The Virtual Water Gallery

The Virtual Water Gallery (www.virtualwatergallery.ca) is a collaborative ArtSci initiative. It was started with funding from Global Water Futures (GWF), a Canada First Research Excellence Fund program (2017–2025). The Virtual Water Gallery was set up to provide a safe, inclusive and collaborative space for fully open discussions between scientists, artists, and a wider public, to explore past, present and future water challenges. It is co-curated by a group of environmental and social scientists, artists and research communicators. This space promotes dialogue and catalyzes action around the climate-water urgency, following the ‘dialogue model’ for science communication, characterized by a “science-directed two-way interaction between scientists or science communicators and the public” [13].

In establishing the Virtual Water Gallery, 13 artists were paired with teams of Global Water Futures scientists in the summer of 2020 to co-explore specific water challenges in various Canadian ecoregions and river basins, including the Arctic, the mountains, boreal forests, prairies, farmlands, lakes, rivers, and communities. The water challenges tackled by these projects provide a cross-section of viewpoints on the value and meaning of water within the context of climate change, from international and Indigenous perspectives to the contrast between local Canadian “homeland” and industrial perspectives. These pilot collaborations led to the co-creation of art pieces that were then exhibited online in March 2021. Several other ArtSci collaborations and projects have since joined the Virtual Water Gallery.

Established in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic within an ‘Emerging Asocial Society’, where more people felt lonely and disconnected [24], the Virtual Water Gallery was created as a fully online space, using technology to enhance our social connectedness during times of social distancing. Artists and water experts engaged in online discussions to share their unique perspectives on water challenges. Only a few had the privilege of visiting the field sites where the scientists conducted their research. Since the website launch in March 2021, close to 9400 visits from around the world have been recorded. Most visits (approximately 60% of all visits) originated in Canada, followed by the USA (approximately 17% of all visits), and the UK (approximately 4% of all visits) (Fig 1).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Virtual Water Gallery website visits.

Virtual Water Gallery website visits between the website launch (April 2021) and the time of writing (February 2024). A: The timeline also indicates key Virtual Water Gallery events. B: The map shows visits by countries (the base map uses country boundaries from Natural Earth’s cultural vector dataset (Admin 0 – Countries, 1:110m scale), available at www.naturalearthdata.com).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000398.g001

More recently (May-June 2022), we brought the Virtual Water Gallery to life in a series of physical gallery exhibits. The first of these was hosted by the Canmore Fine Arts Council at artsPlace in Canmore (AB). Artists and scientists travelled to Canmore for the launch event (Fig 2). This consisted of a reception with speeches by several university, community and gallery representatives. Artists were then asked to introduce their art around the room. Following this, artists and scientists stood by their art pieces and mingled with participants, answering questions and engaging in discussions. Participants consisted of people from Canmore and members of the local research community, who conduct research in and around the Canmore area. A 3D tour of the exhibit can be experienced at: www.virtualwatergallery.ca/3d-gallery-tour. In addition to the Virtual Water Gallery art pieces, art pieces created by participants of the Rockies Repeat Youth Climate Challenge (www.rockiesrepeatfilm.com/youthchallenge) were featured, with the aim of promoting a diversity of voices in art, namely youth voices.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Virtual Water Gallery first in-person exhibit.

Photographs of artists and scientists presenting their collaborative art pieces at the Virtual Water Gallery Canmore exhibit. The individuals pictured in this figure have provided written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish their images alongside the manuscript. Photographs courtesy of Mark Ferguson (formerly at the Global Institute for Water Security, University of Saskatchewan).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000398.g002

While the online Virtual Water Gallery had already proved to be an excellent venue for engaging a global public, it was recognized that the value of local connections and outreach cannot be ignored. This is the space where meaningful conversations can start, and impactful community-led changes can be achieved [25]. Canmore is a year-round tourist destination nestled in the Rocky Mountains, in western Canada. It is located in the Bow River Basin, which forms the headwaters of the Saskatchewan-Nelson River system (an arctic drainage basin). Canmore already experiences impacts of climate and environmental change, which provides a local context for these important water challenges. For example, large parts of Canmore were affected by a flood event in 2013 [26]. More recently, western Canada has experienced some of the worst fire seasons ever recorded, bringing home how vulnerable the community is to drought-related impacts [27]. Amidst these tangible impacts, Canmore exemplifies local leadership as the town declared a state of climate emergency in 2019 and has established a climate action plan [28].

