Climate change communication as political agenda and voters’ behavior

  • Muhammad Azfar Anwar
  • Rongting Zhou
  • Aqsa Sajjad
  • Fahad AsmiEmail author
Research Article


“Climate change communication” is taking the strategic position in the international and national politics around the globe. In the recent decade, different developing nations have started considering “climate change communication” as an integral part of the political campaigns and sustainable development. Specifically, the current document comprised of two sections. In the first section of the study, authors briefly compared the attributes related to “climate change communication” in the mainstream political parties’ manifesto for the general election 2018 in Pakistan in a qualitative manner. In the second part, the difference of opinion among voters of mainstream political parties towards “climate change” was examined. In a bird’s eye view, the perceived seriousness of “climate change” as a real challenge among voters mapped by the independent factors of “urbanization,” “industrialization,” “transportation,” and “waste management” for sustainable development through the primary quantitative survey of 732 voters in the country. The finding highlights (1) public understanding of “socio-scientific issues,” i.e., climate change is easy to communicate, and (2) how political parties are framing and communicating about “climate change” plays a significant role in climate change communication. The study concludes that “climate change communication” holds a critical role in developing regions’ future political discourse to shape sustainable development policies.


Climate change communication Politics Pakistan Socio-scientific issues Pro-environmental behavior 



