THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE The Environmentalism of Everyday Life1:
A Quantitative Study on the Effectiveness of Message Frames for Latino Engagement
Melanie Kendra Gade
American University
A Capstone Project
Presented to the Faculty of the School of Communication in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Public Communication
Supervisor: Professor Lauren Feldman
April 25, 2013
1This
phrase was first used by Laura Pulido in "The Complex Environmentalism of Everyday Life: Ganados del
Valle." Environmental and Latino Imaginations Conference (1992). Cornell University. Ithaca, NY. April.
1 THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE COPYRIGHT
Melanie Kendra Gade
2013
American University
To obtain permission to use material from this work,
please submit a written request via email to: gademk@gmail.com
2 THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 3 ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
This Capstone Project received significant support from several individuals and organizations;
their assistance was essential in completing this research. Thank you to Andres Ramirez and
Nuestro Rio, for your willingness and perseverance in gathering participants for this study.
Nuestro Rio exemplifies organizational values supporting Latino communities’ commitment to
conservation and Latino heritage in the Southwest. Thank you to Deanna Archuleta, Senior
Advisor at the Department of the Interior, for supporting this research and connecting me with
Nuestro Rio; this Capstone Project would never have been realized without your assistance. Thank you to Tema Milstein, Assistant Professor in Communication at the University of New
Mexico, for your interest and assistance in furthering my sample size. Your own research is
largely responsible for my keen interest in this topic. Thank you to Queta González and Marcelo
Bonta at the Center for Diversity and the Environment, for taking the time to provide guidance
on the final stages of my research. Thank you Hazel Wong, Senior Campaign Advisor for The
Nature Conservancy, for sharing your own research findings with me in support of this Capstone
Project; it is exciting to know that the Nature Conservancy is involved in pioneering research in
this field.
Thank you to Jimmy Eanes, Director of Education for the International Erosion Control
Association, for your willingness in helping me reach out to relevant individuals on the topic of
water quality and for your ongoing interest in this Project. Thank you to Jennifer Brandt,
Community Outreach Manger with the Hispanic Access Foundation for promoting this research
on your social media channels.
Thank you to Professor Feldman for your mentorship and for helping me develop and review so
many aspects of this Project, and especially for assisting me in adopting appropriate research
methods and helping me work through my analysis of results. Thank you to Professor Erba for
outlining this Project with me and for essential guidance in developing my theoretical
foundations. Finally, thank you to family, friends and coworkers for promoting my survey and
supporting the completion of my Capstone Project. THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 4 ABSTRACT
Multicultural audiences, including Latinos, are underrepresented in mainstream environmental
organizations. While multiple institutional barriers exist, one largely understudied explanation
for Latinos’ relatively low environmental engagement is the preclusive effect of anthropocentric
environmental messaging. As Latinos make progress towards becoming the majority population
in the US, environmental organizations need to develop and sustain a genuine, culturally relevant
dialogue with Latino communities. Drawing from framing theory, this Capstone Project suggests
two message frames designed to increase engagement among Latino Groups: (i) place-based
framing –which attempts to recall emotional identification with an area, and (ii) terminology that
lexically intertwines, rather than dichotomizes, humans and nature. In an experimental survey, 58
participants were randomly assigned to one of four message frames about water quality of the
nations’ rivers and streams and, specifically, about the Colorado River Delta. Participants were
then asked questions to evaluate the four message frames’ effectiveness, based upon levels of
“concern for,” “perceived self-efficacy” and “intention for action” on the issue of water quality.
Placed-based messages had the highest association with increased feelings of environmental
engagement among the sample, although this association was not statistically significant. The
neutral message resulted in the highest mean levels of intention for action, although this
relationship was also not statistically significant. Though results of this study were limited due
to small sample size, identifying which framing strategies, elements of the land, and symbolic
associations are culturally important indicators for Latino Groups’ conservation ethic continues
to be an important direction for future research.
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………...……………………………..……...6
LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………...……………………………...……7
LIST OF APPENDICES…………………………………………...………………………………8
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………...……………………………………9
LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………...…………………………..…11
Section I: Overview…………………………………………...………………………..11
Section II: The “Environment” as a Social Construction………………………...……..13
Section III: Latinos’ Environmental Ideology and Conservation Ethic…………………14
Section IV: Practical Application: Prior Research on Place-based Messaging…………17
Section V: Practical Application: Prior Research on Environmental Terminology……19
Section VI: Practical Application: Prior Research on Water Quality Messaging and
Frames…………………………………………...………………………….21
Section VII: Conclusion…………………………………………...……...………………23
HYPOTHESES………………………………………...………………………………………...23
RESEARCH METHODS……………………………………………………………………….24
Section I: Nuestro Rio -­‐-­‐ Primary Sampling Method………………………………..24 Section II: Secondary Sampling Methods…………………………………………...… 25
Section III: Sample…………………………………………...………………………….25
Section IV: Experimental Materials and Procedures…………………………………….26
Section V: Key Variables…………………………………………...……………….….28
RESULTS…………………………………………...………………………………………..…..29
Section I: Relationship between Message Type and “Environmental
Engagement”..….29
Section II: Relationship between Message Type and “Intention for Action Regarding the
Water Quality in the Colorado River Delta”…………………………..……30
DISCUSSION…………………………………………...…………………………..…………...31
Section I: Interpretation of Findings………………………………………….……..…31
Section II: Study Limitations…………………………………………...………...….…32
Section III: Future Directions for Research………………………………………......…33
CONCLUSION …………………………………………...……………………………………35
REFERENCES …………………………………………...……………………………………37
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 6 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Message Frames ………………………………………….............................................27
Table 2: Mean Ratings for Experimental Messages on Environmental Engagement
………………………...………………………..30
Table 3: Mean Ratings for Experimental Messages on Intention for Action Regarding the Water
Quality in the Colorado River Delta...30
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 7 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: A Spectrum of Environmental Ideologies- Corbett, J (2006).……………………...….20
Figure 2: Example Message Prompt………………………...…………………………...………28
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 8 LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Online Survey……………………...…………………………...………………….42
Appendix B: Nuestro Rio request for participation sent to action network ……………………..46
Appendix C: Self-stated explanations among participants for their lack of involvement in
environmental organizations………...…………………………...……………….47
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE INTRODUCTION
9 Mainstream environmental initiatives have limited multicultural participation. HaluzaDeLay and Fernhout (2011) argue this is the result of disingenuous attempts at social inclusion.
Corbett (2006) offers another explanation, maintaining that the “environmental ideologies” of
various environmental organizations, which “articulate a relationship to land and its creatures, and
to some extent, guide the way we act toward it” (p. 26), produce language lacking cultural
relevancy to certain multicultural groups, including Latinos. The effect is a dramatic discrepancy
in multicultural participation (Bonta & Jordan, 2008; Hansen, 2012; Hoffner, 2008), despite
several studies documenting Latinos’ increased concern for the environment over their white
counterparts (Hansen, 2012; Pastor & Morello-Frosch, 2002; Metz & Weigel, 2009; National
Survey, 2008.2
While Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) found that multiple institutional barriers, such as
infrastructure, poverty, and language, limit multicultural participation in environmental initiatives,
other authors (Kosek, 2006; Milstein, Anguiano, Sandoval, Chen & Dickinson, 2011; Llopis,
2012) suggest that access is not the only barrier or the largest impediment to engagement. These
authors argue that messaging to Latino groups often is not culturally relevant. Communication
from mainstream environmental organizations is typically “anthropocentric and reformist”
(Corbett, 2006, p. 54), implying that humans are both separate and superior to “nature.” This
mainstream environmental ideology contrasts with the historically Latino conservation ethic
which is more closely related to “ecocentric” ideology (Kosek, 2006; Pena, 1998) – that is, that
humans do not embody a hierarchical relationship with nature, and all aspects of life are
“intrinsically valuable and important” (Corbett, 2006, p. 26). This Capstone Project will explore
the ecocultural framing of environmental messages.
As Latinos make progress towards becoming the majority population in the US (Hansen,
2012; State of the Hispanic Consumer, 2012; US Economy at Risk, 2012), the Latino segment
cannot be overlooked when discussing messaging for any cause or brand, including
environmental action. Large environmental organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy, use
2
Hansen (2012) and Pastor and Morello-Frosch (2002) used exit polling to document instances where Latinos voted
for environmental protection, such as the protection of open spaces, at a higher rate than their white counterparts.
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 10 exit polling research to determine attitudes and opinions about conservation among registered
voters, including Latinos (Metz & Weigel, 2009). Over the last decade, voting exit polls and
repeated survey polling have demonstrated Latinos’ concern for the environment. For example,
California’s Proposition 40 in 2002 (approving $2.6 billion in bonds to improve water quality
and preserve open space) received 74% of the Latino vote, compared to 56% of the white vote
(How Propositions 40 and 45 Fared Among Voters, 2002), and in 2012, a national bipartisan
survey of registered voters showed that 81% of Latinos surveyed would vote for continued
federal investments in the Land and Water Conservation Fund (Metz & Weigel, 2012).
Nevertheless, Latinos continue to be underrepresented in the conservation movement.
Environmental organizations need to work towards developing and sustaining a genuine,
culturally relevant dialogue with Latino communities, and ecocultural message framing may
contribute to that effort.