The exhibits (both online and in-person) aimed to capture the audience’s imagination, as much as it was scientifically informative and inspired hope, by means of guiding balanced narratives throughout the gallery space. These narratives communicated the ongoing science behind each piece, where the ‘ongoing’ aspect invited the viewers to imagine sustainable futures and interact with the art in conscious action. For instance, the Virtual Water Gallery piece “When Water is Braided” by artists Patrick Cheechoo and Rebeka Ryvola inspires braiding together western and Indigenous views. In doing so, they highlight strengths central to a ‘two-eyed seeing’ approach [29], whereby both knowledge systems are combined to wholistically tackle water management challenges.

Project participant experiences

A total of 11 artists and two sci-artists out of a total of 14, and three scientists out of 14 responded to the participant survey. Of these, 10 identified as men and five identified as women (the others did not respond to this optional question). The majority (n=13) were over the age of 45, with three over the age of 75. While most project participants reported strong knowledge of consequences of climate change and of processes for generating art (most project respondents were artists), knowledge of impacts of climate change on water was less strong, again likely reflecting the distribution of the roles held by project participant respondents (Table 1). Project participants overwhelmingly reported having experienced a flood (n=11) and/or a drought (n=14).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Project participants knowledge. Self-reported existing knowledge of the consequences of climate change, of impacts of climate change on water, and of processes for generating art by participants of the Virtual Water Gallery.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000398.t001

Overall, the collaborative experience was seen to be positive (Fig 3A), with the majority of project participants rating their experiences as high (five very good and nine excellent). However, one project participant rated their experience as poor and another as neutral. Both of these project participant respondents spoke to a need for greater collaboration with the scientists and better guidance in the matching process, which may explain their lower ratings. Thirteen project participants said that they were very likely to engage again and 15 project participants stated that more scientists should collaborate with artists. Artists were overwhelmingly positive about engaging in the process again: “One of the best experiences in my art career” (Artist), “I enjoyed the challenge of having to think outside the box to create art that has a message” (Sci-Artist), “It is compelling and important, so I will do this every chance I get” (Artist), “I have contacted a researcher and have begun [another project]” (Artist). The only response from a scientist to this question was more neutral: “We will see if an opportunity presents itself” (Scientist).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. Opportunities and challenges of ArtSci collaboration.

Keywords extracted from project participant survey responses using NVivo 12 Plus. The keywords were extracted from answers to the following questions: A) “What are the benefits to individual artists and scientists of collaboration?” and B) “What are the challenges in artist-scientist collaborations?”.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000398.g003

Despite the positive experiences, there were challenges faced by project participants as part of the process (Fig 3B). Steep learning curves and “initial ignorance” on both sides were identified by a sci-artist and an artist. Time was another challenge identified 13 times by artists, including lack of time for developing relationships and for collaborating, and the fact that scientists are busy (this is further reinforced by the lack of survey responses from scientists). Two artists requested more time with students who were seen to be more willing to spend time with artists and translate the science than senior scientists. This may be a solution for another request, which was greater one-on-one time with scientists, especially in the field (three artists). One particularly poignant insight by an artist is: “I’m not sure the scientists see their role as collaborators. I think they enjoy sharing their work and seeing what artists can make of it. Scientists just need time to be able to share and let the artists into their world” (Artist). The recognition that students had more time and were easier to engage perhaps indicates a future shift in perceptions around artists as collaborators in research. Resources were identified as a challenge by an artist and a scientist. Resources were also highlighted when asked about the supports that artists require to participate in ArtSci collaborations (one sci-artist, three artists, one scientist). Translating the science and effective communication were identified as challenges by two sci-artists, three artists and two scientists. Similarly, converting science and conversation into art was another challenge raised by an artist. Other needs expressed by participants included: plain language science (sci-artist), media connections (artist), mutual willingness to share ideas (artist), collegial spirit (artist), access to documents, videos, and photos (artist), and defined commitments and expectations (artist). Overall, several recommendations emerged for future ArtSci collaborations (Table 2).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Guidelines for effective ArtSci collaborations. Dos and don’ts identified by the artists, scientists and sci-artists who participated in the Virtual Water Gallery.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000398.t002

