Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 19
2
Climate Change Education Goals and
Outcomes for Various Public Audiences
The second workshop session built on the earlier discussion of the
goals for climate change education (see Chapter 1) to explore effective
strategies for engaging with various target audiences. The session was
framed around audience segmentation strategies that are becoming
increasingly common to climate change discussions, such as addressing
people’s receptivity to information about climate change or their capacity
to comprehend various messages around climate change based on their
underlying mental models. In this session, experts examined the nature
of understanding and engagement with climate change across diverse
audiences and the cultural and political factors that influence them. They
also considered whether particular goals are more appropriate—or more
likely to be realized—for different target audiences and discussed where
various target audiences currently obtain climate change information.
Moderator Charles “Andy” Anderson (Michigan State University)
introduced the session, emphasizing that it would explore how to identify
and communicate effectively with different types of audiences.
DIVERSE AUDIENCES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION
Anthony Leiserowitz (Yale University) introduced a series of research
studies that examined how different segments of the American public
respond to climate change information and the important role that emo -
tion, imagery, associations, and values have in shaping those responses
(Leiserowitz, Moser, and Dilling, 2007). His presentation focused pri -
19
OCR for page 20
20 CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION: GOALS, AUDIENCES, AND STRATEGIES
marily on his most recent study, which investigated knowledge about
climate change gained through learning in both formal and informal sci -
ence education environments (Leiserowitz and Smith, 2010). The study,
which is ongoing, is based on interviews conducted with a representative
sample of 2,030 adults ages 18 and older between June 25 and July 22,
2010. According to some preliminary results that Leiserowitz described,
knowledge about climate change can be divided into several general and
overlapping categories:
• knowledge about how the climate system works;
• specific knowledge about the causes, consequences, and potential
solutions to global warming;
• contextual knowledge placing human-caused global warming in
historical and geographic perspective; and
• practical knowledge that enables individual and collective action.
The study included a series of questions asking respondents to rate their
level of knowledge in terms of each of these dimensions. Other questions
addressed the respondents’ desire for more information, trust in different
information sources, perceptions of the risks of climate change, policy
preferences, and behaviors.
In previous research, Leiserowitz (Maibach, Roser-Renouf, and
Leiserowitz, 2009) identified six unique segments of the American pub -
lic, referred to as Global Warming’s Six Americas, each of which responds
to information about climate change in distinct ways. The Six Americas
represent a broad spectrum of responses to climate change, from active
engagement to complete dismissal. They are categorized as follows:
1. The “Alarmed” represent the most engaged public; they believe
that global warming is occurring, that it is human-caused, and
that it is a serious threat.
2. The “Concerned” believe that global warming is a serious but
distant threat and are less personally engaged with the issue.
3. The “Cautious” are less certain that global warming is happening
or that it is human induced and do not have a sense of urgency
about it.
4. The “Disengaged” don’t know or think about the issue.
5. The “Doubtful” are split between believing and disbelieving in
global warming, but those who accept global warming are most
likely to believe that it is due to natural causes and does not pose
a threat to people.
6. The “Dismissive” are actively engaged with the issue but do not
believe global warming is happening, represents a threat, or war-
rants a national response.
OCR for page 21
21
CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION GOALS AND OUTCOMES
Leiserowitz noted that his nationally representative surveys from fall
2008 to January 2010 show a significant decrease in the group identified
as “Alarmed,” coupled with a significant increase in the percentage of
respondents who could be classified as “Dismissive” (see Figure 2-1).
He noted that this research complements other national polls that seem
to indicate that the public’s acceptance of climate change and its human
causes has decreased (Pew Research Center for the People and the Press,
2007), which he attributed to several causes including the economy and
high unemployment, the concurrent major decline in media coverage, two
snowy winters on the east coast, an active and effectual denial industry,
and the “climategate scandal.”