  1. Abildtrup J, Audsley E, Fekete-Farkas M, Giupponi C, Gylling M, Rosato P, Rounsevell M (2006) Socio-economic scenario development for the assessment of climate change impacts on agricultural land use: a pairwise comparison approach. Environ Sci Policy 9:101–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adelle C (2015) Contexualising the tool development process through a knowledge brokering approach: the case of climate change adaptation and agriculture. Environ Sci Policy 51:316–324. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akerlof K, Maibach EW, Fitzgerald D, Cedeno AY, Neuman A (2013) Do people “personally experience” global warming, and if so how, and does it matter? Glob Environ Chang 23:81–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antilla L (2005) Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change. Glob Environ Chang 15:338–352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armitage D, Berkes F, Dale A, Kocho-Schellenberg E, Patton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Glob Environ Chang 21:995–1004. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bain PG, Hornsey MJ, Bongiorno R, Jeffries C (2012) Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nat Clim Chang 2:603–603. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benegal SD, Scruggs LA (2018) Correcting misinformation about climate change: the impact of partisanship in an experimental setting. Clim Change 148:61–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernauer T (2013) Climate change politics. doi:
  9. Bhattacherjee A, Sanford C (2016) Influence processes for information technology acceptance: an elaboration likelihood model. MIS Q 30:805–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biagini B, Bierbaum R, Stults M, Dobardzic S, McNeeley SM (2014) A typology of adaptation actions: a global look at climate adaptation actions financed through the global environment facility. Glob Environ Chang 25:97–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Biesbroek GR, Swart RJ, Carter TR, Cowan C, Henrichs T, Mela H, Morecroft MD, Rey D (2010) Europe adapts to climate change: comparing national adaptation strategies. Glob Environ Chang 20:440–450. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bollen KA (1990) Overall fit in covariance structure models: two types of sample size effects. Psychol Bull 107:256–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bord RJ, O’Connor RE, Fisher A (2000) In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Public Underst Sci 9:205–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boudet H, Clarke C, Bugden D, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2014) “Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy 65:57–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boykoff MT, Boykoff JM (2004) Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2):125–136.
  16. Boykoff MT, Boykoff JM (2007) Climate change and journalistic norms: a case study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum 38:1190–1204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brossard D, Shanahan J, McComas K (2004) Are issue-cycles culturally constructed? A comparison of French and American coverage of global climate change. Mass Commun Soc 7:359–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brulle RJ, Carmichael J, Jenkins JC (2012) Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Clim Change 114:169–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carter N (2013) Greening the mainstream: party politics and the environment. Env Polit 22:73–94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carvalho A (2007) Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: re-reading news on climate change. Public Underst Sci 16:223–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carvalho A, Burgess J (2005) Cultural circuits of climate change in U.K. broadsheet newspapers, 1985-2003. Risk Anal 25:1457–1469. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carvalho A, van Wessel M, Maeseele P (2017) Communication practices and political engagement with climate change: a research agenda. Environ Commun 11:122–135. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Corbett JB (2004) Testing public (un)certainty of science: media representations of global warming. Sci Commun 26:129–151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Corner A, Randall A (2011) Selling climate change? The limitations of social marketing as a strategy for climate change public engagement. Glob Environ Chang 21:1005–1014. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Corner A, Crompton T, Davidson S, Hawkins, R., Kasser, T., Lertzman, R., … Witmarsh, L. (2010) Communicating climate change to mass public audiences. Climate Change, (September), 14Google Scholar
  26. Dickinson JL, Crain R, Yalowitz S, Cherry TM (2013) How framing climate change influences citizen scientists’ intentions to do something about it. J Environ Educ 44:145–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dong Y, Hu S, Zhu J (2018) From source credibility to risk perception: how and when climate information matters to action. Resour Conserv Recycl 136:410–417. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Douglas KM, Sutton RM (2015) Climate change: why the conspiracy theories are dangerous. Bull At Sci 71:98–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ebrahim ZT Does the environment matter in Pakistan’s elections? - Pakistan - DAWN.COM. Accessed 8 Sep 2018
  30. Elrick-Barr CE, Smith TF, Preston BL, Thomsen DC, Baum S (2016) How are coastal households responding to climate change? Environ Sci Policy 63:177–186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Feldman L, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2012) Climate on Cable: the nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. Int J Press 17:3–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Foy JE, LoCasto PC, Briner SW, Dyar S (2017) Would a madman have been so wise as this? The effects of source credibility and message credibility on validation. Mem Cogn 45:281–295. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fraj-Andrés E, Martínez-Salinas E (2014) Impact of environmental knowledge on ecological consumer behaviour. Gastroenterol Endosc 19:73–102. Google Scholar
  34. Gleim MR, Smith JS, Andrews D, Cronin JJ (2013) Against the Green: A Multi-method Examination of the Barriers to Green Consumption. J Retail 89(1):44–61.
  35. Godden, B. (2004). Sample Size Formulas. Retrieved March 23, 2017, from website:
  36. Hahn U, Harris AJL, Corner A (2016) Public reception of climate science: coherence, reliability, and independence. Top Cogn Sci 8:180–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hart PS, Nisbet EC (2012) Boomerang effects in science communication. Communic Res 39:701–723. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hong S, Tam KY, Hong S (2006) Understanding the adoption of multipurpose information appliances: the case of mobile data services understanding the adoption of multipurpose information appliances: the case of mobile data services.
  39. Hooper D, Mullen J, Hooper D et al (2008) Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods 6:53–60Google Scholar
  40. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J 6:1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hulme M (2009) Why we disagree about climate change. ENDS Rep Carbon Yea 41-43. doi:
  42. Jang SM (2013) Framing responsibility in climate change discourse: ethnocentric attribution bias, perceived causes, and policy attitudes. J Environ Psychol 36:27–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jarreau PB, Altinay Z, Reynolds A (2017) Best practices in environmental communication: a case study of Louisiana’s coastal crisis. Environ Commun 11:143–165. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, Mandel G (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang 2:732–735. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kahlor L, Rosenthal S (2009) If we seek, do we learn? Sci Commun 30:380–414. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kentmen Cin C (2012) Blaming the government for environmental problems. Environ Behav 45:971–992. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Change 77:45–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Oberauer K (2013) The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS One 8:1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lombardi D, Seyranian V, Sinatra GM (2014) Source effects and plausibility judgments when reading about climate change. Discourse Process 51:75–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lorenzoni I, Nicholson-Cole S, Whitmarsh L (2007) Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob Environ Chang 17:445–459. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Malaquias RF, Hwang Y (2016) An empirical study on trust in mobile banking: a developing country perspective. Comput Human Behav 54:453–461. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mccright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001-2010. Sociol Q 52:155–194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mishal A, Dubey R, Gupta OK, Luo Z (2017) Dynamics of environmental consciousness and green purchase behaviour: an empirical study. Int J Clim Chang Strateg Manag 9:682–706. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moser SC (2010) Communicating climate change: history, challenges, processes and future directions. WIREs Clim Chang 1:31–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nisbet MC (2009) Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 51:12–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot 96:1767–1778. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. O’Neill S, Nicholson-Cole S (2009) “Fear won’t do it”: promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Sci Commun 30:355–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ockwell D, Whitmarsh L, Neill SO (2009) Science communication. Sci Commun 30:305–327. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pavlou PA, Tan Y-HTY-H, Gefen D (2003) The transitional role of institutional trust in online interorganizational relationships. 36th Annu Hawaii Int Conf Syst Sci 2003 Proc 0:1–10. doi:
  60. Pike C, Doppelt B, Herr M (2010) Climate Communications and Behavior Change: A Guide for Practitioners. In Climate Leadership Initiative 35:1–54.
  61. Qamar Uz Zaman, C. (2017). Climate Change Profile of Pakistan.
  62. Ryan D, & Ramirez A (2016) The politics of climate change at the city level: insights from a comparative study of Buenos Aires, São Paulo and Mexico CityGoogle Scholar
  63. Ryan D, Ryan D (2017) Politics and climate change: exploring the relationship between political parties and climate issues in Latin America. Ambient Soc 20:271–286. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Salam Abdul Pakistan is one of the world’s leading victims of global warming. Accessed 8 Sep 2018
  65. Sharif A, Medvecky F (2018) Climate change news reporting in Pakistan: as qualitative analysis of environmental journalists and the barriers they face. J. Sci Commun 17:1–17. Google Scholar
  66. Sönke K, Eckstein D, Dorsch L, Fischer L (2015) Global climate risk index 2016: who suffers most from extreme weather events? Weather-related loss events in 2014 and 1995 to 2014Google Scholar
  67. Spence A, Poortinga W, Butler C, Pidgeon NF (2011) Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nat Clim Chang 1:46–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tam KP, Chan HW (2017) Environmental concern has a weaker association with pro-environmental behavior in some societies than others: a cross-cultural psychology perspective. J Environ Psychol 53:213–223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tam KP, Chan HW (2018) Generalized trust narrows the gap between environmental concern and pro-environmental behavior: multilevel evidence. Glob Environ Chang 48:182–194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vainio A, Paloniemi R (2013) Does belief matter in climate change action? Public Underst Sci 22:382–395. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Venkatesh V (2000) Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating perceived behavioral control, computer anxiety and enjoyment into the technology acceptance model. Inf Syst Res 11:342–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weber EU, Stern PC (2011) Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am Psychol 66:315–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Whitmarsh L (2009) What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming”. Public Underst Sci 18:401–420. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zaheer K, Colom A (2013) Pakistan: How the people of Pakistan live with climate change and what communication can doGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science and Technology Communication and PolicyUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefeiChina
  2. 2.School of Philosophy of Science and TechnologyUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefeiChina

Personalised recommendations