2. Introductory Illustration
Purpose:
• Illustrate the breakdown of communication
• Demonstrate the importance of good communication in responding to climate change
Materials: none
Procedure:
Ask all the participants (some volunteers infront of others) to form a circle.
Whisper a message about climate change to the first person on his right or to his left. Pass on the
message on, i.e.,
Whisper to the next person and the next until the message gets to the other end of the circle.
Ask the last person to receive the message to say the sentence aloud. The first person to whom the
facilitator whispered the message will verify the accurateness or correctness of the message.
*Can you relate the activity to good and clear communication as a significant factor in successfully
carrying out community undertakings to climate change.
*People may view the degree of change in the original message or breakdown in communication as
changes caused by certain hindrances or barriers to effective communication that affects
implementation of climate change projects.
3. This presentation includes brief introduction and trend
about climate change communication.
Discusses the importance, difficulties and
opportunities inherent in talking about climate change
to different types of publics using various types of
communication tools and strategies.
In the end you will be able to actively engage
audiences with climate change, make their voices
and values heard, and together contribute to
formulation and implementation of innovative society
responses.
4. What is Climate Change Communication?
• is a two-way process of reaching mutual understanding,
• in which participants not only exchange information, news, ideas
and feelings
• about the change in global or regional climate patterns;
• but also create and share meaning.
“when trying to engage the public about climate
science, communicators need to be aware that there is
a tension between expressing scientific certainty and
making climate change meaningful.” Dr Hollin Gregory
from the University’s School of Sociology and Social
Policy.
6. However the understanding is not deep and personal
concern is relatively low.
Some believe in the need for action, BUT do not do
any action
For example when such actions like
carbon taxes or increased gasoline,
people’s desire for action declines
sharply (Moser 2008)
However……….
A Gallup poll found that 35% of the poll were
‘very concerned’ about climate change back in
1990. A survey of people in 2014 shows 34% are
‘very concerned’
7. Assessment of Communicators’ reaction to public inaction
1st
• communicators attempt to increase public understanding and provide more information
• …on the assumption that knowledge is the major stumbling block to action.
2nd
• they resort to fear tactics to motivate action
• ……..It often only achieve the opposite effect.
3rd
• For credibility, thousands of scientists reach consensus and they insist on the scientific framing of
climate change as the most compelling story,
• regardless of the differences among audiences.
4th
• finally, they try to reach the masses through traditional communication channels,
• while disregarding the power and advantages of different channels especially interpersonal ones.
Faced with this dilemma of people’s inaction, communicators tend
to use various strategies to raise concern and mobilize for active
engagement.
8. The Triple E Purpose of Climate Change Communication (CCC)
Purpose
of CCC
EDUCATION
ENGAGEMENT
ENACT
CHANGE
To inform and educate people
about climate change, including
the science, causes, potential
impacts, and possible solutions.
To achieve some type and level of
social engagement and actionTo set new or change existing
social norms and cultural Values
9. Challenges and Opportunities
of CCC
Analyzing some four assumptions
held by communicators begins to
illuminate some of the challenges
and opportunities for Climate
Change Communication.
10. While Knowledge about the causes of
climate change is moderately correlated
with appropriate behavioral responses
(O’Connor et al. 2002),
and deeper understanding of systems primes
audiences to more readily understand the
magnitude of the required response (Sterman
2008),
there is also evidence that better knowledge
about climate change does not necessarily
raise concern, and even better
understanding about possible solutions does
not necessarily result in efficacious behavior
(Gardner and Stern 2002)
Instead,
-deeply held pro-environmental
values and beliefs,
-incentives, perceived benefits,
-skill and a sense of efficacy, social
support, peer pressure, and
-practical assistance have been
shown to foster behavior change
(Downing and Ballantyne 2007; Gardner and Stern 2002;
Semenza et al.2008; Takahashi 2009)
Assuming that a lack of information and understanding explains the
lack of public engagement, and that therefore more information and
explanation is needed to move people to action.
1) Inspiration with information
11. 2) Motivation by fear
Assumption that fear and visions of potential catastrophes as a result of in
action would motivate audiences to action.
To some extent, fear appeals enables the
climate change issue to ‘grab headlines’, be a
top issue above others like unemployment,
economy, terrorism, health, etc (Nisbet 2009; Pew
Research Center 2009).
However fear seeking message often does not
empower action. Audiences often reject fear
appeals as manipulative (Moser 2007; O’Neill and
Nicholson-Cole 2009).
Climate change Conservative audiences have
been shown to be particularly resistant to
them (Jost et al. 2007).
