Research

INTRODUCTION

The rapid decline in health of Earth’s systems is the focus of increasing attention. With at least six of the nine planetary boundaries for a sustainable existence exceeded (Richardson et al. 2023), meaningful action is urgently required. The pace of biodiversity loss (e.g., Trisos et al. 2020, Fernández-Palacios et al. 2021), significant pollution in virtually all corners of our planet (Brander 2022, Persson et al. 2022), and dramatic shifts in climate over the past decade (IPCC 2023) further highlight an urgent need to respond to each of these crises in timely and effective ways in society. To achieve this result, we need to accelerate awareness and action around these issues from all of the global community.

There is a long history of art-science collaborations that clearly demonstrate the benefits of bringing others on the journey of learning and doing. Developed to support and enhance scientific discoveries and create opportunities for two-way learning, the data collected by community science activities has enabled rapid detection of avian influenza outbreaks (Saavedra et al. 2023), identified invasive marine species (Gervais et al. 2021) and large-scale declines in seabird populations (Gorta et al. 2019), and expanded the scope of plastic litter monitoring programs (Battisti and Gippoliti 2019). Importantly, such interactive, educational experiences have led to long-lasting, significant behavioral change (Bela et al. 2016, Asingizwe et al. 2020, Goldberg et al. 2020). In the USA, the Long-Term Ecological Research “Ecological Reflections” program has been running since 1980 (Swanson et al. 2008). The program has connected creative writers and philosophers with forestry ecologists, with an aim to provide reflections that span the time scale of old-growth forest development and several generations of human inquiry in the forest. Outcomes of just this one program include increased public understanding of the world and of the role of science, clearer communication about natural resource management issues, and strengthened interpretive programs (Swanson et al. 2008).

Motivating others to act can take a variety of forms. Of the three classical Greek modes of persuasion, scientists most often rely on logos, the logical argument based on facts and figures, and ethos, the appeal to scientists’ position of authority. However, many do not respond positively to these arguments, and “[facts] don’t change folks’ minds in conservation” (Toomey 2023). Arguments based on pathos, an appeal to the emotions of the listener or reader, are more likely to be effective (Toomey 2023). Conservation science has often been described as a crisis discipline (Gaggiotti 2001, Cooke et al. 2016) and presents dire narratives and often troubling images, which may also cause some to disconnect from discussions (Cockrill and Parsonage 2016).

As scientists, we produce conference and journal papers, which is only one way of communicating about conservation issues. Despite advances in open-access publishing, many papers remain behind publisher paywalls, presented at expensive conferences, or written for a specific (scientific) audience. There is an increasing realization that plain language summaries can be helpful (Derthick et al. 2009, Curtis et al. 2012), but they are only one form of communicating the results of inquiry into the natural world and cover a necessarily narrow audience (i.e., those who engage with peer-reviewed journals or scientific conferences).

Effectively communicating scientific results requires us to understand “the power of values, emotions, and experience in swaying minds, changing collective behaviour, and thinking strategically for the biggest impact” (Toomey 2023). This understanding can be achieved through creative practice, in the broadest sense, and scientists have a long history of engaging with artists to tell stories based on research findings (Song 2012, Robidoux and Kovacs 2018). Such engagement can range from relationships with minimal interaction, in which an artist may be inspired to create a work, to a deeply embedded “artist-in-residence” program that results in co-created works (Djenontin and Meadow 2018).

Our research group, the Adrift Lab, is a multidisciplinary international group, with researchers based in Australia and the UK; we focus on the effects of plastic pollution on wildlife and the health of island and ocean systems. Here, we describe the motivations, impacts, benefits, and challenges of our experience working with > 30 diverse artists and creators over the last decade, ranging from jewellery and furniture design to documentary film and artistic photography. We conclude with suggestions for other scientists looking to engage with artists in meaningful, truly collaborative ways.

