3.8 Article

How are non-perennial streams depicted by mass media? The influence of a catastrophic flood

期刊

ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2023.2263097

关键词

Isabelle Durance; Climate change; intermittent streams; mass media; environmental communication; flood risk management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite our increasing knowledge about non-perennial streams, mass media in the Balearic Islands often neglects their ecological aspects and focuses more on past flood events and their consequences, leading to public misconceptions about these ecosystems.
Despite our deepening knowledge of non-perennial streams, they are still poorly recognized, and people still perceive them as less valuable and less worthy of conservation than perennial streams. Due to its power to shape attitudes and opinions, mass media plays a critical role, which can also contribute to improving perceptions regarding non-perennial streams. Here, we aim to analyse how non-perennial streams are depicted by mass media in the Balearic Islands and how a catastrophic flood influenced mass media communication about these ecosystems. We analysed all news reports related to streams, published in the most read online newspaper of the Balearic Islands, for 25 months (12 months before and after the catastrophic flood). A total of 407 news reports were analyzed to identify the topics covered (e.g. floods, ecology, stream uses, water quality). News reports related to non-perennial streams focused on past floods and their consequences; our analyses showed how the catastrophic flood event affected the news temporal agenda, as well as the territorial inequalities in media coverage. News reports rarely covered ecological aspects of non-perennial streams or their relevance for freshwater resources. We concluded that news reports contribute to generating a collective memory around flood events but also contribute to social misconception about non-perennial streams.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据