Content uploaded by K. L. Akerlof
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by K. L. Akerlof on Sep 22, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
PARK SCIENC E • VOLUME 28 • NUMBER 1 • SPRING 2011
DUE TO THE IMPACTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE,
it has become increasingly challenging for the National Park Service
(NPS) to uphold its mission to conserve the nation’s most treasured
landscapes for future generations. The Park Service has responded
by targeting communication as one of four management areas in
its Climate Change Response Strategy (NPS 2010). Thus, while the
agency is working to expand research on impacts on parks’ increas-
ing ecosystem resilience, and assisting species in transitioning to new
climate regimes, it is also focused on conveying this information to
diverse audiences both in and outside the organization.
This is both an enormous communication challenge and an
opportunity for the National Park Service with implications for
the almost 300 million people who visit its nearly 400 sites each
year. Climate change poses a multitude of inherent problems to
communicators: the topic is politically polarizing (Dunlap and
McCright 2008), the science is complex (Moser 2010), and most
Americans perceive its impacts to be primarily on people and
places far removed from themselves (Leiserowitz 2006). Over the
past few decades, social science research across many fi elds—
including public health and social marketing (Hornik 2002;
Maibach and Parrot 1995; McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999)—has
begun to determine which communication strategies most suc-
cessfully engage the public in solving broad societal problems.
This research is now being applied to climate change. Over just
the last four years, the fi eld of climate change communication,
which addresses the issue’s communication challenges and how
to facilitate social change in related areas such as energy conser-
vation (Moser and Dilling 2007), has developed a rapidly growing
academic literature. Yet few studies address the specifi c problems
that public land managers face (Schweizer et al. 2009; Schweizer
and Thompson in press).
In reaching out to visitors, NPS interpreters rely on a traditional
toolkit of resources and techniques: evening programs, guided
walks, roving interpretation, school programs and teacher work-
shops, multimedia products, publications, and exhibits. Though
interpreters and education staff may strive to follow Freeman
Tilden’s fi rst principle—“Any interpretation that does not some-
how relate what is being displayed or described to something
within the personality or experience of the visitor will be sterile”
(Tilden 1957)—without audience research it is diffi cult to ascertain
information about visitors beyond license plate observations. In
this article we off er ideas for evaluating where audiences stand on
the issue of climate change, and information on shaping messages
that will most appeal to those groups. The data presented here are
derived primarily from public opinion research conducted at the
George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communica-
tion (4C) and the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication,
based at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
Global warming’s “Six Americas”
Thinking about Americans in terms of a smaller subset of audi-
ences, distinguishable by their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors,
56
Communication and Public Engagement
RESEARCH REPORT
A
bst
r
act
C
ommunicatin
g
climate chan
g
e to 300 million national park
visitors each
y
ear represents both an enormous challen
g
e and
an opportunit
y
f
or the National Park Service. In
f
ormal and
f
ormal audience assessment techni
q
ues allow communicators
t
o develop strate
g
ies and messa
g
es that are tailored to certain
s
ubsets o
f
the population, or cra
f
ted to resonate with all
g
roups,
t
hereb
y
increasin
g
the probabilit
y
of infl uencin
g
individuals’
attitudes
,
beliefs
,
and behaviors. This article reviews audience
s
e
g
mentation research developed b
y
the Yale Pro
j
ect on Climate
C
han
g
e Communication and the Center for Climate Chan
g
e
C
ommunication, and applies it within the context o
f
the National
Park Service’s desi
g
nation o
f
communication as one o
f
its
f
our
mana
g
ement areas in the Climate Chan
g
e Response Strate
gy
. A
case stud
y
on communicatin
g
climate chan
g
e at Pi
ctu
r
ed
R
oc
k
s
National Lakeshore illustrates some o
f
the wa
y
s that one park is
alread
y
usin
g
social science research–based strate
g
ies to increase
t
he e
ff
ectiveness o
f
its outreach pro
g
rams.
Ke
y
words
:
audience se
g
mentation, climate chan
g
e,
communication,
g
lobal warmin
g
, public opinion, surve
y
s
Audience segmentation as a tool for communicating
climate change: Understanding the differences and
bridging the divides
By Karen Akerlof, Gregg Bruff, and Joe Witte
enables communicators to develop messages that resonate more
deeply with individuals, whether the topic is politics (Weigel
2006), HIV/AIDS (Yun et al. 2001), or climate change (Maibach
et al. 2011b). Moreover, creating tailored programs and materials
based on this type of research has been shown to be successful in
infl uencing individual behavior change (Noar et al. 2007), likely
by increasing the relevance and salience of the message.