There is a wealth of literature on environmental advocacy and message frames (Barr &
Gilg, 2006; Blake, 1999; Cox, 2006; Hansen, 2012; Newman, Howlett, Burton, Kozup & Tangari,
2012; Pelletier, Tuson, Green-Demers, & Noels, 1998; Nisbet, 2009; Schellenberger & Nordhaus,
2004), but connections are rarely drawn between environmental advocacy and Latino populations.
Some scholars have sought to better understand the conservation ethic of Latino and Chicano
groups (Kosek, 2006; Pena, 1992; Pena 1998; Milstein et al., 2011), and progress has been made
towards this goal. However, identifying which message frames culturally resonate with Latinos
has not been well studied or documented. What is needed is a thorough, genuine analysis of the
ways Latino groups perceive their environment and their sense of place, and the ways these
perceptions may be different from mainstream environmentalist views.
Based upon a review of relevant literature, two message frames that may increase Latino
engagement in environmental initiatives are: (i) placed-based framing –which attempts to recall
“emotional and symbolic identification with an area”(Cantrill, 1998, p. 302) and (ii) changing
semantics, for example, using “ecoculture” or “relations-in-place” and “humanature” (Milstein,
2011; Milstein et al., 2011; Milstein & Kroløkke, 2012) to replace language that dichotomizes
humans and nature, and which may be disempowering and marginalizing to multicultural
segments that feel strong connections to the land. An obvious caveat is that not all Latino groups
have a strong sense of place and assuming so would commit an essentialist error (Pena, 1998).
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE To control the scope of this research, this Capstone Project will examine the
11 environmental engagement of individuals who self-identify as Latino, Hispanic, Chicano or
Mexican-American and live in Colorado River watershed states (“Latino Groups”) on the issue of
water quality of the Colorado River and, more generally, of the nation’s rivers and streams. In
this research, “environmental engagement” will be defined as concern for, perceived self-efficacy,
and intention for action on the issue of water quality. Specifically, this Capstone Project will
experimentally test the hypothesis that (i) place-based framing and (ii) changes to environmental
terminology will increase the cultural relevancy of messaging designed to foster participation in
environmental initiatives among Latino Groups.3
This Capstone Project begins with a review of literature seeking to understand how Latino
Groups perceive their “environment” -- with the understanding that in an attempt to characterize
the relationship, some statements may be gross generalizations. By developing a deeper
understanding of Latino Groups’ unique relationship to land, messaging towards Latino Groups
could become more culturally relevant, and as a result, increased environmental engagement
among Latino Groups may be achieved. Such messaging would include an acknowledgement of
Latino Groups’ inherent and historical relationship to nature, the land, and the concept of
patrimony (Kosek, 2006; Milstein et al., 2011; Lynch, 1993; Pena, 1998). This paper will
conclude with recommendations for environmental organizations aiming to increase the relevancy
of their calls to action to Latino Groups.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Section I. Overview
Environmental movements use frames to garner greater interest from select
audiences. Framing, or highlighting elements of an issue to increase its apparent relevance, is
integral to how media is consumed, because individuals form their attitudes based on the most
salient considerations at the time of viewing/reading. According to Entman (1993), the framing
process involves two elements: selection and salience. Essentially, frames are a tool used by
journalists, news media, and other communicators to diagnose a problem, evaluate its importance,
3 Recommended framing strategies proposed in this paper are the result of examining studies
focused on Latino, Hispanic, Chicano and Mexican Americans. THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 12 and prescribe who might be responsible and why (Entman, 1993; Gamson, 1992; Nisbet, 2009).
Though framing is a natural part of the communication and memory process, it is important to
acknowledge the ways in which frames have the ability to shift public opinion in meaningful
directions. Particularly in science communication, academics have proven that the discourse used
to talk about issues is critical to raising the salience and, in turn, raising interest about
environmental topics. (Cox, 2006; Cantrill & Chimovitz, 1993; Nisbet, 2009; Nisbet & Scheufele,
2009; Newman et al., 2012; Shellenberger & Nordhaus, 2004, Simon & Jerit, 2007).
Corbett (2006) argues that most intentional (or unintentional) framing strategies used by
environmental organizations are rooted in their respective environmental ideologies – that is,
how they define and ascribe meaning to nature and the environment and humans’ relationships to
these terms. Put another way, the meaning of “nature” and the “environment” are produced by
the language society uses to define these terms (Milstein, 2011). If environmental discourse is a
product of culture, then this discourse will vary based on class and ethnicity (Lynch, 1993). Thus,
the way an organization communicates about “nature” and the “environment” may also preclude
participation if not every group or individual defines or ascribes meaning to “nature” and the
“environment” in the same way, using the same terms and with the same value associations (i.e.,
environmental ideologies).
Not all scholars in this field agree that a focus on language is the best approach to
increasing environmental engagement among multicultural communities. Marcelo Bonta,
Director of the Center for Diversity and the Environment, states that it is not the language used
that is the biggest barrier, rather “the messenger is more important than the message in this case”
(M. Bonta, personal communication, March 25, 2013). Bonta believes environmental
organizations should commit resources to forming relationships and building trust – “this allows
for two-way learning and the basis for successfully working together now and far into the future”
(M. Bonta, personal communication, March 25, 2013). This view that civic engagement may
prove a more effective communication strategy for environmental organizations seeking to
increase their multicultural base has several adherents (Groffman, et al., 2010; Pielke, 2007;
Pouyat et al., 2010; Wynne, 2009.) These authors advise against disseminating "top-down"
messages designed to educate the “uninformed” public, and encourage environmental
organizations to work towards providing forums that: (i) engage the public in
defining/addressing the issue, (ii) invite participation, (iii) take account of individual values, (iv)
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE solicit participatory problem-solving and consensus solutions, and (v) include the public’s
13 perspective in research. While acknowledging the importance of civic engagement and building
trust, this Capstone Project focuses on the effectiveness of culturally relevant framing of
environmental messages.
To understand Latino Groups’ likely responses to specific frames about water quality, it is
necessary to: (i) discuss how the associations of “nature and the environment” change from
person to person and group to group, from place to place, and through time, (ii) identify research
on Latino Groups’ conservation ethic in order to make framing recommendations that will fit their
respective values, (iii) examine specific examples of existing water quality messaging, and (iv)
based on a review of this literature, make recommendations about which messaging frames may
likely be effective in soliciting increased concern for, and intention for action and feelings of selfefficacy relating to, the water quality of the Colorado River among Latino Groups.
Section II. The “Environment” as a Social Construction
The theory of framing supports the idea that the common vernacular used by
environmental organizations plays a role in whether, or how, individuals choose to become
affiliated with the organization. In other words, the frame used is fundamental to how individuals
learn about and respond to environmental issues.
Robert Cox (2007) explains: “[our understanding] of the natural world and environmental
problems [is] mediated by systems of representation – by human communication” (p. 12). Human
communication, including framing devices, defines our relationship to environmental problems.
This raises the question of whether environmental messaging (i.e., the frames that are employed)
is equally accessible or equally relevant to all types and groups of people. Kosek (2006) observes
that “one of the biggest failures of the environmental movement has been its stubborn inability to
critically examine the politics involved in its own contribution to the formation of the
environment itself, as well as the social legacies embedded and reproduced with the movement’s
understanding of nature” (p. 181). Unintentionally, or perhaps intentionally at times, the
environmental movement has created dominant (mainstream) interpretations of nature,
conservation, wilderness, and of the environment more generally; these interpretations may not be
equally accessible to all groups.
Lynch (1993) states that the “environment” is a social construction and peoples’
perceptions of the environment change, based on time and place. Corbett (2006) elaborates,
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 14 “Environmental belief systems are formed and shaped by childhood experiences, a sense of place,
and historical and cultural contexts,” (p. 24). Consequently, assuming a collective understanding
of the “environment” is inherently marginalizing for minority groups, who may not share the
same cultural references and/or visual cues as other majority groups. “For most U.S. Latinos,
Walden Pond and Glen Canyon are less crucial as referents than the fruit and vegetable farms of
California's Central Valley, the grazing lands of the arid Southwest, the hillside farms of Puerto
Rico and the Dominican Republic, and Caribbean fisheries” (Lynch, 1993, p. 121). It is clear
from Lynch’s statement that one problem with unifying frames for the environmental movement
is that individuals have different conceptions of what the “environment” means (Cox, 2007;
Carbaugh, 2007; Taylor, 2000), since “people occupying different social locations have different
environmental experiences” (Taylor, 2000, p. 525).
The several studies cited above have identified the problems that come with an
inconsistent interpretation of the environment, but mainstream environmentalists still expect that
“a person identifying himself or herself as an environmentalist will be expected to have certain
attitudes about resource use and environmental protection” (Taylor, 2000 p. 512). These authors
demonstrate that assuming a collective understanding constitutes a barrier to engagement for
multicultural groups who likely do not share the same passion for historically “American”
landmarks and environmental places.
Section III. Latinos’ Environmental Ideology and Conservation Ethic
A second body of literature addresses Latino-specific perceptions of the “environment.”
