Helpful tips to prevent pollution. Helpful tips to save energy. I’ve published quite a few lists of tips in my day, and I bet you have, too. It’s kind of an evergreen activity for us nature protection and pollution control people. Alisa, who blogs at Ecotrekker just sent me her list of 53 easy tips to use less water. So how effective is this really? I’ve developed some mixed feelings. Here’s why:

The undeniably positive thing about giving people tips is that it really nails one of the key concepts underlying the words that work — most people have a hard time figuring out what to do about water issues unless you tell them very explicitly. That’s why some of the words that work are: what you can do.

But research has consistently found that everyday citizens have a hard time sticking with behavior like turning off the water when they brush their teeth, even if you tell them that it helps. Here’s one quote:

Not receiving feedback was the number one reason preventing Georgia residents from adopting water conservation behaviors.

Source: Understanding the Georgia Public’s Perception of Water Issues and the Motivational Messages to Which They Will Respond: Final Report, Responsive Management, 2003

I interpret findings like that to mean that everyday citizens appreciate learning what they can do about a water problem, but still need some encouragement that their participation will make a difference.

So here are the questions that the Ecotrekker’s tips raise for me…

• How can we provide feedback to people?
• Most people feel silly if they’re the only person doing something, so what are the words and pictures that would signal to the person reading the tips that other people in the community are working together to save water?
• Is it good to provide people with 53 different options becuase people like choices?
• Or is it better to focus your effort on just one or two behaviors and really put some muscle and some followthrough into it?

This is a common activity, and I’m sure there’s some opinions out there on it. Please share.

I’m going to do a little nitpicking here. Please indulge me. The Rhode Island Rivers Council and the Narrangasset Parks and Recreation Department are teaming up to sponsor “Environmental Awareness Day” on the beach on July 19th. That’s terrific. And they’re inviting other nature protection and pollution control organizations in the area to bring their booths and activities for the public. This is also terrific. Best of all, they expect that 10,000 people will visit the beach that day. That’s awesome!

And because this is generally a recipe for success, I’m going to nitpick the email that annouces this opportunity — there’s  a missing ingredient. And when we forget to include it, we accidentally sabotage our own efforts to make the most of events like this. The email says:

Environmental groups are invited to participate. Groups will be provided with appropriate space to conduct an activity, set up a display or tell people about your organization… This is a great opportunity to tell Rhode Islanders about the important work of our organizations.

Here’s what I object to: It’s the focus on organizations and their important work, rather than on the Rhode Islanders who will be at the event. Although I fully understand the desire for people to like and respect the organizations that we work for, it’s still a mistake to show up at an event like this planning to talk about how great we are.

Because if we accidentally give the impression that you need a science degree or a staff job at a do-gooder organization to save the sound, then everyday Rhode Islanders will probably say “that’s nice, best wishes.” Then they’ll head off for a refreshing swim that will wash everything we told them right out of their heads.

Conservationists should show up planning to talk to their fellow citizens about how the health of Narrangasset Sound affects them and their families. They should come prepared to demonstrate what Rhode Islanders can do about the problems. They should be ready to prove that lots of ordinary Rhode Islanders are already working together to save the sound, and that everyday Rhode Islanders can make a difference even if they don’t know a lot about science, don’t have a lot of money to give, and feel pretty darn busy just raising their kids and making ends meet.

If you can make a connection with people at this level — help them feel good about themselves and the contributions they can make — they will develop positive feelings for the organization you work for. But if you fail to connect at this level, no amount of bragging about your accomplishments will fill that gap.

Good luck with your event, Rhode Islanders. Sounds like a good time.

Here’s a story that a reader shared with me a couple ofmonths ago. I finally figured out what I want to do with it. The reader sees it as a story about everyday citizens’ ignorance. But I think it reveals how we overestimate the importance of education and underestimate the power of peer pressure. Here’s the story:

I was walking through my subdivision in northeastern Illinois. It was a trash/recycling day, and noticed that a homeowner had placed several 4-foot fluorescent tubes (T12F40’s) in his recycling container on the curb (we utilize the least-common-denominator method: single-stream/commingle).Just then, the garbage/recycling truck turned the corner, so I decided to linger and confirm that the garbageman would reject the tubes.To my surprise, he threw them in the hopper with all of the other recyclables - glass, newspapers, and plastic. I approached him and asked, “You threw fluorescent bulbs into your recycling hopper??”He laughed and said, “Yeah, we do it all the time. We recycle everything!”

I asked the reader what they thought this story revealed, and they replied:

…it points to both carelessness and a broad lack of education - among consumers and haulers - in the recycling arena.

I disagree. Social and scientific research is most conclusive that educating individuals about environmental problems simply does not move many to participate in the solutions.

Doug McKenzie Mohr, dean of the “social marketing” movement, writes:

“While education and advertising can be effective in creating public awareness and in changing attitudes, numerous studies show that behavior change rarely occurs as a result of simply providing information.”

“Social or community context appears to be one of the key factors that can motivate people to take pro-environment actions,” writes the Roper Starch research firm in their 2005 report Understanding Environmental Literacy in America. “[O]ne of the most important determinants of behavior change is not information/education, but people’s beliefs about the pro-environmental behavior of others.”

Spitfire Strategies, in their study, Discovering the Activation Point, concurs, but puts it more succinctly, writing “it is more comfortable for most people to try something they have already seen someone else doing.”

If we apply the insights from these studies to the situation at hand, what would seem to be a better solution to increase the rate at which the refuse workers properly handle  flourescent bulbs?

• Schedule a workshop to explain to workers (one more time!) about the dangers of mercury in the bulbs and how to identify which ones are recyclable and which aren’t
• Create a public display in the refuse workers’ office that shows how most of the workers are properly sorting the bulbs out of the recycling — signaling to those who don’t that they are in a minority

Folks, you may need to register with the Washington Post to read this article (registration is free), but I think it’s worth it:

Social Networks’ Sway May Be Underestimated

It summarizes a study on how networks of people in a wider community shifted their norms on smoking. People who knew somebody who quit were more likely to quit themselves, and those who kept smoking became socially isolated over time.

I think the takeaway point here for nature protection and pollution control experts is that real people make many of their decisions based on what those around them are doing. Traditional conservation communications often fail because they provide individuals with factual information so they can make rational decisions — an approach which generally misses the peer-influence boat.

Modern social marketing theory and practice anticipate the importance of peer-influence. We focus on getting the ball rolling with receptive individuals, and progressing from there to those who are more resistant.