Beyond the sheltering academic silo: Norms for scientists' participation in policy.

Over the past 75 years, the relationship between science and policy has been transformed as U.S. government priorities shifted from basic research post-World War II toward scientific knowledge that contributes to societal decision-making and spurs innovation. These macrolevel forces have restructured the landscape in which scientists interact with policymakers, creating new norms for their involvement in policy. This chapter focuses specifically on legislatures as one of the most consequential fora for policy decisions, but also hyperpolitical because of its representative function in democracies. In interviews, legislative staff in the U.S. Congress, who serve as gatekeepers for the flow of policy-relevant information, embrace a wide range of norms for scientists' involvement, but they also cite concerns about the effects of redefining these boundaries on scientists' authority. Researchers and their institutions should be aware of these broad trends in conceptualizing and strategizing their approaches to societal impact.

Climate and health concerns of Montana's public and environmental health professionals: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Rural health professionals stand at the forefront of community response to climate change, but few studies have assessed their perceptions of the threat. Further, no previous study has compared the opinions of environmental to public health professionals or extensively analyzed the factors related to these experts' climate beliefs, risk perceptions, and issue prioritization. METHODS: In conjunction with the Montana Climate Assessment's 2021 Special Report on Climate Change and Human Health, the 479 members of the Montana Public Health Association and Montana Environmental Health Association were surveyed during September-October 2019, with 39% completing the survey. We summarized descriptive data about their perceptions of local climate-related changes and their beliefs that global warming is happening, is mostly human-caused, is a risk to human health, and that their offices and others should take action. We also evaluated which sociodemographic and risk perception factors related to these climate beliefs, risk perceptions, and workplace issue prioritization. RESULTS: Health professionals in Montana, a politically conservative state, demonstrated high levels of awareness that global warming is happening, human-caused, and a threat to human health, well above reported rates of public concern. Eighty-eight percent said that global warming is occurring and 69% that it is mostly anthropogenic. Sixty-nine percent said that their own health was already affected by climate, and 86% said they were already seeing at least one climate change-related event in their communities. Seventy-two percent said that their departments should be preparing to deal with climate change's health effects, but just 30% said that it is currently happening. We found no statistically significant differences between Montana environmental health and public health professionals in regression models predicting climate beliefs, risk perception, and prioritization. As in studies of the public, political ideology and the observation of local climate-related changes were the strongest factors. CONCLUSIONS: Montana environmental and public health officials said that departmental action was needed on climate change, indicating the readiness of rural health professionals to take action. Further studies of health professionals in rural regions are warranted.

Governmental Communication of Climate Change Risk and Efficacy: Moving Audiences Toward "Danger Control".

Public communication represents a vital civic function for governments developing climate policies, particularly with vulnerable communities under environmental justice mandates. In this study, three videos developed to support a state's climate change public engagement are used to evaluate how governmental communication using the frames of health, science, and local effects influences two theoretically important constructs, risk perception and collective efficacy. Vulnerable audiences differentiated by stress, perceived lack of control, and poor health demonstrate significant gains in collective efficacy relative to risk-"danger control" -after the intervention. But we find no differences between the three frames in their effects on perceptions of climate change risk and collective efficacy.

Vulnerable Populations Perceive Their Health as at Risk from Climate Change.

Climate change is already taking a toll on human health, a toll that is likely to increase in coming decades. The relationship between risk perceptions and vulnerability to climate change's health threats has received little attention, even though an understanding of the dynamics of adaptation among particularly susceptible populations is becoming increasingly important. We demonstrate that some people whose health will suffer the greatest harms from climate change-due to social vulnerability, health susceptibility, and exposure to hazards-already feel they are at risk. In a 2013 survey we measured Maryland residents' climate beliefs, health risk perceptions, and household social vulnerability characteristics, including medical conditions (n = 2126). We paired survey responses with secondary data sources for residence in a floodplain and/or urban heat island to predict perceptions of personal and household climate health risk. General health risk perceptions, political ideology, and climate beliefs are the strongest predictors. Yet, people in households with the following characteristics also see themselves at higher risk: members with one or more medical conditions or disabilities; low income; racial/ethnic minorities; and residence in a floodplain. In light of these results, climate health communication among vulnerable populations should emphasize protective actions instead of risk messages.

Public perceptions of climate change as a human health risk: surveys of the United States, Canada and Malta.

We used data from nationally representative surveys conducted in the United States, Canada and Malta between 2008 and 2009 to answer three questions: Does the public believe that climate change poses human health risks, and if so, are they seen as current or future risks? Whose health does the public think will be harmed? In what specific ways does the public believe climate change will harm human health? When asked directly about the potential impacts of climate change on health and well-being, a majority of people in all three nations said that it poses significant risks; moreover, about one third of Americans, one half of Canadians, and two-thirds of Maltese said that people are already being harmed. About a third or more of people in the United States and Canada saw themselves (United States, 32%; Canada, 67%), their family (United States, 35%; Canada, 46%), and people in their community (United States, 39%; Canada, 76%) as being vulnerable to at least moderate harm from climate change. About one third of Maltese (31%) said they were most concerned about the risk to themselves and their families. Many Canadians said that the elderly (45%) and children (33%) are at heightened risk of harm, while Americans were more likely to see people in developing countries as being at risk than people in their own nation. When prompted, large numbers of Canadians and Maltese said that climate change can cause respiratory problems (78-91%), heat-related problems (75-84%), cancer (61-90%), and infectious diseases (49-62%). Canadians also named sunburn (79%) and injuries from extreme weather events (73%), and Maltese cited allergies (84%). However, climate change appears to lack salience as a health issue in all three countries: relatively few people answered open-ended questions in a manner that indicated clear top-of-mind associations between climate change and human health risks. We recommend mounting public health communication initiatives that increase the salience of the human health consequences associated with climate change.

Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an exploratory study of public reactions.

BACKGROUND: Climate change is taking a toll on human health, and some leaders in the public health community have urged their colleagues to give voice to its health implications. Previous research has shown that Americans are only dimly aware of the health implications of climate change, yet the literature on issue framing suggests that providing a novel frame--such as human health--may be potentially useful in enhancing public engagement. We conducted an exploratory study in the United States of people's reactions to a public health-framed short essay on climate change. METHODS: U.S. adult respondents (n = 70), stratified by six previously identified audience segments, read the essay and were asked to highlight in green or pink any portions of the essay they found "especially clear and helpful" or alternatively "especially confusing or unhelpful." Two dependent measures were created: a composite sentence-specific score based on reactions to all 18 sentences in the essay; and respondents' general reactions to the essay that were coded for valence (positive, neutral, or negative). We tested the hypothesis that five of the six audience segments would respond positively to the essay on both dependent measures. RESULTS: There was clear evidence that two of the five segments responded positively to the public health essay, and mixed evidence that two other responded positively. There was limited evidence that the fifth segment responded positively. Post-hoc analysis showed that five of the six segments responded more positively to information about the health benefits associated with mitigation-related policy actions than to information about the health risks of climate change. CONCLUSIONS: Presentations about climate change that encourage people to consider its human health relevance appear likely to provide many Americans with a useful and engaging new frame of reference. Information about the potential health benefits of specific mitigation-related policy actions appears to be particularly compelling. We believe that the public health community has an important perspective to share about climate change, a perspective that makes the problem more personally relevant, significant, and understandable to members of the public.