in the trenches

 

special report:

 

A PRIMER ON BIODIVERSITY AND PUBLIC OPINION

 

Excerpts from "Talking to Americans About Biodiversity:

An Approach for Environmental Activists," a discussion guide prepared for the Bidiversity Project by the Communications Consortium Media Center

PART ONE: Basic Information

1. BIODIVERSITY AND THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY

2. BIODIVERSITY IN SERVICE TO HUMANS

3. WHERE PEOPLE GET INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT

4. TRENDS IN PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PUBLIC OPINION

5. PUBLIC OPINION ON THE ENVIRONMENT

6. PUBLIC OPINION ON BIODIVERSITY

 

PART TWO: Recommended Steps

7. STRIKE A BALANCED TONE

8. A WORD OR TWO ABOUT LANGUAGE

9. IDENTIFY MESSAGES

10. OFFER SOLUTIONS

 

PART THREE: Sources

 

PART ONE: Basic Information

1. BIODIVERSITY AND THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY

"Biodiversity" denotes the variety of species, the variety of genetic material within species, and the variety of places where species reside. "Loss of biodiversity" is generally understood to mean the contemporary extinction of animal and plant species at a rate much faster than would occur without human intervention. The places where species reside are called their habitats. Species and their habitats interact with each other within larger biogeographic communities called ecosystems.

The surest and cheapest way to protect biodiversity is to protect habitats and ecosystems.Threats to habitats and ecosystems can come from strictly natural sources, but human activities are much more powerful. Scientists estimate that today's rate of extinction is ten thousand times that of the pre-human era.

The most significant threats to biodiversity come from:

Expansion of settlements, including:

  • Dwellings
  • Commerical Buildings
  • Transportation Infrastructure.

Conversion of wild landscapes for production, including:

  • Agriculture and grazing
  • Logging
  • Fishing
  • Mining.

Introduction of exotic species into new ecosystems.

Changes to the atmosphere, including:

  • Climate Change
  • Ozone Depletion
  • Acid Rain.

Systemic or Persistent Pollution.

Until recently in the United States, and still today in most of the world, farming, grazing, and logging have caused the greatest loss of species. For contemporary Americans, the expansion of settlements (and their transportation infrastructures) is probably the greatest short-term threat to biodiversity. Synthetic chemicals which disturb species reproduction and which linger for decades are a newly-emerging threat. Many experts argue that if carbon dioxide emissions continue to grow, then climate change is probably the greatest long-term threat, both here and abroad.

(top of page)

2. BIODIVERSITY IN SERVICE TO HUMANS

Ecosystems provide useful, but difficult-to-quantify, public services. Among those services: cleansing air and water; ameliorating climate; controlling floods; pollinating crops; controlling pests; and cycling wastes. The degree to which an ecosystem can sustain biodiversity loss and still function in these ways is incompletely known, as is the degree to which natural ecosystem processes can reduce the need for parallel human processes.

During recent history, the loss of biodiversity has imperiled economic development in some places (tropical islands, fishing villages), but not in others (Europe and Japan), at least not in the short-term. In a number of American communities where resource-extraction gives way to tourism or other service industries that place a high value on natural beauty (parts of the Rockies, the Pacific Northwest, New England), biodiversity preservation and growth of the cash economy have complemented each other.

Though human longevity is still greatest in industrialized countries with historically high rates of species extinction, medical scientists describe biodiversity loss as a threat to human health, through three mechanisms:

These threats affect poor people in the tropics first and most, but Americans might not be able to buy medical protection indefinitely.

In the United States, many ecosystems with a high degree of biodiversity (Pacific Coast forests, the Everglades) are widely considered as places of special aesthetic significance. Some other rich ecosystems (mangrove swamps, savannahs) are less prized. Some landscapes stripped of biodiversity are often regarded as attractive (the English countryside). Nonetheless, there is considerable evidence of a distinctive American aesthetic which especially values the country's parks and wilderness areas.

There is also a broad sentiment among Americans that the conservation of wild species and wild places for future generations is encouraged by spiritual and personal values. The strength of the sentiment appears directly related to understanding information about the human sources of biodiversity loss and the possible consequences of that loss.

(top of page)

3. WHERE PEOPLE GET INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT

Television has replaced the newspaper as the primary source of information on general news for American voters.

Newspapers remain the primary source of information about the national or global environment, however. Much, if not most, of this information is presented in the Living sections. Two story lines predominate: possible threats to family health posed by toxic pollution; and the satisfactions derived from personal experiences in natural settings or with animals.