Leiserowitz highlighted several survey questions in his current
research that ask about respondents’ belief in global warming and its
relationship to human actions, noting that the responses show stark differ-
ences among the Six Americas segments. The percentage of respondents
who expressed belief in climate change and its human causes declined
steadily across the groups, from the Alarmed to the lowest level among
the Dismissive. In response to the question of whether respondents are
worried about global warming, there was a large drop in the percentage
expressing a great deal of worry, from 71 percent of the Alarmed to only
18 percent of the Concerned. Leiserowitz noted that many people who are
FIGURE 2-1 Changes in opinions about climate change by audience segmentation.
SOURCE: Leiserowitz et al. (2010).
OCR for page 22
22 CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION: GOALS, AUDIENCES, AND STRATEGIES
not part of the Alarmed, but do accept global warming as a scientific fact,
see it as a problem distant in time and space.
Commenting on results from a line of questioning that explored
whether people understood the greenhouse effect and global warming’s
relationship to the earth’s protective ozone layer, Leiserowitz observed
that many people believe that climate change and the ozone hole are the
same problem, or that the ozone hole is the cause of global warming, and
therefore come to the wrong conclusions about the appropriate solutions.
He also pointed to the fact that more accurate knowledge about climate
science may not trump other fundamental beliefs or agendas that stand
in competition to addressing climate change.
In an attempt to gauge individuals’ deeper understanding of the cli-
mate system, Leiserowitz’ study participants were asked to select one of
several alternative conceptual models of climate change. The models were
composed of five figures representing the climate system as (1) a gradual,
incremental process; (2) a fragile system easily pushed to catastrophic
events; (3) a stable system able to keep itself in balance; (4) a system that
would remain in balance within certain thresholds but would become a
new system if pushed beyond; and (5) a completely random and unpre -
dictable system (see Figure 2-2). Almost half of the Dismissives picked
the stable model, suggesting that, even if they could be convinced that
global warming is occurring and is caused by greenhouse gases, they
believe that these changes would not affect the climate system much.
These respondents view human activities as too insignificant to affect
the global climate system. One positive note from the study was that
most respondents (except those in the Doubtful and Dismissive groups)
indicated that they were not well informed about climate change and
demonstrated overwhelming support for more education, including a
national education effort targeting children.
Leiserowitz explained that this study also examined the types of infor-
mation needed to reach different audiences. He noted that the Dismissive
and Doubtful most frequently sought answers to such questions as “How
do you know that global warming is occurring?” and “Why should I trust
the messenger?” and that demographically these respondents tended to
be white men. Overall, however, the variations in responses were more
strongly associated with personal perceptions about what individuals
“knew” and felt to be true than with gender, race, or other demographic
factors.
Leiserowitz concluded that there are important gaps in the public’s
knowledge of climate change and how to respond to it, including wide -
spread misconceptions about climate change and the earth as a system.
These misconceptions lead some people to doubt that global warming
is occurring or that human activities are a major contributor; misunder-
OCR for page 23
23
CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION GOALS AND OUTCOMES
FIGURE 2-2 Conceptual models used to gauge understanding of climate change.
SOURCE: Leiserowitz and Smith (2010).
standing the causes of climate change and therefore the solutions as well
as the risks. Reiterating that the Six Americas groups respond to climate
change information in very different ways, he emphasized that people
actively interpret information and construct their own mental models
based on what they personally know, value, and feel. Leiserowitz ended
by saying that knowledge is necessary but insufficient to meet the needs
of different audience segments.1
1 More information on this research is available at http://environment.yale.edu/climate.
OCR for page 24
24 CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION: GOALS, AUDIENCES, AND STRATEGIES
AUDIENCE SEGMENTATION, MENTAL MODELS, AND
TARGETING CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION
Ann Bostrom (University of Washington) focused on three topics:
audience segmentation, mental models and decision making, and the
issue of targeting messages to different audience segments. She began
by drawing on some of her previous research (Reynolds et al., 2010) to
compare Leiserowitz’s work on the Six Americas with her own research
on audience segmentation. Although she referred to the group he calls
Dismissives as “discounters” and to his Alarmed as “enthusiasts,” the
groups demonstrate similar characteristics. The enthusiasts/Alarmed
tend to believe in everything that represents environmental good prac -
tice and accept any information that explains climate change or supports
ways to combat it. The Disengaged tend to say they don’t know or care
about this information. And the discounters/Dismissives tend to be well
informed on questions of climate science but don’t believe in the basic
scientific content or that climate change is influenced by human activity;
consequently, they do not see any need for taking action.
