Audience segmentation and climate change communication: conceptual and methodological considerations
Engaging the public about mitigating or adapting to climate change threats poses significant challenges for scientists, policy makers, and others responsible for developing communication strategies. In response to these challenges, interest is growing in audience segmentation as a possible strategy to develop more effective communications that are tailored and targeted to subgroups of the public who share similar values, beliefs, behaviors, and/or policy preferences about climate change. In this article, we provide a brief historical overview of audience segmentation and its applications to marketing, health, politics, and most recently climate change. We then critically evaluate several conceptual arguments about whether segmentation is an appropriate strategy for climate change communications, review key methodological considerations associated with conducting segmentation analyses, and make several recommendations about best practice. We conclude that, in principle, audience segmentation and targeted messaging are potentially valuable tools for enhancing climate change communication. But, in practice, there are conceptual and methodological complexities of which practitioners and consumers should be aware when conducting and interpreting the results of segmentation studies. In addition, more research is required, particularly related to tailoring and targeting messages to identified segments, before these strategies can be considered to have a sufficient evidence base to warrant widespread adoption.
Increasing belief but issue fatigue: Changes in Australian Household Climate Change Segments between 2011 and 2016
Using national Australian samples collected in 2011 (n = 1927) and 2016 (n = 2503), we identified six Australian household segments which we labelled Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful and Dismissive. Between the two periods, we found the proportion of households in the Alarmed and Concerned segments was stable" however there was a decrease (28% to 20%) in the proportion of households in the Doubtful and Dismissive segments and an increase (27% to 33%) in the Cautious and Disengaged segments. We found that a greater proportion of households have personally experienced climate change, and were more likely to believe in human causation and believe that there is a scientific consensus about the issue. However, there was evidence of issue fatigue. Households were less likely to report that they had thought about climate change or talked about it with their friends in 2016 relative to 2011. They were also less likely to pursue certain climate friendly behaviours or reward or punish companies for their climate behaviours. These findings suggest a need to motivate households to maintain efforts to mitigate climate change, particularly the Cautious and Disengaged households that are more amenable to changing their views about this issue.