The ArtSci collaboration experience altered attitudes of responding project participants towards climate change in one of two ways. One was urgency: portraying climate urgency and change (two artists) and the urgency to act (three artists). Another was awareness: greater awareness of the climate-water nexus (one sci-artist, two artists) and recognizing that art can create greater awareness for others (four artists, one scientist). When asked to reflect on their learning experience throughout the Virtual Water Gallery collaboration process, one sci-artist and one artist commented on the power of community, the shared value and purpose, mutual encouragement, and shared visions between the team members. The reciprocity of knowledge was also identified, with two artists reporting increased scientific knowledge and one artist reporting increased knowledge of research processes, the dedication of researchers, and the time and investments that research takes, while a scientist noted that they learned about the process of creating art. Two scientists and an artist spoke to the value of art, while another artist spoke to the influence of art. Reported learning experiences extended beyond the art-science connection to include the lack of media roles in increasing awareness (one artist) and learning about how politics impact climate mitigation (one artist). These collaborations blur the boundaries between science and art, as well as between scientists and artists. For example, a sci-artist and two artists spoke to learning more about “the movement of water”, a phrase that could refer to the art and beauty of water, and/or the science of water.

When asked about their most memorable experience, project respondents overwhelmingly described the opportunity to listen to science, access greater information, and engage in virtual and in-person discussions (seven artists, one sci-artist). A scientist enjoyed taking artists to field sites and four artists and a sci-artist enjoyed the engagement with scientists, other artists, or the public. Responses varied regarding the optimal time to involve artists in research. The majority (six project respondents) identified the start of the research process, while four respondents indicated that it did not matter. Only one identified the middle and two the end of the research process. Furthermore, eleven artists found the process of producing art easier when working with a research project. These results hint that art should not be seen as an add-on, but rather integral to the research and knowledge mobilization process.

Opinions on the effectiveness of art as science communication were also generally positive, with one project respondent indicating that it was neutral, six that it was very good and eight that it was excellent. When asked about the benefits of ArtSci collaborations, some of the more frequently identified reasons included: broader audiences for science (five artists, one scientist), growth and broader perspectives (one sci-artist, three artists), and mutual learning and sharing (three artists). Noteworthy, individual artist responses spoke to science as providing accurate information to inform art and art as a dimension beyond science and not just the communication of science: “Art adds a dimension that is beyond communication. It deepens engagement, activates emotion, and connects different ways of knowing and understanding. ‘Communication’ is too narrow a term” (Artist).

When asked about their experiences at the in-person exhibit, everyone rated the experience as very good or excellent and all but one rated their engagement with the public at similarly high levels. This was supported by the emotions identified while participating in the event. Four project participants reported feeling happy or elated and 12 of them described the experience as empowering or uplifting. One project participant, however, noted that participating in the event made them feel worried. Eleven project respondents indicated that they were very likely to participate in an in-person event again, and one artist highlighted the need for a travelling exhibit.

Ultimately, one artist’s response encapsulates the aim of the project, the value of bringing science and art together, and the findings of this analysis: “This is a very important project in order to unite the understanding of both scientists and artists and ordinary people who come to exhibits or simply are not even interested in science or art, to make us begin to feel what is happening to us in the world and on the planet” (Artist).

Gallery visitor experiences

The 139 visitor survey responses were composed of 92 online (through the Virtual Water Gallery website) and 47 in person (i.e., survey respondents who visited the Canmore exhibit). Out of all of the visitor survey responses, 67 (or 48%) reported living in Canada. However, visitor responses covered a wide geographical range (Fig 4A). Among gallery visitor respondents, 60% were in the 25–44 age categories (Fig 4B), 60% identified as women (Fig 4C), and 88% possessed a University degree, most of which had a postgraduate degree (Fig 4D). Overall, the demographic data are heavily skewed, reflecting the self-selection of visitors who chose to view the exhibit and participate in the surveys.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 4. Gallery visitor respondents’ demographics.

Visitor survey respondents’ A) country of residence (the base map uses country boundaries from Natural Earth’s cultural vector dataset (Admin 0 – Countries, 1:110m scale), available at www.naturalearthdata.com), B) age, C) gender, and D) highest education.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000398.g004

An overwhelming number of gallery visitor respondents had also experienced a flood (n=91) and/or a drought (n=96). Slightly more gallery visitor respondents had never seen an ArtSci exhibit before (n=45) and 40 respondents had seen at least one other ArtSci exhibit previously, nine of which had seen more than four ArtSci exhibits in the past.

Can art change knowledge levels?