METHODS

Research ethics

No local research ethics committee was available to assess our research. To ensure our research met an appropriate ethical standard, we included an informed consent statement in the email sent to our participants and at the start of our online survey. Participants were advised that their involvement was voluntary, and they could exit the survey or project at any time without penalty. Participants were also advised that some of the written responses they provided might be included as quotations in the paper; their approval was sought in writing and could be withdrawn. Question 8 of the survey asked whether participants would like their name to be excluded from any resulting outputs or documentation (i.e., whether the person wanted to remain anonymous). In addition, no personal information was sought from participants. Finally, we only sent our survey to participants for which we had an existing, collaborative relationship. Their completion, or not, of the survey had no impact on existing or future collaborations.

Art-science collaboration survey

Qualitative data were obtained through semi-structured interviews via an online survey sent to a total of 34 potential participants between 9 March and 7 October 2023. Participants represented all artists and creators with whom we had collaborated since 2010 and for whom we had contact details.

An initial generic email was sent to each of the identified participant’s email address. After four weeks, a follow up email was sent to those individuals who had not initially replied to encourage a higher participation rate. A final follow-up email was sent to a handful of remaining participants after 20 weeks. The survey contained a mixture of eight open-ended and closed questions seeking qualitative information (Appendix 1). We sought only information that was not sensitive or confidential in nature.

Data processing

Within each question, free-text answers were grouped broadly into general categories by both authors independently until a consensus was reached. From each response, we recorded up to three main themes iteratively and revisited all responses twice to ensure themes had been adequately captured. Single-choice answers are presented as the counts of respondents for each option.

RESULTS

In total, 30 of 34 participants (88% response rate) responded to the online survey (Table 1). Some participants provided multiple responses to questions, and some chose not to answer some questions. We grouped the participant responses according to two broad categories: pre-collaboration, where questions focused on initial contact between the artists and Adrift Lab; and post-collaboration, with a series of reflective questions.

The feedback we received from participants included information on a diversity of art-science projects that were developed in collaboration with our team, including furniture and jewellery made of plastics we collected from beaches or seabirds, five documentary films, four art-science exhibitions (e.g., museum exhibitions or installations), four written works (children’s book, nonfiction), and a board game (Fig. 1).

Pre-collaboration responses from participants

Artists identified media coverage of research expeditions (including documentary films) as the primary mode by which they became aware of Adrift Lab’s plastic pollution research (N = 8; 28.5% of responses; Fig. 2). Referrals through existing art-science collaborations and projects and opportunities to volunteer with Adrift Lab (i.e., witness the effects of plastic first-hand) were the next most common source of art-science collaborations with our team (N = 7 and 4, respectively). Media coverage of research papers and team members attending speaking events (e.g., conferences, public events) also led to many art-science collaborations (N = 3 each).

Forty-six percent (N = 14) of artists chose to initiate an art-science collaboration with Adrift Lab because their impression was that team members were approachable, passionate, and/or compassionate. Adrift Lab’s reputation relating to previous art-science works was the second most common reason that artists chose to engage with us (N = 11 responses). Six artists (21%) were motivated to undertake a collaborative work with Adrift Lab because of their passion or concern for nature, seabirds, or other wildlife.

While not necessarily an initial motivation for undertaking an art-science collaboration, two respondents identified safe spaces and opportunities to discuss ecogrief (solastalgia) as a benefit of the collaborative process. A nonfiction writer stated,

As someone not in the sciences, I was never made to feel excluded from the conversation. It was made clear to me that none of my questions were silly. I could also see the emotional investment in the team. I was impressed that, despite the burden of the work, they had not detached themselves from that key element of emotion. This seemed to me another form of inclusion regarding engagement with outsiders. I was allowed to feel the emotion in the work because they didn’t hide it.

Post-collaboration reflections from participants

Respondents indicated they were most excited about the opportunity to work collaboratively with a scientist (N = 11) and to use science to inform their creative activities (N = 8), with smaller numbers highlighting the use of artistic storytelling to enhance science communication (N = 5), share aboriginal culture (N = 2), and address challenging topics such as ecogrief (N = 1) and funding for research (N = 1). For some, the collaboration represented a step-change in how they approached their creative endeavours.

I hadn’t seen myself as an artist, but the plastic and the birds required a more artistic approach to be able to communicate to the wider public and create ongoing impact. A new perspective emerged during our last field trip, where we shifted to capturing what goes on behind the scenes, including emotions such as ecogrief and also the healing.

