The scientific veneer of IPCC visuals

Abstract

While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is continuously improving its communication, visualisation has taken a back seat to more pressing issues. The consequence is a set of IPCC imagery where our understanding of perception remains empirically unchallenged. The visual design (defined in this study as the method, technique, and style used to create a visual) directly affects perception and yet, we know very little about how people intuitively respond to visuals depicting climate science. This study examines the perception of four images from the IPCC summary report for policymakers and two open sourced infographics. Using a group-administered study we found the visual design to have a significant impact on a novice readers ability to associate relevant words with an image. While the visuals part of the summary for policymakers educed a sense of confidence, a well-designed infographic left readers feeling less confident. The veneer of legitimacy associated with IPCC visuals is because they look scientific, whereas infographic images were found to look less serious. We acknowledge the accessibility of an infographic but urge IPCC authors to use it with caution, as any negative impact on scientific credibility is an unwanted feature in IPCC communication.

Difficulties in explaining complex issues with maps: evaluating seismic hazard communication – the Swiss case

“…Even though natural-hazard maps are mainly tailored to the needs of primary users (Perry et al, 2016), they are used in their unaltered form to communicate with other recipients (Thompson et al, 2015). In consequence, recent publications indicate that they often fail to transmit their content (Meyer et al, 2012). Non-experts in the field, in particular, often struggle to interpret the maps correctly (Hagemeier-Klose and Wagner, 2009;Kjellgren, 2013;Perry et al, 2016;Severtson and Vatovec, 2012).…”

“…The main users or recipients of seismic hazard maps can be broken down into three groups (Meyer et al, 2012): (1) experts, mainly seismologists, geologists, and specialized civil engineers, who use seismic hazard maps on a regular basis for professional purposes; (2) other professionals, like architects, engineers not specializing in seismic retrofitting, and emergency and disaster managers, who only deal occasionally with seismic hazard maps; and (3) the public, who are confronted by authorities or media with seismic hazard maps or seek advice before purchasing a house or getting insurance. They are usually unfamiliar with many of the maps' components.…”

“…Previous studies evaluating maps for risk management purposes mainly focused on directly involved stakeholders and authorities (Dransch et al, 2010). The few studies that analyzed the public's needs regarding hazard maps did so either by questioning experts or by mostly relying on a small sample (Hagemeier-Klose and Wagner, 2009;Kjellgren, 2013;Meyer et al, 2012;Thompson et al, 2015). The understanding of seismic hazard by non-experts in the field and the public has thus been neglected.…”

“…With respect to flood maps, Meyer et al (2012) recommend implementing a less complex map design for the public in contrast to primary users. Different requirements and expectations are also emphasized by Hagemeier- Klose and Wagner (2009), who stress that when presenting flood maps, technical terms should be avoided and "emotional empathy" created.…”

The Role of Non-State Actors in Promoting Compliance with the World Heritage Convention: An Empirical Study of Australia's Great Barrier Reef

“…See for instance : Biermann, F, and Gupta, A., (2011) 'Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: a research framework." 70(11) Ecological economics 1856;and McMahon, R and Stauffacher M and Reto K (2016) 'The scientific veneer of IPCC visuals.' 138(3) Climatic Change 369.…”