Visitors to the gallery reported high prior knowledge levels of climate change consequences and of climate change impacts on water resources (S1 Fig and Fig 5A). Despite the skewness of the data, an interesting finding is that more virtual visitors reported lower prior knowledge levels of climate change impacts on water resources (Fig 5B) and of climate change consequences (S1 Fig) than in-person visitors. Several virtual visitors reported having no prior knowledge (“none”) or being “aware of” the consequences and impacts of climate change. This was not reported to the same extent by the in-person visitors.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 5. Gallery visitor respondents’ knowledge.

Visitor survey respondents’ self-reported prior and post knowledge levels of climate change impacts on water resources (A and B respectively), separated by virtual (full bars) and in-person (hashed bars) attendance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000398.g005

There is a statistically significant difference in the distributions of self-reported post knowledge levels between virtual and in-person visitors (S2 Table). More generally, in the post-survey, unlike in the pre-survey, all gallery visitor respondents were at least aware of climate change consequences and climate change impacts on water resources (S1 Fig and Fig 5B). While the sample size is small, the results hint that the exhibit increased knowledge levels of visitors with a low prior knowledge of climate change consequences and of climate change impacts on water resources.

Despite small differences in prior and post knowledge levels, 36 gallery visitor respondents reported that they felt that their knowledge level had changed as a result of the exhibit and 49 reported that they felt that their knowledge level had not changed. Out of these 36 gallery visitor respondents who reported that their knowledge had changed, 32 said that they had a better understanding of the links between climate change and water, a third reported that the exhibit changed their opinion regarding climate change, and slightly over 40% reported that the exhibit changed their sense of urgency regarding climate change. This suggests that, while levels of knowledge did not change significantly, the gallery visitor respondents’ attitudes around that knowledge changed. This is exemplified by the themes that emerged from the gallery visitor responses describing how their opinions had changed (Table 3).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Gallery visitor respondents’ attitudes around knowledge. Themes identified by visitor survey respondents regarding how the exhibit changed their opinion about climate change. The responses are divided into gallery visitor respondents who reported a change in knowledge and no change in knowledge.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000398.t003

With respect to the types of gallery visitor respondents who expressed knowledge changes, results of a Spearman rank correlation analysis with permutation tests show that prior knowledge of climate change consequences, prior knowledge of climate change impacts on water resources, attendance type (i.e., in-person or virtual attendance), and ArtSci effectiveness in communicating the science behind the climate-water connection are all statistically significantly associated with self-reported knowledge change (Fig 6). Specifically, prior knowledge levels are negatively correlated with knowledge change, meaning that gallery visitor respondents with high prior knowledge levels were less likely to experience knowledge changes as a result of the exhibit. On the other hand, attendance type and ArtSci effectiveness are both positively correlated with knowledge change, indicating that gallery visitor respondents who visited the exhibit in-person and who gave high ratings to the effectiveness of ArtSci were most likely to report knowledge changes as a result of the exhibit.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 6. Exploration of factors influencing visitor survey respondents’ knowledge change, personal behaviour reflections, and ratings of exhibit effectiveness. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (with permutation tests) between gallery visitor respondents’ 1) self-reported knowledge change (0: no change; 1: change; n

=71), 2) their reflection on their current behaviours regarding water-related climate change mitigation (0: no reflection; 1: reflection; n=62), and 3) their ratings of the exhibit’s effectiveness (0: neutral to very poor; 1: very good to excellent; n=61) and several variables (rows; see a detailed list of predictor variables’ meanings in S1 Table). P-values are shown in parentheses and statistically significant results (i.e., p-value < 0.05) are displayed in bold and identified with an asterisk.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000398.g006

While not statistically significant, it is interesting to note that gallery visitor respondents’ feelings when completing the exhibit are positively correlated with knowledge change. This could suggest that gallery visitor respondents who had positive feelings (corresponding to higher post feeling values; see S1 Table) were more likely to experience knowledge changes compared to respondents who had negative feelings from visiting the exhibit.

Can art change attitudes and intended behaviours?

Overall, when asked whether the exhibit changed their attitudes towards either climate change or water resources, most gallery visitor respondents answered “not really” or “somewhat” (Fig 7).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 7. Gallery visitor respondents’ attitudes.

