A growing body of research indicates that effective science-policy interactions demand novel approaches, especially in policy domains with long time horizons like climate change. Serious games offer promising opportunities in this regard, but empirical research on game effects and games’ effectiveness in supporting science-policy engagement remains limited. We investigated the effects of a role-playing simulation game on risk perceptions associated with climate tipping points among a knowledgeable and engaged audience of non-governmental observers of the international climate negotiations and scientists. We analysed its effects on concern, perceived seriousness, perceived likelihood and psychological distance of tipping points, using pre- and post-game surveys, debriefing questions and game observations. Our findings suggest that the game reduced the psychological distance of tipping points, rendering them more ‘real’, proximate and tangible for participants. More generally, our findings indicate that role-playing simulation games, depending on their design and future orientation, can provide effective science-policy engagement tools that allow players to engage in future thinking and corresponding meaning making.

Although the scientific community has reached a consensus that anthropogenic climate change is a severe and pressing issue, climate change remains a contentious debate with the United States public. Through a survey (N = 273), we explored climate professionals' perspectives on their role and responsibility to promote climate change adaptation/mitigation strategies related to agroecosystems. They believed that climate professionals have a social responsibility to provide scientific input to both policymakers and the public. There was strong agreement that media, political, and public support is necessary for development, and near unanimous agreement for implementation, of climate change mitigation/adaptation strategies. This study highlights the climate professionals' perceptions of their responsibility to provide scientific input, but also demonstrates that they believe the responsibility does not rest solely on their shoulders. Further research should explore scientists' perceptions of their and others' policy roles and scientists' interactions with different influencers of adaptation/mitigation policy.

The United States media does not consistently associate natural hazards and the effects of climate change. Media messages about climate change can influence readers’ perceptions of and reactions to climate risk, and analysis of media messages in various news outlets can have important implications for the beliefs readers hold. We investigate how newspaper characteristics (political orientation, elite status, and proximity to a 2017 hurricane) correspond to the presence, accuracy, and content of climate change coverage occurring in the context of natural hazard articles. We performed a content analysis of hurricane coverage in six US newspapers. The 1057 articles identified from nine constructed week samples were coded for references to climate change, climate denial perspectives, and presentations of climate change consensus and for the use of proximity cues indicating the relative nearness or distance of climate impacts to US readers. Whenever reference to climate change occurred (26.7% of all articles analyzed), all newspapers accurately documented changing trends related to climate change. The conservative newspaper near a 2017 hurricane differed significantly from the other conservative newspapers in frequency of articles explicitly referencing climate change, as well as reference to climate change denial, climate change consensus, and use of proximal and distal proximity cues. This suggests that partisan norms around climate change coverage may be influenced by immediate proximity to a climate-related natural hazard.

The 2012 Midwestern US drought resulted in major impacts to farmers and the public. Extreme events like drought will continue in the future due to climate change. We studied how the elite national press-New York Times (NYT) and Wall Street Journal (WSJ)-covered the 2012 Midwestern drought, how climate change was addressed, and how NYT and WSJ articles differed from each other and agricultural trade publication (ATP) article coverage before, during, and after the drought. A previous study found that ATP articles emphasized short-term drought recovery efforts. We suggest this emphasis was exacerbated by how drought and climate change were reported in the national media. Few articles discussed climate change in all publication types. Most articles that did cover climate change did not attribute a cause; however, over half of NYT articles mentioned human-caused climate change. WSJ and ATP articles had more content similarities than NYT articles. Overall, climate change discussions in all publication types were related to personal impacts. Climate change reporting in the WSJ and NYT was broad. ATP climate change reporting related to weather conditions in relation to farm resilience. Focusing on impacts and recovery may have attenuated risk perceptions. We contend that communication should recognize human-caused climate change and increased likelihood of weather extremes.