Joanna K. Huxster

Public support for restoration in sensitive ecosystems like the Everglades depends in part on individual-level concern and perceptions of impact from environmental threats. This study examines how environmental knowledge and ideological and political factors (IPFs)– cultural worldview (CWV), political ideology, and voting behavior – influence Floridians’ concern for the Everglades and their perceptions of impact for six different threats to the Everglades. Two of these threats, sea level rise and changes in precipitation, relate directly to climate change and thus are more likely to evoke ideological or political responses from participants. Analysis of our sample of 1437 Floridians reveals that: (1) Of the IPFs, CWV had the largest influence on environmental concern and perceptions of impact, except for in the case of sea level rise, for which voting behavior superseded CWV, (2) environmental knowledge had a larger influence on perceptions of impact for environmental threats that are not ideologically entangled (e.g. water quality), (3) IPFs had a larger influence on perceptions of impact from threats that are ideologically entangled (i.e. sea level rise and changes in precipitation), and (4) those with Communitarian-Egalitarian worldviews held higher levels of concern and perceived greater risk impacts on all but one of the threats (invasive species), although some differences vary across the distribution of environmental knowledge. These findings improve our understanding of how environmental knowledge and IPFs shape public concern for and perceptions of threats to the Greater Everglades ecosystem. These insights can help in developing communication strategies that generate public support for restoration.

Despite decades of concerted efforts to communicate to the public on important scientific issues pertaining to the environment and public health, gaps between public acceptance and the scientific consensus on these issues remain stubborn. One strategy for dealing with this shortcoming has been to focus on the existence of scientific consensus on the relevant matters. Recent science communication research has added support to this general idea, though the interpretation of these studies and their generalizability remains a matter of contention. In this paper, we describe results of a qualitative interview study on different models of scientific consensus and the relationship between such models and trust of science, finding that familiarity with scientific consensus is rarer than might be expected. These results suggest that consensus messaging strategies may not be effective.

Significant gaps remain between public opinion and the scientific consensus on many issues. We present the results of three studies ( N = 722 in total) for the development and testing of a novel instrument to measure a largely unmeasured aspect of scientific literacy: the enterprise of science, particularly in the context of its social structures. We posit that this understanding of the scientific enterprise is an important source for the public’s trust in science. Our results indicate that the Social Enterprise of Science Index (SESI) is a reliable and valid instrument that correlates positively with trust in science ( r = .256, p < .001), and level of education ( r = .245, p < .001). We also develop and validate a six question short version of the SESI for ease of use in longer surveys.

This study examines to what extent study design decisions influence the perceived efficacy of consensus messaging, using medicinal cannabis as the context. We find that researchers' decisions about study design matter. A modified Solomon Group Design was used in which participants were either assigned to a group that had a pretest (within-subjects design) or a posttest only group (between-subjects design). Furthermore, participants were exposed to one of three messages-one of two consensus messages or a control message-attributed to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. A consensus message describing a percent (97%) of agreeing scientists was more effective at shifting public attitudes than a consensus message citing substantial evidence, but this was only true in the between-subject comparisons. Participants tested before and after exposure to a message demonstrated pre-sensitization effects that undermined the goals of the messages. Our results identify these nuances to the effectiveness of scientific consensus messaging, while serving to reinforce the importance of study design.