Based on a nationally representative survey of 2,164 adults in the
United States that was fi elded from 7 October to 12 November
2008, the Yale/Mason team used a statistical technique termed
“latent class analysis” to evaluate how people cluster around a set
of global warming beliefs, issue involvement variables, behaviors,
and societal response preferences. Six distinct audience segments,
called “Global Warming’s Six Americas,” were generated from the
study (Maibach et al. 2009). Research by Yale and Mason in the
winter of 2009–2010, spring 2010, and spring 2011 is continuing to
track these unique audiences. Tools that can be used to segment
audiences with sets of either 15 or 36 survey questions are freely
available. The Six Americas audience segmentation has been
found to be a better predictor of global warming federal policy
support than either demographics or political ideology (Maibach
et al. 2011b). Indeed, regression analysis of the segmentation as
a predictor of a scale derived from nine federal policy options
for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions revealed that it
explained as much variance (41%) as a combination of political
ideology, demographics, and the segmentation.
The surveys were conducted using Knowledge Networks’ online
panel of U.S. adults, initially recruited using a random-digit dial-
ing technique. The online panel tracks the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Current Population Survey (CPS) on demographic variables such
as age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, geographic region, and employ-
ment. In order to adjust for noncoverage or nonresponse biases,
the data were weighted to refl ect CPS distributions of age, race,
gender, and education. The survey measures were constructed
using the term “global warming,” as it has been used predomi-
nantly in U.S. public opinion surveys over the past few decades
(Akerlof and Maibach 2011). The survey defi nes global warming as
“the idea that the world’s average temperature has been increas-
ing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future,
and that the world’s climate may change as a result” (Maibach et
al. 2011a).
The Six Americas span a spectrum of beliefs about global warm-
ing, from the “Alarmed” to the “Dismissive” (fi g. 1).
57
Alarmed
13%
Concerned
28%
Cautious
24%
Disengaged
10%
Doubtful
12%
Dismissive
12%
June
2010
n = 1,024
Highest Belief in Global Warming Lowest Belief in Global Warming
Most Concerned Least Concerned
Most Motivated Least Motivated
Proportion represented by area
Source: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication
Figure 1. U.S. audiences can be divided into six distinct groups according to their global warming beliefs, issue involvement, behaviors, and
societal response preferences. This fi gure represents the audience sizes as percentages of the American public according to data from a
nationally representative survey of adults fi elded in May–June 2010 (n=1,024).
Source: Leiserowitz et al. 2010b
There is a great need at this time
for messages that communicate the
complexities of climate change and the
actions that can be taken.
—National Park Service Director
Jon Jarvis, 2009
PARK SCIENC E • VOLUME 28 • NUMBER 1 • SPRING 2011
58
The Alarmed are the most concerned about global warming, the
most personally involved in the issue, and the most motivated to
do something about it. They are certain that global warming is
happening, and believe that it is mostly human caused and that
there is scientifi c consensus that it is occurring. The Alarmed view
themselves as knowledgeable about the topic and are unlikely
to change their minds. This group is the most likely to see global
warming as an imminent and severe threat, and to be taking steps
both as consumers and as citizens to encourage companies and
politicians to respond to the issue. The Alarmed are supportive
of a wide range of potential federal policies that would reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
The Concerned also believe that climate change is a serious issue
and that we need to take action. However, this group is less per-
sonally involved than the Alarmed and feels less personally threat-
ened. The Concerned are sure that global warming is happening
and that human activities are the main cause, but that it will not
harm people for another decade or more. This group is active
primarily in using its power as consumers to enact change within
the marketplace, but is supportive of policies to lessen emissions.
The Cautious are only somewhat likely to say that global warm-
ing is occurring, and they are of mixed opinion on whether it
is caused by human beings. Regardless, the Cautious see global
warming as a removed threat. As a result, they are not likely to
be taking action either as consumers or as citizens on this issue,
though they are somewhat supportive of potential federal climate
and energy policies.
The majority of the Disengaged respond “don’t know” to
whether global warming is occurring and whether it will harm
people. They have not thought a lot about this issue, do not feel
well educated on the topic, and say they could easily change their
minds. This group tends to be of lower income and education
levels. The Disengaged are also somewhat supportive of federal
climate and energy policy options.
The Doubtful are unsure whether climate change is occurring,
but if it is, they are fairly sure that it is caused by natural changes.
This group perceives global warming as a very distant threat, if
it is indeed a real phenomenon. Consequently they do not at-
tach much personal importance to it. The Doubtful believe that
scientists are in disagreement on global warming, and that they
themselves are well informed about the issue. They say they are
unlikely to change their minds, but are supportive particularly of
policies that would expand domestic energy sources.
The Dismissive believe global warming does not exist and are
actively working against policies to reduce greenhouse gas emis-
sions. Like the Alarmed, they have given it a lot of thought, and
they are very certain in their views. This group believes it is well
educated about global warming, and that there remains much
disagreement on the issue among scientists. They support an even
more limited range of potential policy options than the Doubt-
ful, primarily increased drilling for oil and the building of nuclear
power plants.