Nearly two-thirds of the respondents highlighted their excitement about working with scientists or using science to inform their art, suggesting a ready appetite for art-science collaborative relationships. The overwhelming majority of respondents (28/30, or 93%) also stated that their work with Adrift Lab encouraged them to pursue similar collaborative projects (Fig. 3). This was most commonly achieved through incorporating more science in their artwork (N = 11); becoming a greater advocate for conservation, nature, and the problem of plastic pollution (N = 6), as well as future collaborations with different scientists (N = 4); and creating more plastics-focused artwork (N = 3).

For many artists, it was their first time working with a scientist, and this experience opened the door to new and exciting possibilities. One art gallery curator wrote:

Our collaboration with Adrift Lab on an art-science project has sparked a strong motivation to pursue similar projects in the future. The valuable experience we gained from working together highlighted the incredible potential that emerges when art and science are combined. It not only expanded our knowledge and appreciation of both disciplines, but also unlocked fresh pathways for exploration and creative expression. This successful collaboration has left us eager to embark on additional projects that bridge the gap between art and science, enabling us to delve deeper into interdisciplinary endeavours and discover even more innovative and captivating possibilities.

For some artists, the collaborative relationship as a way of facilitating or sparking a greater advocacy for the natural world built their confidence organically and felt like a natural evolution, given the emotionally challenging and conservation-relevant work (measuring the effects of plastic pollution on seabirds). A visual artist who joined as a field assistant for one expedition wrote, “The project has encouraged me to be more vocal and talk more about our seabirds to the public as well as family and friends.”

Adrift Lab members’ willingness to collaborate and share knowledge was consistently identified as being one of the most rewarding aspects of the collaboration (46%, N = 10). Other artists cited improved environmental solutions and understanding through art or science as the greatest reward (N = 6). Still others indicated the significance of working with a scientific team (N = 4) or the resulting friendships and networking that developed through the collaboration (N = 2; Fig. 4). Artists also mentioned the sharing of stories (N = 2) and artistic outputs (N = 2), the opportunity to give scientists and wildlife a stronger voice (N = 2), and teamwork in the collaboration (N = 2).

Truly collaborative relationships are essential to success, in either arts or science. One designer wrote:

Adrift Lab’s willingness to collaborate has been inspiring from the very beginning. Their research, though hard to digest at times, inspires urgent action through many means beyond the sciences and into arts and humanities. Art and design gives context to the hard-hitting scientific research Adrift Lab undertakes.

Sharing knowledge also took a personal form in many collaborations, with lab members opening up and feeling safe to discuss their emotional responses to the research. This aspect was acknowledged by several respondents, including this filmmaker:

Filming the very human, emotional and confronting side of the work. This is something many productions steer clear of, but our approach is to show this and use it as a scalpel to cut through a saturated content landscape. It is not for everyone, and may turn some people off, but it is wrong [not] to try.

Creating opportunities for the public to engage with environmental issues in real and meaningful ways was also highlighted. For example, a jewellery maker who works with plastic items our team recovered from remote areas wrote, “Seeing something in the flesh from a faraway place can illicit an emotional response far beyond what the written article can do. Wearing/holding a piece that carries such conceptual gravity can create a profound connection to place and plight.”

Many of the main challenges the artists identified when collaborating with Adrift Lab will also be familiar to scientists more broadly, including insufficient time (N = 8), distance (especially during the COVID-19 pandemic travel restrictions; N = 4), logistics (N = 2), and cost (N = 2).

One artistic curator emphasized the resource constraints, but also presented solutions.

Integrating [interdisciplinary] perspectives seamlessly proved to be a complex task that required effort and compromise. To tackle this in future collaborations, we plan to dedicate more time and resources to foster interdisciplinary learning and understanding. This could involve organizing workshops, presentations, or immersive experiences aimed at nurturing mutual understanding and appreciation for each other’s disciplines.

However, the emotional challenges should not be underestimated in conservation, and five respondents cited them as their main challenge. This challenge was articulated by one digital artist, “Honestly, the hardest thing about the work is the reality of what we’re studying. These plastics represent a huge problem we have created, that directly and negatively impacts us and other species.”

