The Air That We Breathe: Executive Summary
The Air That We Breathe:- New review study – the first of its kind – reveals how the UK public engages with descriptions communicating the health impacts of typical weather change (and the health settlement of low carbon method).
Furthermore, images viewing air pollution (compared to pictures of floods, heat pressure, and catching disease) set up to be more efficient for visually communicating the health impacts of climate change: the health consequences of climate impacts other than air pollution are not so far visually most important in the public mind.
While it is to help audiences connect the dots flanked by the scope of climate impacts and public health – from flooding to high-temperature pressure – this survey suggests that in sequence and imagery focussing on air quality could be on the whole attractive for UK audiences at here.
Visual communication on the health impacts of typical weather change must, as a result: Build on the salience of air pollution as a concern with associates to weather modify to create an optical description of typical weather impacts that is people-decisive and applicable and which introduces the connection between health and other climate impacts.
Be clear about how air superiority can be correlated to climate modification, for example, when getting higher summer temperatures to create air pollution hotspots in city centers.
Show the way with images that are likely to express people’s exposure and vulnerability to the health risks of air toxic waste/weather change.
Combine these health-impact images with solutions-purposeful photos that put up intellect of ‘efficacy’ and show up optimistic community norms (around people taking related climate conduct).
So, for a long time, one of the most significant barriers to a public commitment with weather alteration was the so-called ‘psychological distance’ of the subject. With any number of more immediate concerns to focal point on. So, it was simple for people in countries like the UK to observe the risks of climate modification as ‘not here, not now, and not possible to occur to me.’
Despite the rapid political salience of climate alteration and daily news reports of a quickly changing weather, the question can still seem inaccessible for people in countries like the UK where bushfires and hurricanes are not a recognizable danger. Even though weather modify is successful‘ closer to home,’ the UK public unmoving tends to see main climate impacts as incredible for other people in other places to be concerned.
So, as our weather Visuals do research has established, a more people-determined, significant visual language for climate can progress statements and appointments on this essential concern. Additionally, in recent years, health practitioners have played a more central role in discussing the alarm about climate change. A Survey of 1000 UK Citizens.
The Air That We Breathe
Moreover, An online review of just over 1000 UK citizens conducted during 2019. So, participants viewed a variety of images showing different categories of UK weather impacts with straight health implications: flooding, temperature-pressure, infectious diseases, and air smog. Participants answered a sequence of questions about these images, and also viewed a minor number of ‘solutions’ models (i.e., positive community responses correlated to weather health impacts).
Moreover, the surveys experienced a variety of different research questions. It explored several different psychological variables – such as ‘apparent severity’ (how severe impacts are supposed to be), and ‘supposed susceptibility’ (how exposed people felt toward implications). So, for a fuller explanation of the methods, please demote to the appendix below.
Key Findings & Recommendations
So, images of air pollution were every time found to be the most efficient for visually communicating the health impacts of weather change. These images shaped the highest ratings of alarm about weather change, and respondents also rated air pollution images as the most ‘delegate of weather change’ (compared to the other impacts shown).
In addition, people reported reaction more defenseless and liable on the way to air smog, relation to the other types of impacts explored (flooding, high-temperature nervous tension, and transmittable disease).
Air pollution was also the issue that most people felt they could do a little about (a sense of ‘efficacy’). 75% said air pollution was the weather impact they thought they could do most about individually – compared to floods (6%), high-temperature nervous tension (12%), or transmittable disease (7%).
A minor set of ‘solutions’ images were also experienced – these images, in line with preceding investigate, every time formed top levels of ‘efficacy’ (the wisdom of living being able to make a variation) than the images of health impacts. It is important because previous investigate suggests that potentially intimidating information connected to health must be matched with appeals to usefulness, to avoid distrustful or avoidant reactions.