Local television news is the primary source of information about the local environment. Except on the issue of recycling, there is little evidence that schoolchildren provide their parents with memorable environmental information.

In all popular media, the trend in environmental reporting is to short features aimed at linking the news story to the personal life of the consumer. These features typically emphasize statistical data. Often within or alongside the feature story are graphs, "scorecards," and other visual aids designed to summarize and dramatize key points, especially those that are quantifiable.

Such stories often include graphic and textual emphases on a threat to the well-being of the viewer/reader's family ("Does Fast Food Cause Health Problems for Kids?") linked with other emphases on remedial steps ("Ten Ways to Help Your Family Eat Fast and Healthy").

(top of page)

4. TRENDS IN PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PUBLIC OPINION

Citizens in general, and voters in particular, know less about the specifics of American constitutional government than at any time since the development of mass polling techniques. Basic scientific knowledge is also deficient. There is little appreciation of the facts of species extinction; nearly half the American public is unaware that dinosaurs and humans did not live at the same time.

Trust in the factual and ethical authority of the institutions of public life - government; corporations; the media; universities - is at a low point. It is now assumed more widely than before that the reliability of information provided by those bodies is colored by their institutional self-interests.

Though family issues (particularly the strains of childrearing and other dependent care) preoccupy American voters, they are not usually regarded as appropriate issues for government intervention. In public policy terms, there is a clear first tier of popular concerns:

There is a good deal of evidence, however, that effective education can affect the "hierarchies of concern" of a person, and can elevate to the first tier an issue previously consigned to the second tier.

Current "cluster analysis" techniques allow planners to identify those elements of the population ready to support an environmentalist position, those who might support the position if it were described persuasively, and the messages that would work best for the sub-populations in question.

Many studies now reveal that the attitude taken by a voter on a given question of public policy depends less on knowledge of, or conviction about, that particular question than it does on the way in which the question can "fit" into a more general set of personal values. Hence policy advocates are increasingly describing their objectives in terms of the personal values held most strongly by the sub-populations they seek to mobilize or persuade.

(top of page)

5. PUBLIC OPINION ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Large majorities of American voters - 60% to 80% - describe environmental protection as "critical" or "very important." Though this puts the environment ahead of homelessness and abortion, it lags well behind the economy, crime, education, and health care.

Six out of 10 Americans describe the quality of their local environment as good or excellent; 4 in 10 say the national environment is good or excellent.

A majority of Americans believes that there is too much government regulation, but only about 20% think that there is too much government regulation of the environment.

Americans overwhelmingly believe that "environmental protection and economic development can go hand-in-hand," and that natural resources can be protected without restricting human activities. People want to hear that a "balance" is possible. Only in communities where the economy is resource-based do voters see more of an environment-versus-jobs conflict.

Americans overwhelmingly believe that the most serious environmental problems are problems of environmental health. "Pollution" is always at the top of the list of concerns, followed by "toxics" and various ways of expressing anxiety about the healthfulness of water and air. Of issues commonly listed under "global change," only ozone depletion and loss of tropical rainforests are mentioned frequently as causes for serious concern.

Nonetheless, there is broad sentiment for protecting natural settings from overdevelopment. Two-thirds of those polled opposed opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration, and three-fifths opposed legislation to expand logging, mining, and ranching on public lands.

Those results are consistent with polls that show that Americans do not believe that large corporations can be trusted to protect the environment. Environmental groups have more credibility, but it is declining. Environmentalists are often criticized for lacking balance and perspective.

(top of page)

6. PUBLIC OPINION ON BIODIVERSITY

Only one in five Americans say they have heard of "the loss of biodiversity." When asked to explain it, almost all misidentify the issue. The term "endangered species" has a much wider currency, though respondents are much more likely to think of animals (birds and mammals) than plants.

The links between habitat and biodiversity are not widely understood. Fewer than one in ten cite loss of habitat as a reason for species extinction, and eight in ten believe that most of the effort to save endangered species has come from work done in zoos and aquariums.

Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of Americans say that are "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" when informed about the current mass extinctions of plant and animal life. Support for the Endangered Species Act is high (more than 60% of voters oppose new restrictions on its scope). Americans often talk of a basic belief that all living things are interrelated

This belief is undermined by other beliefs, with the result that support for public policies to preserve biodiversity rests on an uneasy foundation. Some of these undermining beliefs are:

Focus group participants often were unimpressed by local evidence of the harm occasioned by biodiversity loss; the issue seemed to lack urgency. They were also skeptical about the facts on biodiversity, particularly on rates of extinction, and questioned the trustworthiness of the presenters. In a number of focus groups and surveys, respondents said they wanted to hear about biodiversity loss from scientists.

