Marcus B. Reamer- Department of Environmental Science and Policy, Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric, and Earth Science, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, United States
The emergence of ocean and human health (OHH) science as a distinct scholarly discipline has led to increased research outputs from experts in both the natural and social sciences. Formal research on communication strategies, messaging, and campaigns related to OHH science remains limited despite its importance as part of the social processes that can make knowledge actionable. When utilized to communicate visible, local issues for targeting audiences, OHH themes hold the potential to motivate action in pursuit of solutions to environmental challenges, supplementing efforts to address large-scale, abstract, or politicized issues such as ocean acidification or climate change. Probing peer-reviewed literature from relevant areas of study, this review article outlines and reveals associations between society and the quality of coastal and marine ecosystems, as well as key themes, concepts, and findings in OHH science and environmental communication. Recommendations for future work concerning effective ocean and human health science communication are provided, creating a platform for innovative scholarship, evidence-based practice, and novel collaboration across disciplines.
Introduction
In 1999, the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) published a report, “From Monsoons to Microbes: Understanding the Ocean's Role in Human Health,” outlining data gaps and priority areas for scientific research on the relationships between the quality of aquatic systems and human health. In it, the NRC's Committee on the Ocean's Role in Human Health prioritized several areas of research: the contamination of marine waters and seafood species by microbes and chemicals; natural products that were or could be derived from marine ecosystems; the effects of harmful algal blooms; and global environmental change (1). It was with this report that ocean and human health science (OHH) was formalized as a distinct priority for environmental scholarship and policy (2–5). By 2004, the National Institute of Environmental Health Studies under the U.S. National Institutes of Health partnered with the National Science Foundation to establish the Centers for Ocean and Human Health, through which these institutions support interdisciplinary research, collaboration, and innovation (6). Today, a global community of researchers, environmental organizations, and communities representing a wide range of expertise and experiences have contributed to a body of literature that demonstrates linkages between ecological systems and the determinants of human health and wellbeing (7, 8), an approach that can effectively build public support for policy action to address environmental problems (9).
As research and media coverage of climate change and human health connections with the environment have increased over the last decade or so, marine conservation topics–including ocean and human health–have been largely overlooked (10–12). Still in the early years of the United Nations' Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (13) and in the absence of an international Ocean Treaty, a unique window of opportunity exists to invite new stakeholders and perspectives into ocean restoration and sustainability by strategically connecting aquatic ecosystems to human health. Such an approach may be particularly useful for engaging audiences that are doubtful or dismissive of climate change and building broad support for pro-environmental actions at the local level. With a focus on strategic environmental communication, this review directly answers calls from thought leaders in ocean science who encourage interdisciplinary and cross-sector collaborations as a way to make findings from OHH research actionable (7, 8, 14–18) and to improve ocean literacy and marine citizenship (19). This review also explores and expands upon advances in environmental communication, drawing from literature that has demonstrated the potential benefits of using public health outcomes to make environmental problems important and relevant to select audience groups, particularly residents of and governments representing coastal communities, as well as health professionals and researchers (20–25). An agenda for research and practice is provided to support existing efforts and encourage future work at the intersection of OHH science and environmental communication.
The science of ocean and human health
Originally a niche area of scholarly interest for marine scientists, research in OHH science over the past several decades has created a global meta-discipline that is inclusive of knowledge and perspectives across the natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities (5, 16). Once narrowly focused on measuring and describing hazards and risks, OHH science has expanded considerably, taking a multidimensional approach to understanding complex socioecological systems, exploring the benefits to health and overall wellness provided by ocean resources, and connecting local changes to global challenges (2). Its broad scope and acknowledgment of the complexities and interconnectedness of aquatic systems is both a strength and a limitation for the field.
The literature in OHH science is expansive, covering a wide range of topics and geographic areas (Table 1). Some experts have categorized this body of literature using themes [e.g., (2, 151–153)], though a standard set of categories has not yet been agreed upon. Due to the multi- and interdisciplinary nature of OHH scholarship, there are innumerable ways to sort research in the field and identify priorities for action. To date, there is no peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing OHH literature, though special editions of marine science and environmental journals dedicated to the topic have been published. Several persistent challenges in OHH science have limited the development and implementation of “adequate societal response[s]” to identified challenges and opportunities [(16), p. 557]. One is the difficulty involved in defining, operationalizing, and messaging ocean health (16, 154). Another is that the hazards, benefits, and decisions associated with ocean resources are not equally distributed or experienced by people due to variations in ecosystems and social inequalities (155–158). And a third challenge is making ocean issues–which, to many people, feel distant, too large, and unfamiliar (159)–accessible so that people feel they are both relevant and important enough to act on (160–165).
Table 1. Examples of topics in OHH science and relevant sources.
The concept of human health is not clearly or simply defined due to the multidimensional nature of health determinants and outcomes, which is why the exact definition of health continues to be debated by experts in the medical and public health fields who hold a diverse range of perspectives (166–169). Ocean health, then, is even more challenging to define. Since the global ocean is not an organism, it can be neither healthy nor sick. This makes the concept of ocean health more of a metaphor than anything else, the meaning behind which experts and advocates have yet to agree upon, in large part due to differing values and beliefs (154, 170). For some, a healthy ocean is one that is productive and sustainable and for others it is an ocean that is pristine, restored to near-historical conditions and showing few signs of human influence. With multiple definitions, variations in expert perspectives, and the ways human health and ocean health are viewed by non-expert audiences, emphasizing connections between these two complex concepts can be quite difficult.
If defining ocean health and human health is challenging, so too is operationalizing, measuring, and acting to achieve it (16, 154). One notable effort to quantitatively measure the health of interconnected human-ocean systems is the Ocean Health Index (OHI) (153). This integrated assessment was designed to measure progress toward ocean health initiatives using inputs related to ten categories that capture “most” of the topics that are of concern to citizens, policy makers, and resource managers [(153), p. 616]. Rather than prescribing a score for the entire ocean, the OHI is best applied to countries or regions [e.g., (171, 172); (170, 173–175)] since “all goals are judged against reference points that describe what is possible or desirable in a particular place” [(153), p. 618]. The OHI's outputs are best and most often used for assessment of current conditions, though it can be used longitudinally or to simulate the consequences of decisions or actions (153). It is not designed to model future conditions or make predictions. The outputs of the OHI can also be used to support public outreach and education, to inform policy decisions, and to identify areas for future research (153).
In their proposed model of operationalized ocean health, Franke et al. (16) argue for a more holistic approach to research and ocean governance that facilitates transdisciplinarity, cross-sector collaboration, and integration. This, they argue, creates a strong foundation for the restoration and maintenance of productive and sustainable marine ecosystems that can also provide human health benefits or mitigate risks. An integral part of this proposed framework is human communication in its many forms, which can facilitate novel research, train scholars in the language of multiple disciplines, educate audiences on ecological challenges and their implications for society, collect and co-produce knowledge based on scientific observation and lived experiences, engage stakeholders in decision-making processes, or to generate support for proposed actions (16).
As is the case with other issues in the environment, the causes and consequences of diminished ocean health are socially disproportionate as environmental hazards, benefits, narratives, and decision outcomes are not distributed or experienced equally throughout society (158, 176–179). The nations, communities, and individuals who do the least damage or that do not overexploit resources often experience disproportionately harmful outcomes that are caused or made worse by the actions of larger or more powerful groups (69, 180, 181). As such, issues in ocean and human health are as much issues of equality and justice as they are of public health and ecology; both academics and practitioners have a responsibility to advance solutions that consider the politics of environmental decision-making (155), intended and unintended outcomes, and advocate for communities that may be overlooked or excluded from these processes.
Already marginalized communities are more likely to experience the worst health outcomes, stand to gain the least from environmental or social benefits (182, 183), are more likely to be excluded from or overlooked in planning processes (184–186), are more likely to be underrepresented or misrepresented in research and publication (187–191), and are at risk of losing the most in terms of culture and quality of life as a result of their natural resources being “appropriated, developed, degraded or destroyed” [(192), p. 369]. Some of the more visible examples of environmental inequalities include the effects of commercial overfishing and injustices involved with aquaculture (69, 193, 194), the effects of reduced access to sea ice by Indigenous communities in Arctic and Subarctic regions (195), and increased exposure to pollutants by lower-income or marginalized communities (196). Not as visible or clearly connected, conservation-oriented decision making and policy implementation can also affect human health, as Loring (123) found in reviewing the longer-term social outcomes of a voter-supported commercial fishing gear ban in Florida waters. The harms commercial fishers and their families experienced were felt well beyond the immediate economic effects of the gear ban, which had mixed ecological results for fishery stocks. Individual psychological health suffered, especially in women (197), and a collective trauma in some of Florida's commercial fishing communities has been observed, which appears to be the result of economic insecurity and being politically villainized within their own communities (123).
While OHH scholarship has advanced considerably over the past several decades, it is not enough to simply identify problems in aquatic ecosystems and link them to human health and wellbeing. Making this knowledge actionable and addressing the persistent challenges in the field requires investment and expertise in communication as a way to share knowledge and build support. With this in mind, there are opportunities for involvement from scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and interested individuals.
Environmental psychology and communication
Communication is an important and determining factor in the success or failure of efforts in marine conservation (11, 198). This is because human perceptions of and relationships to the natural world are the direct product of communicative and cognitive processes that are involved with the social construction of reality. Factors like emotion, cognitive bias, worldview, life experience, culture, social norms, mass media, and politics can each shape how individuals and groups receive and assimilate information and respond to environmental problems (155, 199–202). As a result, there are “social-cognitive challenges” [(162), p. 2] and externalities like misinformation (203) and media selection biases (204) that experts will inevitably encounter as they try to use facts to inform policy and management decisions (205, 206). To effectively overcome these challenges requires an understanding of individual thinking, social behavior, and institutions, which are well documented in interdisciplinary literature in fields like environmental psychology and environmental communication (207–212).
Like OHH science, environmental communication (EC) has been around for some time but its adoption as a distinct area of academic research and practice is much more recent, appearing in literature in the 1980s and formalizing in the early 2000s (213, 214). EC is a broad term for an interdisciplinary field and its subfields dedicated to solving complex environmental problems by exploring human relationships with the biosphere and encouraging change at the individual, community, organizational, institutional, national, and international levels. EC occurs at the intersection of the life sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities, is inclusive of communication ranging from the interpersonal to the mass mediated, is place-based, embraces cultural and linguistic variabilities, and takes place in the public sphere (202, 215–217). While uniquely dedicated to topics in the environment, EC has synergies with other topically-focused forms of communication such as science, risk, and health communication, which can create opportunities for collaboration, shared learning, and innovation (218). In practical settings, EC plays a critical role in determining the success or failure of sustainability efforts (219) and scholarship can provide practitioners with valuable feedback and evidence to guide their future work (33). EC also has explicitly stated objectives that differentiate it from other forms of science and communication practice.
Fundamentally a crisis discipline (220), EC has an “ethical obligation” to help society see, make sense of, and act on environmental problems, and to equip those affected by changes in the environment with the tools they need to participate in decision-making that affects their health and wellbeing or that of their communities [(221), p. 5]. EC also carries with it a duty to exhibit an ethic of care in pursuit of environmental justice and to acknowledge the interdependence of human and non-human systems in the development and promotion of solutions to environmental problems (222). To achieve these objectives, it is important to acknowledge that one size does not fit all in communication as ecological systems are socially constructed places that hold different meanings for individuals and groups (215, 223). It is also important to design research that incorporates members, organizations, and institutions from affected communities, also known as engaged scholarship (224). The use of EC as an active component of social change efforts sometimes runs counter to a tradition of objectivity in science and by scientists, which can create barriers to participation for trained scientists or other experts who have not received training in communication or policy as part of their professional lives (225–229).
EC literature is inclusive of topics across disciplines, geographies, and sectors, though journals tend to emphasize research on climate change communication and use it as an umbrella subject (162, 213). There are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to doing so. One of the most identifiable limitations is the exclusion of topics not clearly or directly related to climate change, which creates a risk of obscuring those topics from public view entirely (202). Additionally, climate science and policy have become politically polarized topics in some nations, with coordinated messaging from industry actors, politicians, and think tanks sowing doubt and inhibiting action (230). Developing communication strategies that focus on local and visible issues in and near aquatic environments may be useful in motivating action on issues that indirectly benefit the fight to address climate change causes and effects (231, 232). This is where investments in marine conservation communication have the potential to make a difference.