Fear appeals or images of overwhelmingly big
problems without effective ways to counter
them frequently result in denial, numbing, and
apathy, i.e reactions that control the
unpleasant experience of fear rather than the
actual threat (APA 2009; CRED 2009).
Of course we can NOT avoid communicating the facts,
threats. Wise integrating of strategies may result in
greater engagement and affirmative communication
rather than threat creates openness(Kahan and Braman
2008).
As Floyd et al (2000) said, effective action motivators
avoid being blatant and offer solutions that help
audiences translate their concern into feasible and
effective actions.
Risk information and fear-evoking images should be
limited and always be combined with messages and
information that provide specific, pragmatic help in
realizing doable solutions. Moreover solutions must be
broadly consistent with individuals’ personal
aspirations, desired social identity, and cultural biases
(CRED 2009; Segnit and Ereaut 2007).
More importantly communicators should link climate
change and solutions to more salient (local) issues
people consistently care about-the economy, their
farmland, their children, their health and safety.
12. 3) One size fits all
The assumption that the scientific framing of the issue would be most
persuasive and relevant in moving lay audiences to action. The problem is
assuming that science is central to most audiences.
Without solid audience knowledge, outreach campaigns
may not generate more than fleeting attention, fail to
meet the information needs people have, and generate
values and world view based resistance to considering
the information communicated (Dickinson 2009; Jost and
Hunyady 2005).
Climate change information may be rejected if it
challenges one’s deeply held beliefs or those of the
group he or she most identifies with (Kahan et al. 2007).
People often want to hear evidence that supports their
beliefs and values (CRED 2009; Kahan and Braman 2008).
The need for scientists to communicate more effectively
about climate change is urgent (Hassol 2010). While
scientists are generally credible and trusted as
information sources (NSF 2009), they are not the most
trusted or most appropriate source with every audience
or with any message (Cvetkovich and Lofstedt 2000).
Different communicators are suitable for particular
audiences.
If climate change is framed as a moral issue, religious
leaders may be more effective (Wardekker et al.2009). If
climate change is seen as an economic issue, a business
person is better to convey the message (Arroyo and
Preston 2007). If climate change is framed as a national
security issue, security personnel are trusted messengers
(Nisbet 2009). If you want to target teenagers then
celebrities are better (Boykoff and Goodman 2009). And of
course for youths its generally more effective if message
is conveyed by fellow youths already active in the
climate change movements (Isham and Waage 2007).
However there is no fixed guideline since even
sometimes an outsider may be more trusted especially in
cases where conflict and distrust exist among ‘insiders’
(Fessenden-Raden et al .1987).
There is a need for research on the target audience so
that you deeply understand them so that you frame an
issue effectively.
Let us utilize the explosive emergency of the internet.
13. 4) Mobilization through mass media.
Assumption that mass communication is the most effective way to reach
audiences on climate change.
The important general fact is that mass media
(Television, newspaper, internet) reach large
numbers.
However another fact is that information
passed through mass media is often ‘consumed’
without great attention, quickly discarded or
ignored- mass media is less effective engaging
the audience(Maibach et al.2008) .
Remember the assumed goal of climate change
communication is not only to reach an
audience, but to actively engage people.
Even journalists especially those in developing
world, are not sufficiently equipped to process
and effectively communicate climate change
information (Ochieng 2009).
In general, while mass media
are important for agenda-
setting, face to face
communication is more
persuasive (Lee et al.2002).
This may be because face to
face communication is more
personal, includes non-verbal
clues, allows dialogue to
emerge and increases trust.
14. CCC
Principles
Connect to
Target
Audience
Start local
and expand
to global
Connect on
Common
Values
Do not assume
Communicate
do not just
speak
• Focus on
solutions
Not be over
emotional
Focus on
solutions
Inspire and
empower
Respect the
sequence
Use facts in a
simple way
Summarized Principles of Climate Change Communication
15. for climate change information to be fully absorbed
by audiences and trigger action, it must be actively
communicated:
without assumptions; with appropriate language,
metaphor, and analogy;
combined with narrative storytelling; made vivid
through visual imagery and experiential scenarios;
balanced with scientific information delivered in a
simple way; and delivered by trusted messengers to
a specific targeted audience.
In summary
17. REFERENCES
American Psychological Association (APA). 2009. Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges. A
Report by the Task Force on the Interface between Psychology and Global Climate Change. Washington, DC: APA.
