Environmental challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and resource scarcity require not

only scientific innovation but also effective communication that bridges research and community action. Despite

advances in environmental communication, a persistent “translation gap” exists between academic insights and

grassroots advocacy. This paper proposes the CO-ACT Framework—Co-diagnose, Orient, Adapt, Convene, and

materials, institutional linkages, and integration of indigenous knowledge enhance behavioural adoption,

legitimacy, and policy responsiveness. However, barriers such as knowledge inaccessibility, power asymmetries,

contextual mismatches, and limited local capacity continue to hinder effective research translation. By

addressing these challenges, CO-ACT transforms knowledge dissemination into knowledge democratization,

enabling communities to act as co-creators rather than passive recipients of environmental solutions. The

framework’s participatory and adaptive design fosters trust, equity, and sustained behavioural and institutional

change. Ultimately, CO-ACT provides a replicable pathway for linking scholarly evidence with real-world

environmental advocacy, ensuring that communication serves as a catalyst for collective action, environmental

justice, and sustainable development.

Keywords: Environmental communication, Grassroots advocacy, CO-ACT framework, Co-production,

gap” exists between academic findings and practical grassroots advocacy. Many research outputs remain

confined to scholarly circles or are misaligned with community realities, while local organizations often lack the

resources, tools, or institutional pathways to apply these insights effectively (Raj et al., 2022; Lyne et al., 2023).

Bridging this gap is vital for ensuring that environmental communication research translates into real-world

actions supporting sustainable development.

Recent scholarship underscores that environmental communication can drive meaningful grassroots action when

communication strategies are context-sensitive, participatory, and embedded within social systems. Three

interrelated mechanisms—co-production and participation, social diffusion and networks, and practical

communication and media translation—form the foundation for translating research insights into local advocacy

throughout the communication process. This participatory model enhances both the relevance and legitimacy of

perceive the project as their own, resulting in stronger ownership, sustained engagement, and higher rates of

adoption (van Maurik Matuk et al., 2023; Lyne et al., 2023). Moreover, co-production mitigates power

asymmetries between academic experts and local actors by valuing indigenous knowledge, local innovation, and

community storytelling as valid and actionable inputs. In practical terms, co-production in environmental

communication translates into participatory workshops, collaborative message design, and community-led

demonstrations that connect scientific insights with cultural values and daily experiences.

Social diffusion theory explains how new ideas, practices, or innovations spread through communication

channels within a community. Environmental communication efforts achieve greater grassroots impact when

they harness these social diffusion pathways. Opinion leaders, such as respected elders, teachers, religious

uncertainty, and maintaining momentum. By mapping local communication networks and identifying potential

champions, environmental advocates can strategically target diffusion points that accelerate behavioural and

cultural change.

Even the most rigorously produced research will have limited grassroots impact if not communicated in

accessible, relatable, and engaging forms. Practical communication and media translation involve simplifying

scientific findings into formats that diverse audiences can understand and act upon. Tools such as community

radio programs, storytelling sessions, participatory theatre, infographics, short videos, and local language briefs

serve as powerful vehicles for environmental advocacy, especially in resource-limited or multilingual contexts

(Fuoco et al., 2023). These media formats enhance comprehension, emotional engagement, and recall, bridging

production ensures that messages are locally grounded and trusted; social diffusion expands their reach through

credible networks; and effective media translation guarantees accessibility and sustained engagement. When

these mechanisms operate in synergy, environmental communication transcends awareness-building to become

a catalyst for collective agency, policy advocacy, and tangible environmental change at the grassroots level.

Despite well-documented mechanisms for linking environmental communication to grassroots action, several

interrelated barriers persist, limiting the translation of research findings into sustainable, community-led

advocacy. Knowledge inaccessibility remains a primary constraint, as research outputs are often locked behind

paywalls or expressed in technical language inaccessible to local communities (Heinisch, 2020). Power

asymmetries between researchers, policymakers, and grassroots actors further hinder collaboration, with

inclusive, participatory, and context-sensitive communication approaches.

A major obstacle in translating environmental communication research into grassroots advocacy is the limited

accessibility of scientific knowledge. Many valuable studies remain locked behind paywalls or are written in

highly technical language that alienates non-specialist audiences (Fuoco et al., 2023). This restricts access for

community-based organizations, local journalists, and advocacy groups that could otherwise use such findings

to design context-specific interventions. Even when open-access versions exist, dissemination is often

inadequate—few mechanisms exist to actively share research in user-friendly formats such as policy briefs,

vernacular summaries, or radio segments. The resulting “knowledge bottleneck” prevents the flow of research

evidence into community planning and public discourse. Bridging this gap requires deliberate strategies to

democratize knowledge through open-access publishing, local translation, and participatory dissemination

platforms that empower grassroots actors to understand and apply environmental insights.

to gain recognition, replication, or integration into formal planning structures. Overcoming these asymmetries

requires not only capacity building at the community level but also institutional reforms that recognize and

embed grassroots evidence into policy frameworks.

Another recurring challenge lies in the misalignment between academic research outputs and local realities.

Environmental communication models and interventions developed in academic or international contexts often

fail when they neglect local worldviews, traditional knowledge systems, and socio-cultural values. Messages

that do not resonate with the local language, idioms, or belief systems risk being misunderstood or disregarded.

For example, sustainability messages framed solely in scientific or economic terms may not connect with

communities whose environmental ethics are rooted in spirituality, collective identity, or ancestral stewardship.