Many problems in the marine environment are connected to or affected by climate change in some way (233), though they are often unfamiliar to audiences (162) and can be harder to communicate than terrestrial topics. Ocean acidification, for example, is referred to as the evil twin of climate change but is largely invisible to those who do not engage in shellfish harvesting (234), and the risk of mass extinction in the marine environment due to climate change is also a significant threat to human societies but on a longer time scale (235). With limited research focused on marine conservation communication and the knowledge and public perceptions of ocean health (236, 237), it is also challenging to know which findings from EC research can or should be applied and in what context(s). For example, in Malta, DeBono et al. (238) found that perceptions of climate threats to lives and livelihoods are strong drivers for climate policy support and a motivation to act, but does the same hold true for issues specific to aquatic ecosystems? Since the literature on marine conservation communication and public perceptions of ocean health is nascent (237), these topics deserve dedicated scholarly attention.
Even with decades of research from which to draw, many applications of EC do not appear to be rooted in evidence and are often designed to mimic successful or appealing campaigns carried out by other organizations (239). To increase the likelihood of a communication's success, communicators and the organizations they represent need to have clear objectives, to understand their intended audiences, to craft clear and memorable messages, to decide which media they will use to deliver their messages, and to know how they will measure outcomes and evaluate their efforts [(240), Table 2]. This process of information gathering, decision making, and evaluation can be described as strategic environmental communication (SEC), defined by Liang et al. (239) as the application of “strategic communication and theory to the practice and promotion of pro-environmental behaviors [and causes]” (p. 137). SEC differs from strategic communication in that it is done in service of a social cause rather than in service of an organization (239) and has four foundational components that are interrelated: audience, message, media and channels, and measurement and evaluation.
Table 2. Evidence-based practices for environmental communication.
Audiences
While many environmental communication campaigns are intended for a general public–people who are not trained in the sciences–this is a losing strategy (241). Audiences are not passive recipients of information and groups of people are not homogenous in their worldviews, experiences, or identities. Instead, individuals are active participants in the construction of meaning, a process that is greatly influenced by psychosocial factors (242), including life experiences, and social and cultural norms (236, 243–246). It is for this reason that a message that resonates with one group may generate negative emotions in another (247). For environmental communication to be effective and avoid unintended or undesired consequences like ecophobia or boomerang effect, intentional audience research and segmentation is of critical importance and can determine the success or failure of a campaign (242, 248, 249).
Audience segmentation–a structured process that divides a population into “relatively homogeneous, mutually exclusive subgroupings” [(250), p. 442]–is a stronger approach to communication design and scholarship than those that do not methodically consider audience attributes. It includes three key steps: (1) identifying the population of interest and defining the traits that are relevant to the campaign; (2) collecting and analyzing data on the population of interest; and, (3) grouping individuals with similar characteristics into smaller, more homogeneous groups called audience segments. While segmentation analyses often vary in the methods or data used and have inherent limitations, they are of growing interest in the context of science and environmental communication (242).
Audience segmentation not only provides information about who members of a group are, but can uncover what it is they need to hear, from whom, and how. In addition to supporting the effectiveness of a communication campaign, audience segmentation can help practitioners make the best use of their resources. As such, it is important to dedicate time and attention to audience research. A notable example of audience segmentation in environmental communication is the longitudinal Climate Change in the American Mind survey, which was launched in 2008 by researchers from George Mason and Yale universities (251). Known as Global Warming's Six Americas, this research has led to the creation of six typologies or audience segments that are based on belief in and concern for climate change–ranging from alarmed (most concerned) to dismissive (least concerned) (251). Not only have scholars been able to define each of the six segments and track changes in climate change beliefs over time using this bi-annual survey, but they have also learned more about each of the six audience typologies based on more nuanced dimensions such as health risk perception (252), race and ethnicity (253), and religion (254). These kinds of data and analysis can inform decision making, especially about communication projects and their goals. A campaign designed to increase climate change belief would not do well to dedicate resources trying to reach audience segments that already believe in climate change and support policy actions, just as a campaign designed to encourage political action would not do well in trying to activate the audience segments that are doubtful or dismissive of climate science or the role of government in acting to address its causes and effects. Given the variety of topics, geographies, and sociopolitical systems involved, audience segmentation and analysis can provide valuable insights throughout the communication planning process involved in making OHH science actionable.
Messages
The content or information packaged for mediated delivery to an audience is called a message. Messages both influence and are the result of strategic development that includes framing, audience research, messenger and media selection, and consideration of externalities like messages from opposing viewpoints (255). Communicators design messages with the goal of creating a shared meaning or set of meanings with recipients through any combination of elements like spoken or written language, still or moving images, and other symbolic elements like music. Message development and research includes strategies like framing (256), selection of trusted messengers (257), narrative design (258–261), visualization and photography (164, 262, 263), and even more granular details like the grammatical choices in a written text (264), the use of humor and other emotional frames (265, 266), or the musical selection in a short-form video (267). While much goes into the design of messages, the most effective ones are simple, clear, memorable, and repeated often by messengers the audience trusts (257, 268, 269).
Messaging research often investigates how audience groups respond to messages, whether as a whole text or by testing individual variables. Framing is a commonly studied component of messaging in the context of environmental communication and involves the strategic ways in which communicators present information to audiences (270–272). While there are a number of frames from which to choose (256), health framing is of growing interest and prevalence in EC (273) as research suggests it can be an effective tool to engage and motivate some audiences to care and act upon environmental issues, with the caveat that this approach should include solution-oriented information to be successful (23, 274). Maibach et al. (22) have also found that audiences respond more positively to messaging that highlights the health benefits associated with policy decisions rather than focusing on associated hazards and risks, which aligns with other research that acknowledges the cognitive costs of emotional appeals related to environmental messages and audiences' needs for information about social rewards and individual efficacy (275). Often studied and applied in health-care settings to achieve behavior change with generally positive outcomes (276, 277), narrative interventions and analyses of narrative elements are also of interest to environmental communication research (258, 259, 278), especially since narratives can appeal to emotions and motivate action by supplementing quantitative environmental data (261).
Media and channels
Messages are delivered to their audiences using media or channels which can include, but are not limited to, print, video, photography, or spoken word. As society grapples with existential environmental issues from the local to international scales, traditional media–including documentary film, experiential advertising, and news media reporting–are now used in conjunction with digital media like short-form social media films, digital media advocacy campaigns, and virtual or augmented reality (217). The communication tools and channels available to today's environmental communicators are evolving nearly as rapidly as the science that environmental communicators aim to package and distribute to audiences. Many of these modern channels are readily available in some form for anyone with a desire to create and distribute information–accurate or not–in an instant.
During media selection, communicators decide on the ways they intend to package and deliver their message to their intended audience. In the current media landscape, there are many options from which communicators can choose, including print, broadcast, and digital media formats, as well as face-to-face communication (141), exhibits, educational interpretations, and interactive experiences. Factors like audience preferences and the type of messaging to be shared influence which media best support the communication. For example, instrumental music can complement the images displayed in a short form video on an environmental topic and prompt viewers to experience a particular emotion (267), but it is not possible to include instrumental music in a print product like a brochure or a book. Similarly, plastics pollution, oil spills, and natural disasters work well in photographs and other forms of visual media (279), while less visible or longer-term outcomes like ocean acidification or changes in vital ocean currents are much harder to capture with the same methods. Campaigns are not limited to one medium or channel, and many leverage multiple media types to reach different audiences or to reinforce messages in different ways. It is important to note, however, that more complex or technologically advanced forms of communication are not necessarily more effective than simpler ones and may actually undermine a campaign's effectiveness as the messages (12).
Given the complexity of environmental topics and the uncertainty surrounding them, as well as limited resources and budgets, media selection is a critically important decision to make as part of the strategic communication planning process (280–282). Additionally, generalists–or even freelancers–have, for the most part, replaced dedicated environmental journalists, whose jobs were to report on environmental science. Productivity expectations for journalists in the digital era require writers to work on multiple stories under increasingly compressed deadlines, creating other barriers to earning coverage for OHH topics (202, 283). An understanding of the modern media landscape–especially by the institution of science and experts in the field (284)–is essential to the success of any effort in environmental communication.
Measurement and evaluation
Operationalizing and measuring outcomes of communication are important steps in knowing what works, the degree to which it works, and the context in which it worked. Like a research question informs the methods used in a study, the objective of a communications effort informs how one defines and measures success. Oftentimes, these goals and performance metrics relate to the degree to which a campaign supports an organization's mission (285). While evaluation in the context of strategic communication is not standardized and often narrowly focuses on activities and outputs (e.g., social media impressions, clicks through to links embedded in an email marketing campaign, the financial returns related to a campaign), there have been advances in frameworks and approaches to the practice that have the potential to make planning, implementation, and evaluation of communications more effective (286–288).
Notably, there are calls to move away from one-way communication and measurement in favor of a more open and adaptive approach that considers both quantitative and qualitative information from internal and external stakeholders (289). In these cases, evaluators might reflect on the communication design process and suggest changes an organization can apply moving forward or conduct reception studies to learn more about how audiences construct meaning from campaigns. Despite there being many ways to go about measuring and evaluating strategic communications efforts and an agreement that it is an essential part of communications practice, it is a resource intensive process and one that is often skipped (286).
Remaining challenges
Like OHH, there are persistent challenges facing EC scholars and practitioners. Many of them relate to tying knowledge to action and making environmental problems relevant and important to audiences to inspire action. Environmental communication scholars and practitioners continue to explore ways to address these challenges that include drawing attention to complex environmental issues and their solutions, combating misinformation and media selection, and supporting efforts to make environmentalism more diverse, equitable, inclusive, and accessible.
Environmental communicators conduct their work in the same places as other strategic communicators, meaning they compete with other organizations and newsworthy events for the attention of their audiences, making it harder and that much more important to draw attention to environmental stories and inspiring the urgency needed to create the social, behavioral, and political changes that can solve them. One barrier is the mismatch between the speed of news cycles and the slow development of environmental problems, which poses challenges for getting past media gatekeepers and earning coverage (290). Another is that of public perceptions; non-expert audiences certainly know that aquatic systems are under threat, but at the same time feel unfamiliar with these environments, perceive distance between ocean issues and daily life, and don't hear enough about these topics to know what exactly is wrong and how they can help (159, 162, 291). Other social headwinds include a lack of familiarity with the growing body of psychological research on topics in the environment and sustainability (240), debates about the role of scientists and other experts in the policy realm (227, 229), a disconnect between the issues that are most pressing to the scientific community and those that receive the most public attention and resources (292), and the fact that, despite wanting to do better, reporters need more opportunities to learn from scientists about pressing issues in the marine environment to cover them better for their audiences (12).
While counter campaigns are nothing new, communicators have an incredible amount of control over their channels of choice in today's media landscape, which can lead to echo chambers that reinforce existing beliefs and introduce people to misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation (293–296). These activities can undermine factual messaging and lead to behavior that inhibits action, such as underestimating public support for climate policy (297). There are, however, five common categories of climate misinformation –that the problem is not real; the problem is not harmful or serious; people do not have a role in creating or contributing to the problem; society cannot do anything to avoid the worst outcomes; and experts in the field do not agree on the facts (298)–and strategies used to deliver it to audiences (203). These positions and strategies have not changed much since the early days of climate denial campaigns, making them fairly easy to identify (203). While there are ways to teach people to spot misinformation about climate and other environmental topics, false beliefs can take hold quickly with individuals, become politicized, and are much harder to counter than proactive efforts (203, 299, 300). Issues related to OHH and the actions to solve them through policy and other means certainly have the potential to be politicized due to cognitive biases like motivated reasoning (301), confirmation bias (302), and hyperbolic discounting (303) and, as a result, subject to many of these same challenges (162).