Bostrom then turned to the importance of mental models—
representations of reality people construct to explain phenomena and
that are congruent to varying degrees with representations of reality
favored by scientific research. She cited a study (see Bostrom et al., 1994;
Read et al., 1994; Reynolds et al., 2010) demonstrating the tendency of
enthusiasts/alarmists to adopt what she described as an environmental
good practice model. Based on this mental model, group members tend
to think that anything considered environmentally “bad” is contributing
to climate change, from toxic chemicals in the air to stratospheric ozone
depletion. She observed that the enthusiasts’ belief in the effectiveness of
a climate change mitigation strategy was related to whether they viewed
the strategy as an environmentally good practice in general. She stated that
these findings reinforce the research conclusions of Leiserowitz that these
types of beliefs can lead enthusiasts/alarmists to support climate change
mitigation policies that are ineffective or nonspecific. Bostrom empha-
sized that climate change communicators and educators need to think
carefully about this problem when working with enthusiasts/alarmists.
Drawing on the background paper by Nisbet (2010), she observed that
providing information to correct this group’s misconceptions could be an
effective strategy but cautioned that the information must be rooted in
the appropriate context. In addition, she stressed that false current beliefs
or misconceptions can only be addressed with effective and appropriate
alternative conceptions, mental models that resonate with the learner and
that address the issue in a scientifically acceptable way.
Bostrom ended by addressing targeting, asking whether it is more
effective to target a message based on understanding of individuals’
OCR for page 25
25
CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION GOALS AND OUTCOMES
mental models and beliefs about climate change, or to target opportuni-
ties for reaching specific audiences, that is, information channels that
people already use and trust. She referred to a recent study of risk analysis
(unpublished data), noting that some people have already had personal
experiences of climate change. For example, gardeners have noticed the
earlier onset of spring, and Montana residents have experienced more
wildfires. Although these individuals may consist primarily of enthusi-
asts, they have the ability to serve as opinion leaders and help to educate
their communities about climate change.
BELIEFS ABOUT CLIMATE SCIENCE AND
CONCERN ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
Aaron McCright (Michigan State University) introduced his current
research on public understanding of climate change, explaining that it
follows from previous research on the subject (McCright, 2010). Noting
that his findings reinforce Leiserowitz’s research on the Six Americas, he
said that his research indicates that “the strongest predictors of climate
change acceptance and concern can be loosely characterized as envi-
ronmental values, environmental identity, belonging to environmental
groups, and having pro-ecological values versus anthropocentric values.”
The second and third strongest predictors are political ideology and party
identification.
Analyzing Gallup Poll data from 2001 to 2010, McCright addressed
two related questions: (1) what social, political, and economic variables
relate to individuals’ beliefs and attitudes about climate change and (2)
what are the social, political, and economic characteristics of climate
change deniers (McCright, 2010). The answers to these questions, he said,
increase understanding of patterns and trends in the American public’s
opinions on climate change. Identifying the characteristics of individu -
als more likely to accept or deny the reality and seriousness of climate
change may allow leaders of public education efforts to more effectively
frame their messages to key audience segments and/or identify barriers
to existing education efforts.