In reviewing this literature, an attempt will be made to characterize dominant themes of this
relationship with the understanding that such a generalizing overview may make assumptions
about, overlook, or inadvertently stereotype Latino culture. With this caveat in mind,
understanding how Latinos perceive the “environment” has been the focus of a significant body
of literature, both scholarly articles and opinion pieces (Bryan & Florez, 2002; Bary & Tillman,
2007; Bustus, 2011; Haeder, 2011; Llopis, 2012; Lynch, 1993; Milstein et al., 2011, Pena, 1998;
Schelhas, 2002). In an opinion piece in Forbes, Llopis (2012) compellingly suggests that Latinos
are looking for messages that are not only accessible to them, but those that acknowledge their
Spanish-derived concept of cultural patrimony – the idea that the land/environment/ecoculture is
connected to all people. Indeed, the authors cited above seem to agree that connections to land
and people are critical aspects of the language used by Latinos to talk about or make sense of their
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 15 “environment.” American Latino Professor at the University of Washington, Devon Pena, has
associated Chicano studies with the discipline of ecology in an attempt to characterize the
relationship.
Ecology and Chicano Studies share a vision of an emancipatory and transformative
politics. Both seek alternatives to the dominant global capitalist system that is destroying
biotic and cultural diversity. Both link the production of knowledge to lived experiences in
real places. (Pena, 1998, p. 13)
Latinos, particularly those living in the Southwestern US and who may be descendants of
Spanish conquests, feel strong connections to the land. The authors cited above maintain that
Latinos have an integrated view of humans and nature. Latino environmentalism “privileges local
and situated knowledge… and cultural and lived experiences” (Pena, 1998, p. 11). Some of the
themes present in the review of Latino environmentalism seem dichotomous to those present in
mainstream environmentalism. For example, Pena (1998) argues that mainstream
environmentalism is apt to characterize natural resources as commodities, whereas Latino
environmentalism treats “water [for example] as a communal resource endowed with powerful
cultural and ecological meaning” (p. 18). Knuffke (2007) reinforces this view stating, “It’s
important to have people who understand the traditions and the culture – who speak the language.
I don't mean literally speaking Spanish; I mean speaking from a first-hand knowledge of shared
traditions and experience,” (p. 57). Mainstream environmental movements have overlooked
Latinos’ pride of their land and culture as a framing strategy incentivizing engagement.
Barriers to Latino Participation
The inherent difference between Latino environmentalism and traditional mainstream
environmentalism, in and of itself, constitutes a barrier to engagement. But there are several other,
specific, barriers that have limited Latino involvement in environmental initiatives which should
be acknowledged. One limiting factor is that, historically, many authors have depicted Latinos as
well as other minority groups as disinterested in the environment and lacking a conservation ethic
(Pena, 1992) 4 Other, more current environmental literature has contributed to the assumption that
4 See for example: (i) W. DuBuys, Enchantment and exploitation: The life and hard times of a
New Mexico mountain ranger (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1985) and (ii)
Horsman, R. (1981) Race and manifest destiny: The origins of American racial Anglo-Saxonism.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 16 immigrant Latinos don't care about the environment—partly due to the simplistic belief that their
birth countries may have poor environmental policies or that their status as low wage workers
requires them to value their jobs over the environment (Pastor & Morello-Frosch, 2002). This is,
at best, a gross generalization, and at worst, it is untrue. As recently as 2012, studies show that, in
certain circumstances, people of color are more likely to support conservation issues on ballots
than Caucasians (Hansen, 2012; Pastor & Morello-Frosch, 2002; Metz & Weigel, 2009; National
Survey, 2008).
One way the environmental movement has tried to increase its accessibility to multicultural
groups is to focus on social justice issues; environmental hazards affecting public health are a
major component of this environmental justice (EJ) discipline. The EJ movement hopes to
achieve such access by incorporating “racism, poverty and environmentalism in one frame”
(Haluza-Delay & Fernhout, 2011, p. 732). The EJ paradigm would seem to be a logical frame
used by the environmental movement to unify different multicultural groups since “environmental
injustice has occurred when a particular [usually minority] group is burdened with environmental
hazards” (Haluza-Delay & Fernhout, 2011, p. 727). In fact, it is largely uncontested that EJ has
raised salience of environmental injustices through environmental discourse (Taylor, 2000), and
that EJ is a more inclusive way to discuss the environment (Bullard, 2001; Taylor, 2000). One
reason EJ may be particularly relevant to Latino Groups is because it discusses health and social
issues relevant to everyday life. “Chicano environmentalism is not so much about the preservation
of nature and wilderness as it is about the struggles to confront daily hazards and threats to health
and well-being in environments where we live and work… Laura Pulido (1996) calls this ‘the
environmentalism of everyday life” (Pena, 1998, p. 15).
However, despite attempts by many mainstream environmentalists to use a more inclusive
frame about the environment, EJ may still be an alienating, rather than inclusive, framing device.
While EJ has linked civil rights to environmentalism, EJ does not always deliver empowering
messages to minorities. Some scholars argue that environmental organizations’ communication
does nothing “to address the systemic exclusion of people of colour … [and] also reinforces
relations of domination and subordination” (Haluza-DeLay & Fernhout, 2011, p. 737). Further,
Haluza-DeLay and Fernhout maintain that EJ has become a superficial framing “remedy for lack
of genuine ethno-cultural diversity in the environmental movement” (p. 737). In sum, the
dominant discourse used and the frames employed may do little to encourage multicultural, or
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 17 specifically Latino, engagement with environmental organizations. A strategy that increases the
cultural relevancy of environmental messaging for Latino Groups may garner greater interest and
support from these communities.
Section IV. Practical Application: Prior Research on Place-based Messaging
Environmental advocacy is contingent on the “environment-as-perceived” (Cantrill &
Chimovitz, 1993, p. 303), meaning “people’s perceptions and evaluations of the environment are
expressions of place-based self-identity” (Cheng, Kruger & Daniels, 2003, p. 96). Thus it is
critical for organizations (i) to understand how their target audiences understand or observe their
environment, and (ii) to identify elements of the environment that have significant cultural
relevancy; one iconic example is the Blue Crab as a representation of the Maryland Chesapeake
Bay and economy. Several scholars suggest that framing environmental problems as local issues
(i.e., emphasizing one’s sense of place) is a critical component of successful environmental
advocacy (Cantrill & Chimovitz, 1993; Milstein et al., 2011). While the connection between
people and their local environment is a relatively new field of study (Cantrill & Chimovitz, 1993;
Cheng et al., 2003; Corbett, 2006), Cantrill has provided the theoretical foundation and research
for environmental advocacy as developed through an individual’s sense of place (Cantrill, 1998;
Cantrill & Chimovitz, 1993). Consequently, prior to recommending placed-based framing
strategies for Latino engagement, it is important to review how scholars define this term, as well
as discuss the limitations of place-based framing.
The concept of “place,” just like the concept of “home,” is “imbued with significant
meanings which defy categorization, . . . “place” encompass[es] instrumental or utilitarian values
as well as intangible values such as belonging, attachment, beauty, and spirituality” (Cheng et al.,
2003, p. 89). This sense of place is important for environmental advocacy because it shapes, at a
fundamental level, the way individuals view and perceive the world. “Our sense of place – in
addition to childhood experiences and historical and cultural contexts - influences how we
perceive, experience, and value the natural world and ultimately, influences all of our entire belief
system” (Corbett, 2006, p. 25). These authors find, particularly in the field of natural resource
management, that the term “place” is most commonly defined by its “biophysical attributes” (p.
89), meaning the climate, ecosystem, species or hydrologic features. However, Pena (1992;
1998) warns against an overly simplistic, romanticizing of one’s sense of place – cautioning that
human connections with the land are multifaceted and complex.
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE We must remain critical and must not overlook the conflict generated by socially
18 constructed differences, but we must also avoid romanticizing, or worse, “essentializing”
local cultures. No one community is a home to natives in perfect harmony with nature…
we must acknowledge and explore those uncomfortable locations of subjectivity that are
filled with inconsistencies, instabilities, and ironies. (Pena, 1998, p. 35)
Defining place only by its physical attributes and individuals’ sense of belonging is to
ignore the important cultural and political factors that have also shaped values and attitudes in a
particular region. Kosek (2006) reiterates that nature is not separate from the social history that
defines a region, arguing that “…public spaces in the West have too long been defined as white;
too few people and ideas have contributed their reconceptualization in broader, more politically
engaged ways” (p. 182). This is further justification to revisit the Western landscape through a
multicultural cultural lens, with a greater focus on the culturally important indicators of land for
Latinos. Pena (1998) maintains that the defining features of “place” in the American Southwest
are “a variety of struggles between indigenous local cultures and intrusive political economic
forces acting under the sway of industrial capitalist interests” (p. 83). In sum, Pena advocates that
any sort of environmental advocacy/protection which relies on place-based framing should
include a link to a place’s cultural, political and economic survival.
It is stereotypical, and consequently unreliable, to assume that all Latinos share a strong
sense of place. Further, many activists have argued for the use of “sacred-place” when attempting
to promote “cultural-ecological renewal” (Pena, 1998, p. 31); yet, “celebrat[ing] sense of place
through earth-bonding rituals” (p. 31) is reminiscent of a first versus third world, primitive versus
established, dichotomy which further separates environmentalism based on ethnicity. Arguing for
place-based framing as a useful strategy for Latinos must take into consideration Pena’s caution
against romanticization – or an idealization of placed-based framing.
