4.6 Article

Microscope and spectacle: On the complexities of using new visual technologies to communicate about wildlife conservation

Journal

AMBIO
Volume 44, Issue -, Pages S648-S660

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13280-015-0715-z

Keywords

Public engagement; Environmental communication; Visual technology; Wildlife conservation

Funding

  1. James Hutton Institute
  2. dot.rural Digital Economy Hub, the University of Aberdeen
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/G066051/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/H012419/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. EPSRC [EP/G066051/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. NERC [NE/H012419/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Wildlife conservation-related organisations increasingly employ new visual technologies in their science communication and public engagement efforts. Here, we examine the use of such technologies for wildlife conservation campaigns. We obtained empirical data from four UK-based organisations through semi-structured interviews and participant observation. Visual technologies were used to provide the knowledge and generate the emotional responses perceived by organisations as being necessary for motivating a sense of caring about wildlife. We term these two aspects 'microscope' and 'spectacle', metaphorical concepts denoting the duality through which these technologies speak to both the cognitive and the emotional. As conservation relies on public support, organisations have to be seen to deliver information that is not only sufficiently detailed and scientifically credible but also spectacular enough to capture public interest. Our investigation showed that balancing science and entertainment is a difficult undertaking for wildlife-related organisations as there are perceived risks of contriving experiences of nature and obscuring conservation aims.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available