In this article, we integrate our authorship experiences with insights from nine interviews of knowledge exchange practitioners at the Canadian Forest Service about challenges and opportunities of digital knowledge exchange (KE) brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. We aim to inform how best to maintain effective KE practices and processes in a digital-first world. Interpersonal trust and relationships are pivotal to effective knowledge exchange; thus, removing these dimensions risks losing aspects of social learning, informal and meaningful discussions, and personal connections that affect how we interpret and respond to subtle affective and social cues. For KE practitioners, lack of in-person interactions risks internal KE coordination and relevance of KE work, and diminished ability to predict and respond to user needs. However, the accelerated digital adoption has increased reach and accessibility for diverse people to exchange knowledge, and enables more frequent and rapid response to issues and events by virtually gathering diverse people almost instantly. The acceleration in digital innovation and culture has thus resulted in new tools and diversified approaches for the KE toolbox to inform decisions and practices. The long-term sustainability and effectiveness of digital KE depend on two interconnected factors: addressing the persistence of the digital divide and people's abilities to make and maintain meaningful social connections in the absence of regular face-to-face contact. We thus offer three considerations to guide KE efforts and initiative in a digital-first world: (1) consider both digital divide and equity; (2) revisit user needs and preferences for KE to address the diversity of users, and (3) leverage the diversification of KE approaches and innovations.

There is a growing body of literature that examines the role of affect and emotions in climate change risk perception and risk communication. Conceptions of affect and emotions have differed according to theoretical perspectives and disciplinary orientations (e.g., sociology of risk, psychology of risk, climate science communication), but little has been done to map these differences. This perspective article provides an in-depth analysis of the study of affect and emotions in climate change risk research through a literature review of studies published in the last 20 years. In this perspective, we examined how affect is conceived, what emotions have been considered, and their role in climate change risk perception and risk communication. Early studies in climate risk perception and risk communication included vaguely defined emotions (e.g., negative and positive) in climate risk perception and risk communication studies, more recently turning attention to how different affective dimensions interact with other factors, such as personal experience, knowledge, culture and worldviews, gender, and social norms. Using this review as a mapping exercise of the research landscape on affect and emotions in climate risk perception and communication, we suggest that future research could benefit from more interdisciplinary work that explores the role of different affective responses and their intensities before, during, and after climate-related events.