Filetype PDF | Posted on 19 Aug 2022 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
207x Filetype PDF File size 0.10 MB Source: jennyrockotago.files.wordpress.com
Jeremy Star Science Communication Essay 12 April 2013
The importance of considering the target audience when
communicating environmental issues
There are many pressing environmental issues facing humans such as global warming,
1
resource shortages, and pollution. Scientists are well aware of these problems and after
collecting extensive data they have reached a consensus that human society cannot continue
2
in its current direction. There is an urgent need to communicate this information and also
plausible solutions quickly so that the necessary changes can be made. In fact, many of these
issues have already been communicated but the problems persist and are compounding at an
3
alarming rate.
For future communication to have maximum impact it is important to consider who the target
audience are and to question if the right groups are being engaged in communication. It is
also vital to scrutinize what level of information is being communicated so that the necessary
outcomes can be achieved. This essay will use the case study of plastic bags to assess the
effectiveness of communicating the associated environmental problems to three groups: the
public, producers and distributors, and the government. It will review what has been
communicated and subsequently implemented in New Zealand, while also drawing on
examples from other countries. It will then examine the potential advantages and
disadvantages of each approach and consider the most effective path for the future.
In New Zealand there have been various campaigns to communicate the environmental
4
problems caused by plastic bags to the public. These efforts have been fairly successful and
the existence of the issues is widely known.5 Communication with the public has resulted in
various community-led campaigns encouraging shoppers to switch from using plastic bags to
reusable bags. Collingwood became the first town in New Zealand to become plastic
shopping bag free in 2005. A community group called The Golden Bay Bag Ladies initiated
this action. Prior to this, it was estimated that the community consumed around 1 million
6
plastic bags a year. This was a worthwhile action, but the bags consumed in Collingwood are
7
only a fraction of an estimated 1 billion bags used annually nationwide.
1 “Environmental Issues and Solutions to Current Environment Problems”, accessed 11 April 2013,
http://www.nrdc.org/issues/.
2 “American Association for the Advancement of Science Board Statement on Climate Change”, accessed 9
April 2013, http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf.
3 “Global warming is getting worse – but the message is getting through”, accessed 11 April 2013,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/opinion/story/0,,1284281,00.html.
4 “Why Plastic Bags?”, accessed 11 April 2013, http://plasticshoppingbagfree.org.nz/why-plastic-bags.
5 “Should shops charge for plastic bags?”, accessed 12 April 2013,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10437189.
6 st
"Collingwood is NZ’s 1 town”, accessed 9 April 2013, http://plasticshoppingbagfree.org.nz/collingwood.
7 “Facts and figures”, accessed 8 April 2013, http://plasticshoppingbagfree.org.nz/facts-and-figures.
1
Jeremy Star Science Communication Essay 12 April 2013
Despite effective communication with the public plastic bag use is still high. A major factor
hindering the success of informing the public is the human tendency to take the easiest
option. Many people are well aware of the environmental problems created by plastic bags
but when it comes to the crucial moment – buying groceries in the supermarket – they readily
accept free plastic bags. More environmentally friendly alternatives to plastic bags are
available, but none are as convenient. Recycled boxes are harder to carry and stronger
reusable bags have a cost associated and need to be remembered on each visit to the
supermarket. Therefore, the majority of people instinctively choose the easiest and cheapest
option available – free plastic bags. Environmental consciousness is easily overridden by
convenience.
Taking the easiest option to the detriment of the environment can be easily understood.
Humans are programmed to deal with more immediate challenges, not ones predicted by
8
scientists with regard to the distant future. This means that while communicating the issues
with the public can be achieved, actually influencing the way that people act at crucial times
is much harder. This is particularly the case when people are unable to see the direct impact
of the environmental problems. In New Zealand the streets are not littered with plastic bags
and the problems that they create are out of sight and therefore out of mind for most people.
Another problem is that communicating the problems to such a wide audience necessitates
making the information very general. People know that plastic bags are bad, and some people
have been exposed to striking statistics but few deeply understand the ecological effects of
plastic bags on the environment. It would be difficult to communicate such a level of detail to
people whose lives are already occupied with everyday survival, and who are already
constantly subjected to a massive barrage of information from all directions.
Communicating the environmental issues surrounding plastic bags to the public has had an
impact. Some people have taken action and refuse to use plastic bags and the public
perception is slowly changing.9 However, more pressing issues combined with the human
tendency to take the easiest option have made the impact minimal and insufficient. Without
further incentives the majority of people lack the motivation to make the necessary changes
to their lifestyles, as indicated by continuing high plastic bag usage in New Zealand.
Targeting communication of the issue at another group – the producers and distributors of
plastic bags – has had a different set of effects. In New Zealand the plastics industry agreed to
recycle 23% of its plastic packaging by 2008. Major brand owners and retailers have also
10
committed to reducing plastic shopping bag usage by 20%. Reduction targets of this kind
have the potential to make a significant impact.
8 “Talkpoint: what will drive action on climate change?”, accessed 10 April 2013,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/climate-change-action-energy-food-water.
9 “Should shops charge for plastic bags?”, accessed 9 April 2013,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10437189.
10
“New Zealand Reduction Targets”, accessed 10 April 2013, http://plasticshoppingbagfree.org.nz/facts-and-
figures/nz-reduction-target.