Visitor survey respondents’ self-reported attitude change towards A) climate change and B) water resources, separated by virtual (full bars) and in-person (hashed bars) attendance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000398.g007

The majority of gallery visitor respondents indicated that they already engaged in actions to reduce the impact of climate change (n=120), while twelve respondents said that they did not engage in any actions. Among those who reported engaging in actions, the types of actions they already engaged in are shown in Fig 8 (‘pre’ bars).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 8. Gallery visitor respondents’ climate mitigation actions.

Types of actions gallery visitor respondents identified, where ‘pre’ bars show the actions respondents reported they were already engaging in as captured in the pre-survey, while ‘post’ bars represent additional actions respondents indicated they would like to engage in after completing the post-survey. The stacked bars illustrate how these future actions build upon current practices. The numbers along the x-axis correspond to the following list of (water-related) climate mitigation actions available for gallery visitor respondents to choose from: 1: Energy conservation at home; 2: Energy conservation at work; 3: Water conservation at home; 4: Water conservation at work; 5: Composting; 6: Recycling; 7: Eating less meat; 8: Walking and biking as much as possible; 9: Using renewable energy; 10: Driving an electric vehicle; 11: Supporting conservation or biodiversity efforts; 12: Educating others on climate change and climate action; 13: Joining climate action rallies or climate change demonstrations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000398.g008

In the post-survey, 51 gallery visitor respondents reported that the exhibit caused them to reflect on their current behaviours regarding climate change mitigation, compared to 36 who said that it did not, and four who did not know. Regarding water-related climate change mitigation, 38 gallery visitor respondents reported that the exhibit caused them to reflect on their current behaviours, compared to 43 respondents who said that it did not, and eight who did not know. The types of actions gallery visitor respondents said they were likely to very likely to engage in as a result of the exhibit (and that they did not report in the pre-survey) are shown in Fig 8 (‘post’ bars). It is important to note that 61 out of 139 gallery visitor respondents did not reply to this optional question in the post-survey. Interestingly, the actions that were most selected overall, listed in descending order, are: educating others on climate change and climate action (action 12), supporting conservation and biodiversity efforts (action 11), and recycling (action 6). Conversely, the actions with fewer overall votes, listed in ascending order are: driving an electric vehicle (action 10), water conservation at work (action 4), and energy conservation at work (action 2).

Results of a Spearman rank correlation analysis with permutation tests show that the associations between self-reported reflections on current behaviours regarding water-related climate change mitigation and prior knowledge of climate change consequences, prior knowledge of climate change impacts on water resources, self-reported knowledge change, self-reported attitude changes towards either climate change or water resources, and self-reported reflections on current behaviours regarding climate change are statistically significant (Fig 6). Prior knowledge levels are negatively correlated with reflection on current behaviours, meaning that gallery visitor respondents with high prior knowledge levels were less likely to reflect on their current behaviours as a result of the exhibit. On the other hand, self-reported knowledge change, self-reported attitude changes towards either climate change or water resources, and self-reported reflections on current behaviours regarding climate change are all positively correlated with reflection on current behaviours. This indicates that gallery visitor respondents who also reported experiencing knowledge and attitude changes were most likely to reflect on their current behaviours as a result of the exhibit.

Beyond a tool for communication: Acknowledging the role of art as a catalyst for knowledge, attitude, and behaviour changes

[30] put forward a framework for guiding arts-based practices designed for diverse levels of engagement with specific target groups of participants and audiences. They identified three equally important depths of engagement in climate change:

1. In art, where art is used as a communication tool.
2. With art, where art serves as a medium to foster dialogues and learning.
3. Through art, which refers to art as a means of transformation.

These levels are similar to [13]’s three engagement models (i.e., the ‘deficit’, ‘dialogue’ and ‘participation’ models). Our survey evaluation approach aligns with the engagement models put forward by [13] and [30], as we analyzed visitor experiences based on the effectiveness of art for communication (1), and whether art fostered changes in knowledge (2), and in intended behaviours (3). The first level of engagement, art as a tool for communication, has been prevalent across initiatives and in the literature and is an important application of ArtSci collaborations. However, survey responses hint that the role of art to facilitate dialogues and change (second and third levels of engagement) should be acknowledged and utilized further. As mentioned in a 2021 Nature Editorial: “The alliances are most valuable when scientists and artists have a shared stake in a project, are able to jointly design it and can critique each other’s work. Such an approach can both prompt new research as well as result in powerful art” [31]. [17] allude to this when they state that “ArtScience embodies the convergence of artistic and scientific processes and skills, not from their products”. The norm is changing, albeit slowly, and “the arts are moving beyond raising awareness and entering the terrain of interdisciplinarity and knowledge co-creation” [32]. Examples of notable ongoing ArtSci initiatives in the environmental sphere include STARTS (https://starts.eu), ClimART (http://www.climartproject.eu), Shared.Futures (https://www.sharedfutures.gallery), and Cape Farewell (https://www.capefarewell.com), to name just a few.