McCright found a sizable political divide between liberals/Democrats
and conservatives/Republicans on the issue of global warming, with
liberals and Democrats more likely to hold beliefs consistent with the
scientific consensus and to express concern about this environmental
problem than conservatives and Republicans. Noting that this divide has
grown substantially over the past decade, he argued that flows of political
messages and news about global warming are likely to be contributors
to the divide. People’s political orientations moderate the relationship
between level of educational attainment and level of belief in climate
OCR for page 26
26 CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION: GOALS, AUDIENCES, AND STRATEGIES
change and between level of educational attainment and level of concern
about climate change. He cited a study by Hindman (2009) that argues
that individuals with different ideologies or political affiliations are likely
to receive very different or even conflicting information on global warm -
ing—in ways that reinforce their existing political differences.
McCright argued that his findings about the influence of political
orientation challenge the common assumption of climate change edu-
cators that more information will help convince people of the need to
respond to climate change. Simply providing more information seems
particularly unlikely to prove effective for reaching the large segment of
the public on the right of the political spectrum—especially if the informa-
tion is provided through established scientific communication channels.
He emphasized that public opinion about global warming is significantly
polarized. Observing that ideological and political elites have become
increasingly polarized on a wide range of issues in recent decades—
including environmental issues, such as climate change—McCright said
that the public has followed this trend of political polarization. Even if this
polarization trend slows or reverses, the political divide in the American
public will remain much larger than it was in 2001—the year that the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change clearly established the cur-
rent scientific consensus on climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, 2001).
In closing, McCright turned to research focused on conservative
white males (CWMs) and the characteristics of climate deniers. He noted
that research findings provided strong evidence that conservative white
males are more likely than other adults to espouse climate change denial
(McCright, 2010). Furthermore, CWMs who report that they understand
global warming very well—a group he referred to as “confident” CWMs—
express the greatest degree of denial. Even controlling for this denialism,
McCright found that Republicans, more religious individuals, and those
unsympathetic to the environmental movement are more likely to report
denialist beliefs than their respective counterparts.
Like several speakers before him, McCright also concluded by cau -
tioning that these research findings pose a challenge to the deficit model
of public education campaigns, which try to simply get more information
out. He noted that a careful analysis of the different factors associated
with climate change denial can help illuminate the importance of trust in
sources of information on controversial topics.
SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION
Psychologist Susan Clayton (College of Wooster) opened her talk by
emphasizing that education is a social interaction in which those who give
OCR for page 27
27
CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION GOALS AND OUTCOMES
a message and those who receive it play social roles and are influenced
by the surrounding context. Although education is typically thought of
as a process of increasing knowledge by transmitting an informational
message, the acceptance of a message involves emotional and behavioral
components as well as cognitive ones. The strong emotional responses
evoked by climate change are an inextricable part of the way in which
people evaluate information about the phenomenon. In an age of informa-
tion overload, social context helps an individual decide whether to pay
attention to a message, encourages the individual to continue to think
about a message after the delivery, and provides an interpretive frame-
work for making sense of information.
Clayton stressed that the social context can create negative emotional
responses to a message about climate change, which may include fear,
shame, guilt, or anxiety. Although some emotional response is useful in
attracting attention or avoiding complacency, too much fear or anxiety can
make people shut down in denial. Moreover, if a message makes people
feel that their lifestyles are being personally attacked, they are likely to
respond defensively by trying to discredit the message and its source.
However, a message may also generate positive emotional responses, as
people may feel proud of what they or their social groups are doing to
address climate change and working together may enhance feelings of
connectedness to one’s community.
Clayton said her research indicates that the emotional response to a
climate change message will also affect the behavioral response. In her
view, climate change education will be effective only if it convinces people
to change their behavior, such as modifying unsustainable lifestyles or
advocating for policies to address the problem. She observed that many
people do not act because of uncertainty about the best course of action or
a feeling that they are incapable of effective action. Clayton proposed that
education should train people in the behaviors and skills most effective
in addressing climate change. In the best case, this type of climate change
education would enhance perceptions of self-efficacy, motivate people to
learn more, and, as a result, become even more effective in their actions.