As of spring 2010, the Six Americas’ segment sizes ranged from
10% to 28% of the population (Leiserowitz et al. 2010b). The dif-
ferences among these groups by demographics—gender, ethnic-
ity and race, and age—are not large; the greatest variance lies in
the societal values to which they ascribe (Maibach et al. 2009).
The Alarmed and the Concerned are more likely to hold liberal,
egalitarian views while the Doubtful and the Dismissive are more
likely to be conservative and individualistic in their beliefs. For
National Park Service interpreters, this means that it is diffi cult
to deduce what any individual’s beliefs about climate change are
likely to be without fi rst initiating a conversation. Audience analy-
ses to determine the prevalence of the Six Americas among park
visitors may be a useful strategy for developing targeted commu-
nication materials and programs, but can also be time-consuming
and require approval of the Offi ce of Management and Budget.
Engaging small groups in open-ended discussions to address two
questions is an easy way to roughly ascertain where audiences fall
along the spectrum of the Six Americas:
“Do you think that global warming is happening?”
“How sure are you that global warming is (or is not) happening?”
As can be seen in fi gure 2, the combination of these two ques-
tions effi ciently captures the spread of the average responses from
people across the Six Americas. Addressing a third question, “Do
you take actions at home to conserve energy?” may serve to point
out similarities across even diametrically opposed audience seg-
ments. In doing so, interpreters can quickly ascertain where their
audience members may be in the Six Americas, without undergo-
ing a formal survey and recording individual information.
For National Park Service interpreters
… it is diffi cult to deduce what any
individual’s beliefs about climate
change are likely to be without fi rst
initiating a conversation.
For parks or other organizations that are conducting formal
surveys, the measures and statistical algorithms used to determine
Global Warming’s Six Americas may be obtained from the Center
for Climate Change Communication and the Yale Project on Cli-
mate Change Communication for use in segmenting audiences.
A 36-question version places individuals in the correct segment
on average 91% of the time, while a 15-item screener is accurate
on average 84% of the time (Maibach et al. 2011b). These tools
are run using SAS or SPSS statistical software scripts, or an Excel
spreadsheet, and are available at http://climatechange
communication.org/SixAmericasManual.cfm. Surveys that are
conducted, funded, or sponsored by the National Park Service
must be processed through the NPS Social Science Program,
which assists in determining which types of approval are needed
(e.g., the Department of the Interior or the Offi ce of Management
and Budget). For more information and review guidelines, see
http://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/.
What do they know, and what do they
want to know?
When the Six Americas were graded on their knowledge of
climate change by the Yale Project on Climate Change Commu-
nication in 2010, 49% of the Alarmed received a passing grade
(70% or above) based on their percentage of correct answers
(Leiserowitz and Smith 2010). The other audiences fared worse,
with only 33% of the Concerned, 16% of the Cautious, 5% of the
Disengaged, 17% of the Doubtful, and 4% of the Dismissive pass-
ing. Those least likely to believe that global warming is occurring
and attributed to human activities—as concluded unequivocally
in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 assess-
ment report (IPCC 2007)—did not uniformly score the worst.
The Doubtful and the Dismissive were the most likely to know
that the greenhouse eff ect refers to gases in the atmosphere that
trap heat (74% and 79% respectively). The Dismissive were also
the most likely group to understand that the terms “weather” and
“climate” do not have the same meaning (63%).
Stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change have long
been confused by the public. The Alarmed and the Concerned
were the most likely to misperceive the ozone hole as a signifi cant
contributor to global warming (63% and 49%), and to believe that
aerosol cans are a signifi cant cause of climate change (49% and
36%).
Unsurprisingly, those skeptical that climate change is occurring—
such as the Doubtful and the Dismissive—said they were less
interested in learning about it. Less than a third of Dismissives
would like to learn more, as opposed to more than three-quarters
of the Alarmed. They also have diff erent questions they would like
experts to answer (Leiserowitz et al. 2010b). The Alarmed and the
Concerned most want to know what the United States can do to
reduce global warming, whereas the Cautious, Doubtful, and Dis-
missive groups want to know how we know it is happening. The
Disengaged most want to ask experts what harm global warming
will cause.
What are they already doing?
In terms of lessening the impacts of climate change, perhaps even
more important than what people know and how people think
about the issue is how they choose to act. Individual and house-
hold energy consumption in the United States accounts for 30%
to 40% of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions (Vandenbergh et
al. 2008; Vandenbergh and Steinemann 2007), and thus repre-
sents a large source of potential emission reductions. As one of
the foci of the Do Your Part! for Climate Friendly Parks initially
established by the National Park Service, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and private-sector contractor ICF Interna-
tional, and now administered by the National Parks Conservation
Association, it also represents a topic that has been a component
of NPS outreach programs.
