3. what we did
• Review of recent literature
Review of recent literature
• Review of industry best practices
• Focus on change in opinions,
h
attitudes and behavior
• Work that is at the forefront of the
industry
10. what do people think about
climate change?
li t h ?
• People know about climate change
People know about climate change
(Pew) and believe it’s happening –
• But aren’t making it a priority
But aren t making it a priority
11.
12. why is it tough to “engage”
with climate change?
ith li t h ?
• Invisibility
• Sense of geographic remoteness
• Time lags
Time lags
• Skepticism
• The tragedy of the commons
Th t d f th
• “Finite pool of worry”
• Misperceptions about effects
(confusing weather with climate)
13. the “say-do” gap… why aren’t
people taking action?
l t ki ti ?
• Structural constraints
Structural constraints
• Single‐action bias
• Threats to values and self‐interests
h l d lf
• The “free rider” effect
• Emotional response
14. best practices
• Make climate change solutions
local, relevant and urgent
• Correct basic misperceptions
• Focus on “too much carbon”
Focus on too much carbon
• Connect climate change with the
economy
15. best practices,
continued
i d
• Align messaging with supportive
structural change
• Tap into people’s identities
• Communicate through trusted
Communicate through trusted,
local sources and reach people
through their existing networks
through their existing networks
• Celebrate local successes
16. go beyond the media buy
• M
Move beyond traditional media
b d t diti l di
campaigns
• Leverage peer‐to‐peer influence
• Reach people when they’re in the
p p y
right frame of mind
• Make invisible behavior visible
invisible behavior visible
17. values based
values-based messaging
• Well‐crafted messages won’t work
Well crafted messages won t work
if they don’t resonate with the
audience
• All politics is local
• T
Tie messages to local values
l l l
18. examples of local value-
based messaging
b d i
value: clean air
& water
“Oregonians want to
g
protect our clean air
and clean water, and
Climate Smart
Communities give us a
way to build
communities while
communities while
reducing pollution.”
19. examples of local value-
based messaging
b d i
value: community
y
“Climate Smart Communities allow us to live close to
where we work, go to school and shop, making our lives
simpler. We will have more time to spend with family and
p
friends—and less time spent alone in our cars.”
20. examples of local value-
based messaging
b d i
value: health
“All of us are trying to
stay healthy. Climate
Smart Communities
S C ii
provide more ways for
people to walk, bike
and take transit as
they go about their
daily lives, helping us
get more exercise and
improving our health.”
21. examples of local value-
based messaging
b d i
value: economic growth
“People who live in Climate Smart Communities
drive less than other Americans and spend less
on gas, cars and car repairs. Instead of leaving
the state to go to oil and car companies, our
money stays in community, helping to grow
y y y, p g g
local businesses and create jobs.”
22. data gaps
• More research into economic
More research into economic
benefits needed
• How does Climate Smart
How does Climate Smart
development grow businesses and
create jobs?
create jobs?
• From Green Dividend to
“Neighborhood Dividend”
“N i hb h d Di id d”
23. summary
• Avoid large, uniform communications
g
campaigns
• Communicate at the most local level
possible
• Test your messaging
• Evaluate
– Pilot tests before take to scale
– Test your results and refine your campaign
as you go
• Integrate communications with program
design
• Leverage success
Leverage success
25. interviews:
purpose and methodology
d th d l
• Purpose: gauge understanding of
Purpose: gauge understanding of
GHG reduction efforts
• 30 interviews February
30 interviews ‐
• Mayors, community leaders,
activists
26. interviews: results
• Wide range of perceptions of
g p p
“climate change”
– Impacts on ecosystem
– Unpredictable/critical
– Controversial/political
• Relevancy varies
– Half: “very” or “significant”
– One fourth: relevant
One fourth: relevant
– One fourth: not relevant/controversy
• To address issues
– More information, input, resources
27. interviews: results, continued
• Ease of discussing climate change?