Others expected the work to be confronting, but still found it to be emotionally difficult. One nonfiction writer wrote, “I think it was challenging emotionally, seeing the birds, watching the team react, but that was part of my job, and I sort of expected that. (I did find Internet on the island at one stage and emailed my editor and said ‘the world is fucked’).”

Other challenges the artists highlighted were disciplinary gaps (N = 1), engaging with their target audience (N = 1), distilling a large amount of information into the constraints of their project (N = 1), and physical challenges when working with scientists in remote areas (N = 1).

Feedback and advice from the artists we worked with to other artists was consistent and positive. Art-science collaborations were strongly encouraged, with several artists stating “just do it” or “don’t hesitate” (N = 10), and one stating “...you may be surprised how much you really do have in common. At the end of the day, we are working toward one common goal – a healthier planet.”

Undertaking initial research was identified as a key factor to successful collaboration, including becoming familiar with the range of existing, successful art-science projects already undertaken by Adrift Lab and others (N = 4). However, many of these same artists also identified flexibility and adaptability as important features, with listening and being open to new ideas highlighted as important (N = 7). As a documentary filmmaker put it, “Do your research, know what story you need to tell, but be prepared to go on tangents and follow the story. No matter how good your research, you cannot possibly know everything going into the interview/shoot. Be open to pulling on story threads.”

When it comes to documentary film making, the success of these art-science collaborations also hinges upon making the projects personal (N = 1).

Be open to making your work more personal. Science needs heroes and stories, so allow the filmmakers to capture a more human side to your work, than just the facts and figures of a study. The information will be better absorbed if it is wrapped around your own personal struggles, doubts, stumbles, hopes, and fears. Communicating the joy in your work, as well as what you’re up against, immediately makes the content more engaging for the layman, who will connect with your passion and therefore become interested in the outcome because you’ve laid out the stakes.

DISCUSSION

In our conversations with members of the public, the Adrift Lab team often find that many people feel they have no role to play in science due to their lack of formal science training. However, the art-science outputs and survey results featured here clearly demonstrate this is not true. The diverse array of beautiful, educational, and engaging creations developed alongside the Adrift Lab have so far included jewellery, furniture, film and written pieces, a board game, professional photographs, a kaleidoscope, multiple artworks featured at museum and public exhibitions, and a world-record breaking swimming event that involved circumnavigating Lord Howe Island (Table 1, Fig. 1). Based on viewer or attendance figures, we estimate that these works have reached into the millions of people. Many of the artists involved in these collaborations were trained as lawyers, furniture designers, metal workers, film makers, journalists, and small business owners, and most did not come from a science background. As Toomey (2023) rightly stated, “if we can understand how people process information, we can design interventions based on the best possible evidence of how humans make decisions for conservation management and policy.” There is no doubt that the unique knowledge, skills, and non-science training that the artists possessed led to many thought-provoking conversations and, ultimately, amazing artworks that enhanced how we communicate scientific issues to the broadest possible audience (Jacobson et al. 2016).

Given that Adrift Lab is a small group with limited funding, why did so many artists choose to engage with us? The survey results clearly indicate that our Adrift Lab social media pages and website are not the main method through which artists became aware of our work (only two artists selected these options). This result was surprising, as our social media pages are often a main source of engagement with the general public through likes, shares, and comments, and there is ample literature that suggests professional websites and social media pages can lead to increased engagement (Lackes et al. 2009, Murthy and Lewis 2015, Gorska et al. 2020). Adrift Lab’s participation in podcasts and speaking events, including academic conferences and public seminars, also only led to a small number of collaborations (N = 4 artists). This result was also unexpected, especially because we have been involved in several podcasts in Australia and internationally, including well-known shows with large listenership (e.g., Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Quirks and Quarks, and the UK Natural History Museum’s Our Broken Planet).

