I thought today would be a good day to start a new component of this blog that I am calling "Research and the Parks". I hope to blog about once a week on research related to the national park system or taking place in the park system. I feel this is something I should do given my background as a research scientist and an educator. I was very happy to chance upon Park Science, a research and resource management bulletin of the National Park Service. I hope to summarize several articles here, but also from other scientific journals as well. I will do my best to make sure that all articles are freely accessible to the public.
One article in the current issue really stood out for me and was one I wanted to take a closer look at. It is entitled "Audience segmentation as a tool for communicating climate change" by K. Akerlof, G. Bruff, and J. Witte. You can access this article free online (click here).
Global climate change is a challenge facing the National Park Service as far as conserving our nation's national parks for all to enjoy, especially future generations. The Park Service has included communication with the public as part of its Climate Change Response Strategy, especially since the park sees approximately 300 million people a year.
But communicating to the public about global climate change is a challenge within itself. First, as many of you know, it is an extremely polarizing issue. You run the gamut of opinions on this, from those who whole-heartedly accept the evidence provided and accept global climate change, to those who are adamantly against it. More on this in a moment. Other problems also include the complexity of the science and trying to communicate this effectively, and the fact that people often disconnect themselves from problems like this. There is a mentality of "It's not happening to me, so why should I care?"
So, next, what are the range of opinions held by people on the prevalence of global warming? The paper identifies six main groups.
The first group are "The Alarmed". These are individuals who are the most concerned about global climate change, believe it is human caused, and are motivated to do something about it.
The next group are "The Concerned". These people believe that climate change is a serious issue but believe there is still some time before it becomes a serious threat.
The next group, "The Cautious", are likely to tell you that global warming is happening but are not sure on their opinion on whether or not is human caused.
"The Disengaged" don't know if global warming is happening and have not really thought about the issue.
"The Doubtful" are not sure if climate change is occurring, but if it is, it is a natural process.
The last group, "The Dismissive", are strong believers that global climate change is not occurring and are actively working against policies, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They are much like "The Alarmed" group in that they have thought a lot about it and are pretty set in their views.
The Yale Project on Climate Change decided to assess the knowledge of these different groups on information related to climate change, such as weather versus climate, ozone depletion, etc. 49% of "The Alarmed" group received a passing grade. The other groups fared worse, with 4% of the "The Dismissive" receiving a passing grade. However, "The Doubtful and Dismissive" were the most likely to know that greenhouse gases are those that trap heat in the atmosphere.
Ok, now that these groups have been identified and we have some sort of understanding on their opinions and knowledge of global climate change, how do we communicate with these groups on these topics?
For "The Alarmed and Concerned" groups, it appears best to focus on concrete behaviors that these individuals can participate in to further reduce the impacts of human activity on global climate change, like promoting public transportation in the parks and reducing waste.
For "The Cautious and Disengaged" groups, it is suggested that the best approach is to have these groups help reduce emissions is to educate them about low-carbon lifestyles can help them save money.
For "The Doubtful and Dismissive" groups, they are more responsive to people who similar values to them. Interpreters might reach them by relating stories about diverse groups of people, in the hopes that these individuals might feel a personal connection to one of the scenarios presented.
For all groups, there is a shared interest in energy conservation and efficiency, as well as the benefit to human health to reduce pollutants in the environment. Activities that keep people healthy, such as hiking, biking, and reducing the amount of fossil fuel burned, are all activities that can also decrease greenhouse gas emissions. National parks are places where people can take place in these healthful activities, and can be important places to engage people in these conversations.
I'll end with this line from the paper, "Because of its position as on of the more esteemed federal agencies and an authoritative voice on the science occurring in the parks, the National Park Service may serve as a particularly trusted public source about climate change".
Climate change is a particularly touchy subject. I would consider myself a member of "The Alarmed", while I have several friends and family members who would probably consider themselves members of "The Doubtful and Dismissive". Let's just say that we try to avoid this topic in conversation.
The National Park Service is dedicated to perserving these natural places so that we can all enjoy them. I'm glad to see they are taking steps to address all threats to preservation efforts of the national parks, even if some of those threats are considered controversial in the public's eyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment