information science, network analysis, and science of science. Journal of Informetrics11(1): 176–197.
47.
MellorFDaviesSRBellAR (2008) Introduction: “Solverating the Problematising.” In: BellARMellorFDaviesSR (eds) Science and Its Publics. London: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 1–14.
48.
MilaniERidgwayAWilkinsonCWeitkampE (2019) Deliverable 1.1 Scoping report on the science communication ecosystem. Report, RETHINK SciComm, EU, September.
49.
MoserSC (2010) Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change1(1): 31–53.
50.
MoserSC (2016) Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: What more is there to say?Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change7(3): 345–369.
51.
NakamuraMPendelburyDSchnellJSzomszorM (2019) Navigating the structure of research on sustainable development goals. Report, Institute for Scientific Information: Web of Science Group, Philadelphia, PA, April.
52.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2017) Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Report, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
53.
NealZPNealJWLawlorJAMillsKJ (2015) Small worlds or worlds apart? Using network theory to understand the research-practice gap. Psychosocial Intervention24(3): 177–184.
54.
NerlichBKoteykoNBrownB (2010) Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change1(1): 97–110.
55.
NewmanME (2003) The structure and function of complex networks. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Review45(2): 167–256.
56.
NewmanMEJ (2006) Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences103(23): 8577–8582.
57.
PetersHP (2020) Editorial: Update of our “aims and scope” and “submission guidelines.”Public Understanding of Science29(4): 368–375.
58.
Ponce de LeonICotangcoCK (2018) Balancing paradigms in climate change communication research to support climate services. In: Leal FilhoWManolasEAzulAAzeiteiroUMMcGhieH (eds) Handbook of Climate Change Communication: Vol. 1. Climate Change Management. Cham: Springer, pp. 187–199.
59.
SidersAR (2019) Adaptive capacity to climate change: A synthesis of concepts, methods, and findings in a fragmented field. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change10(3): e573.
60.
SmithB (2020) A metro for science communication: Building effective infrastructure to support scientists’ public engagement. In: NewmanTP (ed.) Theory and Best Practices in Science Communication Training. London: Routledge, pp. 154–165.
61.
SuerdemABauerMWHowardSRubyL (2013) PUS in turbulent times II—A shifting vocabulary that brokers inter-disciplinary knowledge. Public Understanding of Science22(1): 2–15.
62.
TangM-CChengYJChenKH (2017) A longitudinal study of intellectual cohesion in digital humanities using bibliometric analyses. Scientometrics113(2): 985–1008.
63.
TrenchBBucchiM (2015) Science communication research over 50 years: Patterns and trends. In: SchieleBLe MarecJBarangerP (eds) Science Communication Today – 2015: Current Strategies and Means of Action. Nancy: PUN-Éditions universitaires de Lorraine, pp. 15–27.
64.
WangZZhaoYWangB (2018) A bibliometric analysis of climate change adaptation based on massive research literature data. Journal of Cleaner Production199: 1072–1082.
65.
WhiteHDMcCainKW (1998) Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science49(4): 327–355.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