For artists, the opportunity to work alongside scientists, thereby expanding their networks and building friendships, were some of the most significant benefits arising from the collaborative process. One artist wrote that it was a “distinct privilege [to] merge scientific knowledge with artistic expression,” and that this led to an “authentic exchange of ideas and creative synergy.” Another wrote that, as an artist, it can sometimes feel like you are “a solo act, screaming into [the] void,” and that they “wished [they’d] thought to approach working [as a team] sooner.” Ultimately, what made this process even more successful and rewarding was the approachability of the Adrift Lab team, with 10 of 30 respondents identifying our willingness to collaborate and share knowledge as the key factor influencing their decision to pursue an art-science project. The Civic Laboratory for Environmental Action Research (CLEAR) online guide for art, design, and media states, “goodness comes from being in good relations” (https://civiclaboratory.nl/art-design-and-media-at-clear/). The CLEAR guide focuses on genuine knowledge co-production, fostering nonextractive relationships, embedding artists and other external partners within the team, and acknowledgement of contributions as the most beneficial and constructive approaches to art-science collaborations; these strategies align with our findings and recommendations (Table 2). Although reconciling art and science is not always easy, our and others’ findings demonstrate that there are many advantages for scientists working on contemporary issues, including emerging environmental crises such as plastic pollution (Westley and Folke 2018, Vervoort et al. 2024). Art can give scientific findings much broader appeal and, in doing so, can help to address the need for urgent behavior or policy change (e.g., in relation to climate change) by reaching new, diverse, and unexpected audiences (Westley and Folke 2018). Such is the case with some of Adrift Lab’s exhibitions (e.g., GYRO; Table 1, Fig. 1), which put the issue of marine pollution on the international stage in front of politicians and other influential parties who make policy decisions on how our society manages waste. Iconic images such as those in Fig. 1 can also be touchstone symbols in art and science (Westley and Folke 2018) by enhancing receptivity to complex or controversial ideas and leaving lasting impressions that resonate with individuals and inform their behavior. An excellent example is “Midway Journey” by artist Chris Jordan. His stunning images of plastic toothbrushes and bottle caps in the stomachs of albatrosses inspired documentary films, numerous books, and continue to be the focus of learning and debate more than a decade after they were first released (O’Gorman 2017).

One of the highest profile forms of potential collaboration are the television or streaming documentary or current affairs production. These productions often involve several days of filming that result in a 5- to 102-min production. Scientists’ work on these productions is typically unpaid, and often the anticipation is that appearing in a documentary will increase the profile of the group or issue, with funding generated through viewership and possible new contacts often touted as a potential benefit. In our experience, however, such endeavors have some of the lowest return on investment from the perspective of participating scientists. Although the end products are professional, engaging, and reach a wide audience, they are ephemeral, typically disappearing from broadcasters and streaming sites within a year or two of airing, and they are not always screened or available in all countries. So far, they have not yielded direct or indirect research funding in our case. This situation raises the obvious question of why our research group has continued to participate in documentary filmmaking and current affairs television production. However, there have been other, less tangible benefits. For example, in recent years, we have encouraged filmmakers to profile Adrift Lab students and early career researchers, as opposed to senior researchers, in the hope that it will raise the profile of early career scientists and facilitate the development of their science communication skills. Additionally, many of these art-science creations are outputs recognized by universities, which may influence career progression for academics. We are also optimistic that film and television can reach new audiences and, in doing so, drive global awareness and urgent, transformative action on environmental issues.

The origins and motivations for our artistic collaborations differed from our expectations but still resulted in a range of outputs that were co-produced to varying degrees. While we could anticipate some of the feedback around the benefits and challenges, such as the constant wish for additional time or resources, other feedback such as the effects of distance loomed larger than expected and highlighted the benefits of in-person collaboration. Although the feedback we received is based on existing relationships and collaborations we have with artists and is a relatively small sample size (N = 30), we believe many of the common themes and lessons will ring true even when scientists embark on new collaborations with project partners that are unfamiliar to them. Thus, based on our experience over the last decade and the survey results, we have compiled 10 “simple” guidelines for others wishing to work collaboratively across science and the arts (Table 2). Although these guidelines are presented as short summary points, we recognize that many require considerable thought and resources, as well as investment in creating spaces and situations where trust can be built. These guidelines should not be seen as actions that compromise the science, but rather complement it to build new and greater things alongside it, which may involve changes to how the science is done.