59
COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Alarmed
Concerned
Cautious
Disengaged
Doubtful
Dismissive
n = 2,129
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Do you think that global warming is happening?
How sure are you that global warming is happening? OR
How sure are you that global warming is not happening?
Extremely sure
global warming
is happening
Very sure global
warming is
happening
Somewhat sure
global warming
is happening
Not at all sure
global warming
is happening
Don’t know
Not at all sure
global warming
is not happening
Somewhat sure
global warming
is not happening
Very sure global
warming is not
happening
Extremely sure
global warming
is not happening
Figure 2. The Six Americas, on average, span from being extremely
sure that global warming is happening (Alarmed) to being
somewhat sure that global warming is not happening (Dismissive).
Source: Maibach et al. 2009
PARK SCIENC E • VOLUME 28 • NUMBER 1 • SPRING 2011
One of the most surprising research results from the October–
November 2008 nationally representative survey data (n=2,129)
was the commonality across the Six Americas with regard to their
actions on saving energy (Maibach et al. 2010a). Although people
across the Six Americas strongly disagreed about global warming,
they concurred on the importance of saving energy and demon-
strated similar behavior patterns in regard to energy conservation
and effi ciency (see fi gs. 3 and 4). When it came to such behaviors
as installing energy-effi cient appliances and insulating the attic,
the Alarmed (mean [M] = 3.35, 95% confi dence interval [CI] [3.16,
3.55]) and the Concerned (M = 2.87, 95% CI [2.72, 3.01]) were
statistically indistinguishable from the Doubtful (M = 3.17, 95%
CI [2.89, 3.45]) and the Dismissive (M = 3.20, 95% CI [2.90, 3.51]).
The Cautious (M = 2.62, 95% CI [2.42, 2.83]) and the Disengaged
(M = 32.26, 95% CI [1.98, 2.54]) undertook slightly fewer total
home improvements than the Alarmed, Doubtful, and Dismissive
groups, likely because these audiences tend to be in lower-income
groups.
The behaviors of the Six Americas are even more similar in energy
conservation habits that require no up-front fi nancial invest-
ment. On average, people in all the groups said in fall 2008 that
they “always” or “often” practiced two to three behaviors, such as
turning off unneeded lights, adjusting their thermostat upward or
downward to save energy, or biking instead of driving. For these
actions—requiring more of a lifestyle and behavioral commitment
than do energy effi ciency improvements—the Alarmed reported
higher levels of engagement (M = 2.95, 95% CI [2.83, 3.06]) than
the other fi ve groups, whose means were slightly, though dis-
tinctly, lower (Concerned, M = 2.51, 95% CI [2.43, 2.59]; Cautious,
M = 2.32, 95% CI [2.20, 2.43]; Disengaged, M = 2.43, 95% CI [2.27,
2.58]; Doubtful, M = 2.13, 95% CI [2.00, 2.26]; Dismissive, M =
2.38, 95% CI [2.19, 2.56]).
Programs such as Do Your Part! that address changing indi-
vidual energy behaviors may thus appeal to the entire spectrum
of the American public in ways that climate change messages
may not, while still engaging people in behavioral changes to
lessen greenhouse gas emissions and ameliorate the impacts of
climate change. Large majorities of all Americans in the Decem-
ber 2009–January 2010 survey (n=1,001) said that conserving
resources and energy in their everyday activities is important, yet
for some behaviors—such as unplugging electronics and using
public transportation—the majority have not made those actions
habitual (Leiserowitz et al. 2010a).
The signifi cance of Americans’ energy effi ciency and conserva-
tion activities—and their widespread appeal—is that it and other
messages that point to a new model of low-carbon living can be
framed both as solutions to climate change for Alarmed and Con-
cerned segments and as a way of creating healthier communities
for broader audiences.
What messages work with what
audiences?
The following section describes messaging strategies that could
be used with the Six Americas based on an interpreter’s under-
standing of his or her audience using the tools described above,
or to accommodate a broader range of segments. These mes-
sages have not been tested with these audiences, but are based on
combining audience segment characteristics with insights from
theoretical literature.
The questions about global warming for which members of the
Six Americas most want answers refl ect the two very diff erent
conversations about climate change that are currently occurring in
the United States. Those who believe strongly that climate change
is real want to discuss what to do about it, while those who are
less sure or strongly believe it is not occurring prefer to discuss
the basis for the science.
