Introduction

The report reviews research on communicating environmental and sustainability science, focusing on challenges and opportunities within a changing political context. It highlights the shift from one-way information delivery to dialogue-based engagement and synthesises evidence from literature reviews and expert interviews to inform future research priorities.

Science communication: From information to dialogue

Science communication is a broad field encompassing media, public engagement, and professional outreach. Evidence shows that effective communication requires two-way dialogue rather than the traditional ‘deficit model’. Despite high levels of basic scientific knowledge, public understanding of scientific processes remains limited, with only around 25% of Americans able to explain scientific study methods. Engagement approaches, including participatory methods, are increasingly emphasised but not consistently implemented.

Who communicates environmental science?

The communication landscape is diverse, involving scientists, media, institutions, and advocacy groups. However, it remains fragmented, with limited coordination and insufficient institutional capacity. Many organisations focus on training scientists or disseminating information rather than fostering engagement. Funding constraints have led to the closure of some organisations, indicating structural weaknesses in the field.

Progress in the field: A synthesis of key trends in environmental science communication research

Research highlights three key themes. First, framing and narratives are increasingly used to align messages with audience values, recognising that values and ideology influence perceptions more than knowledge alone. Second, communicating uncertainty and scientific consensus remains challenging; while consensus messaging can increase acceptance, it cannot overcome entrenched value-based divides. Third, trust is critical, with credibility influenced by perceived expertise, shared values, and institutional trust. Scientists are generally trusted, but trust varies across demographics and political groups.

Challenges ‘beyond the lab’ – The current social, cultural and political context for science communication

Political polarisation significantly affects communication effectiveness, particularly in countries such as the US and UK. Environmental science is often politicised, with ideological divides influencing acceptance of evidence. The rise of ‘post-truth’ discourse and ‘fake news’ has further complicated communication, alongside declining traditional media coverage and increasing reliance on digital sources. For example, over 50% of Americans use search engines for science information, while social media contributes to echo chambers and polarisation.

Gaps and opportunities for environmental science communication research

Future research should prioritise understanding how environmental science aligns with diverse audience values. Evidence shows limited applied research on how social contexts and group identities influence engagement. Case studies demonstrate that tailored narratives—such as energy-saving messages aligned with conservative values or faith-based stewardship narratives—can improve engagement across different groups.

There is also a need to foster ‘science curiosity’, encouraging public interest in science as a process rather than a set of facts. Research suggests that individuals with higher curiosity exhibit less polarisation and greater openness to evidence. Citizen science initiatives may support this objective.

Conversational and dialogue-based approaches are identified as promising alternatives to traditional information dissemination. Programmes such as Scotland’s ‘Climate Conversations’ demonstrate how facilitated discussions can improve understanding and engagement at scale without requiring expert facilitation.

Finally, the report calls for a shift from simple message framing to richer narrative-based communication and greater international research coverage. Current studies are heavily concentrated in high-income countries, limiting understanding of global public perspectives. Expanding cross-national research and improving institutional capacity to integrate research and practice are key priorities.