CONCLUSION

We have been fortunate to collaborate with a wondrous array of incredibly talented and passionate artists and creators over more than a decade. These opportunities have been transformational for our team through creating a more diverse network; increasing our reach and communication skillset; encouraging us to think, write, and create differently; and surrounding us with a supportive community of like-minded, motivated, and passionate people. This unique model is akin to our approach to funding our research: over the past 10 years, Adrift Lab has been funded almost exclusively through the generosity of a handful of philanthropists and community groups and small amounts of institutional support. This donor-based structure has opened doors that state and federal funding does not offer, including introducing us to many of the brilliant artists with whom we have gone on to collaborate. In addition, there is often the added bonus of researchers having more time to dedicate to science due to philanthropy having substantially fewer reporting requirements. No matter the scientific discipline or artistic background, there are clear benefits of adopting a less traditional model for supporting and communicating science, and we encourage anyone interested in collaborations between the creative and scientific arts to “just do it.”

LITERATURE CITED

Asingizwe, D., P. M. Poortvliet, A. J. H. van Vliet, C. J. M. Koenraadt, C. M. Ingabire, L. Mutesa, and C. Leeuwis. 2020. What do people benefit from a citizen science programme? Evidence from a Rwandan citizen science programme on malaria control. Malaria Journal 19:283. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-020-03349-8

Battisti, C., and S. Gippoliti. 2019. Not just trash! Anthropogenic marine litter as a ‘charismatic threat’ driving citizen-based conservation management actions. Animal Conservation 22(4):311-313. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12473

Bela, G., T. Peltola, J. C. Young, B. Balázs, I. Arpin, G. Pataki, J. Hauck, E. Kelemen, L. Kopperoinen, A. Van Herzele, H. Keune, S. Hecker, M. Suškevičs, H. E. Roy, P. Itkonen, M. Külvik, M. László, C. Basnou, J. Pino, and A. Bonn. 2016. Learning and the transformative potential of citizen science. Conservation Biology 30(5):990-999. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12762

Brander, S. M. 2022. Rethinking our chemical legacy and reclaiming our planet. One Earth 5(4):316-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.03.020

Cockrill, A., and I. Parsonage. 2016. Shocking people into action: Does it still work? An empirical analysis of emotional appeals in charity advertising. Journal of Advertising Research 56(4):401-413. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2016-045

Cooke, S. J., V. M. Nguyen, A. D. M. Wilson, M. R. Donaldson, A. J. Gallagher, N. Hammerschlag, and N. R. Haddaway. 2016. The need for speed in a crisis discipline: perspectives on peer-review duration and implications for conservation science. Endangered Species Research 30:11-18. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00721

Curtis, D. J., N. Reid, and G. Ballard. 2012. Communicating ecology through art: what scientists think. Ecology and Society 17(2):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04670-170203

Derthick, K., N. Jones, R. Dowell, J. McDavid, D. Mattern, and J. Spyridakis. 2009. Effectiveness of plain language in environmental policy documentation for the general public. Pages 1-5 in 2009 IEEE international professional communication conference. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2009.5208680

Djenontin, I. N. S., and A. M. Meadow. 2018. The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice. Environmental Management 61:885-903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1028-3

Fernández-Palacios, J. M., H. Kreft, S. D. H. Irl, S. Norder, C. Ah-Peng, P. A. V. Borges, K. C. Burns, L. de Nascimento, J.-Y. Meyer, E. Montes, and D. R. Drake. 2021. Scientists’ warning – The outstanding biodiversity of islands is in peril. Global Ecology and Conservation 31:e01847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01847

Gaggiotti, O. E. 2001. Outlook on a crisis discipline. Nature 413:678. https://doi.org/10.1038/35099624

Gervais, C. R., C. Champion, and G. T. Pecl. 2021. Species on the move around the Australian coastline: a continental-scale review of climate-driven species redistribution in marine systems. Global Change Biology 27(14):3200-3217. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15634

Goldberg, M. H., A. Gustafson, and S. van der Linden. 2020. Leveraging social science to generate lasting engagement with climate change solutions. One Earth 3(3):314-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.011

Gorska, A., P. Korzynski, G. Mazurek, and F. Pucciarelli. 2020. The role of social media in scholarly collaboration: an enabler of international research team’s activation? Journal of Global Information Technology Management 23(4):273-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2020.1817684

