This study employs Q methodology to identify responses to wildfire imagery and climate change concern. Using photographs shared on Twitter during California’s 2018 Camp Fire, findings reveal three different perspectives on what images evoked the most concern among individuals: catastrophic destruction, smokescapes, and human or animal suffering. Results also reveal the images that evoke the least concern, such as scenes of aid and support and officials’ rescue meetings. These results extend literature on the role of visuals in climate change communication and have implications for the selection of images that appeal to the various perspectives of the broader public.
AliA.MahmoodS. (2013). Photojournalism and disaster: Case study of visual coverage of flood 2010 in national newspapers. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(9), Article 168.
2.
AltinayZ.WilliamsN. (2019). Visuals as a method of coastal environmental communication. Ocean & Coastal Management, 178, Article 104809.
3.
BanasickS. (2019). KADE: A desktop application for Q methodology. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(36), Article 1360.
4.
Beckham HooffS.BotetzagiasI.KizosA. (2017). Seeing the wind (farm): Applying q-methodology to understand the public’s reception of the visuals around a wind farm development. Environmental Communication, 11(5), 700–722.
BloodhartB.MaibachE.MyersT.ZhaoX. (2015). Local climate experts: The influence of local TV weather information on climate change perceptions. PLOS ONE, 10(11), Article e0141526.
7.
BrownS. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press.
8.
BrownS. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16(3/4), 91–138.
9.
ChanH. W.TamK. P. (2020). Exploring the association between climate change concern and mitigation behaviour between societies: A person-context interaction approach. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 24(2), 184–197.
10.
ChapmanD. A.CornerA.WebsterR.MarkowitzE. M. (2016). Climate visuals: A mixed methods investigation of public perceptions of climate images in three countries. Global Environmental Change, 41, 172–182.
11.
ChurchillS.PaveyL.JessopD.SparksP. (2016). Persuading people to drink less alcohol: The role of message framing, temporal focus and autonomy. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 51(6), 727–733.
12.
ClingermanF.EhretV. M. (2013). Hope and fear: The theological side of framing environmental change. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 16(2), 152–155.
13.
CordnerA.SchwartzE. (2019). Covering wildfires: Media emphasis and silence after the Carlton and Okanogan complex wildfires. Society & Natural Resources, 32(5), 489–507.
14.
CornellJ. D.Quintas-SorianoC.RunningK.CastroA. J. (2019). Examining concern about climate change and local environmental changes from an ecosystem service perspective in the Western U.S. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 221–231.
15.
CornerA.WebsterR.TerieteC. (2015). Climate visuals: Seven principles for visual climate change communication (based on international social research). Climate Outreach.
16.
CrowD. A.BerggrenJ.LawhonL. A.KoebeleE. A.KroepschA.HudaJ. (2017). Local media coverage of wildfire disasters: An analysis of problems and solutions in policy narratives. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(5), 849–871.
17.
DuanR.TakahashiB.ZwickleA. (2019). Abstract or concrete? The effect of climate change images on people’s estimation of egocentric psychological distance. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 828–844.
18.
FeldmanL.HartP. S. (2018). Is there any hope? How climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. Risk Analysis, 38(3), 585–602.
19.
GilletteS.TaylorJ.ChavezD.HodgsonR.DowningJ. (2007). Citizen journalism in a time of crisis: Lessons from California wildfires. Electronic Journal of Communication, 17(3/4). http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/017/3/01731.HTML
20.
GonzalezP.GarfinG.BreshearsD.BroksK.EliasE.HuntlyN.MaldonadoJ. K.MantuaN. J.MargolisH. G.McAfeeS.MiddletonB. R.UdallB. (2018). The fourth national climate assessment, Chapter 25: Southwest. https://www.essoar.org/doi/pdf/10.1002/essoar.10500376.1
21.
HartP. S.LeiserowitzA. A. (2009). Finding the teachable moment: An analysis of information-seeking behavior on global warming related websites during the release of the day after tomorrow. Environmental Communication, 3(3), 355–366.
22.
HartP. S.NisbetE. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
23.
HarveyB. J. (2016). Human-caused climate change is now a key driver of forest fire activity in the western United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(42), 11649–11650.
24.
HepworthK. J. (2016). History, power, and visual communication artifacts. Rethinking History, 20(2), 280–302.
25.
HineD. W.PhillipsW. J.CookseyR.ReserJ. P.NunnP.MarksA. D.LoiN. M.WattS. E. (2016). Preaching to different choirs: How to motivate dismissive, uncommitted, and alarmed audiences to adapt to climate change?Global Environmental Change, 36, 1–11.
26.
HopeM. (2020). Australia burning. The Lancet Planetary Health, 4(1), e12–e13.
27.
HopkeJ. E.HestresL. E. (2018). Visualizing the Paris climate talks on Twitter: Media and climate stakeholder visual social media during COP21. Social Media + Society, 4(3), 1–15.
28.
HoustonJ. B.HawthorneJ.PerreaultM. F.ParkE. H.Goldstein HodeM.HalliwellM. R.Turner McGowenS. E.DavisR.VaidS.McElderryJ. A.GriffithS. A. (2015). Social media and disasters: A functional framework for social media use in disaster planning, response, and research. Disasters, 39(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12092
29.
