Climate Stories: enabling and sustaining arts interventions in climate science communication

Woodley, Ewan; Barr, Stewart; Stott, Peter; Thomet, Pierrette; Flint, Sally; Lovell, Fiona; O'Malley, Evelyn; Plews, Dan; Rapley, Chris; Robbins, Celia; Pearce, Rebecca; Sandover, Rebecca

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-339-2022

Articles | Volume 5, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-339-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-339-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 5, issue 4

Research article

|

17 Oct 2022

Research article |

| 17 Oct 2022

Climate Stories: enabling and sustaining arts interventions in climate science communication

Ewan Woodley, Stewart Barr, Peter Stott, Pierrette Thomet, Sally Flint, Fiona Lovell, Evelyn O'Malley, Dan Plews, Chris Rapley, Celia Robbins, Rebecca Pearce, and Rebecca Sandover

Download

Final revised paper (published on 17 Oct 2022)
Preprint (discussion started on 09 Mar 2022)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on gc-2022-7', Tiziana Lanza, 31 Mar 2022

Interesting work but the paper needs to be re-organized. Please see attachment for Review

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2022-7-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ewan Woodley, 31 May 2022
  
  Dear Tiziana,
  Many thanks for taking the time to review this manuscript. We very much appreciate your efforts and very helpful comments.
  We have reviewed all of your comments and we are grateful for these observations, which are logical and which we are happy to address in their entirety. Specifically, we recognise that the manuscript would benefit from clearer signposting to the reader and less repetition of specific statements.
  In addition, we are happy to provide further detail on the methodological aspects of the research and we agree that this would be highly beneficial in bringing out a clearer sense of the research process and participants roles. In particular, we will expand on the intreview process and the structuring of questions to participants.
  We are also extremely grateful for the specific points (including line numbers) and we will address all of these at the appropriate time.
  Many thanks and best wishes,
  Ewan
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2022-7-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on gc-2022-7', Frances Fahy, 15 Apr 2022

This is an important and valuable paper addressing relevant scientific questions that are well within the scope of Geoscience Communication, and I believe that it will be of keen interest to readers of GC. The paper clearly outlines some of the challenges that face the climate science community in communicating environmental risks and offers a very comprehensive critical review of existing dominant deficit approaches to communicating climate change.

My main reservation with the manuscript as it currently stands is that a couple of sentences in the abstract and opening sections, related to claims around engaging wider publics, appear to ‘over promise’ (details and specific examples are presented in the full review). However, this point might simply require a minor revision to ensure consistency with the stated aims throughout the paper. Otherwise the results presented throughout this paper are sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions. Other minor suggestions to strengthen this paper, including potential to reduce some repetition in the sections 2 and 3, are detailed in the review. In summary, it is a very engaging and accessible paper, detailing an innovative collaboration, and I highly recommend it for publication in this journal.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2022-7-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ewan Woodley, 31 May 2022
  
  Dear Frances,
  Many thanks for taking the time to review this manuscript. We very much appreciate your efforts and very helpful comments.
  We have reviewed all of your comments and we are grateful for these observations. We agree that the abstract should be rephrased to address claims to knowledge construction. We also agree that the opening section contains repetitious components and that these sections would benefit from being shortened.
  On reflection, the claim regarding the case for collaboration is an overstatement in its current form, and we agree that this should be rephrased.
  Many thanks for your specific comments, including line numbers. We will endeavour to address the use of repetitive language throughout the paper.
  Many thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed review. It's much appreciated and will benefit the manuscript.
  Best wishes,
  Ewan
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2022-7-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (15 Jun 2022) by Louise Arnal

AR by Ewan Woodley on behalf of the Authors (12 Jul 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes

EF by Polina Shvedko (13 Jul 2022) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Jul 2022) by Louise Arnal

RR by Frances Fahy (22 Jul 2022)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (further review by editor) (04 Aug 2022) by Louise Arnal

AR by Ewan Woodley on behalf of the Authors (08 Aug 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (10 Aug 2022) by Louise Arnal

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (17 Aug 2022) by Solmaz Mohadjer (Executive editor)

AR by Ewan Woodley on behalf of the Authors (30 Aug 2022) Manuscript

Short summary

This paper reports on research insights from a collaboration between UK climate scientists and artist researchers to advocate for a more creative and emotionally attentive approach to climate science engagement and advocacy. The paper highlights innovative ways in which climate change communication can be reimagined through different art forms to enable complex concepts to become knowable, accessible, and engaging to the wider public.