Connecting “different ways of knowing and understanding” (artist response) may explain the changes in the attitudes associated with knowledge reported by some gallery visitors - e.g., the sense of urgency and connections associated with climate change and water resources challenges -, despite the minimal changes observed in their factual knowledge. [33] underscore the importance of the social sciences and humanities to bring forward “nuance and additional substance to how knowledge on climate change is shaped”, and highlight the role of interdisciplinary studies to “emphasize the human dimensions that complement techno-oriented approaches” to climate change mitigation. In this vein, art has been described as a process of self-confrontation [34], particularly related to a topic such as climate change, that results in cognitive dissonance between what an individual may do versus feel that they should do [35]. Visitors who complete this process while moving through an exhibit are more likely to rate their experience as positive than people who fail to move through the process [34]. However, both positive and negative emotional experiences around climate change-related art were found to foster reflection and result in change [36].

While feelings of being worried, anxious, or overwhelmed were reported by some gallery visitors, the majority of respondents expressed positive feelings. In a world where climate anxiety is pervasive, it is possible that these types of exhibits could amplify anxieties and lead to inaction, or actions with negative impacts. In a recent essay, [21] state that: “Despair and hopelessness [...] have been documented to lead to ‘climate anxiety’ and to sap motivation to act”. They continue by saying that: “Any message of hopeful alarm should begin by emphasizing that people have agency, both individually and collectively, to shape the future”. In addition, [37] analyzed public perceptions of climate images in the UK, Germany, and the USA and showed that, while familiar climate images were easily understood, they also tended to provoke cynicism. On the other hand, images of solutions or impacts generated more positive responses, and greater intentions of behaviour change were seen for images of impacts. Most of the art pieces exhibited as part of the Virtual Water Gallery showcased impacts rather than solutions, with few or none falling into the category of ‘familiar’. While it is uncertain whether the knowledge change reported by many gallery visitors translated to actual behaviour changes, we observed a positive relationship between visitors’ intended behaviour changes regarding (water-related) climate change mitigation, their self-reported knowledge changes, and the positivity of their interactions with the art. [32] call this effect “emotional predisposition”. Our findings are further supported by an analysis of 883 visitor responses to art displayed at the ArtCOP21 event that accompanied the 21^st UN climate summit in Paris [36]. The authors found that exposure to climate change-related artwork was linked, at least in the short-term, to heightened support for climate policies, and was primarily driven by emotional engagement. As such, a critical role and strength of art in climate research and engagement, may be its ability to ring a “hopeful alarm” and ultimately empower climate change adaptation and mitigation at the community level. This further reinforces the need for integrating art with the environmental and the social sciences.

In addition to being a catalyst for knowledge, attitude, and behaviour changes, art is an undeniably powerful tool to foster imagination. While superficially, imagination appears contradictory to communicating scientific facts, they are complementary. Indeed, it has been argued that effective climate adaptation must be imaginative and inclusive [38]. As the frequencies and magnitudes of water-related natural hazards are increasing around the world, some events are outside of the historical ranges in the collective memory [39]. Creative methods can help build community resilience to hazards [25], for example by enabling people to imagine future risk and possible preventive actions [40], and guide discussions about what a sustainable future could look like for more inclusive climate change adaptation [20,24,33].

ArtSci collaborations: Lessons learned and future prospects

This paper paints a portrait of the impact of the Virtual Water Gallery on the audience, scientists, sci-artists and artists involved. In doing so, it aims to set a framework for evaluating the impact of such initiatives. This is critical because, while creative methods are increasingly being used for public outreach and educational purposes with respect to environmental topics and issues, evaluation has not necessarily progressed to the same degree [22]. Through an analysis of 819 research articles about scientists’ climate communication efforts, [22] found that only seven of these articles assessed the impact of the reported activities. They emphasize the significance of going beyond the conventional practice of tallying participant numbers or relying on informal conversations to collect impressions. Instead, they underscore the need to develop a comprehensive understanding of which aspects of science communication are more or less effective and for which audiences.

