Not Preaching to the Choir: Communicating the Importance of Forest Conservation to Nontraditional Audiences

Recognition of the critical links between humans and nature based on scientifically sound information is key to effective conservation. However, with the increasing dominance of technology, more virtual rather than actual experiences, and the media’s increasing representation of nature solely as entertainment, humans are rapidly losing their sense of connection to nature and to the science and scientists who seek to understand those links (Shamos 1995). A survey of public attitudes toward science documented that Americans are highly supportive of the study of nature, but 70% lack knowledge of the scientific process, and less than 15% described themselves as well informed about the natural world (National Science Board [NSB] 2002). The general public has been categorized as follows (NSB 2002): (1) the scientifically active express a high level of interest in a particular issue and believe they are well informed about it; (2) the scientifically aware claim to have a high level of interest in an issue but do not believe they are well informed about it; and (3) the scientifically unaware are neither interested nor believe they are well informed about an issue and receive the least attention from scientists and informal science educators (Gregory & Miller 1998). Ecologists and conservation biologists are charged with understanding the ecological values of the natural world and are trained to communicate their research findings to other scientists in language that is targeted almost exclusively toward their peers. Communication of science to the general public—either individually or via the mass media—is only minimally valued within the reward system recognized by scholars. Despite some high-level approval of the scientific community, efforts at popular communication are viewed at best as a distraction from the “real work” of academics, such as writing grant proposals and producing scholarly articles for scientific audiences. At worst, these efforts have been met with apathy or jealousy (Bodmer 1986). Traditionally, the media rather than scientists have forged communication pathways between scientists and the public. In general, however, media communicators only incompletely bridge the gap between scientists and nonscientists because they are often hindered by deadlines, lack of technical expertise, and the perceived need to sensationalize research results (Friedman et al. 1986). This has resulted in a mistrust of the media on the part of many scientists and an impatience with seemingly defensive or inconclusive statements by scientists on the part of the media (Dunwoody 1992). Some scientists believe the media focuses exhaustively on a single specialized subject and does not pay sufficient attention to accuracy or detail (Goodell 1977). When scientists do disseminate their research to the public, their audiences are almost always the scientifically active (e.g., visitors to botanic gardens, readers of natural history magazines). Communication with societal segments that already grasp the value of what might be considered esoteric research appears to make the most efficient use of scientists’ limited time to disseminate research to nonscientists. However, these efforts do relatively little to change the minds of people who are not already convinced of the importance of conservation and sustainability. Thus, ecologists and conservation biologists have been exhorted to expand their communication spheres and to go “beyond preaching to the choir” (Brewer 2001). To help reverse these trends, scientists themselves can be more effective than the media in transmitting research to public audiences for two reasons. First, scientists have specialized, technical knowledge of the subject matter. Second, their passion about what they study is infectious and can inspire others to take an interest in science. In the long term, such efforts can contribute to a sociopolitical climate that enhances research support (Gregory & Miller 1998). Thus, I report on efforts to help ecologists and conservation biologists become more effective communicators to the general public by linking activities that engage the scientifically unaware to research that directly or indirectly relates to the audience’s own activities and interests. I call such scientists “research/ conservation ambassadors” because they are entering a “new country”