(top of page)

 

PART TWO: Recommended Steps

7. STRIKE A BALANCED TONE

Show respect. Focus groups reveal that most voters believe that environmentalists are trying to protect important interests, that they are often well-informed, and that they play a useful role in society by counteracting entrenched forces. But often we are regarded as just another special interest group, with three annoying habits: not listening well, overdramatizing our arguments, and scolding people. Say "we," not "you."

Take people where you find them. A small minority of voters will be able to appreciate the importance of biodiversity as a global issue of long-term practical consequences. Most people, including most environmentalists, will need more information before they even approach that stage. Almost everyone needs to begin by learning how to draw larger conclusions from a memorable personal experience.

Support other environmentalists and other environmentalisms. Engaging people's concerns means respecting their hierarchy of environmental anxieties: protecting health and preserving quality-of-life. Even though those anxieties may be tangential to biodiversity concerns in a sophisticated ecological sense, they are important in themselves and crucial to environmentalism as a successful democratic movement. Those who care about biodiversity in the long run can't succeed without those who want to clean up pollution the day after tomorrow.

Don't over-promise on the short-term benefits of biodiversity. In most regions of the United States, for the next few years at least, preserving biodiversity cannot be presented as a near-term imperative for public health or economic development. It may be that preserving biodiversity is essential for the long-term health and survival of the human species, and it may be that preserving biodiversity is essential for long-term sustainable economic development. But even those propositions are not easily proven.

(top of page)

8. A WORD OR TWO ABOUT LANGUAGE

Don't worry about "biodiversity." There are some people with whom you can talk about "biodiversity," but there aren't many of them. Usually, it's better to talk about the conditions of biodiversity, e.g. "the protection of natural places," or "the conservation of natural ecosystems" or "saving wilderness."

Balance, balance, balance. The side that persuades American voters that it is balanced and moderate is the side that wins. Americans believe that nature protection, health protection, and economic development can all go hand in hand. Even the most radical biodiversity defender can say: "We favor a balanced policy. We believe that it's important to work for a goal of healthy people and healthy natural places in a society where we can raise our kids to lead decent lives." Or "We want a moderate approach to this issue, where all of us can balance short-term needs for business with the long-term needs we all have for a safe, natural, healthy world for ourselves, our kids and their kids."

Don't be afraid to be a literal conservative. A number of polls and focus groups reveal that the word "conserve" has positive connotations (much better than "preserve" or "restore"), as does the label "conservationist." Don't back off from the "environmentalist" tag, but don't hesitate to describe yourself as someone who wants to "safeguard" our heritage. "Stewardship" works well with many people.

Avoid government talk. Don't "oversee natural resource use." Do "protect our forests and rivers." Don't push for "zoning." Do call for "local control." Don't call for "regulations." Demand "standards." Don't say "needs assessment." Don't say "service provider."

Endorse collaboration. Protecting biodiversity requires cooperation from a lot of different people: business executives, farmers, scientists, government leaders, environmentalists, and ordinary taxpayers. Emphasize how "we're all going to have to work together on this."

Use "enemy-language" with discrimination. Though voters trust environmentalists more than they trust corporations, there's evidence that blanket criticisms of industry often backfire. Talking tough - very tough sometimes -about the anti-environmental records of big developers and big mining and timber corporations is essential, but keep your targets and facts in focus. And never attack local ranchers and farmers.

(top of page)

9. IDENTIFY EDUCATIONAL MESSAGE

Inform before you persuade. Research shows that once people are given key information about biodiversity, they become concerned about its loss. This is particularly true when people are told "what scientists are saying" about the eventual results of continued biodiversity loss. Remember that even members of environmental groups need basic facts.

Establish that plants, animals and their habitats are disappearing forever; that the rate of extinction is much faster than in the past; that almost all the responsibility can be attributed to humans; and that extinct species and ruined habitats are not being replaced by new species or new habitats. This is not a case of "nature taking its course," but a case of human beings not taking responsibility for their own behavior.

Focus on habitats or ecosystems, not species. When you describe the benefits of biodiversity and the costs of losing biodiversity, use habitats (both local and faraway) as your frame of reference. Such an emphasis coincides with information that many voters have already: that natural things are interconnected; that saving one habitat is an efficient way to save many species; that healthy ecosystems provide benefits to people; and that natural places can provide deep aesthetic and spiritual comfort.