Alarmed/Concerned. Messages for the Alarmed and the Con-
cerned therefore may be most eff ective when they focus on con-
crete behaviors that individuals and communities can undertake
to reduce carbon emissions, perhaps using actions taken by parks
as examples: public transportation, low-emission vehicles, and
60
n = 2,129
Alarmed
Concerned
Cautious
Disengaged
Doubtful
Dismissive
5
4
3
2
1
0
Number of improvements made from the following list:
(1) insulating the attic, (2) caulking and weather-stripping the
home, (3) installation of an energy-efficient water heater, (4)
installation of an energy-efficient furnace, and (5) installation
of an energy-efficient air conditioner.
Figure 3. The average total number of home energy-effi ciency
improvements made by members of the Six Americas ranged from
two to four, according to the October–November 2008 nationally
representative survey (n=2,129).
Source: Maibach et al. 2009
reducing waste. These types of communication fi t within the NPS
Climate Change Response Strategy goal of “modeling and com-
municating sustainable practices that lead by example.” Many of
these same actions can be eff ectively communicated to the entire
spectrum of audiences, by discussing them within other frames
than climate change.
Cautious/Disengaged. The Americans who are in the middle of
the spectrum—the Cautious and the Disengaged—are less certain
in their beliefs about climate change, and feel less informed on the
issue (Maibach et al. 2009). These segments have fewer fi nan-
cial resources than either the Alarmed or the Dismissive. Mes-
sages that illustrate how to save money by adopting low-carbon
lifestyles, and that help individuals to develop the knowledge and
skills they need to accomplish these goals, are most likely to be
eff ective in facilitating behavioral change and reducing emissions.
Doubtful/Dismissive. For members of groups who believe the
evidence for climate change is not yet conclusive, research sug-
gests that messengers who are viewed as having similar values
and who use familiar narrative lines are the most apt to be heard
by these audiences regardless of the factual content of their
messages, and are able to communicate most eff ectively (Kahan
2010, Kahan et al. 2011). Interpreters may be able to achieve this
by relating stories about the diverse people—spanning political
ideology, race and ethnicity, age and gender—who have been
involved in researching or combating climate change impacts in
the national parks, and the values that motivate them. By using
this strategy, interpreters suggest to their audiences that there is a
wider sociodemographic and political range of messengers on the
seriousness of climate change impacts than they may intuit from
traditional mass media depictions, which emphasize issue confl ict
and polarization (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). In presenting case
stories of people of diff erent backgrounds and sociopolitical
views who nevertheless agree in large part on the causes and
potential impacts of climate change, audience members are more
likely to fi nd at least one of the stories personally resonant.
All audiences. Messages that focus on outcomes that are per-
ceived as benefi cial instead of as threatening—such as potential
for economic dislocations because of governmental regulation—
are likely to be considered more equivocally by all audiences
(Kahan et al. 2011). As previously mentioned, energy conservation
and effi ciency are areas that appeal across all of the Six Americas,
including the Doubtful and the Dismissive, likely in part because
61
COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
n = 2
,
129
5
4
3
2
1
0
Alarmed Concerned
Cautious
Disengaged
Doubtful
Dismissive
Number of actions that respondent does “always” or “often”from the
following list: (1) turning off unneeded lights, (2) raising the thermostat
to 76 or higher or using less air conditioning in summer, (3) lowering
the thermostat to 68 of cooler in winter, (4) walking or biking instead
of driving, and (5) using public transportation or car pools.
Figure 4. The average total number of conservation actions that
Americans take is two to three, according to the October–November
2008 nationally representative survey (n=2,129).
Source: Maibach et al. 2009
reducing waste. These types of communication fi t within the NPS
Climate Change Response Strategy goal of “modeling and com-
municating sustainable practices that lead by example.” Many of
these same actions can be eff ectively communicated to the entire
spectrum of audiences, by discussing them within other frames
than climate change.
Cautious/Disengaged. The Americans who are in the middle of
the spectrum—the Cautious and the Disengaged—are less certain
in their beliefs about climate change, and feel less informed on the
issue (Maibach et al. 2009). These segments have fewer fi nan-
cial resources than either the Alarmed or the Dismissive. Mes-
sages that illustrate how to save money by adopting low-carbon
lifestyles, and that help individuals to develop the knowledge and
skills they need to accomplish these goals, are most likely to be
eff ective in facilitating behavioral change and reducing emissions.
Doubtful/Dismissive. For members of groups who believe the
evidence for climate change is not yet conclusive, research sug-
gests that messengers who are viewed as having similar values
and who use familiar narrative lines are the most apt to be heard
by these audiences regardless of the factual content of their
messages, and are able to communicate most eff ectively (Kahan
2010, Kahan et al. 2011). Interpreters may be able to achieve this
by relating stories about the diverse people—spanning political
ideology, race and ethnicity, age and gender—who have been
involved in researching or combating climate change impacts in
the national parks, and the values that motivate them. By using
this strategy, interpreters suggest to their audiences that there is a
wider sociodemographic and political range of messengers on the
seriousness of climate change impacts than they may intuit from
traditional mass media depictions, which emphasize issue confl ict
and polarization (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). In presenting case
stories of people of diff erent backgrounds and sociopolitical
views who nevertheless agree in large part on the causes and
potential impacts of climate change, audience members are more
likely to fi nd at least one of the stories personally resonant.
