Blogger’s Note: Some of the most thoughtful comments and emails I have received since launching this blog have come from Ellie Ely, who has many years experience transforming scientific jargon into plain English as editor of EPA’s Volunteer Monitor newsletter. Ellie has graciously agreed to pen a series of guest columns for Water Words That Work, and the first one appears here today. Welcome Ellie!

– Eric

Learning From Journalists
Journalists know that goal No. 1 is to hang onto the reader. In particular, journalists agonize extensively over crafting their leads (the opening sentences or paragraphs). After all, if your reader stops reading, it won’t matter what you wrote.

Unfortunately, many publications (and presentations) from environmental organizations and agencies disregard this basic reality. One common mistake is the lengthy introduction that’s all about the organization itself – its history, goals, partners, accomplishments. The reader has no reason to stick around because the writer hasn’t answered the reader’s most important question: “What’s in it for me?”

Coming up with an intriguing and inviting lead for a complex technical article is especially challenging, which is why I appreciated the way Stephen Hochbrunn started off a recent article about New England’s first desalination facility (published in the Winter 2007 issue of New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission’s Interstate Water Report.) A less experienced writer would likely have begun the article with a big dose of background about the complicated history, technology, and politics of desalination.

Instead, Stephen’s opening paragraphs introduce Jeff Hanson, the man who originated the idea for the desalination plant, and quote Hanson’s description of what happened when he first presented his concept, back in 1993: “It got a great big laugh. Everybody laughed. They thought it was absurd.” This lead gives the desalination story a human face, and arouses the reader’s curiosity: What changed between 1993 and 2007?

William Zinsser’s classic book On Writing Well has the best advice I’ve seen for writing leads, plus wonderfully helpful and entertaining examples. (This book is available everywhere, and since it has sold over a million copies it’s easy to find used.) Zinsser says there are no firm rules for writing a lead “except the broad one of not letting the reader get away.”

Zinsser’s “no firm rules” observation applies to writing as a whole. But even if there are no, or few, firm rules, there are plenty of useful principles and tips. These columns will review some of these and show specifically how they apply to writing about the environment.

– Ellie Ely, Writing To Be Read

Here’s the third excerpt from Clean Ocean Action’s “Giving Ocean” film that I like so much. In this bit, the group shows the viewer what they can do, makes them feel like they can make a difference, and assures them that if they try, they’ll be working together with a lot of other people instead of toiling in isolation. Even though they don’t use these exact words, they push all these emotional buttons.

And for what it’s worth, everybody who turns out for a beach cleanup is making an emotional investment in a healthy ocean and Clean Ocean Action’s success.

Yet another question popped into my in-box last week, this time about vocabulary on an interpretive sign:

“A member of the watershed group I’m doing this project for thinks we should leave words like ‘stormwater‘ and ‘watershed‘ on [an interpretive] sign so people can learn what they mean. He’s concerned that if we don’t challenge people just a bit they won’t ever learn about watersheds. I see his point but I’m concerned if people don’t know those words they won’t bother to look it up and the sign won’t have as much impact. (Yes, no or maybe?)”

Thanks for the question. It comes up a lot in my workshops. I’ll address it in a roundabout manner.

It is a deeply rooted instinct among nature protection and pollution control elite to try to teach the public our vocabulary, to arm them with the information they need to arrive at the right conclusions. We are convinced that people need to have the facts before they will form new opinions and habits, or change old opinion and habits.

Yet social research usually finds otherwise. Here’s a little example I like to share when this question pops up. A 2006 study sponsored by National Geographic found that when younger American adults are presented with a map of the United States:

• One in four can’t find the Gulf of Mexico
• One in three can’t find Louisiana
• One-half can’t find Mississippi

Think about that for just a minute. After thousands upon thousands upon thousands of news stories about Hurricane Katrina, complete with maps and every imaginable infographic, many Americans have still not learned the most basic geographic facts of the situation. And despite that, they’ve formed strong opinions about who’s to blame and what should be done next.

At dinner tables all across America, people discussed the aftermath of the hurricane like this:

• The tragic lack of fairness in the racial disparity of the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
• Our fury at federal, state, and local authorities for failing to work together to bring aid the families and children of the Gulf Coast
• The outpouring of support we all offered to the Red Cross and other charities that told us what we could to do to
• The Bush administration’s irresponsible failure to plan ahead for a disaster experts had warned was coming
• The need to invest in rebuilding New Orleans and preventing another catastrophe like Katrina

Sound familiar? It should. Those are water words that work. In the wake of Katrina, everyday citizens did not whip out their roadmaps to look for where New Orleans was — they scoured the news looking for evidence of leadership qualities and commitment to broad social values. And nature protection and pollution control experts will enjoy more success changing minds and behavior by expecting the public to respond to future situations this way and calibrating our message accordingly.

So back to the question: People just don’t need to understand expert shoptalk like “stormwater” and “watershed” to appreciate the importance of wetlands, forests, raingardens, rain barrels, porous pavement, and the like. Why turn well-meaning citizens off with a boring vocabulary lesson when you cut straight to the chase by highlighting broad social values like “clean water,” “nature protection,” and “wildlife?”

Here’s a reader question that landed in my in-box this week: “Is ‘ground water’ is a good term to use or should I should find a substitute?” It’s a great question, with a complicated answer.

The good news is that the word “groundwater” doesn’t make many people defensive or suspicious, the way “land use planning” or “endangered species” do. It’s also not a complete head scratcher like “biodiversity” or “non point source.”

But the bad news is that many citizens are pretty vague about the connection between rain, groundwater, water bodies, and tapwater. Many could tell you what groundwater is — but not why it’s important. So if you tell these people “Rain gardens help recharge groundwater,” many of them will nod politely and think to themselves “How nice, so what?”

My hunch is that you will get a better reaction if you use the words “well” and “springs.” These words evoke the image of water coming back out of the ground, where people and animals can use it.

Thanks for the question! Good luck with your project!

Citations:

Delaware Residents’ Attitudes Toward and Behaviors That Affect Water Quality
Texas Water IQ: Water Conservation Quantitative Research Summary
National Report Card on Safe Drinking Water Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors
Understanding Environmental Literacy in America and Making it a Reality