Let’s L t’ not talk t t lk about climate change…Metro Climate Change Messaging Learning Session June 10, 2011
what we know
what we did• Review of recent literature Review of recent literature• Review of industry best practices• Focus on change in opinions, h attitudes and behavior• Work that is at the forefront of the industry
video #1: tck tck tck
video #2: the green police
the videos• What works? What works? • What doesn’t?
what do people think about climate change? li t h ?• People know about climate change People know about climate change (Pew) and believe it’s happening –• But aren’t making it a priority But aren t making it a priority
why is it tough to “engage” with climate change? ith li t h ?• Invisibility• Sense of geographic remoteness• Time lags Time lags• Skepticism• The tragedy of the commons Th t d f th• “Finite pool of worry”• Misperceptions about effects (confusing weather with climate)
the “say-do” gap… why aren’t people taking action? l t ki ti ?• Structural constraints Structural constraints• Single‐action bias• Threats to values and self‐interests h l d lf• The “free rider” effect• Emotional response
best practices• Make climate change solutions local, relevant and urgent• Correct basic misperceptions• Focus on “too much carbon” Focus on too much carbon• Connect climate change with the economy
best practices, continued i d• Align messaging with supportive structural change• Tap into people’s identities• Communicate through trusted Communicate through trusted, local sources and reach people through their existing networks through their existing networks• Celebrate local successes
go beyond the media buy• M Move beyond traditional media b d t diti l di campaigns• Leverage peer‐to‐peer influence• Reach people when they’re in the p p y right frame of mind• Make invisible behavior visible invisible behavior visible
values based values-based messaging• Well‐crafted messages won’t work Well crafted messages won t work if they don’t resonate with the audience• All politics is local• T Tie messages to local values l l l
examples of local value- based messaging b d ivalue: clean air & water“Oregonians want to gprotect our clean air and clean water, and Climate Smart Communities give us a way to build communities while communities whilereducing pollution.”
examples of local value- based messaging b d ivalue: community y“Climate Smart Communities allow us to live close to where we work, go to school and shop, making our lives simpler. We will have more time to spend with family and pfriends—and less time spent alone in our cars.”
examples of local value- based messaging b d ivalue: health“All of us are trying to stay healthy. Climate Smart Communities S C iiprovide more ways for people to walk, bike and take transit as they go about their daily lives, helping us get more exercise and improving our health.”
examples of local value- based messaging b d ivalue: economic growth“People who live in Climate Smart Communities drive less than other Americans and spend less on gas, cars and car repairs. Instead of leaving the state to go to oil and car companies, our money stays in community, helping to grow y y y, p g glocal businesses and create jobs.”
data gaps• More research into economic More research into economic benefits needed• How does Climate Smart How does Climate Smart development grow businesses and create jobs? create jobs?• From Green Dividend to “Neighborhood Dividend” “N i hb h d Di id d”
summary• Avoid large, uniform communications g campaigns• Communicate at the most local level possible• Test your messaging• Evaluate – Pilot tests before take to scale – Test your results and refine your campaign as you go• Integrate communications with program design• Leverage success Leverage success
interviews: purpose and methodology d th d l• Purpose: gauge understanding of Purpose: gauge understanding of GHG reduction efforts• 30 interviews February 30 interviews ‐• Mayors, community leaders, activists
interviews: results• Wide range of perceptions of g p p “climate change” – Impacts on ecosystem – Unpredictable/critical – Controversial/political• Relevancy varies – Half: “very” or “significant” – One fourth: relevant One fourth: relevant – One fourth: not relevant/controversy• To address issues – More information, input, resources
interviews: results, continued• Ease of discussing climate change? g g – Controversy makes it difficult – Long term/not present danger –RRespondents ‐ 4/5 d 4/5 are taking action ki i locally – Others – not a political priority p p y• Familiarity with regional targets – High level of general awareness – Less aware of specifics, strategy – Process is critical: collaborative Process is critical: collaborative approach
how to engage community• Provide science‐based information – Show specific impacts, and benefits – Encourage and recognize creative solutions – Illustrate best practices ust ate best p act ces• Who needs to be engaged: – Elected officials Elected officials – Neighborhood, religious, community leaders – Elderly, low income – Minority communities – Schools/education – Special interests