All audiences. Messages that focus on outcomes that are per-
ceived as benefi cial instead of as threatening—such as potential
for economic dislocations because of governmental regulation—
are likely to be considered more equivocally by all audiences
(Kahan et al. 2011). As previously mentioned, energy conservation
and effi ciency are areas that appeal across all of the Six Americas,
including the Doubtful and the Dismissive, likely in part because
61
COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
n = 2
,
129
5
4
3
2
1
0
Alarmed Concerned
Cautious
Disengaged
Doubtful
Dismissive
Number of actions that respondent does “always” or “often”from the
following list: (1) turning off unneeded lights, (2) raising the thermostat
to 76 or higher or using less air conditioning in summer, (3) lowering
the thermostat to 68 of cooler in winter, (4) walking or biking instead
of driving, and (5) using public transportation or car pools.
Figure 4. The average total number of conservation actions that
Americans take is two to three, according to the October–November
2008 nationally representative survey (n=2,129).
Source: Maibach et al. 2009
PARK SCIENC E • VOLUME 28 • NUMBER 1 • SPRING 2011
of their salience to those who value thrift. Research also has
shown that highlighting the human health benefi ts of addressing
climate change tests well across the Six Americas (Maibach et al.
2010b). Many of the same activities that result in healthier people
and communities—such as reducing air pollutants by burning less
fossil fuel and using forms of active transportation like biking and
walking—also result in decreased greenhouse gas emissions. A
survey of residents in the gateway communities of Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore, Michigan, suggested that a large percentage
(73%) associated taking action on global warming with improv-
ing people’s health (76%) and protecting national parks, forests,
and wildlife refuges (Akerlof 2010). As places where Americans
engage in physical activities such as walking, fi nd places for quiet
refl ection, escape the stress of normal daily life, and spend time
with family members, the national parks could serve as impor-
tant places to engage in conversations about ways to improve our
communities that will make our everyday lives healthier.
Importance of place and trusted
messengers
The national parks are iconographic places to the American pop-
ulace, and the National Park Service is one of the most trusted
federal agencies (Wilkinson 2002). Images of Glacier, Mesa Verde,
and Yosemite national parks are known across the country, even
by people who have never visited them. Visible impacts of climate
change on these treasured places may serve to heighten Ameri-
cans’ awareness that the threat of climate change is here and now.
As the U.S. Climate Change Science Program reported, “National
parks that have special places in the American psyche will remain
parks, but their look and feel may change dramatically” (Baron
et al. 2008). With 80% of Americans living in metropolitan areas
(U.S. Census Bureau 2000), the national parks off er rare opportu-
nities for the public to experience fi rsthand the impacts of climate
change on wild natural areas, whether through visibly retreating
glaciers, lower lake and river water levels, declining native species
of wildlife, or rising sea levels (Saunders et al. 2009). Studies in-
dicate that people who experience the impacts of climate change
are more likely to be concerned about the issue (Arctic Climate
Impact Assessment 2004; Leiserowitz and Broad 2008).
Because of its position as one of the more esteemed federal agen-
cies and an authoritative voice on the science occurring in the
parks, the National Park Service may serve as a particularly trust-
ed public source of information about climate change. One survey
found that the Service was the third most trusted source of global
warming information after scientists and local universities (Ak-
erlof 2010). Four out of fi ve Americans trust scientists on global
warming (Leiserowitz et al. 2010b). Yet a plurality of the public—
almost half—still believe there is a lack of scientifi c consensus that
climate change is occurring. This may be partly because of media
coverage that has portrayed the issue as scientifi cally controversial
by giving equal weight to those who say climate change is occur-
ring and those who do not, under the guise of balanced reporting
(Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). Other authors have suggested it also
may be caused by audiences who pay selective attention to the
viewpoints of experts with whom they identify (Kahan et al. 2011).
The disparity in levels of public trust in scientists, and in public
understanding that more than 95% of climate experts believe that
mean global temperatures have increased since before the 1800s
and that human activity is a signifi cant contributing factor (Doran
and Zimmerman 2009), provides a potential messaging opportu-
nity emphasizing the scientifi c consensus on climate change.