2
Jeremy Star Science Communication Essay 12 April 2013
Supermarkets also have the option of charging for plastic bags which acts as a monetary
deterrent against consumers using them. This is the case in Pak-n-Save supermarkets in New
Zealand where there is a 10 cent charge for each plastic bag. A 2007 survey found that in
Pak-n-Save supermarkets in New Zealand’s North Island, one third of the number of bags
were used per dollar spent, compared to other supermarkets that provided plastic bags free of
charge. In 2009 a similar cost for all plastic bags was introduced in New World supermarkets.
Complaints from disgruntled customers who threatened to switch to rival supermarkets
11
forced New World to back down and free plastic bags were reinstated. These examples
show that distributors of plastic bags have the power to greatly influence plastic bag
consumption, but that their power can be curtailed by consumer response if rival
supermarkets continue to offer free plastic bags.
Communicating with the producers and distributors of plastic bags has advantages. They are
a smaller group so the message can be tailored more specifically than any message to the
general public. The financial benefits of charging for plastic bags can also be more blatantly
appealed to, since money is an inherent driving force in business. Distributors also have the
scope to make sweeping and far-reaching changes to influence consumer behaviour – as
evidenced by the charge placed on bags at Pak-n-Save supermarkets. This is particularly the
case with large modern companies such as Foodstuffs in New Zealand which owns a number
of supermarket chains. There is also the potential for this level of change to be implemented
faster than government legalisation.
A third group who can be communicated with is the government. There have been successful
cases of legislative control impacting plastic bag consumption around the world. In theory
governments should be less emotional and more far-sighted than individual people.
Governments exist to implement the wishes of the majority, where the people are unable to
achieve this themselves without the assistance or prompting of the state.
In 2002 a countrywide government tax was imposed in Ireland on the sale of all plastic
12
bags. This meant that consumers were unable to take their custom from one supermarket to
another to avoid the charge on plastic bags. The results have been staggering, with plastic
13
shopping bag use cut by more than 90%. In this example, the fact that the government had
the message as well as an effective solution communicated to them meant that a massive
change was implemented. Other governments have followed the Irish example and
14
introduced legalisation to bring about change.
Communicating directly with a government has benefits. Changes that are implemented can
have a far-reaching and nationwide impact, as seen in Ireland. Also, nationwide change
means that consumers cannot simply threaten to take their custom to another supermarket.
11
“Plastic bag charge dropped”, accessed 2 April 2013, http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-
times/news/2988047/plastic-bag-charge-dropped.
12
“Irish bag tax hailed success”, accessed 2 April 2013, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2205419.stm.
13
Caroline Williams, “Battle of the bag”. New Scientist 183, no. 2464 (2004), 30–33.
14
“What should be done about plastic bags?”, accessed 12 April 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-
17027990.
3
Jeremy Star Science Communication Essay 12 April 2013
There are also problems associated with communicating directly with government. The
leading political party in New Zealand potentially changes every three years and with it the
ideas, principals and priorities of the politicians. This potential for losing power can also
make governments hesitant to impose unpopular laws that might turn the voters against them
and jeopardise their hold on power. Additionally there is the potential for changes to be made
without the public’s consent or understanding, though it could also be argued that this might
be necessary for important changes to be made. In theory any changes too drastic could be
overridden in a democracy by the popular vote. The public might also perceive the changes as
the government establishing a ‘nanny state’ which there could be a knee-jerk reaction against.
In this case study of plastic bags it seems clear that government intervention was the most
effective way to bringing about change. This would indicate that targeting communication at
the government should be the priority. While it may seem rather draconian to force people
into making changes they wouldn’t make otherwise by using legislation, there is a need for
urgency in dealing with environmental issues and a stronger stance is required.
Communication mainly with the public is currently seen as the priority in many countries, but
clearly it is not having a great enough impact.
It could be argued that communicating to the first group discussed in this essay, the public,
would effectively be communicating to all three groups – given that producers and
manufactures are members of the public and that government represents the public. These
two later groups are also pressured by community groups and lobbyists from within the
public. However, the information communicated to the public has to be communicated in a
very general way, when more audience-specific communication is required for complex
environmental issues. This necessitates a multi-pronged approach.
A solely government-targeted communication stream would be insufficient because the
public would lack sufficient understanding of the motivations behind the legislation that was
uncomfortably altering their lifestyle. This could potentially lead to unrest and frustration.
With this in mind, communication of environmental problems to the public is required – not
so much to influence individual’s action, which is often an unattainable aspiration, but to
provide the basis for understanding new laws and regulations that might limit their freedoms
but will ultimately ensure their survival and well being.
There are examples of the effectiveness of communicating important issues to governments
who are in a position to make legislative change. The benefits of cycle helmets are supported
15
scientifically and well known publicly. However, helmets are only commonly worn in
countries where legislation enforces it. A further example is seat belts, which are worn far
16
more commonly in countries where it is enforced by law. Both of these examples, like the
withdrawal of free plastic bags, are mildly uncomfortable for people. Given a choice the
majority of humans choose the immediate comfort over the scientific consensus of increased
risk. However in both cases there is sufficient public understanding of the science for most to
abide by the laws in New Zealand that enforce the required actions.
15
“Should I Wear a Bike Helmet?”, accessed 10 April 2013, http://www.bhsi.org/shouldi.htm.
16
“Seat belt usage”, accessed 12 April 2013, http://www.enotes.com/automobiles-reference/seat-belt-usage.
4
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