Metro s Metro’s role• Coordinate with local Coordinate with local partners• Provide communication, information• Convene events
benefits to local communities• Technical innovation Technical innovation• Livable communities• Incentives for business/ change• Improved public health• Less pressure on natural y systems
sources of information• Local governments/Metro Local governments/Metro• Associations, agency committees• Conferences• Spanish language news/flyers• Social, informal media, websites, blogs• Trusted research• Popular media
Opinion Research: Talking About p gTransportation Investments and Land Use ‐Four Considerations‐ Four Considerations June 10, 2011 Prepared for: Metro Staff And Community Partners
We see support for certain kinds of We see support for certain kinds of transportation investments and land use. But, why? l d h ? Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
A content analysis of the focus group written exercises and discussions, and i i d di i dthe survey findings, revealed many different reasons:diff • Economic • Environmental • Social • Health H lth Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
The focus groups and survey also suggest The focus groups and survey also suggesthow best to communicate about transportation investments and land transportation investments and landuse—Things to Consider: Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
Consideration No. 11) Avoid using problematic semantics and imageryIssues:o “Compact neighborhoods”o “Higher density development” g y po “Government” Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
Looking out in the future, over the next 25 years or so, please think about the kind g , y ,pof place you want the Portland metropolitan area to be to live, work, and play in. For each of the following please tell me if you would strongly support, somewhat support, neither support or oppose, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose your local government making it a priority? Neither Strongly Somewhat Support or Somewhat Strongly Don’t Response Category N=600 Support Support Oppose Oppose Oppose knowBuilding more compact Building more compact 16% 20% 14% 21% 27% 2%neighborhoodsBuilding more neighborhoods where people can get where they 55% 25% 5% 6% 8% 1%need to go by walking, biking, or taking public transit Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
Consideration No. 22) Need to link from issues that relate to core values and 2) Need to link from issues that relate to core values and beliefs*Issues:o Preservation of farm lando Building sense of communityo More active living‐better health go Less sitting in traffic congestion ‐ less stress, more time for other thingso Better air quality, less cars using the roado Save money‐car related expenses, extending infrastructureo Help low income (equity)o Increased property valueso People should have optionso Help small neighborhood businesses H l ll i hb h d b io Accommodate aging, less mobile populationo Reduce oil dependency‐save American lives , reduce military spending *What the issues are and the best ones to use will vary by location and population subgroup Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
But, what about “climate change?”B h b “ li h ?”Not as strong. Mention other at Not as strong Mention other atsame time. Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
Consideration No. 33) Use positive semantics and imagery* Use positive semantics and imageryIssues:o “Prevent urban sprawl” “P b l”o “Preservation of farm and forest land”o “Community health”o “Getting to know your neighbors”o “Increased property values”o “Choice” Choiceo “Options”o Examples that people have seen and like – Orenco Station, The Crossings, Portland neighborhoods (Sellwood, Th C i P tl d i hb h d (S ll d Mississippi, Lloyd Center/Irvington) *Will vary by location—know the best semantics and imagery for your y y g y y area Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
Consideration No. 44) (For Land Use) Need to specify, quantify, and qualify the nature of the development (pre‐empt objections)Issues:o Parks & open space (counter no backyards) ( )o Access to public transportationo Specific services within walking distance Specific services within walking distanceo Safety at intersections and cross‐walkso The number and location of additional unitso The design of units ‐ aestheticso Public safety features (e.g., sidewalks, street lighting, park safety, etc.) Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
Consideration No. 4 (continued)4) (For Land Use) Need to specify, quantify, and qualify the nature of the development (pre‐ empt objections)Issues:o Consequences for public school classroom sizeso Noise impacto Parkingo Community gardenso Farmers markets Farmers markets Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
contact uswww.carlson‐communications.com www.coganowens.com www.dhmresearch.com www dhmresearch com