Framing Climate Change in Terms of Human Health Effects: Qualitative Research Study with Emerging “Green” Opinion Leaders

Theoretical Background and research questions/hypothesis: Climate change is typically seen as an environmental issue.  However, climatic events can have significant impact on human health, including injuries and fatalities related to severe weather events, infectious diseases related to changes in vector biology, and respiratory illness due to increased allergen production. Despite these potentially devastating health consequences, few in the general public connect climate change with health effects. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is interested in elevating the status of health in the dialogue on climate change by engaging and educating key stakeholders such as “emerging green opinion leaders.“  This group comprises consumers who have recently started engaging in “green” behaviors. They tend to be more affluent, educated, and civically active than the general population, and have the potential to educate others in their community. The purpose of this study was to assess how different ways of framing climate change in terms of health can make the subject meaningful to emerging green opinion leaders and provide CDC with a communication strategy with this audience.  

Methods:   Fifty six emerging green opinion leaders were recruited for focus group discussions in California.  They were screened for their environmentally friendly behaviors, their qualities of opinion leadership, and the degree to which they saw global warming as a serious issue.  Three exploratory focus groups in Sacramento were held to discuss participants’ impressions on climate change, knowledge about its health impact, possible civic actions to address the issue, and promising communication channels on this topic.  Two focus groups each in San Francisco and Los Angeles were subsequently held to test different message frames that would encourage this audience to prevent and prepare for the health effects of climate change.  These frames were: informational; focused on personal benefits; and focused on community participation.

Results:    Key findings from the exploratory focus groups indicated that participants saw this topic as a new idea; were persuaded to see health as a co-benefit of engaging in environmentally supportive behaviors; and were willing to adopt preparedness measures. Nevertheless, concrete, context-specific messages about health effects of climate change were needed to motivate people as was the desire to see more information on the subject. Key findings from the message testing groups indicated a shift in the participants’ willingness to see climate change from an environmental to a human issue.  The informational frame emerged as most persuasive.  The co-benefits frame was valued for offering specific actions.  The community frame, although positive, seemed hard to reach – and that too with the more civically active audiences.  

Conclusions:   Framing the issue of climate change around health effects can be persuasive with emerging green opinion leaders when messages provide more information on this subject and the co-benefits to a person’s health are emphasized.

Implications for research and/or practice: This qualitative study provided pertinent leads for developing communication materials on climate change and health.  Furthermore, collecting quantitative data in the future can help assess changes due to interventions directed at bridging the large information gap on this subject.