12 pages., via online journal., Similar to other parts of the world, European society is becoming increasingly urban, both in a physical as in an economic and socio-cultural sense. As a result, the relationships between society and nature, including forests, are changing, and forestry as structural intervention in forest ecosystems has had to adapt itself to changing societal pressures and demands. The planning and managing of woodlands in and near urban areas has been the most directly affected by the urbanisation process. Many European countries have a long tradition of ‘town forestry’, serving as basis for current developments in urban forestry, i.e. the planning and management of all forest and tree resources in and near urban areas for the benefit of local society. Through the adaptation to the specific demands of local urban societies, a type of forestry has emerged which is structurally different from classic forestry. It focuses, for example, on the social and environmental values of urban woodlands rather than on wood production and emphasising the importance of communication — ranging from information to participation/power sharing — between stakeholders. This paper investigates ways to communicate urban forests and forestry to urban inhabitants and other stakeholders, based on results of a comparative study of main European cities. It explores the role which urban forestry has been playing in the development of forestry at large, especially with regards to better incorporating changing social values and interests.
18pgs, The novel coronavirus was first discovered in Wuhan, China in December 2019. This zoonotic disease quickly spread through over 100 countries, including the U.S. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared a global health emergency by the end of January 2020. Soon after, many U.S. states issued mandatory stay-at-home orders, which caused adverse effects for agricultural businesses and food supply chains. During this crisis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shared information through social media platforms such as Facebook. This study sought to understand how the CDC framed direct communication to the public about issues related to COVID-19 using Facebook videos. Five videos directly related to COVID-19 were selected from the CDC’s Facebook page for analysis. A content and framing analysis was used to determine emergent frames and the use of organization-public relationship (OPR) indicators to better understand how a public entity communicates with the public during a pandemic. Emergent frames were community, protecting yourself, encouragement to take action, understanding, and fear. A conversational tone of voice was used in four out of the five videos, and each video demonstrated the use of at least one OPR indicator. Implications from this work reinforce that Facebook videos can be used to communicate the importance of scientific information using conversational voice and OPR indicators. It is recommended that agricultural communicators include OPR indicators in social media videos during other similar zoonotic disease crises. Future research should seek to understand the public’s response to this type of scientific communication.
4pgs, Background
Communicating about antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) requires technical knowledge, consideration of audience values and appropriate identification of communication strategies for multiple audiences. Within the context of animal agriculture, communicating about AMR represents an important and complex endeavour for veterinarians, governmental agencies, producers and the industry to convey policy and practice information regarding the use of antimicrobials in food animals.
Objectives
To assess the science communication challenges related to AMR by identifying the motivations, goals and struggles of animal agriculture stakeholders when communicating about AMR and AMS.
Methods
Participants attending a meeting on AMR communication in animal agriculture (N = 80) completed a workshop on science communication, including small group meetings with oral/written comments collected. Participants included veterinarians, government agency representatives, industry stakeholders and producers.
Results
Results indicated participants believed providing more accurate information would resolve misunderstanding and concern about AMR to other stakeholders, counter to recommendations of science communicators. Other participants noted beliefs about the utility of stories in trying to explain how AMS is normative and consistent with the values of all parties interested in animal agriculture. Participants noted the importance of public engagement, even if the participants’ perceived target audiences did not include the public.
Conclusions
Communicating about AMR and AMS in animal agriculture contexts provide unique challenges. Few evidence-based recommendations are available for science communicators in these contexts and more research is needed to improve the quality of communication about AMR and AMS in animal agriculture.