Environmental communication is directly related to environmental justice. Public communication and participatory processes have the power to shape conversations in ways that devalue the conditions and voices of disempowered groups (224) or don't consider the role of inequities–environmental or otherwise–in shaping local climate narratives, peoples' lived experiences, and policy decisions (177). Issues of representation, power, justice, and accessibility not only play out in the courtroom but make their way into environmental media–if environmental justice topics receive coverage at all (304). Through framing, gatekeeping, and other communication processes, certain voices are amplified and others are muted; sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. Mainstream media often overlooks the causes and histories of environmental injustices and recognizes and reports the positions of institutions like businesses, non-profits, and governments rather than those of citizen advocates (305, 306). Even documentary films that are intended to be ethnographic and objective can reinforce inequities or serve the interests of the filmmaker and the audiences to which they share their art (307). While there are efforts to address environmental justice issues using alternative pathways–such as critical interruptions and storytelling (308, 309), community-centered interventions like photovoice (310, 311), and adopting processes that make room for traditional and indigenous knowledge as important parts of decision making processes (312, 313)–much more needs to be done to make sure environmental communicators are challenging dominant discourses and carrying out their duty of care to serve marginalized communities.
While environmental communication has advanced a great deal as a field of study and a professional practice, more needs to be done to create a body of knowledge to solve an incredible range of complex environmental problems and invites people of all ways of life to get involved, especially with topics not directly related to global climate change.
Opportunities for collaboration and innovation
Communication is an essential part of the social processes through which OHH science becomes actionable. It is an exciting and opportune time to explore ways to make invisible challenges visible to non-experts and to achieve meaningful progress for the field through collaborative scholarship and practice. But what exactly could communication-focused collaboration look like? I propose five starting points based on the strengths and limitations of these distinct yet complementary fields: (1) definitions and messaging, (2) proactive communication design and evaluation, (3) a shared commitment to environmental justice, (4) bridging science and storytelling, and, (5) training & boundary spanning. These actions stand to support and advance existing efforts to draw attention to ocean ecosystems and its role in our lives, helping to increase marine citizenship worldwide.
By working toward a clearer working definition of ocean and human health, there are opportunities for collaborations across disciplines and sectors to get the messaging right on the science, solutions, actions, and outcomes associated with these topics. Work done on the science and communication of nature-based solutions (NbS) as responses to climate change and biodiversity loss can serve as an important starting point. Seddon et al. (314) found that a lack of consensus and loose definitions of NbS compared to the complex science and social factors behind them can lead to unintended consequences like undermining the urgent need to reduce fossil fuel consumption, over-emphasizing forests and tree planting for carbon sequestration, and overlooking the needs of native ecosystems or the resource rights of local communities, particularly Indigenous peoples. Placing emphasis on nature-health linkages also comes with it the risk of reinforcing dominant discourses of nature as a service provider or sustainability efforts as a conduit for continued economic growth, discourses that ignore the importance of intrinsic valuations and the cultural and personal meanings of nature and place (315, 316). OHH communications should be carefully designed to avoid similar pitfalls, and understand that local efforts can support more unified global messages.
Another opportunity for communication-focused collaboration involves the development, implementation, and evaluation of potential communication strategies with an OHH focus and sharing that knowledge widely. Knowing that individuals experience social-cognitive limitations when receiving information about aquatic ecosystems and knowing that certain issues or solutions in the context of OHH science may be politicized in the future, scholars and practitioners alike can contribute to a proactive and adaptive strategies that are tailored for audiences of interest, to address challenges specific to a particular geographic region, or that focus on solving similar problems in the marine environment across geographic regions. One way to do this is to assess or analyze relevant content that already exists to develop a baseline understanding of topics in OHH that have received attention, how they are communicated, and to whom they appeal. Another involves designing and testing communication interventions to connect local OHH stories to global scientific knowledge or challenges, documenting and sharing results so others may learn from and apply them.
With stated commitments to environmental justice and equity, contributors to OHH and to EC have a responsibility to help make good on these promises, whether working in science, policy, public health, communication, or otherwise. This is especially true as environmental decision-making is not apolitical and decisions inevitably create winners and losers of varying degrees. Community engagement, co-production of knowledge, and incorporation of knowledge beyond the empirical are all activities that require strong communication and an ability to engage many perspectives and lived experiences. So, too, do building and investing in relationships with media gatekeepers in attempts to amplify unheard or underheard voices in mainstream media while also leveraging less traditional channels to make information about environmental justice accessible. Engaged scholarship (224) that investigates environmental injustices and attempts to solve them [e.g., (309, 317)], that shares lessons learned from collaborative efforts that are inclusive of non-empirical knowledge [e.g., (112)], or that examines the effects of environmental changes or solutions to them on marginalized communities (318) can help OHH science and policy advance in ways that are equitable, inclusive, and just. Additionally, there is a great need to continue advancing research beyond the borders of Western, white nations and to incorporate forms of knowledge beyond the empirical, all in service of environmental justice and equitable health outcomes for the global community.
There is an increasing need for environmental professionals who are trained to transcend boundaries and work with stakeholders from different sectors, organizations, and perspectives (319–321). This kind of training can come from interdisciplinary or professional degree programs, novel research collaborations, work experience, professional development, or some combination of education and work experience. Making OHH actionable requires a range of professionals who can understand and facilitate conversations between environmental scientists, social and behavioral scientists, health practitioners, decision makers, community members, and communication professionals, among others (322). Activities these individuals may take on as part of their work could include connecting scientists with reporters in an effort to create more accurate and compelling coverage of the marine environment; teaching health practitioners how to talk to their patients about the environment and human health; and translating the work of experts into accessible and understandable communication campaigns for non-expert audiences. Additionally, the scientific community can encourage participation in these kinds of efforts by moving away from career development paths that are focused on publications, presentations, and teaching (323) and toward a model of career development that also recognizes and celebrates achievements in policy, communication, and community engagement. Degree programs, workplaces, and funders can and should support the development and hiring of more boundary-spanners who are prepared to bring diverse groups together in pursuit of positive change.
Empirical data and storytelling in its many forms can and should be used in support of one another in the context of OHH and can serve to connect local, visible issues or opportunities to ones at a regional, national, or global scale. OHH research covers a range of unique and sometimes unexpected topics, which creates opportunities to tell stories that appeal to audiences of all kinds. For audiences who are invested in biodiversity conservation, stories about animals may be enough. For parents of young children, stories of local air and water quality may be a better choice. For seafood producers, consumers, and business-minded individuals, stories about local fisheries, their quality, and their value may work well. For people who are interested in physical, psychological, or spiritual wellness, stories about athletes, recreation opportunities, or people who have otherwise benefitted from aquatic ecosystems may be appealing. Whatever the topic–be it cats as sentinel species for ocean quality (34) or the story of a successful partnership between scientists and Indigenous communities related to harmful algal blooms (112)–there are many ways to tell these important and memorable stories and inspire action.
Conclusion
To advance the findings of ocean and human health research and environmental communication and create positive outcomes for the billions of individuals who live on our ocean-planet, we need to move beyond the production of knowledge and begin testing how best to use it to advance conservation and sustainability goals. This is especially true if we want the Ocean Decade to be one of meaningful and lasting change, rather than a symbolic global pledge. With a broad base of research available in OHH science and environmental communication, it is time to bridge the two in focused research and professional practice that can inform strategies that inspire social and behavioral changes that benefit aquatic systems and the communities that rely on them. It is no simple task, though for those who are willing to work on it over the next decade and beyond, the potential rewards are significant.
Author contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. National Research Council (US). Committee on the Ocean's Role in Human Health. From Monsoons to Microbes: Understanding the Ocean's Role in Human Health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US) (1999).
2. Fleming LE, Maycock B, White MP, Depledge MH. Fostering human health through ocean sustainability in the 21st century. People Nat. (2019) 1:276–83. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10038
3. Fleming LE, McDonough N, Austen M, Mee L, Moore M, Hess P, et al. Oceans and human health: a rising tide of challenges and opportunities for Europe. Mar Environ Res. (2014) 99:16–9. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2014.05.010
4. Laws EA, Fleming LE, Stegeman JJ. Centers for oceans and human health: contributions to an emerging discipline. Environ Health. (2008) 7:1–5. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-7-S2-S1
5. Sandifer PA, Trtanj JM, Collier TK. A perspective on the history and evolution of an oceans and human health “metadiscipline” in the USA. Microb Ecol. (2013) 65:880–8. doi: 10.1007/s00248-013-0181-8
6. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Oceans and Human Health. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (2022). Available online at: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/centers/oceans/index.cfm
7. Borja A, White MP, Berdalet E, Bock N, Eatock C, Kristensen P, et al. Moving toward an agenda on ocean health and human health in Europe. Front Mar Sci. (2020) 7:37. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00037
8. Britton E, Domegan C, McHugh P. Accelerating sustainable ocean policy: the dynamics of multiple stakeholder priorities and actions for oceans and human health. Marine Policy. (2021) 124:104333. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104333
9. Morrissey K. Aligning ocean plastic pollution and human health a co-benefits approach. J Ocean Coast Econ. (2019) 6:1–16. doi: 10.15351/2373-8456.1090
10. Depoux A, Hémono M, Puig-Malet S, Pédron R, Flahault A. Communicating climate change and health in the media. Public Health Rev. (2017) 38:1–4. doi: 10.1186/s40985-016-0044-1
11. Kolandai-Matchett K, Armoudian M, Li E. Communicating complex ocean issues: how strategically framed messages affect awareness and motivation when conveyed using narrative vs. expository language. Aquatic Conserv. (2021) 31:870–87. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3484
12. Kolandai-Matchett K, Armoudian M, Thrush S, Hillman J, Schwendenmann L, Jakobsson J, et al. Marine ecosystem science and the media: exploring ways to improve news coverage through journalist–scientist working relations. Aquat Conserv. (2021) 31:3034–55. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3708
13. Ryabinin V, Barbière J, Haugan P, Kullenberg G, Smith N, McLean C, et al. The UN decade of ocean science for sustainable development. Front Mar Sci. (2019) 6:470. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00470
14. Claudet J, Bopp L, Cheung WW, Devillers R, Escobar-Briones E, Haugan P, et al. A roadmap for using the UN decade of ocean science for sustainable development in support of science, policy, and action. One Earth. (2020) 2:34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2019.10.012
15. Fleming LE, Depledge M, Bouley T, Britton E, Dupont S, Eatock C, et al. The ocean decade—Opportunities for oceans and human health programs to contribute to public health. Am J Public Health. (2021) 111:808–11. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2021.306229
16. Franke A, Blenckner T, Duarte CM, Ott K, Fleming LE, Antia A, et al. Operationalizing ocean health: toward integrated research on ocean health and recovery to achieve ocean sustainability. One Earth. (2020) 2:557–65. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.05.013
17. Lloret J, Abós-Herràndiz R, Alemany S, Allué R, Bartra J, Basagaña M, et al. The roses ocean and human health chair: a new way to engage the public in oceans and human health challenges. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:5078. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17145078
18. Nash KL, Van Putten I, Alexander KA, Bettiol S, Cvitanovic C, Farmery AK, et al. Oceans and society: feedbacks between ocean and human health. Rev Fish Biol Fish. (2022) 32:161–87. doi: 10.1007/s11160-021-09669-5
19. McKinley E, Fletcher S. Improving marine environmental health through marine citizenship: a call for debate. Marine Policy. (2012) 36:839–43. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2011.11.001
20. Kreslake JM, Sarfaty M, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz AA, Maibach EW. The critical roles of health professionals in climate change prevention and preparedness. Am J Public Health. (2018) 108:S68–9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.304044
21. Maibach EW, Chadwick A, McBride D, Chuk M, Ebi KL, Balbus J. Climate change and local public health in the United States: preparedness, programs and perceptions of local public health department directors. PLoS ONE. (2008) 3:e2838. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002838
22. Maibach EW, Nisbet M, Baldwin P, Akerlof K, Diao G. Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health. (2010) 10:1–11. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-299
23. Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A. Communication and marketing as climate change–intervention assets: a public health perspective. Am J Prev Med. (2008) 35:488–500. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.016
24. Myers TA, Nisbet MC, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz AA. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Clim Change. (2012) 113:1105–12. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6
25. Jenkins A, Horwitz P, Arabena K. My island home: place-based integration of conservation and public health in Oceania. Environ Conserv. (2018) 45:125–36. doi: 10.1017/S0376892918000061
26. Grant SB, Kim JH, Jones BH, Jenkins SA, Wasyl J, Cudaback C. Surf zone entrainment, along-shore transport, and human health implications of pollution from tidal outlets. J Geophys Res Oceans. (2005) 110:1–20. doi: 10.1029/2004JC002401
27. Griffin DW, Kellogg CA. Dust storms and their impact on ocean and human health: dust in Earth's atmosphere. Ecohealth. (2004) 1:284–95. doi: 10.1007/s10393-004-0120-8
28. Muñiz-Unamunzaga M, Borge R, Sarwar G, Gantt B, de la Paz D, Cuevas CA, et al. The influence of ocean halogen and sulfur emissions in the air quality of a coastal megacity: the case of Los Angeles. Sci Total Environ. (2018) 610:1536–45. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.098
29. Owens PN, Blake WH, Gaspar L, Gateuille D, Koiter AJ, Lobb DA, et al. Fingerprinting and tracing the sources of soils and sediments: earth and ocean science, geoarchaeological, forensic, and human health applications. Earth Sci Rev. (2016) 162:1–23. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.08.012
30. Trossman D, Palter J. Changing ocean currents. In From Hurricanes to Epidemics. Cham: Springer (2021). p. 11–26. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-55012-7_2
31. Zheng H, Cai M, Yang C, Gao Y, Chen Z, Liu Y. Terrigenous export and ocean currents' diffusion of organophosphorus flame retardants along China's adjacent seas. Environ Pollut. (2022) 118873. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.118873
32. Falkenberg LJ, Bellerby RG, Connell SD, Fleming LE, Maycock B, Russell BD, et al. Ocean acidification and human health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:4563. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124563
33. Baily JL, Foster G, Brown D, Davison NJ, Coia JE, Watson E, et al. Salmonella infection in grey seals (H alichoerus grypus), a marine mammal sentinel species: pathogenicity and molecular typing of Salmonella strains compared with human and livestock isolates. Environ Microbiol. (2016) 18:1078–87. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13219
34. Takeuchi T, Frank MD, Fischer PV, Annett CS, Okabe M. The outbreak of Minamata disease (methyl mercury poisoning) in cats on Northwestern Ontario reserves. Environ Res. (1977) 13:215–28. doi: 10.1016/0013-9351(77)90098-6
35. Aguirre AA, Tabor GM. Introduction: marine vertebrates as sentinels of marine ecosystem health. Ecohealth. (2004) 1:236–8. doi: 10.1007/s10393-004-0091-9
36. Biamis C, O'Driscoll K, Hardiman G. Microplastic toxicity: a review of the role of marine sentinel species in assessing the environmental and public health impacts. Case Stud Chem Environ Eng. (2021) 3:100073. doi: 10.1016/j.cscee.2020.100073
37. Bo J, Zheng R, Kuang W, Hong F, Xie Q, Zhang Y. The use of rockfish Sebastiscus marmoratus as a sentinel species to assess petroleum hydrocarbons pollution: a case study in Quanzhou Bay, China. Mar Pollut Bull. (2017) 124:984–92. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.025
38. Bossart GD. Marine mammals as sentinel species for oceans and human health. Vet Pathol. (2011) 48:676–90. doi: 10.1177/0300985810388525
39. Burger J, Gochfeld M. Marine birds as sentinels of environmental pollution. Ecohealth. (2004) 1:263–74. doi: 10.1007/s10393-004-0096-4
40. Dove V. Mortality investigation of the Mekong Irrawaddy River dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris) in Cambodia based on necropsy sample analysis. World Wildlife Fund Technical Report (2009). p.1–72.