JaspalR.NerlichB. (2014). Fracking in the U.K. press: Threat dynamics in an unfolding debate. Public Understanding of Science, 23(3), 348–363.
30.
JerryA.AtienoL. (2016). Climate change images in Kenya’s news photographic representations. International Journal of Weather, Climate Change and Conservation Research, 2(2), 1–11.
31.
KainD.CoviM. (2013). Visualizing complexity and uncertainty about climate change and sea level rise. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 1(3), 46–53.
32.
LidskogR.JohanssonJ.SjödinD. (2019). Wildfires, responsibility and trust: Public understanding of Sweden’s largest wildfire. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 34(4), 319–328.
33.
LoweT.BrownK.DessaiS.de França DoriaM.HaynesK.VincentK. (2006). Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 15(4), 435–457.
34.
MaesA. (2017). The visual divide. Nature Climate Change, 7(4), 231–233.
35.
McKeownB.ThomasD. (1988). Q methodology. SAGE.
36.
McKeownB.ThomasD. B. (2013). Q methodology (vol. 66). SAGE.
37.
MetagJ.SchäferM. S.FüchslinT.BarsuhnT.Kleinen-von KönigslöwK. (2016). Perceptions of climate change imagery: Evoked salience and self-efficacy in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Science Communication, 38(2), 197–227.
38.
MortensenT. M.HullK.BolingK. S. (2017). Really social disaster: An examination of photo sharing on twitter during the #SCFlood. Visual Communication Quarterly, 24(4), 219–229.
39.
NostE.RobertsonM.LaveR. (2019). Q-method and the performance of subjectivity: Reflections from a survey of U.S. stream restoration practitioners. Geoforum, 105, 23–31.
40.
O’NeillS. J. (2013). Image matters: Climate change imagery in U.S., U.K. and Australian newspapers. Geoforum, 49, 10–19.
41.
O’NeillS. J.BoykoffM.NiemeyerS.DayS. A. (2013). On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 413–421.
42.
O’NeillS. J.Nicholson-ColeS. (2009). “Fear won’t do it” promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355–379.
43.
PaveglioT.NortonT.CarrollM. S. (2011). Fanning the flames? Media coverage during wildfire events and its relation to broader societal understandings of the hazard. Human Ecology Review, 18(1), 41–52.
44.
Pew Research Center. (2019). Sizing up Twitter users.
45.
PourebrahimN.SultanaS.EdwardsJ.GochanourA.MohantyS. (2019). Understanding communication dynamics on Twitter during natural disasters: A case study of hurricane sandy. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 37, Article 101176.
46.
RauchfleischA.ArthoX.MetagJ.PostS.SchäferM. S. (2017). How journalists verify user-generated content during terrorist crises. Analyzing Twitter communication during the Brussels attacks. Social Media + Society, 3(3), 1–13.
47.
Rebich-HespanhaS.RiceR. E. (2016). Climate and sustainability —Dominant visual frames in climate change news stories: Implications for formative evaluation in climate change campaigns. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4830–4862.
48.
RetchlessD. P. (2018). Understanding local sea level rise risk perceptions and the power of maps to change them: The effects of distance and doubt. Environment and Behavior, 50(5), 483–511.
49.
RichardsD. P. (2018). Not a cape, but a life preserver: The importance of designer localization in interactive sea level rise viewers. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 6(2), 57–69.
50.
RoseG. (2016). Visual methodologies. SAGE.
51.
SchrothO.AngelJ.SheppardS.DulicA. (2014). Visual climate change communication: From iconography to locally framed 3D visualization. Environmental Communication, 8(4), 413–432.
52.
SchultzT.FieldingK.NewtonF. (2018). Images that engage people with sustainable urban water management. Science Communication, 40(2), 199–227.
53.
SeltzerE. K.JeanN.Kramer-GolinkoffE.AschD. A.MerchantR. (2015). The content of social media’s shared images about Ebola: A retrospective study. Public Health, 129(9), 1273–1277.
54.
SkurkaC.NiederdeppeJ.Romero-CanyasR.AcupD. (2018). Pathways of influence in emotional appeals: Benefits and tradeoffs of using fear or humor to promote climate change-related intentions and risk perceptions. Journal of Communication, 68(1), 169–193.
55.
SneegasG. (2020). Making the case for critical Q methodology. The Professional Geographer, 72(1), 78–87.
56.
StevensonK.PetersonN. (2016). Motivating action through fostering climate change hope and concern and avoiding despair among adolescents. Sustainability, 8(1), Article 6.
57.
Takács-SántaA. (2007). Barriers to environmental concern. Human Ecology Review, 14(1), 26–38.
58.
ThomasD.ButryD.GilbertS.WebbD.FungJ. (2017). The costs and losses of wildfires. NIST Special Publication, 1215(11). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1215
59.
Van der LindenS.MaibachE.LeiserowitzA. (2015). Improving public engagement with climate change: Five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 758–763.
WalshL. (2015). The visual rhetoric of climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(4), 361–368.
63.
WangS.CornerA.ChapmanD.MarkowitzE. (2018). Public engagement with climate imagery in a changing digital landscape. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(2), Article e509.