Information about what others are doing is also both informative
and motivational, according to Clayton. Conformity is a very powerful
force, she said, and substantial research is showing that some people will
behave in ways that are completely inconsistent with their own beliefs
and values in order to follow social norms. To motivate individuals to
act, education efforts might include not only factual information, but also
concrete examples of the ways in which specific individuals are working
to address climate change.
In closing, Clayton argued that the context in which a climate change
message is received is an important factor that can foster the educational
OCR for page 28
28 CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION: GOALS, AUDIENCES, AND STRATEGIES
mission. The context is particularly influential in informal education, but
it can also be important in formal settings. An educational message that
fosters social interaction can attract individuals’ attention, promote their
retention of the message, and encourage them to engage with the mes-
sage. Social interactions around climate change education may strengthen
social capital and the bonds between individuals in a group. In some
cases, such interactions may encourage people to feel a stronger sense of
community and social connection. For example, such connections devel -
oped in six small Kansas communities that joined a climate and energy
project and greatly reduced their energy use, despite residents’ skepticism
about global warming. The project focused on “thrift, patriotism, spiritual
conviction, and economic prosperity” to encourage residents to conserve
energy; the program resulted in up to 5 percent decline in energy use
within these communities in comparison to other areas (Kaufman, 2010).
The success of this project, Clayton said, reinforced her earlier point that
people who may deny or reject climate change can be reached by talking
about topics they relate to and consider part of their social identity.
MAPPING GOALS AND OUTCOMES TO
PARTICULAR AUDIENCES:
PANEL DISCUSSION
Session moderator Anderson facilitated a discussion among the pre -
senters and the audience. As an entry point, he asked each member of the
panel to answer the question of whether different goals are appropriate
or more likely to be realized with different audiences.
Leiserowitz responded that, given the broad challenge of climate
change and the diversity of the American public, there is not a one-
size-fits-all approach to climate change education. Individuals take on
many different roles that potentially influence or are influenced by climate
change, acting at different times as energy users, consumers, members of
a political party or religious organization, and citizens. He argued that the
goals of various education initiatives focusing on these different roles are
completely different, suggesting that educators need to carefully develop
their messages to align with the desired goals or outcomes.
McCright stated that most people do not consider their political pref-
erences to be a master identity, because other roles and values—such as
their identity as parents or their position in the workplace—are more
important. He explained that, when communicating about behavioral
change rather than simply transmitting information, it is possible to
approach individuals in ways that do not provoke the political divide.
He expressed concern about messages that reinforce political divisions
OCR for page 29
29
CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION GOALS AND OUTCOMES
around climate change, as the different groups may become increasingly
unwilling to communicate.
Elaborating on Leiserowitz’s earlier suggestion that education strate -
gies focus on goals, Clayton observed that, since climate change educa -
tion has many different goals, a single education effort cannot attempt to
achieve every one of them simultaneously. She identified several possible
goals, such as enlightening the public, creating behavior change, or invok-
ing a sense of community and responsibility, emphasizing that a particu-
lar educational message can be matched to a particular goal. She agreed
with McCright that people do not have a single identity and may best be
reached through messages tailored to their different roles.
Audience Comments and Questions
Thomas Bowman (Bowman Design Group) asked the panelists how
important it is to improve climate literacy as a step toward developing
new cultural values that would lead Americans to respond effectively
to climate change. Clayton responded that climate literacy is important
if the goal is a long-term increase in public understanding and develop -
ment of solutions, but it may not be the most important factor if the goal
is short-term behavior change. In either case, a population that under-
stands basic climate science and can interpret scientific information will
help to advance all of the various goals of climate change education.
Bostrom added that an exciting aspect of the National Research Council’s
Roundtable on Climate Change Education, which generated the idea for
the workshop, is its integration of both formal and informal education.
Noting that the current generation of students receives almost no formal
education in climate change, she said that integrating informal and formal
learning may be the best way to increase climate literacy.