Show how humans benefit from healthy habitats and ecosystems. Over and over research shows that voters want humans "put in the picture. Healthy natural ecosystems help us:

Some of the benefits to humans can be described in quality-of-life terms. Healthy natural ecosystems help us:

Make local connections. As you tell the story of biodiversity, link the lessons from famous places (rainforests, the Everglades) with personal experiences from an endangered ecosystem nearby. Tell how the activities of local human beings can strongly affect its health. It may be a scientist from a nearby university who measures frog populations; or a state ranger who helps campers appreciate woodlands; or a local enterpreneur who uses natural products sustainably.

(top of page)

10. OFFER SOLUTIONS

Emphasize that People Can Make a Difference. Often an educational effort can surmount the "No Need" hurdle (Is This Really a Serious Problem?) only to pull up short at "No Hope" (Yes, It May Be Serious, But What I Can Do?)

Offer Options Close to Home but not Too Close to Home. The most important personal contributions that most Americans could make to global biodiversity are those associated with the two things in their lives that they don't want to make any sacrifices about: their houses and their cars. Sprawl, energy consumption and auto-dependency are the crucial biodiversity killers, but only the brave or visionary will advocate density, frugality, and big taxes on Ford Explorers. In the meantime, emphasize education and values, and a small number of meaningful local actions:

Offer Options for National Impact:

(top of page)

PART THREE: Sources

 

This document was written in mid-1996 (a revised and updated version is now planned). Most of the information it tries to synthesize was gathered in 1995 and earlier. Missing, therefore, are some interesting findings on public reaction to the attempts of the 104th Congress - at least as presented through the popular media - to revise environmental laws and regulations. No sea changes in public attitudes occured, however; the data and conclusions presented here are still apt and, we hope, useful.

Sources:

March 1996. Belden & Russonello, "Communicating on Water Quality and Toxic Pollution Issues in the Great Lakes: Focus Group Research Findings." Conducted for the National Wildlife Federation under a grant from the C.S. Mott Foundation.

February 1996 (updated). Belden & Russonello, "Public Opinion Polls: A Review of Existing Survey Data Regarding Americans' Views on Environmental Issues." Compiled for Communications Consortium Media Center (CCMC) under a grant from the Joyce Foundation.

February 1996. MacWilliams Cosgrove Snider Smith Robinson, "Final Presentation: Mississippi River Project." Prepared for the McKnight Foundation.

January 1996. Belden & Russonello, "Biodiversity Poll Project 1996." Outline to CCMC.

January 1996. People for Puget Sound/Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation/The Mountaineers/Sierra Club Foundation/Washington Environmental Alliance for Voter Education/Washington Environmental Council, "Reaching Beyond the Choir: Message Development Notes."

December 1995. Manifest Communications, "There are Eleven Great Lakes." Prepared for Pollution Probe (Ontario) and the Great Lakes Messages Workshop.

December 1995. Research/Strategy/Management, Inc., "America Speaks Out on Energy: A Survey of Voters' Attitudes on Sustainable Energy Issues." Prepared for the Sustainable Energy Budget Coalition.

November 1995. Geof Garin for Peter D. Hart Research Associates, "Strategic Recommendations for a Communications Campaign on Biodiversity." Prepared for CCMC.

October 1995. Belden & Russonello, "Understanding Americans' Values: A Report of Public Opinion Data." Prepared for the Pew Global Stewardship Initiative.

October 1995. Defenders of Wildlife, "Ideas for 'Biodiversity as a Local Story'."

September 1995. National Science & Technology Council, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, conference on "Human Health and Global Climate Change."

August 1995. Lake Research, "Balancing the Environment and the Economy to Preserve Quality of Life: Findings from Focus Group Research". Conducted jointly by Lake Research and Belden & Russonello for CCMC in Grand Junction, Colorado, and Bend, Oregon.

June 1995. Belden & Russonello, "Communicating Biodiversity: Focus Group Research Findings." Conducted for the Consultative Group on Biological Diversity.

April 1995. MacWilliams Cosgrove Snider Smith Robinson, "Framing an Agenda for Environmental Protection: Focus Groups Conducted in [the State of] Washington."

April 1994. Reed Noss & Allen Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy, Island Press.

March 1994. Louis Harris & Associates and American Museum of Natural History, "Science and Nature Survey."

July 1993. Peter D. Hart Research Associates, "Highlights from a National Public Opinion Study on Biodiversity." Conducted for Defenders of Wildlife.