Nevertheless, it still seems likely that Latino support of mainstream environmental
initiatives would be enhanced through place-based framing because: (i) Latino Groups likely
will not have a shared “nationalist” vision of the environment, and (ii) place-centered orientation
privileges local knowledge and cultural history, which are dominant themes in Latinos’
conservation ethic. Recall that several scholars have argued that Latinos’ conservation ethic
“differs from dominant Western discourses that constitute nature as an entity separate from
humans” (Milstein et al., 2011, p. 486). Knuffke (2007) reinforces the importance of using
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 19 language (i.e., message frames) that are culturally relevant to Latinos by acknowledging their
historic connection to land: The land is like a part of the family*an elder*and it holds our stories and memories. And
perhaps uniquely among Hispanics, that sense of place nurtures a sense of self and is
closely tied to it. That means that the language we use is necessarily different (p. 55).
Thus, the focus of this research is not aimed at essentializing all Latinos’ sense of place or
imposing a “one size fits all” conservation ethic on all Latinos. Rather, it is an attempt at
understanding the effectiveness that specific frames and specific words associated with place in
the Southwest may have in creating a more culturally relevant dialogue with Latino Groups, and
as a result, increasing participants’ concern for, perceived self-efficacy, and intention for action
relating to environmental problems.
Section V. Practical Application: Prior Research on Environmental Terminology
The mainstream environmental movement unintentionally frames environmental messages
using language that dichotomizes humans and nature; such environmental communication has
been disempowering and marginalizing to multicultural groups (Milstein et al., 2011).
Terminology used by environmental organizations is a direct reflection of their environmental
ideology, and “in virtually all environmental communication in this country, we hear messages
only from the anthropocentric side of the spectrum” (Corbett, 2006, p. 54). Scholars who study
environmental terminology and the relationship between humans and nature (Corbett, 2006;
Cramer & Foss, 2009; Milstein & Kroløkke, 2012) discuss the inherent problems associated with
anthropocentric environmental communication – namely that this communication places nature
and humans in a hierarchal relationship, and in doing so, distances humans from nature and
objectifies the natural world. These authors collectively suggest that what is needed is new
environmental vernacular which “suggest the possibilities of a relationship that is mutually
enhancing to both humans and the natural world” (Cramer & Foss, 2007, p. 289). In Figure 1,
Corbett (2006) shows the significant distance between anthropocentric and ecocentric
environmental ideologies. Note that the triangle denotes a hierarchal relationship whereas the
circle denotes equality.
Figure 1: A Spectrum of Environmental Ideologies (Corbett, 2006, p. 29).
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 20 With Milstein et al. (2011) and Kosek (2006) as exceptions, these authors do not focus on
how anthropocentric communication is particularly preclusive for Latinos. Based on research
cited previously, Latino Groups (previously defined as residing in the Colorado River watershed)
may be more responsive to new language, which is, by contrast, ecocentric, i.e., language which
acknowledges their unique relationship to the land and natural resources. This paper suggests that
Latino Groups may find that anthropocentric communications lack cultural relevancy. “The
apparent silence of US Latinos on environmental issues may be due more to our [‘mainstream
environmentalists’] failure to listen and to understand the language of the debate rather than to the
failure of Latinos to speak…” (Lynch, 1993, p. 119). These authors suggest that the language
used by environmentalists presents a problem not because of access, but because it lacks cultural
relevancy.
A landmark study which advocates for new environmental terminology designed to reach
Latinos is “Communicating a “New” Environmental Vernacular: A Sense of Relations-in-Place”
(Milstein et al., 2011). The authors show that Hispanics’ relationship to land is a fundamentally
different relationship than is experienced by the white, affluent individuals who have historically
comprised the majority of the environmental movement. Milstein et al. (2011) suggest that one
step forward is changing the language used to communicate about the environment. In
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 21 “ecocultural discourse,” Milstein et al. (2011) suggest using terms like “ecoculture” or “relationsin-place” and “humanature” as a way to:
reflexively engage ecology and culture, nature and human, in integral conversation in
research as they are in life …. These symbolic textual moves are heuristic turns away from
western notions of ‘‘the environment’’ and turns toward lexical intertwining . . . to
encompass interrelated historical and contemporary entities (p. 488).
By changing environmental terminology, communication practitioners can escape the otherwise
unavoidable heuristic processing (i.e., first impression) of media consumption for Latino Groups
when terms such as “wilderness,” “environment” and “nature” are used. Milstein et al. (2011)
agree “culturally specific communication research [about US Southwest Hispanics] could point to
wider alternative framings of environmental perceptions and practices that are more inclusive and
potentially more sustainable” (p. 487).
Section VI. Practical Application: Prior Research on Water Quality Messaging and
Frames
In the discipline of water quality communication, little is documented or studied about
how messaging can increase awareness and concern for contaminated ecosystems. Instead, studies
have focused on understanding the effectiveness of risk communication about environmental
hazards, i.e., the quality of drinking water. The emphasis in research is on public health instead of
on ecosystem restoration. While it is known that Hispanics are more likely than other ethnic
groups to live near areas where drinking water is contaminated, (Bryan & Florez, 2002; Scherzer,
Barker, Pollick & Weintraub (2010), very little is known about Latinos’ environmental
perceptions of water quality (Bryan & Florez, 2002).
In the research assessing Latinos’ perception of drinking water, a consistent theme is the
inability of city or government officials to craft messages that reach or are viewed by Latino
communities as reliable and trustworthy sources of information (Scherzer et al., 2010; Beehler, et
al., 2003; Anderson et al., 2004). In specific cases, researchers have documented consistent
distrust in municipality water supplies (Scherzer et al., 2010). Bryan and Florez (2002) conclude:
“those living in poor, under-served, and environmentally stigmatized communities frequently
possess an inherent distrust of the institutions seemingly responsible for the environmental
condition of such communities” (p. 304). Accordingly, this study found that level of trust differed
significantly between Caucasians and Mexican-Americans; however, location of residency was
the strongest predictor of perceived trust in local government. This is consistent with the view of
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE Marcelo Bonta, Founder and Executive Director for The Center for Diversity and the
22 Environment, who argues that the language employed by organizations is less important that the
person/entity communicating the message. The focus for research in the field of environmental
communication, he argues, should not be on language but rather primarily on building trust and
relationships with multicultural groups for increased engagement (M. Bonta, personal
communication, March 25, 2013). Environmental organizations must take the perceived
trustworthiness of information into account when crafting messaging that is more culturally
relevant to Latino communities.
In addition to Latinos’ skepticism about trustworthiness of water quality information,
several studies (Scherzer et al., 2010; Beehler, McGuinness & Vena, 2003) document that Latinos
are more likely than other ethnic groups to make judgments about water quality based on how
water looks and tastes. In their 2003 study of Latino anglers’ perceptions of water contamination
in the Great Lakes, Beehler et al. (2003) state:
Latino anglers, as laypersons, constructed folk models of environmental contamination
based on empirical evidence, and . . . they judged water and fish quality on the basis of
what they could see, smell or taste. Latinos felt that debris or waste was a marker of
unhealthy waters and that clearer waters were safe. (p. 112)
At a very basic level, water quality messages designed for majority publics are often applied
broadly to communicate with diverse population subsets (Anderson et al., 2004; Pratap, Desai &
Dorevitch, 2011). Cumulatively, Scherzer et al. (2010), Beehler et al. (2003), Nsiah-Kumi
(2008), and Bryan and Florez (2002) show that populations make different decisions about risks
associated with water quality based on the information presented in those messages. Latinos’
perception of risk may be different than Caucasians’ perception of risk when the same message is
read. Findings from these studies reinforce that targeted advisories and communications
messaging – as opposed to state-sponsored warnings which do little to acknowledge the diversity
of their audience -- may be most effective in increasing understanding of risks associated with
water quality/contamination for Latinos.
Research conducted by Bryan and Florez (2002) focused on understanding the effect that
ethnicity, income, location, and length of residency have on public perception of, and
participation in, risk reduction related to water quality in Tucson, AZ. The authors found that
Caucasians perceived significantly less risk associated with water quality than the Mexican THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE Americans sampled in the study. However, Caucasians still participated in a statistically
23 significant greater amount of civic activities aimed at reducing risk related to Tucson’s water
quality than their Mexican American counterparts. The authors aptly question: “Why does
environmental inequity not provide sufficient impetus for civic participation among ethnic
minority groups?” (Bryan & Florez, 2002, p. 308). This question, however, is not sufficiently
answered in the study and reinforces the need to identify cultural relevant messaging for Latino
Groups on the topic of water quality to increase engagement and feelings of efficacy related to
risk reduction.
Section VII: Conclusion
Arguably, one way to increase Latino’s participation in mainstream environmentalism is
by revisiting the words and frames employed by environmental initiatives. Environmental
organizations need to consider and evaluate whether their calls to action culturally resonate with
specific groups. Further, environmental organizations need to commit resources to research what
areas of the country and what elements of the land are culturally important indicators for Latinos,
and focus grassroots organizing and specific frames based upon this research.
HYPOTHESES
The literature cited above highlights an important gap in environmental communications
research – namely, that culturally relevant messages are not used in targeting Latinos, and further,
quantitative testing of which framing strategies are most culturally relevant to Latinos has not
been a research focus. Based on the preceding review of relevant literature, the hypotheses to be
tested are:
Hypothesis 1: Messages that incorporate place-based frames about the Colorado River will
increase Latino Groups’ environmental engagement and intention to take action to protect the
water quality of the nation’s rivers and streams, including the Colorado River, compared to
messages that lack place-based frames.