In addition to developing an evaluation method that can be re-used, modified and built on to further research, several recommendations emerged from project participant experiences. They highlighted the challenge associated with the limited involvement of established scientists in the ArtSci collaboration process, and emphasized the more positive engagement with students. This study also noted the lack of participation of scientists in the project participant survey. What are the reasons and what does this mean for the future of ArtSci? We infer that it could be linked to the insufficient recognition of ArtSci collaborations in academic development, when compared to, for example, the number of publications. This may discourage some established scientists, whose time is already limited, from participating in these collaborations as actively as students. As pinpointed by artists, scientists and sci-artists in this study, resources, both in terms of time and money, and recognition are critical to the success of ArtSci endeavours. One solution identified is to count these activities towards tenure and promotion credit. Assessment systems are currently being revisited in academia (e.g., through the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment; DORA). We venture to say that these transformative and generational changes are key to fostering better ArtSci collaborations with scientists across all academic levels and roles.

The value of ArtSci is undeniable and is being increasingly recognized and supported within the scientific and academic spheres. There is a richness of ArtSci, and more generally science communication (or SciComm) initiatives and activities at conferences such as the European Geosciences Union (EGU) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conferences. Yet, there is still a lack of formal training and resources for researchers to become better science communicators and sci-artists [41]. This is perhaps symptomatic of the historic lack of legitimization of using creative methods to address scientific challenges that still prevails. We strongly advocate for the continued efforts of conference microcosms to further strengthen the role and centrality of creative methods at universities and in the development and communication of research.

While this paper aims to fill gaps in the ArtSci evaluation literature, we recognize several areas for improvement. The limited number of survey respondents (16 project participants and 139 gallery visitors) might have impacted the reliability of our findings. Additionally, our sample may be skewed due to self-selection amongst survey respondents, compounded by biases such as the gallery visitor respondents’ high levels of education and prior knowledge, as noted in the results, especially for in-person gallery visitors. Canmore, as a small community nestled in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, likely consists of a higher proportion of people with an appreciation of the environment and environmental art, as well as a basic understanding of environmental change through experience and observation. Furthermore, a national water conference organized by the Canadian Water Resources Association (CWRA) was held in the town during the exhibit, and conference attendees had a chance to visit the exhibit through an exclusive viewing. However, despite the small sample size, the visitor survey results show that the online gallery reached people from a broader spectrum of identities (i.e., age, education level, lived experience) and knowledge levels of climate change and water challenges. Art can reach people who may not be able to access or internalize traditional scientific outlets. In addition, art and art galleries are spaces that can bring together people from various places and perspectives, who might otherwise never meet. This is particularly important in a world where the consequences of climate change are being differentially experienced across space, time and between population groups [6], and further underscores the importance of accessibility to information to acknowledge, address, and uplift diversity and inclusion. Given the limitations of our study, it is essential to exercise caution when generalizing our conclusions to a broader population. Future research efforts should aim to engage a larger and more diverse set of respondents. This could be achieved by displaying art in public spaces that are regularly visited by a diverse cross-section of society, such as streets, public transportation systems, and other similar venues.

Moreover, our evaluation could be enhanced by assessing additional dimensions of ArtSci collaboration. [23] proposed an evaluation framework for assessing how art and creative practices drive societal transformations, organized into nine dimensions across three categories: changing meanings (i.e., embodying, learning, and imagining), changing connections (i.e., caring, organizing, and inspiring), and changing power (i.e., co-creating, empowering, and subverting). While this paper examined some of these dimensions, such as learning and co-creating, future research could apply [23]’s evaluation approach to more comprehensively explore all nine dimensions.

Finally, the results reported in this paper provide a snapshot of the immediate/short-term impacts of the Virtual Water Gallery on participants and visitors. However, the impacts of ArtSci can sometimes take time to be realized. For example, the authors are aware of several projects and other opportunities that have presented themselves for participants in the Virtual Water Gallery process, such as participation in subsequent ArtSci initiatives, in part as a result of this project. To address this gap in evaluation, [25] developed a version of the Ripple Effect Mapping evaluation approach [42] to uncover and document the naturally unfolding, community-wide impacts that resulted from their initial ArtSci project. Such an approach could be used in the future to highlight long-term impacts of the Virtual Water Gallery.