Gorta, S. B. Z., J. A. Smith, J. D. Everett, R. T. Kingsford, W. K. Cornwell, I. M. Suthers, H. Epstein, R. McGovern, G. McLachlan, M. Roderick, L. Smith, D. Williams, and C. T. Callaghan. 2019. Pelagic citizen science data reveal declines of seabirds off south-eastern Australia. Biological Conservation 235:226-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.007

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2023. Climate change 2023: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. https://dx.doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647

Jacobson, S. K., J. R. Seavey, and R. C. Mueller. 2016. Integrated science and art education for creative climate change communication. Ecology and Society 21(3):30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08626-210330

Lackes, R., M. Siepermann, and E. Frank. 2009. Social networks as an approach to the enhancement of collaboration among scientists. International Journal of Web Based Communities 5(4):577-592. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2009.028091

Murthy, D., and J. P. Lewis. 2015. Social media, collaboration, and scientific organizations. American Behavioral Scientist 59(1):149-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214540504

O’Gorman, L. 2017. Sustainability, the arts and big numbers: the challenge of researching children’s responses to Chris Jordan’s images. International Journal of Early Childhood 49:321-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-017-0199-z

Persson, L., B. M. Carney Almroth, C. D. Collins, S. Cornell, C. A. de Wit, M. L. Diamond, P. Fantke, M. Hassellöv, M. MacLeod, M. W. Ryberg, P. Søgaard Jørgensen, P. Villarrubia-Gómez, Z. Wang, and M. Z. Hauschild. 2022. Outside the safe operating space of the planetary boundary for novel entities. Environmental Science and Technology 56(3):1510-1521. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04158

Richardson, K., W. Steffen, W. Lucht, J. Bendtsen, S. E. Cornell, J. F. Donges, M. Drüke, I. Fetzer, G. Bala, W. von Bloh, G. Feulner, S. Fiedler, D. Gerten, T. Gleeson, M. Hofmann, W. Huiskamp, M. Kummu, C. Mohan, D. Nogués-Bravo, S. Petri, M. Porkka, S. Rahmstorf, S. Schaphoff, K. Thonicke, A. Tobian, V. Virkki, L. Wang-Erlandsson, L. Weber, and J. Rockström. 2023. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances 9(37):eadh2458. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458

Robidoux, M., and J. F. Kovacs. 2018. Public art as a tool for environmental outreach: insights on the challenges of implementation. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 48(3):159-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2018.1450315

Saavedra, I., J. Rabadán-González, D. Aragonés, and J. Figuerola. 2023. Can citizen science contribute to avian influenza surveillance? Pathogens 12(9):1183. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12091183

Song, Y. I. K. 2012. Crossroads of public art, nature and environmental education. Environmental Education Research 18(6):797-813. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.670208

Swanson, F. J., C. Goodrich, and K. D. Moore. 2008. Bridging boundaries: scientists, creative writers, and the long view of the forest. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6(9):499-504. https://doi.org/10.1890/070076

Toomey, A. H. 2023. Why facts don’t change minds: insights from cognitive science for the improved communication of conservation research. Biological Conservation 278:109886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109886

Trisos, C. H., C. Merow, and A. L. Pigot. 2020. The projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change. Nature 580:496-501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2189-9

Vervoort, J. M., T. Smeenk, I. Zamuruieva, L. L. Reichelt, M. van Veldhoven, L. Rutting, A. Light, L. Houston, R. Wolstenholme, M. Dolejšová, A. Jain, J. Ardern, R. Catlow, K. Vaajakallio, Z. Falay von Flittner, J. Putrle-Srdić, J. C. Lohmann, C. Moossdorff, T. Mattelmäki, C. Ampatzidou, J. H. Choi, A. Botero, K. A. Thompson, J. Torrens, R. Lane, and A. C. Mangnus. 2024. 9 Dimensions for evaluating how art and creative practice stimulate societal transformations. Ecology and Society 29(1):29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14739-290129

Westley, F. R., and C. Folke. 2018. Iconic images, symbols, and archetypes: their function in art and science. Ecology and Society 23(4):31. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10495-230431