Florida’s harmful algal blooms are a known problem. They kill marine life, close beaches, cost the tourism industry millions, and generate outrage on social media. What they don’t generate — at least not reliably — is science-informed public discourse. The researchers who understand these systems rarely talk to the people who can change them. The people most affected rarely hear from anyone but politicians and each other.
The Center for Coastal Solutions (CCS), a research center at the University of Florida, had done the hard scientific work: modeling nutrient flows, assessing economic impacts, identifying specific interventions that could reduce the frequency and severity of blooms in the Peace River Basin and Charlotte Harbor. Translating that science into action meant reaching the people whose choices actually matter — state legislators, regulators, landowners, industry representatives — in ways that connect to how they already see the world.
That’s not a science problem. It’s a communications problem.
“We need to know what the threats are, where they’re coming from, and what damage or change they may be causing — and then we need to make that knowledge useful to the people making decisions.” — Center for Coastal Solutions project brief
Research in Action
The Center for Public Interest Communications came into this project with a core question: who are the actors whose choices can actually improve water quality — and what do they need to act?
The people you want to reach are not your “audience.” An audience sits in seats and watches the show. The people you need in public interest work are actors — individuals with the agency, motivation, and capacity to take meaningful action.
Identifying those actors required research at scale:
- Social listening analysis using NetBase Quid to track public discourse on harmful algal blooms, septic-to-sewer conversion, constructed wetlands, and data dashboards across digital channels
- 38 structured interviews with decision-makers across six Spheres of Influence — Policy, The Media, The Market, Activism, Communities of Influence, and Social Norms — including elected officials, regulators, scientists, and industry representatives
- Message research and testing with representatives from each actor group
- Use case development for seven actor types, mapping decisions, information needs, trusted sources, and psychographic profiles
The interview protocol was approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board.
Turning Research Into Insight
The resulting Communications Strategy for Findings from the Peace River Basin Project gave CCS a research-grounded roadmap for reaching the actors whose choices shape the health of the water system. Several findings pushed against conventional assumptions.
What the research found:
- Blame dominates; science is nearly absent. Online discourse is overwhelmingly negative and focused on assigning fault. Meaningful solutions and rigorous research rarely enter the conversation.
- Emotional and scientific frames almost never overlap. Residents and local businesses use colloquial language — “dead fish,” “green slime.” Scientists and policymakers rarely connect with those voices.
- There is no single trusted information source across actor groups. Each group has distinct channels and distinct messengers it trusts. A one-size-fits-all approach won’t work.
- Dashboards aren’t the answer alone. Actors are largely indifferent to data dashboards. Interactive maps with specific calls to action perform better. Data needs narrative context.
- The septic-to-sewer conversation is apolitical. Online discussion is largely practical and nonpartisan — a real opening in an issue area where most environmental topics are quickly contested.
What the research recommended:
- Apply the Six Spheres of Influence to concentrate effort. The strategy mapped specific actors in each Sphere and identified calls to action most likely to move each group.
- Build sector-tailored calls to action. A rancher and a state legislator can both take actions that improve water quality — but those actions are entirely different. Generic calls don’t move people.
- Lead with pride, hope, and Florida identity. Connect solutions to the state’s agricultural innovation and residents’ sense of place. Avoid blame framing and single-sector targeting.
- Recruit messengers with proximity. Center voices from agriculture, marine industries, and tourism — people who have adopted solutions and can speak credibly about why.
Measuring Success
The strategy delivered a concrete foundation: benchmark data recommendations, a sequenced action plan, and nine evaluative measures for tracking whether scientific insight moves from research into public discourse and decision-making. Those measures include whether state leaders cite research to justify further funding, whether news coverage of algal events includes discussion of shared responsibility, and whether scientific insights appear more frequently in social conversations over time.
The Peace River Basin project illustrates something the Center encounters consistently: the gap between rigorous science and public action isn’t a knowledge problem. It’s a translation problem. Closing it requires the same methodological rigor applied to the science itself — systematic research on actors, messages, and systems before a single communication goes out. CCS had the science. This project built the bridge.