41. Gibson AK, Raverty S, Lambourn DM, Huggins J, Magargal SL, Grigg ME. Polyparasitism is associated with increased disease severity in Toxoplasma gondii-infected marine sentinel species. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. (2011) 5:e1142. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001142
42. Grove RA, Henny CJ, Kaiser JL. Osprey: worldwide sentinel species for assessing and monitoring environmental contamination in rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries. J Toxicol Environ Health B. (2009) 12:25–44. doi: 10.1080/10937400802545078
43. Kim Y, Powell EN, Wade TL, Presley BJ. Relationship of parasites and pathologies to contaminant body burden in sentinel bivalves: NOAA Status and Trends ‘mussel watch' program. Mar Environ Res. (2008) 65:101–27. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2007.09.003
44. Lima-Filho JV, Interaminense JA, Batista JE, Vaz RV, Ventura RF, Oliveira IB, et al. Coliform risk assessment through use of the clam anomalocardia brasiliana as animal sentinel for shellfish harvesting areas in Brazil's northeast. J Food Sci Technol. (2015) 52:5364–9. doi: 10.1007/s13197-015-1744-0
45. Mancia A, Abelli L, Kucklick JR, Rowles TK, Wells RS, Balmer BC, et al. Microarray applications to understand the impact of exposure to environmental contaminants in wild dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Mar Genomics. (2015) 19:47–57. doi: 10.1016/j.margen.2014.11.002
46. Miller A, Nyberg E, Danielsson S, Faxneld S, Haglund P, Bignert A. Comparing temporal trends of organochlorines in guillemot eggs and baltic herring: advantages and disadvantage for selecting sentinel species for environmental monitoring. Mar Environ Res. (2014) 100:38–47. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2014.02.007
47. Schwacke LH, Gulland FM, White S. Sentinel Species in Oceans and Human Health. In Environmental Toxicology. New York, NY: Springer (2013). p. 503–28. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-5764-0_18
48. Tabor GM, Aguirre AA. Ecosystem health and sentinel species: adding an ecological element to the proverbial “canary in the mineshaft”. Ecohealth. (2004) 1:226–8. doi: 10.1007/s10393-004-0092-8
49. Zelikoff JT. Biomarkers of immunotoxicity in fish and other non-mammalian sentinel species: predictive value for mammals?. Toxicol. (1998) 129:63–71. doi: 10.1016/S0300-483X(98)00064-X
50. Akhbarizadeh R, Moore F, Keshavarzi B. Investigating microplastics bioaccumulation and biomagnification in seafood from the Persian Gulf: a threat to human health? Food Addit Contaminants. (2019) 36:1696–708. doi: 10.1080/19440049.2019.1649473
51. Akintola SL, Fakoya KA. Small-scale fisheries in the context of traditional post-harvest practice and the quest for food and nutritional security in Nigeria. Agricult Food Sec. (2017) 6:1–17. doi: 10.1186/s40066-017-0110-z
52. Baki MA, Hossain MM, Akter J, Quraishi SB, Shojib MFH, Ullah AA, et al. Concentration of heavy metals in seafood (fishes, shrimp, lobster and crabs) and human health assessment in Saint Martin Island, Bangladesh. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety. (2018) 159:153–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.04.035
53. Golden CD, Allison EH, Cheung WW, Dey MM, Halpern BS, McCauley DJ, et al. Nutrition: fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature. (2016) 534:317–20. doi: 10.1038/534317a
54. Golding J, Steer C, Emmett P, Davis JM, Hibbeln JR. High levels of depressive symptoms in pregnancy with low omega-3 fatty acid intake from fish. Epidemiology. (2009) 20:598–603. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31819d6a57
55. Hales S, Weinstein P, Souares Y, Woodward A. El Niño and the dynamics of vectorborne disease transmission. Environ Health Perspect. (1999) 107:99–102. doi: 10.1289/ehp.9910799
56. Hibbeln JR, Spiller P, Brenna JT, Golding J, Holub BJ, Harris WS, et al. Relationships between seafood consumption during pregnancy and childhood and neurocognitive development: two systematic reviews. Prostagl Leukotr Essent Fatty Acids. (2019) 151:14–36. doi: 10.1016/j.plefa.2019.10.002
57. Kawarazuka N, Béné C. Linking small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to household nutritional security: an overview. Food Sec. (2010) 2:343–57. doi: 10.1007/s12571-010-0079-y
58. Kulawik P, Özogul F, Glew R, Özogul Y. Significance of antioxidants for seafood safety and human health. J Agricult Food Chem. (2013) 61:475–91. doi: 10.1021/jf304266s
59. Lemasson AJ, Hall-Spencer JM, Kuri V, Knights AM. Changes in the biochemical and nutrient composition of seafood due to ocean acidification and warming. Mar Environ Res. (2019) 143:82–92. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2018.11.006
60. Marques A, Nunes ML, Moore SK, Strom MS. Climate change and seafood safety: human health implications. Food Res Int. (2010) 43:1766–79. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2010.02.010
61. McManus A, Newton W. Seafood, nutrition and human health: a synopsis of the nutritional benefits of consuming seafood (2011).
62. Shi W, Zhao X, Han Y, Che Z, Chai X, Liu G. Ocean acidification increases cadmium accumulation in marine bivalves: a potential threat to seafood safety. Sci Rep. (2016) 6:1–8. doi: 10.1038/srep20197
63. Shi W, Han Y, Guo C, Su W, Zhao X, Zha S, et al. Ocean acidification increases the accumulation of titanium dioxide nanoparticles (nTiO2) in edible bivalve mollusks and poses a potential threat to seafood safety. Sci Rep. (2019) 9:1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-40047-1
64. Stratakis N, Roumeliotaki T, Oken E, Ballester F, Barros H, Basterrechea M, et al. Fish and seafood consumption during pregnancy and the risk of asthma and allergic rhinitis in childhood: a pooled analysis of 18 European and US birth cohorts. Int J Epidemiol. (2017) 46:1465–77. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx007
65. Storelli MM. Potential human health risks from metals (Hg, Cd, and Pb) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) via seafood consumption: estimation of target hazard quotients (THQs) and toxic equivalents (TEQs). Food Chem Toxicol. (2008) 46:2782–8. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2008.05.011
66. Tate RD, Benkendorff K, Ab Lah R, Kelaher BP. Ocean acidification and warming impacts the nutritional properties of the predatory whelk, Dicathais orbita. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. (2017) 493:7–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2017.03.006
67. Techera EJ. Supporting blue economy agenda: fisheries, food security and climate change in the Indian Ocean. J Indian Ocean Region. (2018) 14:7–27. doi: 10.1080/19480881.2017.1420579
68. Wekell JC, Gauglitz Jr EJ, Bamett HJ, Hatfield CL, Simons D, Ayres D. Occurrence of domoic acid in Washington State razor clams (Siliqua patula) during 1991-1993. Nat Toxins. (1994) 2:197–205. doi: 10.1002/nt.2620020408
69. Page J. Salmon farming in First Nations' territories: a case of environmental injustice on Canada's West Coast. Local Environ. (2007) 12:613–26. doi: 10.1080/13549830701657349
70. Contini D, Merico E. Recent advances in studying air quality and health effects of shipping emissions. Atmosphere. (2021) 12:92. doi: 10.3390/atmos12010092
71. Geels C, Winther M, Andersson C, Jalkanen JP, Brandt J, Frohn LM, et al. Projections of shipping emissions and the related impact on air pollution and human health in the Nordic region. Atmospheric Chem Phys. (2021) 21:12495–519. doi: 10.5194/acp-21-12495-2021
72. Lindgren S. The coast is clear: Shipping emission standards, air quality and infant health. Transp Res D Transp Environ. (2021) 100:103067. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2021.103067
73. Maragkogianni A, Papaefthimiou S. Evaluating the social cost of cruise ships air emissions in major ports of Greece. Transp Res D Transp Environ. (2015) 36:10–7. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2015.02.014
74. Merico E, Cesari D, Gregoris E, Gambaro A, Cordella M, Contini D. Shipping and air quality in Italian port cities: state-of-the-art analysis of available results of estimated impacts. Atmosphere. (2021) 12:536. doi: 10.3390/atmos12050536
75. Murena F, Mocerino L, Quaranta F, Toscano D. Impact on air quality of cruise ship emissions in Naples, Italy. Atmos Environ. (2018) 187:70–83. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.05.056
76. Nunes RA, Alvim-Ferraz M, Martins FG, Calderay-Cayetano F, Durán-Grados V, Moreno-Gutiérrez J, et al. Shipping emissions in the Iberian Peninsula and the impacts on air quality. Atmospheric Chem Phys. (2020) 20:9473–89. doi: 10.5194/acp-20-9473-2020
77. Ruiz-Guerra I, Molina-Moreno V, Cortés-García FJ, Núñez-Cacho P. Prediction of the impact on air quality of the cities receiving cruise tourism: the case of the Port of Barcelona. Heliyon. (2019) 5:e01280. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01280
78. Sofiev M, Winebrake JJ, Johansson L, Carr EW, Prank M, Soares J, et al. Cleaner fuels for ships provide public health benefits with climate tradeoffs. Nat Commun. (2018) 9:1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02774-9
79. Viana M, Hammingh P, Colette A, Querol X, Degraeuwe B, de Vlieger I, et al. Impact of maritime transport emissions on coastal air quality in Europe. Atmos Environ. (2014) 90:96–105. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.03.046
80. Zhao J, Zhang Y, Xu H, Tao S, Wang R, Yu Q, et al. Trace elements from ocean-going vessels in East Asia: vanadium and nickel emissions and their impacts on air quality. J Geophys Res. (2021) 126:e2020JD033984. doi: 10.1029/2020JD033984
81. Zhang Y, Yang X, Brown R, Yang L, Morawska L, Ristovski Z, et al. Shipping emissions and their impacts on air quality in China. Sci Total Environ. (2017) 581:186–98. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.12.098
82. Abraldes JA, Pérez-Gómez J. Assessment of risk factors for injuries on beaches. Int J Aquat Res Educ. (2009) 3:6. doi: 10.25035/ijare.03.03.06
83. Fisman DN, Tuite AR, Brown KA. Impact of El Niño Southern Oscillation on infectious disease hospitalization risk in the United States. Proc Nat Acad Sci. (2016) 113:14589–94. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1604980113
84. Kreppel K, Caminade C, Govella N, Morse AP, Ferguson HM, Baylis M. Impact of ENSO 2016–17 on regional climate and malaria vector dynamics in Tanzania. Environ Res Lett. (2019) 14:075009. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab26c7
85. Leonard AF, Zhang L, Balfour AJ, Garside R, Hawkey PM, Murray AK, et al. Exposure to and colonisation by antibiotic-resistant E. coli in UK coastal water users: environmental surveillance, exposure assessment, and epidemiological study (Beach Bum Survey) Environ Int. (2018) 114:326–33. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.11.003
