Authors : Tianyi Wang

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 5 - May

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/338kdmpb

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/2wy48cyb

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25may448

Google Scholar

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 15 to 20 days to display the article.

Abstract : Despite the mounting urgency of the climate crisis, environmental science continues to face a persistent challenge: how to translate knowledge into meaningful public action. This article takes as its point of departure Jane Lubchenco’s influential call for a “new social contract” between science and society—a vision that has evolved over the past two decades in response to political, communicative, and institutional barriers. Drawing on interdisciplinary literature across environmental communication, cognitive psychology, climate policy, and science and technology studies, this article offers a conceptual synthesis of why environmental science struggles to connect with diverse publics despite increased public awareness and growing volumes of data. This article proposes a new three-pillar model for science-society engagement, comprising (1) Narrative Framing, (2) Institutional Reform, and (3) Participatory Practice. Each pillar is grounded in empirical research and illustrated through case studies such as the Global Narratives of Climate Change project in India. Rather than advancing new empirical findings, the article develops an integrative framework for practice and institutional change. It argues that effective environmental communication requires more than accurate data or improved delivery mechanisms—it demands emotional resonance, cultural fluency, ethical reflexivity, and structural reform. The article also contributes to the environmental humanities by engaging with the politics of expertise, the affective dimensions of knowledge, and the ethical demands of planetary crises. It concludes by outlining pathways for future research, policy reform, and curricular transformation aimed at reshaping environmental science as a civic, participatory, and justice-oriented endeavor.

Keywords : Environmental Science, Climate Change Communication, Social Contract, Public Engagement, Interdisciplinary Collaboration.

References :

1. K. Akerlof et al., “Public perceptions of climate change as a human health risk: Surveys of the United States, Canada and Malta,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 2559–2606, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7062559
2. B. Anderson, R. Swenson, and N. Gilkerson, “Understanding dialogue and engagement through communication experts’ use of interactive writing to build relationships,” ePublications at Marquette, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://epublications.marquette.edu/comm_fac/443/
3. M. Arnold, M. Goldschmitt, and T. Rigotti, “Dealing with information overload: A comprehensive review,” Front. Psychol., vol. 14, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1122200
4. L. Avraamidou and J. Osborne, “The role of narrative in communicating science,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 1683–1707, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802380695
5. J. Chilvers, “Remaking public engagement with climate change,” Dialogues on Climate Change, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 49–55, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/29768659241293224
6. A. Corner, N. Pidgeon, K. Steentjes, and C. Demski, “Engaging the public on climate risks and adaptation,” Climate Outreach, Jan. 13, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://climateoutreach.org/reports/engaging-the-public-on-climate-risks-and-adaptation/
7. J. Hornung, “Social identities in climate action,” Climate Action, vol. 1, no. 1, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44168-022-00005-6
8. Inter- and trans-disciplinary research: A critical perspective, United Nations Sustainable Development, n.d. [Online]. Available: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/612558-Inter-%20and%20Trans-disciplinary%20Research%20-%20A%20Critical%20Perspective.pdf
9. B. L. Keeler et al., “Society is ready for a new kind of science—is academia?,” BioScience, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 591–592, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix051
10. J. Lubchenco, “Entering the Century of the Environment: A new social contract for science,” Science, vol. 279, no. 5350, pp. 491–497, 1998. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5350.491
11. J. Lubchenco, “Environmental science in a post‐truth world,” Front. Ecol. Environ., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 3–3, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1454
12. J. Lubchenco and C. Rapley, “Our moment of truth: The social contract realized?,” Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 15, no. 11, p. 110201, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abba9c
13. G. Marshall, C. Shaw, and J. Clarke, Global Narratives of Climate Change, Climate Outreach, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://climatenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/new_climate_outreach_can_-_global_narratives_approach4.pdf
14. NPR Staff, “Transcript: Greta Thunberg’s speech at the U.N. Climate Action Summit,” NPR, Sep. 23, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit
15. S. O’Neill and S. Nicholson-Cole, “‘Fear won’t do it’,” Sci. Commun., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 355–379, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201
16. A. Pera and L. M. Aiello, “Shifting climates: Climate change communication from YouTube to TikTok,” in Proc. ACM Web Sci. Conf., 2024, pp. 376–381. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3614419.3644024
17. M. Sippel, C. Shaw, and G. Marshall, “Ten key principles: How to communicate climate change for effective public engagement,” SSRN Electron. J., 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4151465
18. C. Tavris and E. Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. Boston, MA: Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2020.
19. A. Toomey, “Inter- and trans-disciplinary research: A critical perspective,” Academia.edu, Aug. 18, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.academia.edu/15001536/Inter_and_Trans_disciplinary_Research_A_Critical_Perspective
20. A. H. Toomey, “Why facts don’t change minds: Insights from cognitive science for the improved communication of conservation research,” Biol. Conserv., vol. 278, p. 109886, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109886