Roundtable chair James Mahoney asked whether the panelists’ obser-
vations extended to decision makers who deal with climate change in
their work. Leiserowitz responded that climate change educators need
to be able to provide the level of sophisticated information required by
professionals, emphasizing that educators should help to prepare a work-
force of experts, researchers, and communicators trained to solve current
and evolving climate change challenges. Clayton explained that the work-
place provides a social context in which people may more readily receive
climate change information, and McCright encouraged the climate educa-
tion community to draw on the research on the sociology of organizations
and organizational change.
David Hassenzahl asked if the research findings on the segmentation
of different audiences within the American public helps to identify points
of entry, in which climate change education is likely to garner the greatest
OCR for page 30
30 CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION: GOALS, AUDIENCES, AND STRATEGIES
effects. Leiserowitz responded that, although climate change has become
the latest issue in the broader debate over environmental protection, it
represents a much larger and more fundamental challenge to the nation.
He argued that it is very important for the climate change education
community “to break out of the environment box, and the political box,
to avoid being mired down in the ongoing cultural wars.” Leiserowitz
observed that climate change can be legitimately and accurately char-
acterized as a public health issue, an economic competitiveness issue, a
national security issue, and a moral and a religious issue. He advocated
framing messages in these contexts, to help all audience segments recog -
nize that their values are at stake in climate change.
David Blockstein (National Council for Science and the Environment)
noted that two types of goals for climate change education had emerged
in the discussions: a knowledge goal and a behavioral influencing goal.
He asked whether the panelists had been able to distinguish the extent to
which people’s belief in the reality of climate change is generated by their
attention to scientific findings rather than attention to behavioral changes.
Leiserowitz responded with his finding that the Dismissives who belong
to the group most likely to disbelieve in climate change are driven, not by
scientific findings, but by the threat of a policy solution that violates their
values. He noted that a Yale study targeting climate change skeptics found
that, when skeptics were told directly that climate change was a seri-
ous problem that required action, they responded overwhelmingly with
disbelief (Leiserowitz and Smith, 2010). However, if they were told that
nuclear power was the best way to solve climate change, skeptics were
more likely to accept that climate change is occurring and poses a threat.
Bostrom agreed with Leiserowitz that the framing of questions influ-
ences the extent of public support for climate change mitigation policies.
She mentioned a study showing that, when people were directly asked
to support carbon taxes, they responded negatively, but when asked
to support programs that offset the costs of emissions, they responded
positively2 (Hardisty, Johnson, and Weber, 2010). McCright added that
the direct effects of political ideology or party identification on prefer-
ences for alternative policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are very
small or nonexistent. Overall, 75-80 percent of the public favors a range
of policies to address climate change, but there may not be the political
will to move forward.
Jill Karsten (National Science Foundation) asked whether studies of
audience segmentation—similar to the Six Americas study—had been
used to develop successful strategies for climate change education.
2 Also supported by data recently collected and analyzed by Daniel Read, currently
unpublished.
OCR for page 31
31
CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION GOALS AND OUTCOMES
Leiserowitz responded that he is analyzing responses to climate change–
related questions included in the Gallup World Poll, with data from more
than 150 countries. His research group has found huge differences across
countries and world regions; for example, climate change is not an issue
in Latin America and South America, and, globally, 4 out of 10 people
have never heard of climate change. He described this lack of awareness
of climate change as “an education challenge.”
Clayton added that the relationship between one’s belief or disbelief
in climate change and one’s political views is very different in different
countries. For example, in China, where the government strongly supports
taking action to address climate change, one cannot be pro-government
and deny climate change, as in the United States. Leiserowitz added that
the United Kingdom’s approach to climate change provides an interesting
counterpoint to the United States. Although the right side of the political
spectrum in the United States has made denial of climate change part
of their election strategy, Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conserva-
tive Party was elected (in coalition with the Liberal Democrats) in 2010
on a platform that “absolutely accepted climate change.” Leiserowitz
suggested that this demonstrates that a conservative ideology need not
prevent accepting and responding to climate change.
BREAKOUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS
During the breakout sessions, the carousel brainstorming technique
was again used to facilitate discussion. To initiate the conversation, the
steering committee provided the following guiding questions:
1. Based on the goals identified in Session 1 and considering the
research on audiences, what are the most important climate
change education goals for each audience?
2. What factors and barriers must be addressed to realize the indi-
cated goals for audiences (e.g., values, incorrect mental models
and preconceptions, receptivity, misconceptions)?
3. Should certain audiences be higher priority than others? Which
ones? Why?
During the breakout sessions, participants revisited the goals of
climate change education that had emerged in the earlier session and
grouped them into several major categories, noting that reaching each
set of goals will require intervening steps. One major category includes
knowledge and action goals. In this category, participants discussed
the idea that climate change educators could focus first on the learning
(knowledge) goals, followed by skill development to increase the audi-
OCR for page 32
32 CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION: GOALS, AUDIENCES, AND STRATEGIES
ence’s capacity for action. Participants noted that, although knowledge
is essential, skills are necessary to translate knowledge into behavioral
changes. People in several groups emphasized the need to speak with
members of the various audiences to establish the right set of goals for
that particular audience, and they cautioned against focusing on the need
to simply fill a person’s knowledge and skill deficits. Rather, they said,
educators need to focus on what experience and information they can
share that would have value to that audience.
Most of the breakout groups expressed the view that audience seg-
mentation is useful in prioritizing strategies for communicating about
climate change, but they had different perspectives on the usefulness
of considering the Six Americas study specifically. One group thought
the study findings were impractical; other groups viewed them more
favorably. However, participants in every group expressed the need for
prioritization of audiences and messages in order to make best use of
available resources.
People in several groups thought that the most strategic way to priori-
tize audiences is to determine whether a particular audience can influence
others. They identified several audiences as high priority, based on this
capacity for influence, including formal educators, informal educators
(e.g., weather forecasters), and decision makers. Bostrom’s earlier com -
ments about the need to be practical when prioritizing target audiences
resonated with a number of participants.
Several groups focused on priorities in terms of the audiences identi -
fied in the Six Americas study. They described the alarmed group as a
natural audience for climate change educators. However, at least one par-
ticipant was distressed by the serious misunderstandings in this group,
which climate change educators have reached most successfully. People
responded that educators can help the alarmed group to develop a better
understanding of the science to solidify their support for real solutions, to
show this group how to take actions that will truly have a positive impact
on climate change problems, and to activate the group as educators for
peers in their social environment.
Several groups also described the concerned audience as important
because its members already lean toward accepting and understanding
climate change issues. Participants discussed the idea of connecting with
the concerned group by framing climate change as a concrete issue with
real-world effects. For example, educators could emphasize the local or
regional effects of climate change. Other participants noted that focus -
ing on local impacts might also be helpful to reach the discounters/
Dismissives and the doubtfuls. Various groups reflected on the successful
program in Kansas described by Clayton (Kaufman, 2010). Participants
noted that, by responding to community needs and respecting local
OCR for page 33
33
CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION GOALS AND OUTCOMES
opinions and values, the program helped people find their own reasons
to reduce their use of fossil fuels.
In the discussions, three fairly distinct categories of barriers to under-
standing the science of climate change, accepting the need to act to mitigate
climate change, and actual behavior that would effectively address the
issue were identified: (1) personal-level barriers, such as the mental mod-
els described by Bostrom; (2) social-level barriers, which can be viewed
as people’s normative interactions with one another and reinforcement
for one another’s actions; and (3) institutional or structural-level barriers,
which enable action or prevent it from occurring. Some people thought
that the climate change education community would be wise to target
the decision makers who influence civic and private infrastructure, from
public transportation to the energy efficiency of consumer products, and
thereby determine the range of options available to consumers and pri-
vate citizens. And others said that climate change educators could target
local, regional, and national opinion leaders in politics, media, art, civic
society, and business who can shape the cultural and political discussions
on climate change and, in part, determine shared cultural values that pro-
vide the social context in which individuals navigate their own identities.
OCR for page 34