86. Lim YL, Kumarasinghe SPW. Cutaneous injuries from marine animals. Singapore Med J. (2007) 48:e25–8.
87. Lindequist U. Marine-derived pharmaceuticals–challenges and opportunities. Biomol Therapeut. (2016) 24:561. doi: 10.4062/biomolther.2016.181
88. Mayer AM, Glaser KB, Cuevas C, Jacobs RS, Kem W, Little RD, et al. The odyssey of marine pharmaceuticals: a current pipeline perspective. Trends Pharmacol Sci. (2010) 31:255–65. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2010.02.005
89. Semenza JC, Trinanes J, Lohr W, Sudre B, Löfdahl M, Martinez-Urtaza J, et al. Environmental suitability of Vibrio infections in a warming climate: an early warning system. Environ Health Perspect. (2017) 125:107004. doi: 10.1289/EHP2198
90. Sorensen CJ, Borbor-Cordova MJ, Calvello-Hynes E, Diaz A, Lemery J, Stewart-Ibarra AM. Climate variability, vulnerability, and natural disasters: a case study of Zika virus in Manabi, Ecuador following the 2016 earthquake. GeoHealth. (2017) 1:298–304. doi: 10.1002/2017GH000104
91. Taylor DM, Ashby K, Winkel KD. An analysis of marine animal injuries presenting to emergency departments in Victoria, Australia. Wilderness Environ Med. (2002) 13:106–12. doi: 10.1580/1080-6032(2002)0130106:AAOMAI2.0.CO;2
92. Wang X, Feng X, Zhuang Y, Lu J, Wang Y, Goncalves RJ, et al. Effects of ocean acidification and solar ultraviolet radiation on physiology and toxicity of dinoflagellate Karenia mikimotoi. Harmful Algae. (2019) 81:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.hal.2018.11.013
93. Young N, Sharpe RA, Barciela R, Nichols G, Davidson K, Berdalet E, et al. Marine harmful algal blooms and human health: a systematic scoping review. Harmful Algae. (2020) 98:101901. doi: 10.1016/j.hal.2020.101901
94. Aguilera F, Méndez J, Pásaro E, Laffon B. Review on the effects of exposure to spilled oils on human health. J Appl Toxicol. (2010) 30:291–301. doi: 10.1002/jat.1521
95. Beaumont NJ, Aanesen M, Austen MC, Börger T, Clark JR, Cole M, et al. Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Mar Pollut Bull. (2019) 142:189–95. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022
96. Bonsignore M, Manta DS, Sharif EAAT, D'Agostino F, Traina A, Quinci EM, et al. Marine pollution in the Libyan coastal area: environmental and risk assessment. Mar Pollut Bull. (2018) 128:340–52. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.043
97. Branchet P, Arpin-Pont L, Piram A, Boissery P, Wong-Wah-Chung P, Doumenq P. Pharmaceuticals in the marine environment: what are the present challenges in their monitoring?. Sci Total Environ. (2021) 766:142644. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142644
98. Bruederle A, Hodler R. Effect of oil spills on infant mortality in Nigeria. Proc Nat Acad Sci. (2019) 116:5467–71. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1818303116
99. Campbell ML, Peters L, McMains C, de Campos MCR, Sargisson RJ, Blackwell B, et al. Are our beaches safe? quantifying the human health impact of anthropogenic beach litter on people in New Zealand. Sci Total Environ. (2019) 651:2400–9. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.137
100. Campbell ML, Slavin C, Grage A, Kinslow A. Human health impacts from litter on beaches and associated perceptions: a case study of ‘clean' tasmanian beaches. Ocean Coast Manag. (2016) 126:22–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.04.002
101. Eklund RL, Knapp LC, Sandifer PA, Colwell RC. Oil spills and human health: contributions of the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative. GeoHealth. (2019) 3:391–406. doi: 10.1029/2019GH000217
102. Iduk U, Samson N. Effects and solutions of marine pollution from ships in Nigerian waterways. Int J Sci Eng Res. (2015) 6:782–92.
103. Laffon B, Pásaro E, Valdiglesias V. Effects of exposure to oil spills on human health: updated review. J Toxicol Environ Health B. (2016) 19:105–28. doi: 10.1080/10937404.2016.1168730
104. Landrigan PJ, Stegeman JJ, Fleming LE, Allemand D, Anderson DM, Backer LC, et al. Human health and ocean pollution. Ann Global Health. (2020) 86:151. doi: 10.5334/aogh.2831
105. Leslie HA, Van Velzen MJ, Brandsma SH, Vethaak AD, Garcia-Vallejo JJ, Lamoree MH. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environ Int. (2022) 163:107199. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199
106. Major DN, Wang H. How public health impact is addressed: a retrospective view on three different oil spills. Toxicol Environ Chem. (2012) 94:442–67. doi: 10.1080/02772248.2012.654633
107. Naik RK, Naik MM, D'Costa PM, Shaikh F. Microplastics in ballast water as an emerging source and vector for harmful chemicals, antibiotics, metals, bacterial pathogens and HAB species: a potential risk to the marine environment and human health. Mar Pollut Bull. (2019) 149:110525. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110525
108. Ordinioha B, Brisibe S. The human health implications of crude oil spills in the Niger delta, Nigeria: an interpretation of published studies. Niger Med J. (2013) 54:10. doi: 10.4103/0300-1652.108887
109. Ragusa A, Svelato A, Santacroce C, Catalano P, Notarstefano V, Carnevali O, et al. Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environ Int. (2021) 146:106274. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274
110. Sanches VL, Aguiar MRDCM, de Freitas MAV, Pacheco EBAV. Management of cruise ship-generated solid waste: a review. Mar Pollut Bull. (2020) 151:110785. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110785
111. Thompson RC, Moore CJ, Vom Saal FS, Swan SH. Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. (2009) 364:2153–66. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0053
112. Varanasi U, Trainer VL, Schumacker EJ. Taking the long view for oceans and human health connection through community driven science. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2021) 18:2662. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18052662
113. Adeagbo A, Daramola A, Carim-Sanni A, Akujobi C, Ukpong C. Effects of natural disasters on social and economic well being: a study in Nigeria. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. (2016) 17:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.03.006
114. Calgaro E, Lloyd K. Sun, sea, sand and tsunami: examining disaster vulnerability in the tourism community of Khao Lak, Thailand. Singap J Trop Geogr. (2008) 29:288–306. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9493.2008.00335.x
115. Chandra A, Gaganis P. Deconstructing vulnerability and adaptation in a coastal river basin ecosystem: a participatory analysis of flood risk in Nadi, Fiji Islands. Clim Dev. (2016) 8:256–69. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2015.1016884
117. Lépine A, Restuccio M, Strobl E. Can we mitigate the effect of natural disasters on child health? evidence from the Indian Ocean tsunami in Indonesia. Health Econ. (2021) 30:432–52. doi: 10.1002/hec.4202
118. Makwana N. Disaster and its impact on mental health: a narrative review. J Fam Med Prim Care. (2019) 8:3090. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_893_19
119. Mathbor GM. Enhancement of community preparedness for natural disasters: the role of social work in building social capital for sustainable disaster relief and management. Int Soc Work. (2007) 50:357–69. doi: 10.1177/0020872807076049
120. Morin CW, Semenza JC, Trtanj JM, Glass GE, Boyer C, Ebi KL. Unexplored opportunities: use of climate-and weather-driven early warning systems to reduce the burden of infectious diseases. Curr Environ Health Rep. (2018) 5:430–8. doi: 10.1007/s40572-018-0221-0
121. Silva R, Lithgow D, Esteves LS, Martínez ML, Moreno-Casasola P, Martell R, et al. Coastal risk mitigation by green infrastructure in Latin America. Proc Inst Civ Eng Marit Eng. (2017) 170:39–54. doi: 10.1680/jmaen.2016.13
122. Sutton-Grier AE, Sandifer PA. Conservation of wetlands and other coastal ecosystems: a commentary on their value to protect biodiversity, reduce disaster impacts, and promote human health and well-being. Wetlands. (2019) 39:1295–302. doi: 10.1007/s13157-018-1039-0
123. Loring PA. The political ecology of gear bans in two fisheries: florida's net ban and Alaska's salmon wars. Fish Fish. (2017) 18:94–104. doi: 10.1111/faf.12169
124. Amrhein M, Barkhoff H, Heiby EM. Spirituality, depression, and anxiety among ocean surfers. J Clin Sport Psychol. (2016) 10:155–71. doi: 10.1123/jcsp.2015-0016
125. Armitano CN, Clapham ED, Lamont LS, Audette JG. Benefits of surfing for children with disabilities: a pilot study. Palaestra. (2015) 29:31–4. doi: 10.18666/PALAESTRA-2015-V29-I3-6912
126. Blumhorst E, Kono S, Cave J. An exploratory study of adaptive scuba diving's effects on psychological well-being among military veterans. Ther Recreat J. (2020) 54:173–88. doi: 10.18666/TRJ-2020-V54-I2-9954
127. Clapham ED, Armitano CN, Lamont LS, Audette JG. The ocean as a unique therapeutic environment: developing a surfing program. J Phys Educ Recreat Dance. (2014) 85:8–14. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2014.884424
128. Finlay J, Franke T, McKay H, Sims-Gould J. Therapeutic landscapes and wellbeing in later life: impacts of blue and green spaces for older adults. Health Place. (2015) 34:97–106. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.05.001
129. Costello L, McDermott ML, Patel P, Dare J. ‘A lot better than medicine'-self-organised ocean swimming groups as facilitators for healthy ageing. Health Place. (2019) 60:102212. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102212
130. Denning WM, Bressel E, Dolny D, Bressel M, Seeley MK. A review of biophysical differences between aquatic and land-based exercise. Int J Aquat Res Educ. (2012) 6:7. doi: 10.25035/ijare.06.01.07
131. Gadamus L. Linkages between human health and ocean health: a participatory climate change vulnerability assessment for marine mammal harvesters. Int J Circumpolar Health. (2013) 72:20715. doi: 10.3402/ijch.v72i0.20715
132. Kenchington R. Tourism in coastal and marine environments—a recreational perspective. Ocean Coast Manag. (1993) 19:1–16. doi: 10.1016/0964-5691(93)90073-8
133. Lamont LS, Armitano C, Clapham E. Ocean surfing as a novel physiotherapy environment: a commentary. J Nov Physiother. (2014) 4:133–4. doi: 10.4172/2165-7025.1000e133
134. Lim KH, Nam KJ, Rah YC, Cha J, Lee SJ, Lee MG, et al. The effect of natural ocean sound exposure and ocean-side relaxation on chronic tinnitus patients: a pilot study in Korea. Ear Nose Throat J. (2021) 100:NP256–62. doi: 10.1177/0145561319873907
135. Madeira C, Rodrigues P. Wellness Tourism across the maritime space: an in-depth view of consumers' preferences. In International Workshop Tourism and Hospitality Management. p. 50.