Conclusion
“There is nothing more American,” former NPS Director Roger
Kennedy said, “than to support America’s national parks”
(Wilkinson 2002). Understanding both the diff erences and com-
monalities in regard to Americans’ beliefs about global warming
62
The questions about global warming for which members of the Six Americas
most want answers refl ect the two very different conversations about climate
change that are currently occurring in the United States. Those who believe
strongly that climate change is real want to discuss what to do about it, while
those who are less sure or strongly believe it is not occurring prefer to discuss
the basis for the science.
63
COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
is a fi rst step in developing eff ective communication strategies on
climate change. By serving as host to millions of Americans each
year in many of the nation’s iconic natural, cultural, and scenic
areas, the National Park Service has a real opportunity to bridge
these diff erences and speak to the science of climate change oc-
curring in parks and the benefi ts of changing personal behaviors
to lessen our carbon emissions and preserve these lands.
References
Akerlof, K. 2010. Assessing household energy use and global warming
opinion: Alger County, 2010 (prepared for Superior Watershed
Partnership and Land Trust, and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore).
George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia. Accessed 30 January 2011
at http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/fi les/Alger
_County_Survey_2010%282%29.pdf.
Akerlof, K., and E. W. Maibach. 2011. A rose by any other name …? What
members of the general public prefer to call “climate change.” Climatic
Change 106(4):699 –710.
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. 2004. Impacts of a warming Arctic.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Baron, J. S., with C. D. Allen, E. Fleishman, L. Gunderson, D. McKenzie,
L. Meyerson, J. Oropeza, and N. Stephenson. 2008. National parks.
Pages 1–35
in
S. H. Julius and J. M. West, editors. Preliminary review
of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources:
A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the
Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Final report, synthesis,
and assessment product 4.4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. Accessed 14 June 2010 at http://www.climatescience
.gov/Library/sap/sap4-4/fi nal-report/.
Boykoff, M. T., and J. M. Boykoff. 2004. Balance as bias: Global warming
and the U.S. prestige press. Global Environmental Change 14:125–136.
Doran, P. T., and M. K. Zimmerman. 2009. Direct examination of the
scientifi c consensus on climate change. EOS 90(3):22. Accessed 2 June
2011 from http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_fi nal.pdf.
Dunlap, R. E., and A. M. McCright. 2008. A widening gap: Republican
and Democratic views on climate change. Environment 50 (September/
October):26–35.
Hornik, R. 2002. Public health communication: Evidence for behavior
change. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, USA.
IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution
of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (S. Solomon, D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller,
editors). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York,
New York, USA.
Kahan, D. 2010. Fixing the communications failure. Nature 463:296–297.
Kahan, D., H. Jenkins-Smith, and D. Braman. 2011. Cultural cognition of
scientifi c consensus. Journal of Risk Research 14(2):147–174.
Krosnick, J. A., A. L. Holbrook, L. Lowe, and P. S. Visser. 2006. The origins
and consequences of democratic citizens’ policy agendas: A study of
popular concern about global warming. Climatic Change 77(1–2):7–43.
Leiserowitz, A. 2006. Climate change risk perception and policy
preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change
77:45–72.
Leiserowitz, A., and K. Broad. 2008. Florida: Public opinion on climate
change. A Yale University/University of Miami/Columbia University
Poll. Yale Project on Climate Change, Yale University, New Haven,
Connecticut. Accessed 14 June 2010 from http://environment.yale.edu/
uploads/FloridaGlobalWarmingOpinion.pdf.
Leiserowitz, A., and N. Smith. 2010. Knowledge of climate change across
Global Warming’s Six Americas. Yale Project on Climate Change
Communication, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Accessed 30 January 2011 from http://environment.yale.edu/climate/
fi les/Knowledge_Across_Six_Americas.pdf.
Leiserowitz, A., E. Maibach, and C. Roser-Renouf. 2010a. Americans’
actions to conserve energy, reduce waste, and limit global warming,
January 2010. Yale University and George Mason University. Yale
Project on Climate Change, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. Accessed 21
June 2010 from http://environment.yale.edu/uploads/BehaviorJan2010
.pdf.
Leiserowitz, A., E. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, and N. Smith. 2010b. Global
Warming’s Six Americas, June 2010. Yale University and George Mason
University. Yale Project on Climate Change, New Haven, Connecticut,
USA. Accessed 30 January 2011 from http://environment.yale.edu/
climate/news/global-warmings-six-americas-june-2010/.
Maibach, E., and R. L. Parrott, editors. 1995. Designing health messages:
Approaches from communication theory and public health practice.
Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
Maibach, E., C. Roser-Renouf, and A. Leiserowitz. 2009. Global Warming’s
Six Americas 2009: An audience segmentation analysis. Yale Project
on Climate Change and George Mason University Center for Climate
Change Communication, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. Accessed 24
May 2010 at http://environment.yale.edu/uploads/6Americas2009.pdf.