Contextual mismatch can also arise when researchers underestimate local constraints such as time poverty,

literacy levels, or infrastructural deficits. Effective translation, therefore, demands deep ethnographic

and priorities.

initiatives (Boulanger, 2022; Lyne et al., 2023). Additionally, funding for long-term advocacy is often project-

based and short-term, focusing on immediate outputs rather than systemic change. Limited access to equipment,

data, and training further constrains the ability of local groups to generate credible evidence that could attract

policy or donor attention. As a result, community actors often depend heavily on external agencies, perpetuating

cycles of dependency rather than empowerment. Sustainable capacity strengthening—through technical training,

imbalances; weak institutional influence, in turn, restricts access to funding and training; and contextual

sustained investment in local capacity building. Only through such integrative efforts can environmental

communication research genuinely translate into empowered grassroots advocacy for sustainable development.

for Co-diagnose, Orient, Adapt, Convene, and Track—offers an operational model that bridges academic inquiry

and community action. This model synthesizes evidence from co-production literature, diffusion of innovation

theory, and participatory communication practice to create a stepwise process for transforming research findings

into practical advocacy outcomes.

The first stage, Co-diagnose, centers on collaborative problem identification and framing. Researchers,

community representatives, and local institutions jointly assess environmental challenges, determine shared

priorities, and establish feasible success indicators. This stage is critical for building mutual trust and legitimacy,

ensuring that research activities reflect real community concerns rather than externally imposed agendas. Co-

diagnosis not only aligns scientific investigation with lived experience but also empowers local actors to

articulate their environmental realities in ways that inform evidence-based advocacy. For instance, participatory

mapping and storytelling techniques can be used to reveal how communities perceive issues like waste

and implementation strategies (Raj et al., 2022).

The final stage, Track, embeds participatory monitoring and evaluation (M&E) to assess communication reach,

behavioural adoption, and policy outcomes. Mixed-methods approaches—combining surveys, interviews,

behavioural observation, and narrative analysis—enable a comprehensive understanding of what works and why.

Tracking involves both quantitative and qualitative indicators: message recall, practice adoption rates, policy

uptake, and community narratives of change. Continuous tracking fosters adaptive learning, ensuring that

interventions evolve with emerging challenges and community insights. Importantly, participatory M&E also

democratizes evaluation by positioning community members as co-analysts of their own progress, enhancing

transparency and ownership.

long-term impact and sustainability. Periodic assessments—conducted at multiple intervals—help identify

to emerging contextual dynamics. The longitudinal perspective acknowledges that advocacy success should be

judged not only by short-term outputs but also by the persistence of community action and institutional

responsiveness over time (Lyne et al., 2023).

outputs. Environmental communication research should prioritize the production of open-access publications,

plain-language briefs, and visual learning materials that can be easily disseminated and understood by grassroots

organizations. Local training workshops and collaborative media production—such as community radio

programming, participatory documentaries, and youth-led storytelling—serve as both research tools and

capacity-building platforms (Fuoco et al., 2023). These mechanisms not only enhance accessibility but also

Finally, methodological soundness in co-action frameworks demands reflexivity and ethical sensitivity.

Researchers must remain aware of their positionality, recognising potential power imbalances and cultural

nuances in engagement (Muhammad, Wallerstein, Sussman, Avila, & Duran, 2014). Ethical research design

includes obtaining informed consent, ensuring benefit sharing, and protecting community intellectual property

implementation of a CO-ACT-type (co-action) framework requires a balance of scientific precision and

participatory flexibility. By integrating action research, mixed-methods evaluation, longitudinal tracking, and

open-access dissemination, scholars can produce research that is both credible within academic standards and

transformative in practice (Fetters, Curry, & Creswell, 2013). These methodological principles ensure that

environmental communication research translates effectively into grassroots advocacy that sustains behavioural,

institutional, and policy-level change.6. Empirical Insights and Case Evidence

Empirical research across diverse environmental contexts reinforces the effectiveness of communication-driven

advocacy when informed by participatory and evidence-based frameworks such as CO-ACT. The growing body

of case evidence reveals that when communities are positioned not merely as recipients but as co-creators of

knowledge, the resulting behavioural, institutional, and policy impacts are significantly amplified.

This evidence underscores the CO-ACT framework’s focus on knowledge democratization and behavioural co-

learning as prerequisites for sustainable change.

“connectivity and amplification” component.

Empirical case studies from Africa, Asia, and Latin America affirm that incorporating indigenous knowledge

systems and context-specific learning enhances project legitimacy, resilience, and continuity (van Maurik Matuk

et al., 2023; Lyne et al., 2023). These studies highlight that when research and advocacy respect local

epistemologies—such as traditional ecological practices, community norms, and spiritual relationships with

land—stakeholders demonstrate deeper commitment and ownership of environmental initiatives. In Kenya, for

instance, co-produced conservation programmes integrating indigenous rangeland management techniques

achieved greater acceptance and sustainability compared to externally designed interventions. Such outcomes

substantiate CO-ACT’s call for epistemic plurality—the equitable integration of academic, experiential, and

traditional knowledge.

interventions combining plain-language dissemination, co-production of knowledge, institutional networking,

and respect for indigenous epistemologies achieve both behavioural and structural transformation. By grounding

research translation in local realities and reinforcing it through networked collaboration, CO-ACT offers a

practical pathway toward sustainable advocacy and environmental justice.

into project design, communities and researchers can continually refine strategies and maintain alignment with

evolving social and ecological realities. This cyclical feedback loop reinforces CO-ACT’s principle of

continuous learning and adaptive co-production, ensuring that advocacy remains responsive, evidence-based,

and community-driven.