136. Nadkarni NM, Hasbach PH, Thys T, Crockett EG, Schnacker L. Impacts of nature imagery on people in severely nature-deprived environments. Front Ecol Environ. (2017) 15:395–403. doi: 10.1002/fee.1518
137. Rogers CM, Mallinson T, Peppers D. High-intensity sports for posttraumatic stress disorder and depression: feasibility study of ocean therapy with veterans of operation enduring freedom and operation Iraqi freedom. Am J Occup Ther. (2014) 68:395–404. doi: 10.5014/ajot.2014.011221
138. Rocher M, Silva B, Cruz G, Bentes R, Lloret J, Inglés E. Benefits of outdoor sports in blue spaces. the case of school nautical activities in viana do castelo. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:8470. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17228470
139. Straughan ER. Touched by water: the body in scuba diving. Emot Space Soc. (2012) 5:19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.emospa.2010.10.003
140. Weinstein N, Balmford A, DeHaan CR, Gladwell V, Bradbury RB, Amano T. Seeing community for the trees: the links among contact with natural environments, community cohesion, and crime. Bioscience. (2015) 65:1141–53. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv151
141. Lejano RP, Casas EV, Montes RB, Lengwa LP. Weather, climate, and narrative: a relational model for democratizing risk communication. Weather Clim Soc. (2018) 10:579–94. doi: 10.1175/WCAS-D-17-0050.1
142. Cuellar-Martinez T, Ruiz-Fernández AC, Alonso-Hernández C, Amaya-Monterrosa O, Quintanilla R, Carrillo-Ovalle HL, et al. Addressing the problem of harmful algal blooms in Latin America and the Caribbean-a regional network for early warning and response. Front Mar Sci. (2018) 5:409. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00409
143. Davidson K, Whyte C, Aleynik D, Dale A, Gontarek S, Kurekin AA, et al. HABreports: online early warning of harmful algal and biotoxin risk for the Scottish shellfish and finfish aquaculture industries. Front Mar Sci. (2021) 8:350. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.631732
144. Doong DJ, Chuang LH, Wu LC, Fan YM, Kao CC, Wang JH. Development of an operational coastal flooding early warning system. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. (2012) 12:379–90. doi: 10.5194/nhess-12-379-2012
145. Kirkpatrick B, Currier R, Nierenberg K, Reich A, Backer LC, Stumpf R, et al. Florida red tide and human health: a pilot beach conditions reporting system to minimize human exposure. Sci Total Environ. (2008) 402:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.03.032
146. Magaletti E, Garaventa F, David M, Castriota L, Kraus R, Luna GM, et al. Developing and testing an early warning system for non indigenous species and ballast water management. J Sea Res. (2018) 133:100–11. doi: 10.1016/j.seares.2017.03.016
147. Mateus M, Fernandes J, Revilla M, Ferrer L, Villarreal MR, Miller P, et al. Early warning systems for shellfish safety: the pivotal role of computational science. In International Conference on Computational Science. Springer, Cham. (2019). p. 361–75. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-22747-0_28
148. Perry SD. Tsunami warning dissemination in Mauritius. J Appl Commun Res. (2007) 35:399–417. doi: 10.1080/00909880701611060
149. Stroming S, Robertson M, Mabee B, Kuwayama Y, Schaeffer B. Quantifying the human health benefits of using satellite information to detect cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms and manage recreational advisories in US Lakes. GeoHealth. (2020) 4:e2020GH000254. doi: 10.1029/2020GH000254
150. Winter G, Storlazzi C, Vitousek S, Van Dongeren A, McCall R, Hoeke R, et al. Steps to develop early warning systems and future scenarios of storm wave-driven flooding along coral reef-lined coasts. Front Mar Sci. (2020) 7:199. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00199
151. Bennett NJ, Blythe J, White CS, Campero C. Blue growth and blue justice: ten risks and solutions for the ocean economy. Marine Policy. (2021) 125:104387. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104387
152. Claudet J. The seven domains of action for a sustainable ocean. Cell. (2021) 184:1426–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.055
153. Halpern BS, Longo C, Hardy D, McLeod KL, Samhouri JF, Katona SK, et al. An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature. (2012) 488:615–20. doi: 10.1038/nature11397
154. Halpern BS. Building on a decade of the ocean health index. One Earth. (2020) 2:30–3. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2019.12.011
155. Bennett NJ. In political seas: engaging with political ecology in the ocean and coastal environment. Coast Manage. (2019) 47:67–87. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2019.1540905
156. Bennett NJ, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Blythe J, Silver JJ, Singh G, Andrews N, et al. Towards a sustainable and equitable blue economy. Nat Sustainabil. (2019) 2:991–3. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0404-1
157. Givens JE, Huang X, Jorgenson AK. Ecologically unequal exchange: a theory of global environmental injustice. Sociol Compass. (2019) 13:e12693. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12693
158. Mohai P, Bryant B. Environmental injustice: weighing race and class as factors in the distribution of environmental hazards. Univ Colo Law Rev. (1992) 63:921.
159. Chilvers J, Lorenzoni I, Terry G, Buckley P, Pinnegar JK, Gelcich S. Public engagement with marine climate change issues: (Re)framings, understandings and responses. Glob Environ Change. (2014) 29:165–79. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.006
160. Bennett NJ, Roth R, Klain SC, Chan K, Christie P, Clark DA, et al. Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol Conserv. (2017) 205:93–108. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006
161. Gifford R. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol. (2011) 66:290–302. doi: 10.1037/a0023566
162. Schuldt JP, McComas KA, Byrne SE. Communicating about ocean health: theoretical and practical considerations. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. (2016) 371:20150214. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0214
163. McGowan VJ, Buckner S, Mead R, McGill E, Ronzi S, Beyer F, et al. Examining the effectiveness of place-based interventions to improve public health and reduce health inequalities: an umbrella review. BMC Public Health. (2021) 21:1–17. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11852-z
164. Altinay Z, Williams N. Visuals as a method of coastal environmental communication. Ocean Coast Manag. (2019) 178:104809. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.05.011
165. Dankwa-Mullan I, Pérez-Stable EJ. Addressing health disparities is a place-based issue. Am J Public Health. (2016) 106:637–9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303077
166. Eberst RM. Defining health: a multidimensional model. J School Health. (1984) 54:99–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.1984.tb08780.x
167. Ereshefsky M. Defining ‘health' and ‘disease'. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. (2009) 40:221–7. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2009.06.005
168. Huber M, Knottnerus JA, Green L, Van Der Horst H, Jadad AR, Kromhout D, et al. How should we define health?. BMJ. (2011) 343:d4163. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4163
169. McCartney G, Popham F, McMaster R, Cumbers A. Defining health and health inequalities. Public Health. (2019) 172:22–30. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.03.023
170. Halpern BS, Longo C, Scarborough C, Hardy D, Best BD, Doney SC, et al. Assessing the health of the US West coast with a regional-scale application of the ocean health index. PLoS ONE. (2014) 9:e98995. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098995
171. Elfes CT, Longo C, Halpern BS, Hardy D, Scarborough C, Best BD, et al. A regional-scale ocean health index for Brazil. PLoS ONE. (2014) 9:e92589. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092589
172. Selig ER, Frazier M, O'Leary JK, Jupiter SD, Halpern BS, Longo C, et al. Measuring indicators of ocean health for an island nation: the ocean health index for Fiji. Ecosyst Serv. (2015) 16:403–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.007
173. Daigle RM, Archambault P, Halpern BS, Stewart Lowndes JS, Côté IM. Incorporating public priorities in the ocean health index: Canada as a case study. PLoS ONE. (2017) 12:e0178044. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178044
174. Longo CS, Frazier M, Doney SC, Rheuban JE, Humberstone JM, Halpern BS. Using the ocean health index to identify opportunities and challenges to improving Southern Ocean ecosystem health. Front Mar Sci. (2017) 4:20. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2017.00020
175. Montgomery J, Scarborough C, Shumchenia E, Verstaen J, Napoli N, Halpern B. Ocean health in the Northeast United States from 2005 to 2017. People Nat. (2021) 3:827–42. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10223
176. Bywaters P. Tackling inequalities in health: a global challenge for social work. Br J Soc Work. (2009) 39:353–67. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcm096
177. Donald R, Young C, Mach KJ. The role of local narratives in emerging climate governance. Environ Res. (2022) 1:015003. doi: 10.1088/2752-5295/ac7aca
178. Edvardsson Björnberg K, Hansson SO. Gendering local climate adaptation. Local Environ. (2013) 18:217–32. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2012.729571
179. Scruggs LA. Political and economic inequality and the environment. Ecol Econ. (1998) 26:259–75. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00118-3
180. Chakraborty J, Collins TW, Grineski SE. Environmental justice research: contemporary issues and emerging topics. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2016) 13:1072. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13111072
181. Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Pauly D, Weatherdon LV, Ota Y. A global estimate of seafood consumption by coastal indigenous peoples. PLoS ONE. (2016) 11:e0166681. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166681
182. Bullard RD, Wright BH. The quest for environmental equity: mobilizing the African? American community for social change. Soc Nat Resour. (1990) 3:301–11. doi: 10.1080/08941929009380728
183. Leposa N. Problematic blue growth: a thematic synthesis of social sustainability problems related to growth in the marine and coastal tourism. Sustain Sci. (2020) 15:1233–44. doi: 10.1007/s11625-020-00796-9
184. Hardy RD, Milligan RA, Heynen N. Racial coastal formation: the environmental injustice of colorblind adaptation planning for sea-level rise. Geoforum. (2017) 87:62–72. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.10.005
185. Stein PJ, Stein MA. Climate change and the right to health of people with disabilities. Lancet Global Health. (2022) 10:e24–5. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00542-8
186. Wolbring G, Leopatra V. Climate change, water, sanitation and energy insecurity: Invisibility of people with disabilities. Can J Disabil Stud. (2012) 1:66–90. doi: 10.15353/cjds.v1i3.58
187. Araújo RJ, Shideler GS, Reamer MB. Chief editors in aquatic science and communication are more likely to oversee editorial boards from their own regions. Learn Publ. (2021) 34:547–57. doi: 10.1002/leap.1393
188. Cho AH, Johnson SA, Schuman CE, Adler JM, Gonzalez O, Graves SJ, et al. Women are underrepresented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management. PeerJ. (2014) 2:e542. doi: 10.7717/peerj.542
189. Fernandez-Bou AS, Ortiz-Partida JP, Dobbin KB, Flores-Landeros H, Bernacchi LA, Medellín-Azuara J. Underrepresented, understudied, underserved: gaps and opportunities for advancing justice in disadvantaged communities. Environ Sci Policy. (2021) 122:92–100. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.04.014
190. Gallegos-Riofrío CA, Arab H, Carrasco-Torrontegui A, Gould RK. Chronic deficiency of diversity and pluralism in research on nature's mental health effects: a planetary health problem. Curr Res Environ Sustainabil. (2022) 4:100148. doi: 10.1016/j.crsust.2022.100148
191. Liévano-Latorre LF, da Silva RA, Vieira RR, Resende FM, Ribeiro BR, Borges FJ, et al. Pervasive gender bias in editorial boards of biodiversity conservation journals. Biol Conserv. (2020) 251:108767. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108767
192. Stephens C, Parkes MW, Chang H. Indigenous perspectives on ecosystem sustainability and health. EcoHealth. (2007) 4:369–70. doi: 10.1007/s10393-007-0140-2
193. Ertör I. ‘We are the oceans, we are the people!': fisher people's struggles for blue justice. J Peasant Stud. (2021) 1−30. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2021.1999932 Available online at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ref/10.1080/03066150.2021.1999932?scroll=top
194. Pinsky ML, Jensen OP, Ricard D, Palumbi SR. Unexpected patterns of fisheries collapse in the world's oceans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2011) 108:8317–22. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1015313108
195. Durkalec A, Furgal C, Skinner MW, Sheldon T. Climate change influences on environment as a determinant of Indigenous health: relationships to place, sea ice, and health in an Inuit community. Soc Sci Med. (2015) 136:17–26. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.04.026
196. Collins TW, Grineski SE, Morales DX. Environmental injustice and sexual minority health disparities: a national study of inequitable health risks from air pollution among same-sex partners. Soc Sci Med. (2017) 191:38–47. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.08.040
197. Smith S, Jacob S, Jepson M, Israel G. After the Florida net ban: the impacts on commercial fishing families. Soc Nat Resour. (2003) 16:39–59. doi: 10.1080/08941920309174
