Good environmental protection is underpinned by sound science. When public trust in science is down and misinformation rife, people may be less likely to support protective measures.
This is a problem because, without support, a much-needed protective measure may not be put in place, a different, less effective measure may be put in place, or a measure may not work because people aren’t willing to follow any rules put in place.
So, what do we do?
Ignore the sceptics?
Shout at each other?
Or, as researchers, Dr Matthew Curnock (CSIRO) and fellow researchers suggest, “figure out the environmental values, perceptions, and attitudes that are associated with science mistrust?”
For their recently published study, the researchers focused their efforts on waterway management in Australia's Great Barrier Reef region. Waterway management helps ensure that waterways like streams, rivers, and artificial waterways like canals that drain into the Great Barrier Reef lagoon are of good quality and not filled with pesticides that damage the reef.
The team surveyed almost 1900 residents. 31% of those who responded were sceptical of the science-related waterway health and management in the region. They were more likely to feel that waterway management was unfair and were less likely to feel motivated to do their bit to improve waterway health than their more science-trusting counterparts.
Not terribly surprising.
But the researchers also found common ground between those who placed more trust in the science and those who were more sceptical.
For example, they shared an appreciation of wildlife, the importance of waterways, and perceptions of some threats like overfishing. It’s on these types of common grounds, the researchers note, that science and science communicators should try to start a conversation and tackle misinformation with the sceptics.
To be clear, public trust in science isn’t about unthinkingly following what “experts” say. “An informed, questioning public is a vital feature of a deliberative and democratic governance system,” say the researchers.
Not all views can be changed, nor misinformation recognised as false, but meeting where values align may be more fruitful for all concerned.