Arroyo, V., and Preston, B. L. 2007. Change in the marketplace: Business leadership and communication. Pp. 319–38 in S. C. Moser and L. Dilling (eds.),
Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boykoff, M. T. and Goodman, M. K. 2009. Conspicuous redemption? Reflections on the promises and perils of the ‘celebritization’ of climate change.
Geoforum 40: 395–406.
Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED). 2009. The Psychology of Climate Change Communication: A Guide for Scientists, Journalists,
Educators, Political Aides, and the Interested Public. New York: Columbia University, CRED.
Communication 3: 119–32.
Cvetkovich G., and Lo¨fstedt R. (eds.) 2000. Social Trust and the Management of Risk: Advances in Social Science Theory and Research. London:
Earthscan.
Dickinson, J. L. 2009. The people paradox: Self-esteem striving, immortality ideologies, and human response to climate change. Ecology and Society
14(1): 34. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss31/art34/
Downing, P., and Ballantyne, J. 2007. Tipping Point or Turning Point? Social Marketing and Climate Change. London: Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute.
Fessenden-Raden J., Fitchen, J. M., and Heath, J. S. 1987. Providing risk information in communities: Factors influencing what is heard and accepted.
Science, Technology, and Human Values 12(3/4): 94–101.
Floyd, D. L., Prentice-Dunn, S., and Rogers, R. W. 2000. A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 30(2): 407–29.
Gardner, G. T., and Stern, P. C. 2002. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior. 2nd edn., Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Hassol Susan Joy, 2010 Improving How Scientists Communicate About Climate Change, Available at:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/02/28/205549/susan-joy-hassol-improving-how-scientists-communicate-about-climate-change/
Hollin Gregory and Pearce Warren , 2013; Tension between scientific certainty and meaningful communication of IPCC reports. www.judithcurry.vom
Isham, J., and Waage, S. (eds.) (2007). Ignition: What You Can Do to Fight Global Warming and Spark a Movement. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Jost, J. T., Napier, J. L., Thorisdottir, H., Gosling, S. D., Palfai, T. P., and Ostafin, B. 2007. Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with
political conservatism or ideological extremity? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33(7): 989–1007.
Kahan, D. M., and Braman, D. 2008. The self-defensive cognition of self-defense. American Criminal Law Review 45(1): 1–65.
Leiserowitz, A. 2007. Communicating the risks of global warming: American risk perceptions, affective images, and interpretive communities. Pp. 44–63
in S. C. Moser and L. Dilling (eds.), Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Weber, D., and Taylor, M. 2008. What Are Americans Thinking and Doing about Global Warming? Results of a National
Household Survey. Washington, DC and Fairfax, VA: Porter Novelli and Center of Excellence in Climate Change Communication Research, George Mason
University.
Moser, S. C. 2007c. More bad news: The risk of neglecting emotional responses to climate change information. Pp. 64–80 in S. C. Moser and L. Dilling
(eds.), Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Moser, S. C. 2008. Toward a deeper engagement of the U.S. public on climate change: An open letter
National Science Foundation (NSF). 2009. Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. Arlington, VA: NSF.
Nisbet, M. C. 2009. Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment 51(2): 12–23.
O’Connor, R., Bord, R. J., Yarnal, B., and Wiefek, N. 2002. Who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Social Science Quarterly 83(1) 1–17.
O’Neill, S., and Nicholson-Cole, S. 2009. ‘Fear won’t do it’: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science
Communication 30(3): 355–79.
Ochieng Owur Benson, 2009, Effective Communication of Science and Climate Change Information to Policy Makers, Available at:
http://woodhous.arizona.edu/geog596m13/Ochieng_2009.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 2009. Economy, Jobs Trump All Other Policy Priorities in 2009: Environment, Immigration, Health Care Slip Down the List.
Washington, DC: The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
Segnit, N., and Ereaut, G. 2007. Warm Words II: How the Climate Story is Evolving and the Lessons We Can Learn for Encouraging Public Action. London: Institute for Public
Policy Research.
Semenza, J. C., Hall,D. E., Wilsond, D. J., Bontempo, B. D., Sailor, D. J., and George, L. A. 2008. Public perception of climate change: Voluntary mitigation and barriers to
behavior change. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(5): 479–87.
Sterman, J. D. 2008. Risk communication on climate: Mental models and mass balance. Science 322: 532–3.
Takahashi, B. 2009. Social marketing for the environment: An assessment of theory and practice. Applied Environmental Education and Communication 8(2): 135–45.
Wardekker, J. A., Petersena, A. C., and Sluijs, J. P. v. d. 2009. Ethics and public perception of climate change: Exploring the Christian voices in the US public debate. Global
Environmental Change 19(4): 512–21.