198. Nicoll R, Vick C, Laffoley D, Hajduk T, Zuccarino-Crowe C, Bianco M, et al. MPAs, aquatic conservation and connecting people to nature. Aquat Conserv. (2016) 26:142–64. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2678
199. Allen, M. (2016). Understanding pro-environmental behavior: Models and messages. In Strategic Communication for Sustainable Organizations. Springer, Cham. p. 105–37. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-18005-2_4
200. Greider T, Garkovich L. Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociol. (1994) 59:1–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.1994.tb00519.x
201. Hansen A. The media and the social construction of the environment. Media Cult Soc. (1991) 13:443–58. doi: 10.1177/016344391013004002
202. Hansen A. Communication, media and environment: towards reconnecting research on the production, content and social implications of environmental communication. Int Commun Gaz. (2011) 73:7–25. doi: 10.1177/1748048510386739
203. Cook J. Understanding and Countering Misinformation About Climate Change. Research Anthology on Environmental and Societal Impacts of Climate Change. (2022). p. 1633–58. doi: 10.4018/978-1-6684-3686-8.ch081
204. Farrell J, McConnell K, Brulle R. Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation. Nat Clim Chang. (2019) 9:191–5. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0368-6
205. Kirchhoff CJ, Carmen Lemos M, Dessai S. Actionable knowledge for environmental decision making: broadening the usability of climate science. Annu Rev Environ Resour. (2013) 38:393–414. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-022112-112828
206. Zhao J, Luo Y. A framework to address cognitive biases of climate change. Neuron. (2021) 109:3548–51. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2021.08.029
207. Cairney P, Kwiatkowski R. How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Commun. (2017) 3:1–8. doi: 10.1057/s41599-017-0046-8
208. Goldberg MH, Gustafson A, Van Der Linden S. Leveraging social science to generate lasting engagement with climate change solutions. One Earth. (2020) 3:314–24. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.011
209. Kite-Powell HL, Fleming LE, Backer LC, Faustman EM, Hoagland P, Tsuchiya A, et al. Linking the oceans to public health: current efforts and future directions. Environ Health. (2008) 7:S6. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-7-S2-S6
210. Tankard ME, Paluck EL. Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Soc Issues Policy Rev. (2016) 10:181–211. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12022
211. Van der Linden S, Maibach E, Leiserowitz A. Improving public engagement with climate change: five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspect Psychol Sci. (2015) 10:758–63. doi: 10.1177/1745691615598516
212. Wong-Parodi G, Feygina I. Understanding and countering the motivated roots of climate change denial. Curr Opin Environ Sustainabil. (2020) 42:60–4. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.008
213. Comfort SE, Park YE. On the field of environmental communication: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature. Environ Commun. (2018) 12:862–75. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2018.1514315
214. Hansen A, Cox JR. The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication. London: Routledge (2015). doi: 10.4324/9781315887586
215. Carbaugh D, Cerulli T. Cultural discourses of dwelling: investigating environmental communication as a place-based practice. Environ Commun. (2013) 7:4–23. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2012.749296
216. Penrhyn Jones S. A crisis discipline: broadening understanding of environmental communication through theory and practice. Int J Creat Media Res. (2019) 2. Available online at: https://www.creativemediaresearch.org/post/a-crisis-discipline
217. Shriver-Rice M, Vaughan H. What is environmental media studies?. J Environ Media. (2020) 1:3–13. doi: 10.1386/jem_00001_2
218. Willoughby JF, Smith H. Communication strategies and new media platforms: exploring the synergistic potential of health and environmental communication. Sci Commun. (2016) 38:535–45. doi: 10.1177/1075547016648151
219. Lindenfeld LA, Hall DM, McGreavy B, Silka L, Hart D. Creating a place for environmental communication research in sustainability science. Environ Commun. (2012) 6:23–43. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2011.640702
221. Cox R. Nature's “crisis disciplines”: Does environmental communication have an ethical duty?. Environ Commun. (2007) 1:5–20. doi: 10.1080/17524030701333948
222. Pezzullo PC, Cox R. Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (2018).
223. Fenton D, Young M, Johnson V. Re-presenting the great barrier reef to tourists: implications for tourist experience and evaluation of coral reef environments. Leis Sci. (1998) 20:177–92. doi: 10.1080/01490409809512279
224. Raphael C. Engaged communication scholarship for environmental justice: a research agenda. Environ Commun. (2019) 13:1087–107. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2019.1591478
225. Besley JC, Nisbet M. How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Underst Sci. (2013) 22:644–59. doi: 10.1177/0963662511418743
226. Kotcher JE, Myers TA, Vraga EK, Stenhouse N, Maibach EW. Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environ Commun. (2017) 11:415–29. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736
227. Nelson MP, Vucetich JA. On advocacy by environmental scientists: what, whether, why, and how. Conserv Biol. (2009) 23:1090–101. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01250.x
228. Nils Peterson M, Peterson MJ, Rai Peterson T. Environmental communication: why this crisis discipline should facilitate environmental democracy. Environ Commun. (2007) 1:74–86. doi: 10.1080/17524030701334292
229. Yuan S, Besley JC, Dudo A. A comparison between scientists' and communication scholars' views about scientists' public engagement activities. Public Underst Sci. (2019) 28:101–18. doi: 10.1177/0963662518797002
230. Bolsen T, Druckman JN. Counteracting the politicization of science. J Commun. (2015) 65:745–69. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12171
231. Bolsen T, Kingsland J, Palm R. The impact of frames highlighting coastal flooding in the USA on climate change beliefs. Clim Change. (2018) 147:359–68. doi: 10.1007/s10584-018-2143-0
232. Bolsen T, Palm R, Kingsland JT. Counteracting climate science politicization with effective frames and imagery. Sci Commun. (2019) 41:147–71. doi: 10.1177/1075547019834565
233. Ruckelshaus M, Doney SC, Galindo HM, Barry JP, Chan F, Duffy JE, et al. Securing ocean benefits for society in the face of climate change. Marine Policy. (2013) 40:154–9. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.01.009
234. Hull EV. Ocean acidification: legal and policy responses to address climate change's evil twin. Washington J Environ Law Policy. (2016) 6:349.
235. Boyce DG, Tittensor DP, Garilao C, Worm B. A climate risk index for marine life. Nat Clim Change. (2022) 12:854–62. doi: 10.1038/s41558-022-01437-y
236. Jefferson R, McKinley E, Capstick S, Fletcher S, Griffin H, Milanese M. Understanding audiences: making public perceptions research matter to marine conservation. Ocean Coast Manag. (2015) 115:61–70. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.06.014
237. Kolandai-Matchett K, Armoudian M. Message framing strategies for effective marine conservation communication. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. (2020) 30:2441–63. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3349
238. DeBono R, Vincenti K, Calleja N. Risk communication: climate change as a human-health threat, a survey of public perceptions in Malta. Eur J Public Health. (2012) 22:144–9. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckq181
239. Liang Y, Kee KF, Henderson LK. Towards an integrated model of strategic environmental communication: advancing theories of reactance and planned behavior in a water conservation context. J Appl Commun Res. (2018) 46:135–54. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2018.1437924
240. Jarreau PB, Altinay Z, Reynolds A. Best practices in environmental communication: a case study of Louisiana's coastal crisis. Environ Commun. (2017) 11:143–65. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2015.1094103
241. Kanagavel A, Raghavan R, Veríssimo D. Beyond the “general public”: implications of audience characteristics for promoting species conservation in the Western Ghats hotspot, India. Ambio. (2014) 43:138–48. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0434-2
242. Metag J, Schäfer MS. Audience segments in environmental and science communication: Recent findings and future perspectives. Environ Commun. (2018) 12:995–1004. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2018.1521542
243. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. Cool dudes: the denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environ Change. (2011) 21:1163–72. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003
244. Unsworth KL, Fielding KS. It's political: How the salience of one's political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support. Global Environ Change. (2014) 27:131–7. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.002
245. Weber EU. What shapes perceptions of climate change?. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. (2010) 1:332–42. doi: 10.1002/wcc.41
246. Zhang B, Van Der Linden S, Mildenberger M, Marlon JR, Howe PD, Leiserowitz A. Experimental effects of climate messages vary geographically. Nat Clim Chang. (2018) 8:370–4. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0122-0
247. Kusmanoff AM, Fidler F, Gordon A, Garrard GE, Bekessy SA. Five lessons to guide more effective biodiversity conservation message framing. Conserv Biol. (2020) 34:1131–41. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13482
248. Lundgren RE, McMakin AH. Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons (2018).
249. Thompson J, Davis S, Mullen K. Climate change communication campaign planning: using audience research to inform design. In: The George Wright Forum. Vol. 30, No. 2. George Wright Society (2013). p. 182–9.
250. Hine DW, Reser JP, Morrison M, Phillips WJ, Nunn P, Cooksey R. Audience segmentation and climate change communication: conceptual and methodological considerations. Wiley Interdisc Rev. (2014) 5:441–59. doi: 10.1002/wcc.279
251. Leiserowitz A, Roser-Renouf C, Marlon J, Maibach E. Global warming's six Americas: a review and recommendations for climate change communication. Curr Opin Behav Sci. (2021) 42:97–103. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.04.007
252. Roser-Renouf C, Stenhouse N, Rolfe-Redding J, Maibach E, Leiserowitz A. Message strategies for global warming's six Americas. In The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication (2015). p. 368–86.
253. Ballew MT, Pearson AR, Goldberg MH, Rosenthal SA, Leiserowitz A. Does socioeconomic status moderate the political divide on climate change? The roles of education, income, and individualism. Glob Environ Change. (2020) 60:102024. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102024
254. Smith N, Leiserowitz A. American evangelicals and global warming. Global Environ Change. (2013) 23:1009–17. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.04.001
255. Brulle RJ. From environmental campaigns to advancing the public dialog: environmental communication for civic engagement. Environm Commun. (2010) 4:82–98. doi: 10.1080/17524030903522397
256. Nisbet MC. Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environ Sci Policy. (2009) 51:12–23. doi: 10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23
257. Maibach E. Helping trusted messengers find their voice on climate change. In Standing up for a Sustainable World. Edward Elgar Publishing (2020). doi: 10.4337/9781800371781.00074
258. Baake K, Kaempf C. No longer “bullying the Rhine:” giving narrative a place in flood management. Environ Commun. (2011) 5:428–46. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2011.610807
259. McKnight DM. Overcoming “ecophobia”: fostering environmental empathy through narrative in children's science literature. Front Ecol Environ. (2010) 8:e10–5. doi: 10.1890/100041
260. Dahlstrom MF, Ho SS. Ethical considerations of using narrative to communicate science. Sci Commun. (2012) 34:592–617. doi: 10.1177/1075547012454597
261. Kelly RP, Cooley SR, Klinger T. Narratives can motivate environmental action: the Whiskey Creek ocean acidification story. Ambio. (2014) 43:592–9. doi: 10.1007/s13280-013-0442-2
262. Insinga ML, Needham MD, Swearingen TC. Public cognitions and emotions associated with sea star wasting disease: an exploratory study in Oregon. Hum Dimens Wildl. (2022) 1−21. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2022.2050856 Available online at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10871209.2022.2050856
263. Rebich-Hespanha S, Rice RE, Montello DR, Retzloff S, Tien S, Hespanha JP. Image themes and frames in US print news stories about climate change. Environ Commun. (2015) 9:491–519. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2014.983534
264. Bailey A, Giangola L, Boykoff MT. How grammatical choice shapes media representations of climate (un) certainty. Environ Commun. (2014) 8:197–215. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2014.906481
265. Lyytimäki J. Ecological crisis as a laughing matter: uses of humor in environmental communication. In The Handbook of International Trends in Environmental Communication. New York, NY: Routledge (2021). p. 464–78. doi: 10.4324/9780367275204-35
266. Skurka C, Eng N, Oliver MB. On the effects and boundaries of awe and humor appeals for pro-environmental engagement. Int J Commun. (2022) 16:21.