Hypothesis 2: Messages that incorporate terminology that lexically intertwines humans and
nature will increase Latino Groups’ environmental engagement and intention to take action to
protect the water quality of the nation’s rivers and streams, including the Colorado River,
compared to messages using terminology that dichotomizes humans and nature.
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 24 Hypothesis 3: Messages that incorporate both place-based framing and terminology that lexically
intertwines humans and nature will increase Latino Groups’ environmental engagement and
intention to take action to protect the water quality of the nation’s rivers and streams, including
the Colorado River, relative to messages that incorporate only one or neither of these strategies.
RESEARCH METHODS
Prior research has attempted to interpret Latinos’ conservation ethic; another body of
literature discusses how to create messages for environmental advocacy, but these fields rarely, if
ever, overlap. The purpose of this research is to determine the effectiveness of two message
frames– place based framing and terminology that lexically intertwines humans and nature –
which will be included in four message prompts in increasing Latino Groups’ environmental
engagement (concern, perceived self-efficacy, and intention for action) relating to protecting the
water quality of the Colorado River, and, more generally, the nation’s rivers and streams. An
online survey-based experiment was created using Qualtrics online software. The complete
survey questionnaire is available in Appendix A.
Section I: Nuestro Rio -- Primary Sampling Method
To acquire participants for this study, the investigator partnered with Nuestro Rio (a nonprofit organization advocating for environmental protection of the Colorado River among Latino
residents) to review recommended message frames and to acquire access to a sample of Latinos
living in Colorado River watershed states. Nuestro Rio’s action network is comprised of several
thousand individuals who reside in the American Southwest and who self-identify as Latino,
Hispanic or Chicano. Nuestro Rio’s action network has the unifying goal of “advocating for a
healthy river for generations to come” (Nuestro Rio, 2011), but this organization also works to
promote and conserve Latino culture though the preservation and awareness of the Colorado
River, which has been a lifeline of Latino culture in the region for centuries. The advocacy
network consists of individuals who have registered with Nuestro Rio through their website or
local community activities to petition federal and state decision makers on policies affecting the
Colorado River. This organization was selected for participation in this research because they are
a unique example of an environmental organization that uses language about Latino culture,
patrimony and historical connections to land to reach and sustain support from their constituents.
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 25 Sampling with Nuestro Rio was conducted using a non-random method, as only active
members of Nuestro Rio’s email distribution list were emailed a link to this survey. Appendix B
details the email distribution to members. A link to the survey was also posted on Nuestro Rio’s
homepage as well as on Nuestro Rio’s Facebook page.
Section II: Secondary Sampling Methods
Despite several attempts from February through April 2013, not enough survey
participants were acquired through Nuestro Rio’s action network. In March, the investigator
established additional partnerships with other Hispanic leadership and environmental
organizations throughout the U.S. to acquire greater participation.
To increase the number of participants, individualized requests for assistance with survey
distribution were sent to organizations including: The Center for Diversity and the Environment,
Hispanic Access Foundation, Urban EE Collective, as well as influential individuals in this field
of research including Tema Milstein – Assistant Professor in Communication at the University of
New Mexico and Hazel Wong, Senior Campaign Advisor for The Nature Conservancy, and
Jimmy Eanes, Director of Education for the International Erosion Control Association.
Additional non-random judgment sampling was conducted among family friends and coworkers.
These efforts increased survey participation from 79 individuals to 111.
Section III: Sample
The first element of the survey contained a general online consent form where respondents
certified that they were at least 18 years of age and had only received one request to participate.
Next, participants were asked several screening questions, including a question about their
ethnicity. Those who did not self-identify as Latino, Hispanic, Chicano, or combinations thereof,
were eliminated from the survey. Of the 111 individuals who took the survey, 69 met the ethnic
qualification of a Latino Group. In an effort to increase the focus of the original goal of the
experiment – to test message relevancy on Latino Groups living in Colorado River watershed
states, the investigator reduced the sample to only those participants who self- identified as
Hispanic, Chicano or Latino and who lived in a Colorado River watershed state. The final sample
for research consisted of 58 individuals.
Of these respondents, the average age was 41. Gender was fairly evenly divided, with
44% individuals self-identifying as male and 56% self-identifying as female. The majority of
respondents, 84%, said they were not currently part of part of an environmental organization; of
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 26 these individuals, 25 % stated this was because they had more pressing concerns and another 15%
of individuals provided an “other” explanation. A list of these “other” responses is provided in
Appendix C. Of the 15 % respondents who stated they were part of an environmental
organization, 53% of those individuals characterized their involvement as being on the
organization’s e-mail distribution list. This sample was highly educated; 75.8% had received a
college degree, had some postgraduate work, or had a post graduate degree. The average
household income was between $60,000 and $79,999.
Section IV: Experimental Materials and Procedures
After answering the initial screening questions described above, participants were
randomly assigned one of four experimental messages. After message exposure, respondents were
asked four questions assessing their concern for, feelings of self-efficacy, and intention for action
on the issue of water quality for the nation’s rivers and streams and also more specifically for the
Colorado River Delta. The survey concludes with a final set of demographic questions.
Message Development: Careful consideration was given to which words, phrases and
conservation topics were most likely to resonate culturally with Latino Groups. Based on a review
of Devon Pena’s literature (1998, 2005), the following three focus areas were identified for each
message: (i) allusion to water as an important cultural symbol, (ii) close association between
humans and the natural world, and (iii) reference to cultural heritage and the land. Pena (1998)
uses the water trial San Luis Peoples Ditch et al. v. Battle Mountain Gold “to contrast the
American legal system that treats water as a commodity and the Hispano view of water as a
communal resource endowed with powerful cultural and ecological meaning” (Pena, 1998, p.18).
The messages therefore attempt to create a close association between humans and water and the
human life-cycle. With the above as the common theme between all four experimental messages
viewed, additional changes were incorporated based upon the literature previously cited above in
the literature review section of this Capstone.
Neutral Message: This message includes the words “natural resource” and “environment.”
Research suggests that these terms may insinuate a hierarchal relationship between humans and
nature and for this reason may preclude engagement. Because these terms are used so freely
within environmental communications, they are included in the neutral message.
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 27 Place-based message: This message includes “environment” and “natural resources” but also
makes reference to the “Colorado River.”
Changes to environmental terminology: This message replaces the words “environment” and
“natural resources” with “ecoculture” “human-nature” and “life source.”
Place-based framing and changes to environmental terminology: The final message, which
incorporates both changes to environmental terminology and placed-based framing, includes all
changes made to messages two and three. The text of each message is presented below in Table 1.
Table 1: Message Frames
Neutral Message
Water is our lifeblood. Our river environments are being
damaged by pollution just like cholesterol clogs our
arteries. It’s our responsibility to protect these natural
resources which are vital to the survival of our families, our
traditions and our heritage.
Placed-based framing
Water is our lifeblood. Our Colorado River environment is
being damaged by pollution just like cholesterol clogs our
arteries. It’s our responsibility to protect these natural
resources which are vital to the survival of our families, our
traditions and our heritage in the Colorado River Delta.
Terminology that lexically
intertwines humans and
nature
Water is our lifeblood. Our rivers are being damaged by
pollution just like cholesterol clogs our arteries. Humannature tells us to protect these ecocultural life sources
which are vital to the survival of our families, our traditions
and our heritage.
Terminology that lexically
intertwines humans and
nature and incorporates
place-based framing
Water is our lifeblood. Our Colorado River is being
damaged by pollution just like cholesterol clogs our
arteries. Human-nature tells us to protect these ecocultural
life sources which are vital to the survival of our families,
our traditions and our heritage in the Colorado River Delta.
To make these words more compelling and/or realistic to the survey participant, an image was
added to each message prompt. The image was acquired through Nuestro Rio’s photo collection.
The image, painted by Frank McCulloch, depicts Monte Rio in California where the Chama River
is joined with the Navajo River – a Colorado River Tributary. As this research loosely defines
“place” as the “Colorado River watershed,” this image was provided to evoke a sense of the
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 28 southwest landscape. Figure 2 provides an example of how each message frame was presented to
individuals through the online experiment.
Figure 2: Example Message Prompt
Section V: Key Variables
Independent Variable: The independent variable in this experiment is the four different message
frames. Ultimately, the Qualtrics software randomly assigned eight participants to the neutral
message, 16 participants to the place-based message, 15 respondents to the message incorporating
changes to environmental terminology, and 19 participants to the message incorporating placebased framing and also changes to environmental terminology.
Dependent Variables: There are two dependent variables measured in this research: (i) feelings of
environmental engagement, and (ii) intention for action regarding the issue of water quality in the
Colorado River Delta.
Environmental engagement: The first dependent variable in this experiment is self-stated levels of
environmental engagement about the issue of water quality in the nation’s rivers and streams. To
assess participants’ feeling on this issue, post message prompt, respondents were asked the
following three questions:
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 29 • Level of intention: “After reading this statement, I am more likely to take action to reduce
water pollution in North America’s rivers and streams.”
• Level of perceived self-efficacy: “After reading this statement, I believe my actions can
help improve the water quality of North America’s rivers and streams.”
• Level of concern: “After reading this statement, I am concerned about the water quality of
North America’s rivers and streams.”
These three items, which were measured using a 5-point Likert scale to express agreement or
disagreement, were averaged together to form a combined measure of environmental engagement.
The Cronbach’s Alpha for these three items is .856, suggesting that the items have relatively high
internal consistency.