Maibach, E., A. Leiserowitz, C. Roser-Renouf, K. Akerlof, and M. Nisbet.
2010a. Saving energy is a value shared by all Americans: Results of
a global warming audience segmentation analysis. Pages 8–14
in
K.
Ehrhardt-Martinez and J. A. Laitner, editors. People-centered initiatives
for increasing energy savings. American Council for an Energy Effi cient
Economy, Washington, D.C., USA.
Maibach, E. W., M. C. Nisbet, P. K. Baldwin, K. Akerlof, and G. Diao. 2010b.
Reframing climate change as a public health issue: An exploratory study
of public reactions. BMC Public Health 10(299). Accessed 30 January
2011 at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/299/abstract.
PARK SCIENC E • VOLUME 28 • NUMBER 1 • SPRING 2011
Maibach, E., A. Leiserowitz, C. Roser-Renouf, C. K. Mertz, and K. Akerlof.
2011a. Global Warming’s Six Americas screening tools: Survey
instruments and instructions for coding, data treatment and statistical
program scripts. Yale University and George Mason University. Yale
Project on Climate Change Communication, New Haven, Connecticut,
USA.
Maibach, E., A. Leiserowitz, C. Roser-Renouf, and C. K. Mertz. 2011b.
Identifying like-minded audiences for climate change public engagement
campaigns: An audience segmentation analysis and tool development.
PLoS ONE 6(3):e17571.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., and W. Smith. 1999. Fostering sustainable behavior:
An introduction to community-based social marketing. New Society
Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada.
Moser, S. 2010. Communicating climate change: History, challenges,
process and future directions. WIREs Climate Change 1:31–53.
Moser, S. C., and L. Dilling, editors. 2007. Creating a climate for change:
Communicating climate change and facilitating social change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
National Park Service (NPS). 2010. National Park Service Climate Change
Response Strategy. National Park Service Climate Change Response
Program, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Noar, S. M., C. N. Benac, and M. S. Harris. 2007. Does tailoring matter?
Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change
interventions. Psychological Bulletin 133:673–693.
Saunders, S., T. Easley, and S. Farver, with J. A. Logan and T. Spencer. 2009.
National parks in peril: The threats of climate disruption. The Rocky
Mountain Climate Organization, Denver, Colorado. Available at http://
www.rockymountainclimate.org/website%20pictures/National-Parks
-In-Peril-fi nal.pdf.
Schweizer, S., and J. Thompson. In press. Landscape-based learning
and discourse: Communicating climate change in America’s national
parks.
In
A. Carvalho and T. R. Peterson, editors. Climate change
communication and the transformation of politics.
Schweizer, S., J. Thompson, T. Teel, and B. Bruyere. 2009. Communicating
about climate change impacts on public lands. Science Communication
31(2):266–274.
Tilden, F. 1957. Interpreting our heritage. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. United States—urban/rural and inside/outside
metropolitan area [Census 2000 Summary File 1, Matrix P1]. Available
at http://factfi nder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&
-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang=en&
-redoLog=false&-format=US-1&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U
_GCTP1_US1&-CONTEXT=gct.
Vandenbergh, M. P., and A. C. Steinemann. 2007. The carbon-neutral
individual. New York University Law Review 82; Vanderbilt Law and
Economics Research Paper No. 07-29; Vanderbilt Public Law Research
Paper No. 07-22. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=102415.
Vandenbergh, M. P., J. Barkenbus, and J. M. Gilligan. 2008. Individual
carbon emissions: The low-hanging fruit. UCLA Law Review 55;
Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper No. 08-36. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1161143.
Weigel, D. 2006. The political bull’s-eye: Persuading the right people with
microtargeting. Campaigns and Elections 27(1):20–24.
Wilkinson, T. 2002. Climate change. National Parks 76(1–2):35–38.
Yun, H., K. Govender, and B. Mody. 2001. Factoring poverty and culture
into HIV/AIDS campaigns: Empirical support for audience segmentation.
International Communication Gazette 63(1):73–95.
About the authors
Karen Akerlof is a doctoral student at George Mason University
and an affi liated researcher with 4C. She worked with the Superior
Watershed Partnership and Land Trust and Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore to survey public attitudes and behaviors on
home energy use and global warming. She can be reached by
e-mail at kakerlof@gmu.edu. Gregg Bruff is chief of Heritage
Education at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore and Alger Energy
Savers project manager. Joe Witteis a consultant for NASA Earth
Science Outreach (Climate)and is working with the Center for
Climate Change Communication on a National Science Foundation
grant to develop explanatory climate science segments for use by
television weathercasters. A longtime T V local and national (NBC)
weathercaster, Joe started his career as a glaciologist for the U.S.
Geological Survey, measuring the ice of South Cascade Glacier,
Washington, and ice island T-3 in the Arctic Sea.
64