g g
– Controversy makes it difficult
– Long term/not present danger
–RRespondents ‐ 4/5
d 4/5 are taking action
ki i
locally
– Others – not a political priority
p p y
• Familiarity with regional targets
– High level of general awareness
– Less aware of specifics, strategy
– Process is critical: collaborative
Process is critical: collaborative
approach
28. how to engage community
• Provide science‐based information
– Show specific impacts, and benefits
– Encourage and recognize creative solutions
– Illustrate best practices
ust ate best p act ces
• Who needs to be engaged:
– Elected officials
Elected officials
– Neighborhood, religious, community leaders
– Elderly, low income
– Minority communities
– Schools/education
– Special interests
29. Metro s
Metro’s role
• Coordinate with local
Coordinate with local
partners
• Provide communication,
information
• Convene events
30. benefits to local communities
• Technical innovation
Technical innovation
• Livable communities
• Incentives for business/
change
• Improved public health
• Less pressure on natural
y
systems
31. sources of information
• Local governments/Metro
Local governments/Metro
• Associations, agency committees
• Conferences
• Spanish language news/flyers
• Social, informal media, websites,
blogs
• Trusted research
• Popular media
32. Opinion Research: Talking About
p g
Transportation Investments and Land Use
‐Four Considerations‐
Four Considerations
June 10, 2011
Prepared for:
Metro Staff And Community Partners
36. The focus groups and survey also suggest
The focus groups and survey also suggest
how best to communicate about
transportation investments and land
transportation investments and land
use—Things to Consider:
Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
38. Looking out in the future, over the next 25 years or so, please think about the kind
g , y ,p
of place you want the Portland metropolitan area to be to live, work, and play in.
For each of the following please tell me if you would strongly support, somewhat
support, neither support or oppose, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose your
local government making it a priority?
Neither
Strongly Somewhat Support or Somewhat Strongly Don’t
Response Category N=600 Support Support Oppose Oppose Oppose know
Building more compact
Building more compact
16% 20% 14% 21% 27% 2%
neighborhoods
Building more
neighborhoods where
people can get where they
55% 25% 5% 6% 8% 1%
need to go by walking,
biking, or taking public
transit
Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
39. Consideration No. 2
2) Need to link from issues that relate to core values and
2) Need to link from issues that relate to core values and
beliefs*
Issues:
o Preservation of farm land
o Building sense of community
o More active living‐better health
g
o Less sitting in traffic congestion ‐ less stress, more time for other things
o Better air quality, less cars using the road
o Save money‐car related expenses, extending infrastructure
o Help low income (equity)
o Increased property values
o People should have options
o Help small neighborhood businesses
H l ll i hb h d b i
o Accommodate aging, less mobile population
o Reduce oil dependency‐save American lives , reduce military spending
*What the issues are and the best ones to use will vary by location and
population subgroup
Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
40. But, what about “climate change?”
B h b “ li h ?”
Not as strong. Mention other at
Not as strong Mention other at
same time.
Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
41. Consideration No. 3
3) Use positive semantics and imagery*
Use positive semantics and imagery
Issues:
o “Prevent urban sprawl”
“P b l”
o “Preservation of farm and forest land”
o “Community health”
o “Getting to know your neighbors”
o “Increased property values”
o “Choice”
Choice
o “Options”
o Examples that people have seen and like – Orenco Station,
The Crossings, Portland neighborhoods (Sellwood,
Th C i P tl d i hb h d (S ll d
Mississippi, Lloyd Center/Irvington)
*Will vary by location—know the best semantics and imagery for your
y y g y y
area
Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
42. Consideration No. 4
4) (For Land Use) Need to specify, quantify, and
qualify the nature of the development (pre‐empt
objections)
Issues:
o Parks & open space (counter no backyards)
( )
o Access to public transportation
o Specific services within walking distance
Specific services within walking distance
o Safety at intersections and cross‐walks
o The number and location of additional units
o The design of units ‐ aesthetics
o Public safety features (e.g., sidewalks, street
lighting, park safety, etc.)
Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc.