Intention for action regarding the water quality in the Colorado River Delta: The second
dependent variable in this research is “intention for action regarding the issue of water quality in
the Colorado River Delta.” To assess whether respondents’ levels of intention are location
dependent, respondents were asked the question: “I am more likely to take action to reduce water
pollution in the Colorado River Delta.” Responses on this item ranged on a 5-point scale from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
RESULTS
Analysis was conducted to address the Capstone hypotheses and to determine if the message
frames had statistically significant effects on the dependent variables. Results were obtained by
analyzing survey data in SPSS and running one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests to
determine whether there were mean differences in the dependent variables across the four
message frames.
Section I: Relationship between All Messages and “Environmental Engagement”
A one-way ANOVA was test was conducted to determine whether the mean level of
environmental engagement varied significantly across the four message prompts. The results
indicated that there were no statistically significant differences across message frames in terms of
reported feelings of environmental engagement. F(3,57) = 1.076, p=.367.
Table 2: Mean Ratings for Experimental Messages on Environmental Engagement (Standard
Deviation Expressed in Parentheses)
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE Neutral message (N= 8)
Place-based Message (N=16)
Semantic Change (N=15)
Place based Message and Semantic Change
(N=19)
30 4.00(.25)
4.04 (1.05)
3.57(.868)
3.66(.793)
Taken together, these results suggest that these framing strategies did not have the
hypothesized effect. However, as can be seen in Table 2, the place-based message does have the
highest mean level of environmental engagement, which is consistent with Hypothesis I, although
this is not significantly different from any of the other three message groups.
Section II: Relationship between All Messages and
“Intention for Action Regarding the Water Quality in the Colorado River Delta”
A one-way ANOVA test was conducted to determine whether the mean level of intention
for action regarding the water quality in the Colorado River Delta varied across message prompts.
Contrary to hypothesis I-III, there was not a statistically significant effect of the message frame
on reported intention for action regarding the water quality in the Colorado River Delta. F(3,56) =
1.68, p=.181. Although there were no statistically significant differences across message frames,
it is interesting to note that the placed-based message produced a higher mean level of intention
than the semantic change message (see Table 3).
Table 3: Mean Ratings for Experimental Messages on Intention for Action Regarding the Water
Quality in the Colorado River Delta (Standard Deviation Expressed in Parentheses)
Neutral message (N= 8)
Place-based Message (N=16)
Semantic Change (N=14)
Place based Message and Semantic Change
(N=19)
4.13 (.641)
4.00 (1.095)
3.36(1.008)
3.84(.765)
Based on the small sample size for this experiment, and the lack of statistically significant results
in the two, one-way ANOVA tests that were run, further testing of moderating variables was not
conducted as part of this research.
DISCUSSION
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE Section I: Interpretation of Findings
31 A primary objective of this Capstone Project was to determine if placed-based framing
and/or changes to environmental terminology were able to raise environmental engagement and
intention for action on the issue of water quality among self- identified Latino, Hispanic and
Chicano individuals living in the Colorado River Watershed. The results of this study show that
neither placed based framing nor changes to environmental terminology had the hypothesized
effect. Despite this outcome, some inferences can be made about which of these messages were
most and least effective in increasing mean levels of environmental engagement and intention for
action.
The placed-based framing resulted in the highest mean levels of environmental
engagement. This indicates that association with a local place is the best predictor of
environmental engagement in the experiment. This trend suggests that place-based framing is a
promising strategy to consider when developing messages for Latino Groups on the subject of
water quality, and continuing to test the effectiveness of such frames offers an important direction
for future research.
The neutral message, which was devoid of all framing strategies recommended in the
preceding literature review, resulted in the highest mean levels of intention for action in the
Colorado River Delta. One possible explanation for the high response levels to the neutral
message is that the metaphors used, e.g., “water is our lifeblood,” –as described in the message
development section of this Capstone –evoked culturally relevant beliefs for participants, and that
the framing strategies added to the other test messages diluted their appeal.
In all of the statistical analyses conducted, the least effective frame included the semantic
changes to environmental terminology. These findings suggest that changes to environmental
terminology – in an effort to escape the hierarchal relationship between humans and nature
prevalent in mainstream, anthropocentric environmental communication -- are not relevant to
these participants. However, because this survey was only available to Latino Groups in English,
and not in Spanish, it is possible that the creation of new words, e.g. “ecoculture,” was less
relevant to participants who likely had a stronger grasp of language subtleties in Spanish than in
English. Therefore, an interesting future direction for research would be to provide similar
semantic changes in Spanish rather than in English.
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 32 A final finding of note is the relatively low number of participants who indicated they
were part of an environmental organization. Many of the study participants were recruited
through Nuestro Rio’s action network. This would suggest that members of the action network
do not see Nuestro Rio as an “environmental organization.” Clearly those who participated in this
study have an interest in water quality protection; 60 % indicated that they were “somewhat
knowledgeable” or “very knowledgeable” about the issue of water quality. It seems likely that this
sample either does not see Nuestro Rio as an “environmental organization”, or that survey
participants do not view their inclusion on an e-mail distribution list as constituting membership
in an environmental organization. For this sample, participants’ self-identification as members of
an environmental conservation organization was lower that their self-reported knowledge about
the issue of water quality. This low number of participants self-identifying as involved in an
environmental organization reinforces the fact that mainstream environmental organizations have
not done enough to make these Latino Groups feel that they are part of an organizational community
Due to this experiment’s small sample size and lack of statistically significant findings,
further recommendations or inferences based on this research cannot be substantiated.
Section II: Study Limitations
A key limitation in the research is that, due to the small sample size, the influence of other
moderating variables on environmental engagement and intention for action could not be
analyzed. A variety of variables could affect the way participants perceived the message and
whether they believed the message to be “culturally relevant.” For example, it is very likely that
people who feel “very knowledgeable” about the issue of water quality would respond differently
to environmental messages than those who did not feel knowledgeable. However, because of the
limited sample size, further analysis of potential moderating variables – such as age, income,
gender, perceived prior knowledge on the issue of water quality, and whether the individual is
already a member with an environmental organization – were not conducted.
Another limitation is that the study treats Latinos as a single entity rather than accounting
for potential nuances within Latino culture; this was also due to the limited sample size, which
prohibited further subgrouping of participants. Assuming a direct relationship between ethnicity
and a participant’s reaction to a message is a simplistic, essentialist view which overlooks not
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE only the diversity within ethnic subgroups of Latino Groups, but also the effects of other
33 moderating variables (M. Bonta, personal communication, March 25, 2012; Pena, 1998).
Similarly, in personal communication with Lawrence Rael, State Executive Director of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (February 21, 2013), Rael cautioned against a
study design that uses overarching ethnic subgroups – such as Chicano or Hispanic – as the basis
for grouping study participants together and drawing conclusions based on their ethnicity. He
argues, for example, that there is equally great diversity between northern New Mexico and the
southern part of the state; amalgamating all of these diverse groups into one category may not be
a useful direction for future research.
In addition, while the dependent variables attempted to capture intention for action on the
issue of water quality, this study does not actually measure behavior change. To better capture
actual behavior, participants could have been invited to click on an advocacy webpage for an
environmental organization that is involved in water quality, for example, the “take action” page
on Nuestro Rio’s website.
A final limitation with respect to the study design should be addressed. The same image
was included in each message prompt to make the statement more “believable” to respondents.
For this reason, this research cannot reliably determine if the message frames would have a
similar effective on participants without the use of any image appeals. It may be that the power of
the image overrode the importance of the place-based and semantic changes to the message
frames.
Section III: Future Directions for Research
Latino Groups’ conservation ethic and cultural relevancy of message appeals: Although this
experiment did not indicate that placed-based framing or changes to environmental terminology
were effective in significantly increasing levels of environmental engagement or intention for
action in the Colorado River Delta, this topic would benefit from more extensive research using a
larger sample size. As stated previously, this research suggests a trend of “local place” being the
highest predictor of increased mean levels of both environmental engagement and intention for
action. Environmental organizations need to commit resources to research what areas of the
country, and what elements of the land, are culturally important indicators for Latino Groups, and
focus grassroots organizing and specific message frames based upon this research. A future
analysis, if conducted, should take into account relevant literature (Pena, 1998, 1992) which
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 34 cautions against the assumption that all Latino Groups will have a strong sense of place or enough
cultural ties between them to make similar assumptions about the culturally relevancy of certain
messages. With this proviso in mind, several studies and polling data have been able to provide
important information about Latinos’ conservation ethic without overgeneralizing their findings
(How Propositions 40 and 45 Fared Among Voters, 2002; Metz & Weigel, 2009, 2012; National
Survey, 2008).
Lexically intertwining humans and nature in Spanish instead of English: A continued direction to
explore is the preclusive effects of anthropocentric environmental communication for
multicultural groups who may have a more ecocentric environmental ideology (Corbett, 2008;
Pena 1998, 2005). Recall that in this Capstone Project, the messages changing environmental
terminology resulted in the lowest mean levels of environmental engagement and intention for
action. It would be interesting to learn if messages in Spanish that lexically intertwined words (in
an effort to create distance from anthropocentric communication) would be equally ineffective, or
if such messages in Spanish would solicit higher levels of environmental engagement and
intention for action among Latino Groups. Environmental organizations should think about the
heuristic effects of their word choice in messages’ calls to action, whether in English or in
Spanish. Research on which words in the Spanish language may be equally off-putting or limiting
as those described in this literature review (nature, wilderness, environment, natural resource,
etc.) would be useful to organizations seeking to create culturally relevant messages in Spanish to
Latino Groups.