267. Shriver-Rice M, Fernandes J, Johns LN, Riopelle C, Vaughan H. Young adults' reactions and engagement with short-form videos on sea level rise. Environ Commun. (2022) 16:63–78. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2021.1963800
268. Maibach E, Myers T, Leiserowitz A. Climate scientists need to set the record straight: There is a scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is happening. Earth's Future. (2014) 2:295–8. doi: 10.1002/2013EF000226
269. Maibach E. Increasing public awareness and facilitating behavior change: two guiding heuristics. In Climate change and Biodiversity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press (2019). doi: 10.2307/j.ctv8jnzw1.43
270. Dean AJ, Fielding KS, Wilson KA. Building community support for coastal management—what types of messages are most effective?. Environ Sci Policy. (2019) 92:161–9. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.11.026
271. Hurst K, Stern MJ. Messaging for environmental action: the role of moral framing and message source. J Environ Psychol. (2020) 68:101394. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101394
272. Lu H. The effects of emotional appeals and gain versus loss framing in communicating sea star wasting disease. Sci Commun. (2016) 38:143–69. doi: 10.1177/1075547015619173
273. Weathers MR, Kendall BE. Developments in the framing of climate change as a public health issue in US newspapers. Environ Commun. (2016) 10:593–611. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2015.1050436
274. Prasad A, Lal P, Wolde B, Smith M, Zhu M, Samanthula BK, et al. Exploring the human-nature connection and the perceived risk of nature in children. Appl Environ Educ Commun. (2022) 21:87–101. doi: 10.1080/1533015X.2021.1991508
275. Kim SC, Cooke SL. Using the health belief model to explore the impact of environmental empathy on behavioral intentions to protect ocean health. Environ Behav. (2021) 53:811–36. doi: 10.1177/0013916520932637
276. Houston TK, Cherrington A, Coley HL, Robinson KM, Trobaugh JA, Williams JH, et al. The art and science of patient storytelling-harnessing narrative communication for behavioral interventions: the ACCE project. J Health Commun. (2011) 16:686–97. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2011.551997
277. Lee H, Fawcett J, DeMarco R. Storytelling/narrative theory to address health communication with minority populations. Appl Nurs Res. (2016) 30:58–60. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2015.09.004
278. Kidd LR, Garrard GE, Bekessy SA, Mills M, Camilleri AR, Fidler F, et al. Messaging matters: a systematic review of the conservation messaging literature. Biol Conserv. (2019) 236:92–9. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.020
279. Peeples J. Toxic sublime: imaging contaminated landscapes. Environ Commun. (2011) 5:373–92. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2011.616516
280. Ledford CJ. Changing channels: a theory-based guide to selecting traditional, new, and social media in strategic social marketing. Soc Mar Q. (2012) 18:175–86. doi: 10.1177/1524500412460671
281. Knights AM, Culhane F, Hussain SS, Papadopoulou KN, Piet GJ, Raakær J, et al. A step-wise process of decision-making under uncertainty when implementing environmental policy. Environ Sci Policy. (2014) 39:56–64. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.02.010
282. Polasky S, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Keeler B. Decision-making under great uncertainty: environmental management in an era of global change. Trends Ecol Evol. (2011) 26:398–404. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.04.007
283. Brainard C. The changing ecology of novels and novels organizations: IMPLICATIONS for environmental novels. In The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication (2015). p. 168–75.
284. Peters HP. Gap between science and media revisited: scientists as public communicators. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2013) 110:14102–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212745110
285. Buhmann A, Likely F. Evaluation and measurement in strategic communication. Int Encycl Strat Commun. (2018) 652–40. doi: 10.1002/9781119010722.iesc0103
286. Raupp J. Evaluating strategic communication: theoretical and methodological requirements. In Public Relations Research. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften (2008). p. 179–92. doi: 10.1007/978-3-531-90918-9_11
287. Macnamara J. A review of new evaluation models for strategic communication: progress and gaps. Int J Strateg Commun. (2018) 12:180–95. doi: 10.1080/1553118X.2018.1428978
288. Swenson R, Gilkerson N, Likely F, Anderson FW, Ziviani M. Insights from industry leaders: a maturity model for strengthening communication measurement and evaluation. Int J Strateg Commun. (2019) 13:1–21. doi: 10.1080/1553118X.2018.1533555
289. Macnamara J, Gregory A. Expanding evaluation to progress strategic communication: beyond message tracking to open listening. Int J Strateg Commun. (2018) 12:469–86. doi: 10.1080/1553118X.2018.1450255
290. Schoenfeld AC, Meier RF, Griffin RJ. Constructing a social problem: the press and the environment. Soc Probl. (1979) 27:38–61. doi: 10.2307/800015
291. Lotze HK, Guest H, O'Leary J, Tuda A, Wallace D. Public perceptions of marine threats and protection from around the world. Ocean Coast Manag. (2018) 152:14–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.11.004
292. Tiller R, Arenas F, Galdies C, Leitão F, Malej A, Romera BM, et al. Who cares regarding ocean acidification in the Plasticene? Ocean Coastal Manage. (2019) 174:170–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.03.020
293. Edwards A. (How) do participants in online discussion forums create ‘echo chambers'?: the inclusion and exclusion of dissenting voices in an online forum about climate change. J Argum Context. (2013) 2:127–50. doi: 10.1075/jaic.2.1.06edw
294. Treen KMDI, Williams HT, O'Neill SJ. Online misinformation about climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. (2020) 11:e665. doi: 10.1002/wcc.665
295. Turcilo L, Obrenovic M. Misinformation, Disinformation, Malinformation: Causes, Trends, and Their Influence on Democracy. Heinrich Böll Foundation (2020). Available online at: https://www.boell.de/en/2020/08/25/misinformation-disinformation-malinformation
296. West JD, Bergstrom CT. Misinformation in and about science. Proc Nat Acad Sci. (2021) 118:e1912444117. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1912444117
297. Sparkman G, Geiger N, Weber EU. Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half. Nat Commun. (2022) 13:1–9. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-32412-y
298. Ding D, Maibach EW, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A. Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nat Clim Chang. (2011) 1:462–6. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1295
299. Van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Rosenthal S, Maibach E. Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges. (2017) 1:1600008. doi: 10.1002/gch2.201600008
300. Williams MN, Bond CM. A preregistered replication of “Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change”. J Environ Psychol. (2020) 70:101456. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101456
301. Druckman JN, McGrath MC. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nat Clim Chang. (2019) 9:111–9. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1
302. Zhou Y, Shen L. Confirmation bias and the persistence of misinformation on climate change. Communic Res. (2022) 49:500–23. doi: 10.1177/00936502211028049
303. Sargisson RJ, Schöner BV. Hyperbolic discounting with environmental outcomes across time, space, and probability. Psychol Rec. (2020) 70:515–27. doi: 10.1007/s40732-019-00368-z
304. Moore EE, Lanthorn KR. Framing disaster: news media coverage of two Native American environmental justice cases. J Commun Inquiry. (2017) 41:227–49. doi: 10.1177/0196859917706348
305. Andersson L. Where technology goes to die: representations of electronic waste in global television news. Environ Commun. (2017) 11:263–75. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2016.1233127
306. Sovacool BK. Spheres of argument concerning oil exploration in the arctic national wildlife refuge: a crisis of environmental rhetoric?. Environ Commun. (2008) 2:340–61. doi: 10.1080/17524030802396745
307. Hjort M. Guilt-based filmmaking: moral failings, muddled activism, and the “dogumentary” get a life. J Aesthetics Cult. (2018) 10:1447219. doi: 10.1080/20004214.2018.1447219
308. Dickinson E. Addressing environmental racism through storytelling: toward an environmental justice narrative framework. Commun Cult Crit. (2012) 5:57–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-9137.2012.01119.x
309. Pezzullo PC. Performing critical interruptions: stories, rhetorical invention, and the environmental justice movement. West J Commun. (2001) 65:1–25. doi: 10.1080/10570310109374689
310. Harper K. Visual interventions and the “crises in representation” in environmental anthropology: researching environmental justice in a hungarian romani neighborhood. Hum Organ. (2012) 71:292–305. doi: 10.17730/humo.71.3.kl245rp447811627
311. Harrison TR, Clark A, Clement A, Lombard J, Maranto G, Parrish A, et al. Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation: results from a South Florida pilot study in two communities. PLoS Climate. (2022) 1:e0000041. doi: 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041
312. Latulippe N, Klenk N. Making room and moving over: knowledge co-production, indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Curr Opin Environ Sustainabil. (2020) 42:7–14. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.10.010
313. Strand M, Rivers N, Snow B. Reimagining ocean stewardship: arts-based methods to ‘hear'and ‘see' indigenous and local knowledge in ocean management. Front Mar Sci. (2022) 658:886632. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.886632
314. Seddon N, Smith A, Smith P, Key I, Chausson A, Girardin C, et al. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob Chang Biol. (2021) 27:1518–46. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15513
315. Jacques PJ, Lobo R. The shifting context of sustainability: growth and the world ocean regime. Glob Environ Politics. (2018) 18:85–106. doi: 10.1162/glep_a_00480
316. Varanasi U. Focusing attention on reciprocity between nature and humans can be the key to reinvigorating planetary health. Ecopsychology. (2020) 12:188–94. doi: 10.1089/eco.2020.0011
317. Miller JT. Is urban greening for everyone? social inclusion and exclusion along the Gowanus Canal. Urban Forestry Urban Greening. (2016) 19:285–94. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.03.004
318. Crosman K, Petrou E, Rudd M, Tillotson M. Clam hunger and the changing ocean: characterizing social and ecological risks to the Quinault razor clam fishery using participatory modeling. Ecol Soc. (2019) 24:16. doi: 10.5751/ES-10928-240216
319. Goodrich KA, Sjostrom KD, Vaughan C, Nichols L, Bednarek A, Lemos M.C. Who are boundary spanners and how can we support them in making knowledge more actionable in sustainability fields?. Curr Opin Environ Sustainabil. (2020) 42:45–51. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.001
320. Langholz JA, Abeles A. Rethinking postgraduate education for marine conservation. Marine Policy. (2014) 43:372–5. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.06.014
321. Ciannelli L, Hunsicker M, Beaudreau A, Bailey K, Crowder LB, Finley C, et al. Transdisciplinary graduate education in marine resource science and management. ICES J Mar Sci. (2014) 71:1047–51. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu067
322. Maibach E, Nisbet M, Weathers M. Conveying the Human Implications of Climate Change: A Climate Change Communication Primer for Public Health Professionals. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (2011). Available online at: https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Climate-Communication-Primer-for-Public-Health-Professionals-1.pdf
Keywords: environmental communication, ocean and human health, marine ecosystem, coastal communities, interdisciplinary, planetary health
Citation: Reamer MB (2022) Communicating ocean and human health connections: An agenda for research and practice. Front. Public Health 10:1033905. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1033905
Received: 06 September 2022; Accepted: 16 November 2022;
Published: 02 December 2022.
Edited by:
Michael Long, Oklahoma State University, United StatesReviewed by:
Toby Bolsen, Georgia State University, United StatesLora E. Fleming, University of Exeter, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2022 Reamer. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Marcus B. Reamer, mreamer@earth.miami.edu
†ORCID: Marcus B. Reamer orcid.org/0000-0002-4140-0989