The effect of moderating variables on the cultural relevancy of message appeals: In general,
identifying culturally relevant messages to Latino Groups should be a focus of future study.
Focusing on the effects of other moderating variables, beside ethnicity, could yield insights. For
example, by studying a different environmental issue, such as water availability, sea level rise,
ecosystem services, invasive species, or endangered species, research could provide an entirely
different perspective on what factors impact the ways Latino Groups respond to message appeals.
Perfecting message frames and targeted dissemination, or practicing civic engagement? There is
growing recognition that the communication of scientific and environmental issues needs to be
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 35 tailored to specific audiences, thus allowing the public to draw connections to their own values
and interests. While this Capstone Project is limited to the effect of language in environmental
communication, several scholars (M. Bonta, personal communication, March 29, 2013; Nisbet,
2009) urge that public engagement in science initiatives may be a more useful direction forward
to increase trust and commitment to environmental causes. This approach empowers the public to
become part of the conservation discussion. A study which focused on public engagement
specifically for Latino Groups would be a compelling direction for future research.
CONCLUSION
Latino culture embraces a close association with nature. “More than 90 percent of all Latino
voters feel a moral responsibility to take care of God’s creations on earth such as the forests,
oceans, lakes and rivers. Hispanic voters seem to have a spiritual connection to nature,”
(National Survey, 2008). Though none of the studies or polling cited throughout this Capstone
can accurately represent all Latino attitudes throughout the US, time and again, these respective
studies demonstrate that Latinos are concerned about and support specific conservation issues in
diverse parts of the country, often in greater numbers than their white counterparts. In other
words, Latinos’ ethnicity has a documented effect on their views about conservation. So what
accounts for Latinos’ dramatic under-representation in environmental organizations? Why is
there still a gap between Latinos’ interest and their engagement in mainstream environmental
organizations? This Capstone Project was designed to determine if specific message frames
could help bridge that gap. While these initial findings require further study of place-based and
ecocultural framing to achieve statistically significant results, this framing strategy is one of
many strategies necessary to close the gap. This research also highlighted the need to build trust
with Latino Groups, which may best be accomplished through civic engagement. Environmental
organizations should consider multi-tier campaigns to promote an authentic dialogue with, and
the genuine inclusion of, Latino communities as active, participating members of their networks.
Such campaigns would require a re-visitation of messaging level changes (changes to semantic
structure, imagery to create culturally relevant appeals), activity level changes to build trust
(create local programs for targeted Latino Groups), and institutional level changes (a recognition
that traditional anthropocentric environmentalism is likely preclusive to multicultural
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE engagement.)
36 THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE REFERENCES
37 Anderson, H. A., Hanrahan, L. P., Smith, A., Draheim, L., Kanarek, M. & Olsen, J. (2004). The
role of sport-fish consumption advisories in mercury risk communication: a 1998–1999
12-state survey of women age 18–45. Environmental Research, 95(3), 312–324.
Barr, S. & Gilg, A. (2006). Sustainable lifestyles: Framing environmental action in and around the
home. Geoforum, 37, 906–920.
Bary, D. & Tillman, T. (2007, Sept. 28). EPA Newsroom – News releases by State EPA takes
environmental message to Hispanic communities. Retrieved from
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/8b770facf5edf6f185257359003fb69e/e1c54a16
ecd5f11b8525736300715c18!OpenDocument
Beehler, G. P., McGuinness, B. M. & Vena, J. E. (2003). Characterizing Latino anglers’
environmental risk perceptions, sport fish consumption, and advisory awareness. Medical
Anthropology Quarterly, 17(1), 99–116.
Blake, James. (1999). Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: tensions
between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4(3), 257-278.
Bonta, M., & Jordan, C., (2008). Diversifying the American environmental movement.
In Diversity and the Future of the Environmental Movement (13-33). Retrieved from
http://www.environmentaldiversity.org/documents/05-Bonta-and-Jordan.pdf
Bryan, W. & Florez, Y. (2002). Do Mexican Americans perceive environmental issues
differently than Caucasians: A study of cross-ethnic variation in perceptions related to
water in Tucson? Environmental Health Perspective, 110(2) 303–310.
Bullard, R. D. (2001). Environmental justice in the 21st century: Race still matters. Phylon,
49(3/4), 151-171.
Bustus, Don. (2011, Dec. 15). Lessons in sustainable agriculture and environmental justice.
Latinos USA Today – New Mexico. Retrieved from
http://latinosusatoday.com/blog/2011/12/15/lessons-in-sustainable-agriculture-andenvironmental-justice/
Cantrill, J. G. (1998). The environmental self and a sense of place: Communication foundations
for regional ecosystem management. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26(3),
301-318.
Cantrill, J. G., & Chimovitz, D. S. (1993). Culture, communication, and schema for
environmental issues: An initial exploration. Communication Research Reports, 10(1), 4758
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE Carbaugh, D. (2007). Quoting, ‘‘the environment”: touchstones on earth. Environmental
Communication: A Journal of Culture and Nature, 1(1), 64-73.
38 Cheng, A., Kruger, L., & Daniels, S. (2003). ‘Place’ as an integrating concept in natural resource
politics: Propositions for a social science research agenda. Society and Natural Resources,
16, 87–104.
Corbett, J. (2006). Communicating nature: How we understand environmental messages.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Cox, R. (2006). Environmental communication and the public sphere. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cox, R. (2007). Nature’s “crisis disciplines”: Does environmental communication have an ethical
duty? Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 1, 4-20.
Cramer, J.M., & Foss, K.A. (2009). Baudrillard and our destiny with the natural world: Fatal
strategies for environmental communication. Environmental Communication: A Journal of
Culture and Nature, 3(3), 298-316.
Entman, M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43(4) 51-58.
Gamson, W. (1992). Talkingpolitics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Groffman, P., Stylinski, C., Nisbet, M.C., Duarte, C., Jordan, R., Burgin, A., . . . Cary, J. (2010)
Restarting the conversation: challenges at the interface between ecology and
society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(6) 284–291.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/090160 Haeder, Paul K. (2011, Nov. 15). How can Hispanics get more involved in sustainability
concerns? Down to Earth Northwest. Retrieved from
http://www.downtoearthnw.com/stories/2011/nov/15/how-can-hispanics-get-moreinvolved-sustainability/
Haluza-DeLay, R. & Fernhout, H. (2011). Sustainability and social inclusion? Examining the
frames of Canadian English-speaking environmental movement organizations. Local
Environment, The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 16 (7), 727-745.
Hansen, S. (2012). Cultivating the grassroots: a winning approach for environment and climate
funders. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Retrieved from
http://www.ncrp.org/files/publications/Cultivating_the_grassroots_final_lowres.pdf
Hoffner, E. (2008). The movement’s greatest challenge is its own lack of diversity. Grist.
Retrieved from http://grist.org/article/how-to-diversify-environmentalism/
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 39 How Propositions 40 and 45 Fared Among Voters, (2002, March 7, displaying the results of the
exit poll). Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from
http://www.latimesinteractive.com/pdfarchive/state/468grph3.pdf
Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. (2002) Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what
are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3),
239-260. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
Kosek, J. (2006). Understories: The political life of forests in Northern New Mexico. Durham
and London: Duke University Press.
Knuffke, D. (2007). Latina energy in the Southwest. Wilderness, Fall, 54-57.
Llopis, G. (2012, May 14). Don't sell to me! Hispanics buy brands that empower their cultural
relevancy. Forbes. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/glennllopis/2012/05/14/dont-sell-to-me-hispanics-buybrands-that-empower-their-cultural-relevancy/
Lynch, B. L. (1993). Garden and the sea: US Latino environmental discourses and mainstream
environmentalism. Social Problems, 40(1), 108-124.
Metz, D. & Weigel, L. (2009). Key findings from national voter survey on conservation [letter to
interested parties - September 25]. Retrieved from
http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/montana/newsroom
/tnc_national_poll_public_summary_final.pdf
Metz, D. & Weigel, L. (2012,). American Voters View Conservation as Patriotic, and
Strengthening on the Economy; Broad Support for Current Conservation Legislation.
[letter to interested parties - July 2]. Retrieved from http://www.nature.org/about-us/june2012-public-key-findings.pdf
Milstein, T. (2011). Nature identification. The power of pointing and naming. Environmental
Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture. 5:1 3-24.
Milstein, T., Anguiano, C., Sandoval, J., Chen, Y., & Dickinson, E. (2011). Communicating a
“new” environmental vernacular: a sense of relations-in-place. Communication
Monographs, 78(4), 486-510.
Milstein, T. & Kroløkke, C. (2012). Transcorporeal Tourism: Whales, Fetuses, and the Rupturing
and Reinscribing of Cultural Constraints. Environmental Communication: A Journal of
Nature and Culture. 6:1 82-100.
National Survey of Hispanic Voters on Environmental Issues. (2008). Sierra Club. Retrieved
from http://www.sierraclub.org/ecocentro/survey/Executive%20Summary.pdf
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 40 Newman, C., Howlett, E., Burton, S., Kozup, J., & Tangari, A. (2012). The influence of consumer
concern about global climate change on framing effects for environmental sustainability
messages. International Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 511-527.
Nisbet, M.C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement.
Environment, 51(2), 12-23.
Nisbet, M.C. & Scheufele, D.A. (2009). What's next for science communication? Promising
directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767-1778.
Nsiah-Kumi, P. (2008). Communicating effectively with vulnerable populations during water
contamination events. Journal of Water and Health, 6(1), 63-75. Retrieved from:
http://www.iwaponline.com/jwh/006/s063/006s063.pdf.
Nuestro Rio (2011) About & Contact. Nuestro Rio. March 27, 2013.
http://nuestrorio.com/about-contact/
Pastor, M. & Morello-Frosch, R. (2002, July 8). Assumption is wrong – Latinos care deeply about
the environment. San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved from http://cjtc.ucsc.edu/docs/oped_AssumptionIsWrong.pdf
Pastor, M., Morello-Frosch, R., & Sadd, J. (2005). The air is always cleaner on the other side:
race, space, and air toxics. Exposures in California, Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(2), 127148.
Pielke, R.A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. New
York: Cambridge University Press, pp 1-22 and pp 135-162.
Pelletier, L.G., Tuson, K.M., Green-Demers, I. & Noels, K. (1998). Why are you doing things for
the environment? The motivation toward the environment scale (MTES). Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 28(5), 437–468.
Pena, D. (1992). The 'brown’ and the ‘green’: Chicanos and environmental politics in the upper
Rio Grande. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 3, 79–103.
Pena, D. (1998). Chicano culture, ecology, politics: Subversive kin. Tucson, AZ: The University
of Arizona Press.
Pena, D. (2005). Mexican Americans and the environment: Tierra y vida (the Mexican American
experience). Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press.
Pouyat, et al. (2010). The role of federal agencies in the application of scientific knowledge.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment: 322–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/090180.
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 41 Pratap, P., Desai, P. & Dorevitch S. (2011). Beach communications: A need for evaluation of
current approaches. Journal of Water and Health, 9(3) 556.
Schelhas, J. (2002). Race, ethnicity, and natural resources in the United States: A review. Natural
Resources Journal, 42, 723–763. Retrieved from:
http://lawlibrary.unm.edu/nrj/42/4/03_schelhas_race.pdf
Schellenberger, M. & Nordhaus, T. (2004). The death of environmentalism: global warming
politics in a post-environmental world. The Breakthrough Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.thebreakthrough.org/PDF/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf
Scherzer, T., Barker, J., Pollick H., & Weintraub, J. A. (2010). Water consumption beliefs and
practices in a rural Latino community: implications for fluoridation. Journal of Public
Health Dentistry. 70(4), 337-43.
Simon, A. F., & Jerit, J. (2007). Toward a theory relating political discourse, media, and public
opinion. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 254-271.
State of the Hispanic Consumer: (“The Hispanic Market Imperative,” Quarter 2, 2012). The
Nielsen Company. Retrieved from
http://www.hispanicad.com/banners2/downloads/Nielsen-Hispanic-Q2-2012.pdf
Taylor, D. (2000). The rise of the environmental justice paradigm - injustice framing and the
social construction of environmental discourses. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(4),
508–580.
US Economy at Risk if Corporations Ignore the Impact of Hispanics in America. (2012, June 1).
Center for Hispanic Leadership. Retrieved from
http://www.centerforhispanicleadership.com/2012/06/us-economy-at-risk-if-corporationsignore-the-impact-of-hispanics-in-america.html
Wynne, B. (2009). Interview: Rationality and Ritual. In Cayley, D., (Ed.). Ideas: On the nature
of science. Frederickton, CA: Goose Lane.
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 42 THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE Appendix A
ONLINE SURVEY CONSENT FORM
43 PURPOSE: This research is being conducted to better understand public responses to
environmental communication about water pollution. This research is conducted as a requirement
for a M.A. in Public Communication at American University in Washington, D.C.
PROCEDURE: All participants will be asked to answer a variety of survey questions. The
survey should take approximately 5 minutes to complete. Your participation is entirely voluntary,
and you may discontinue completion of this survey at any time.
CONFIDENTIALITY: No personally identifiable information will be collected. Your responses
are completely anonymous.
RISKS: There is minimal risk involved with participating in this study. The primary risk
associated with this survey is potential discomfort in answering survey questions.
BENEFITS: Your participation will help the investigator understand the effectiveness of
messages about water pollution. Survey responses will provide information on how to increase
the relevancy of environmental messaging to different segments of the population.
CONTACT PERSON: If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Melanie Gade
at mg0929a@student.american.edu.
By clicking "next" below, you are certifying that you are at least 18 years of age and you are
giving your consent to participate in this survey; you will begin the survey on the next screen.
Please answer the following preliminary questions:
1.
What is your age? (Dropdown menu) __________
2.
In which state do you currently reside? (Dropdown menu) ______________
3.
What is your gender?
-- Male
-- Female
-- Other
4.
What is your ethnicity? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY
-- African American/African
-- White non-Hispanic
-- Hispanic
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE -- Latino
-- Chicano
-- Asian
-- Other ______________
44 IF OTHER THAN HISPANIC/ LATINO, THANK AND TERMINATE
6. Are you currently a member of an environmental organization? ( “Member” means you pay
membership dues or you have registered your e-mail address with the organization.)
-- Yes
-- No
-- Other _____
6a. If you answered “No,” PROMPT: What reason below most closely matches your
circumstance?
-- I am not interested in the environment
-- Protecting the environment is not a primary concern of mine
-- I have other more pressing concerns
-- I have not found the right environmental organization for me
-- I’ve been contacted by an environmental organization, but its cause is not relevant to me
-- Other, ____
6b. If you answered “Yes,” PROMPT: how would you characterize your engagement? (If you are
involved in more than one group, please describe your participation in the group in which you are
most active.)
-- I am on the organization’s e-mail list
-- I pay membership dues
-- I respond to specific donation requests when the issue is relevant to me
-- I attend monthly meetings
-- I participate in volunteer activities associated with the organization
-- I am on the organization’s Board of Directors
-- Other
7. How knowledgeable do you feel about the water quality of North America's rivers and streams?
-- Not at all knowledgeable
-- Not very knowledgeable
-- Somewhat knowledgeable
-- Very knowledgeable
Experimental Section —Respondents will be randomly assigned to one of four
conditions followed by a series of questions.
MESSAGE FRAME 1: neutral message
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 45 Water is our lifeblood. Our river environments are being damaged by pollution just like
cholesterol clogs our arteries. It’s our responsibility to protect these natural resources which are
vital to the survival of our families, our traditions and our heritage.
MESSAGE FRAME 2: placed-based framing
Water is our lifeblood. Our Colorado River environment is being damaged by pollution just like
cholesterol clogs our arteries. It’s our responsibility to protect these natural resources which are
vital to the survival of our families, our traditions and our heritage in the Colorado River Delta.
MESSAGE FRAME 3: terminology that lexically intertwines humans and nature
Water is our lifeblood. Our rivers are being damaged by pollution just like cholesterol clogs our
arteries. Human-nature tells us to protect these ecocultural life sources which are vital to the
survival of our families, our traditions and our heritage.
MESSAGE FRAME 4: terminology that lexically intertwines humans and nature and place-based
framing
Water is our lifeblood. Our Colorado River is being damaged by pollution just like cholesterol
clogs our arteries. Human-nature tells us to protect these ecocultural life sources which are vital
to the survival of our families, our traditions and our heritage in the Colorado River Delta.
Assessment of message testing – after all four conditions, each participant will be
asked the following questions
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
10. After reading this statement, I am concerned about the water quality of North America’s
rivers and streams.
-- Strongly disagree
-- Disagree
-- Neither agree nor disagree
-- Agree
-- Strongly agree
11. After reading this statement, I am more likely to take action to reduce water pollution in
North America’s rivers and streams.
-- Strongly disagree
-- Disagree
-- Neither agree nor disagree
-- Agree
-- Strongly agree
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE 46 12. After reading this statement, I believe my actions can help improve the water quality of North
America’s rivers and streams.
-- Strongly disagree
-- Disagree
-- Neither agree nor disagree
-- Agree
-- Strongly agree
13. After reading this statement, I am more likely to take action to reduce water pollution in the
Colorado River Delta.
-- Strongly disagree
-- Disagree
-- Neither agree nor disagree
-- Agree
-- Strongly agree
The final section of this survey contains general demographic questions
14. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
- Some high school
- High school graduate
- Trade/technical/vocational training
- Some college
- College graduate
- Some postgraduate work
- Post graduate degree
- Prefer not to answer
15. What is your total household income for one year?
-Less than $15,000
- $15,000 to $29,999
- $30,000 to $59,999
- $60,000 to $79,999
- $80,000 to $99,999
- $100,000 to $149,999
- $150,000 or more
- Prefer not to answer
THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE Appendix B: Email Blast for Survey Participation by Ramirez Group
47 THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF EVERYDAY LIFE Appendix C
48 Of those who are not currently part of an environmental organization, 9 out of 57 individuals
provided the following reasons why.
I am environmentally couscous but only when it benefits me example using energy efficient lights lowers bills and
recycling allows me to have more room to throw trash
Not in my budget to join fee based orgs.
Issue is important, but joining an organization is not.
Haven't had time to look for one that I'd be interested in.
we are an environmental organization (SNWA & Springs Preserve)
O am con cerned about oír environment
concerned but have more pressing issues
I don't generally join organizations
I am interested in the environment