全球变化知识资源中心

On 28 July 2014, a team of researchers led by Dorceta Taylor at the University of Michigan released a new report¹ on the state of diversity in the United States environmental sector. Their message is clear: despite rapidly growing racial and ethnic diversity within the United States and Europe on the whole, substantial racial and ethnic disparities persist in the climate sector, even relative to other science and engineering fields.

The problem is urgent. According to US census estimates, racial and ethnic minorities now account for a majority of US births and 93% of the nation's population growth. And the United States is not alone. Nations within Europe and Australasia have experienced similar demographic shifts² with the arrival of skilled migrants and humanitarian entrants. In the very near future, many developed nations will have a more diverse demographic makeup than ever before, at a moment when broad-scale cooperation to address climate threats is paramount — at both the national level, as countries consider major climate legislation, and at the international level, as the world's nations work together to face global threats.

Diversity has long been viewed by climate researchers as a problem of equity³ (for example, environmental justice) and for good reason: people of colour are considerably more vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change and lack essential access to green jobs and educational opportunities. Yet, the persistent gap between the social and the scientific consensus on climate change⁴ and declining public interest in climate issues in the United States and globally over the past decade⁵ underscore a broader significance of diversity efforts for engaging a larger segment of the public on climate matters. The Taylor report highlights important deficiencies in current organizational practices, as well as structural reforms needed for diversifying the climate movement, including combating insular hiring practices, establishing formal oversight of diversity efforts and publicizing institutional diversity goals. However, structural reforms alone are not enough. We need a comprehensive scientific approach to addressing the diversity crisis — one that incorporates the best evidence-based solutions that are 'wise' to the underlying psychological processes that drive climate engagement and may hold the key for building a broader and more inclusive climate movement.

The lack of diversity in governmental and non-governmental environmental organizations has long been acknowledged. A 1992 study⁶ found that nearly one-third of US environmental organizations had no racial or ethnic minorities on their staff. Although diversity has increased in mainstream environmental organizations over the past two decades, it remains far below national levels. The Taylor report, which surveyed 293 US environmental government agencies, non-profits and foundations, found that non-white minorities comprised no more than 16% of staff in all three types of institution, despite constituting 38% of the US population and 29% of the overall US science and engineering workforce.

Employment statistics⁷ for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) occupations from the US Census Bureau further underscore a unique challenge confronting climate-related fields. Across 16 physical and life science classifications, the bottom five occupational groupings in terms of non-white minority representation include atmospheric and space sciences, environmental and geosciences, and conservation and forestry (Fig. 1). Within academia, the picture is similarly grim. A national survey⁶ of US faculty across 17 environmental disciplines revealed only 11% minority representation, with a majority of faculty reporting having either one or zero faculty of colour in their department.

Bars indicate the percentage of non-white representation within each classification. Red bar indicates average non-white representation across all classifications. Data from US Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey.

A study⁹ by researchers at Stanford University illustrates how low representation, particularly in leadership roles, can undermine a sense of belonging and perpetuate STEM disparities. In their experiment examining gender STEM disparities, university students were shown one of two versions of a seven-minute promotional video for an upcoming STEM leadership conference that depicted either a gender-balanced or a gender-unbalanced (3:1, male to female) ratio of attendees. Compared with those in the gender-balanced condition, women (but not men) in the gender-unbalanced condition showed elevated stress levels and reported a lower sense of belonging and less interest in attending the conference.

Low diversity can also critically undermine trust in institutions. In another experiment¹⁰, black professionals were shown corporate brochures that depicted either many or few minority staff members and were asked for their opinions about the organization. When minority representation was low, participants were less comfortable envisaging themselves as an employee, less trusting of the organization's management and more concerned about how others in the organization would treat them. Although the insidious effects of low numerical diversity can be difficult to combat in the short term, research^{11, 12} suggests that boosting diversity among institutional leadership may be an especially effective strategy for enhancing trust and a sense of belonging within organizations. With minorities accounting for less than 12% of all leadership positions and only 4% of board members of environmental non-governmental organizations¹, these findings point to a critical area for intervention for building a more inclusive climate movement.

Nearly six decades after Margaret Mead's classic study on public perceptions of science revealed pervasive stereotypes among US school children, the image of scientists as white and male has remained largely unchanged¹³. However, new research suggests climate scientists may face a dual burden, contending with both STEM- and environment-specific stereotypes.

In our own laboratory and field studies¹⁴, we have found that stereotypes about environmentalists may contribute to structural disparities. In these studies, both white and minority respondents were quicker to associate whites with the concepts of 'environmentalism' and 'conservation' than the black, Hispanic and Asian groups. In another study, non-whites who were reminded of these stereotypes before completing an online survey expressed less interest in joining group-based environmental advocacy efforts (for example, joining a mainstream environmental organization, donating to an environmental charity) compared with a control group. White participants showed no such effect.

Additionally, challenging existing stereotypes about minority engagement — for example, the belief that a lack of participation reflects a lack of concern for climate issues — may be critical for building support for diversity initiatives within organizations. Although racial and ethnic disparities have persisted in the climate sector, the gender gap has narrowed substantially in recent years¹. One reason for this may be due to prevailing stereotypes that women are more concerned about the environment compared with other groups¹⁵, which may contribute to the willingness of environmental organizations to prioritize efforts to reduce gender disparities over other diversity initiatives¹.

Media images that perpetuate cultural stereotypes can substantially hinder diversity efforts inside and outside of academia. Nevertheless, stereotypes are malleable. In one experiment¹⁶, simply reading a short (200-word) news article that computer scientists no longer fit the male stereotype significantly increased women's (but not men's) career interests in STEM fields. This suggests that messages that challenge pre-existing beliefs about people involved in the climate movement may alter these stereotypes and help to boost climate engagement — a promising avenue for both research and outreach efforts.

The framing inherent within mission statements and promotional materials may also help to bridge racial and ethnic divides. Research on political divisions underscores the importance of message framing in climate discourse. For instance, national survey experiments reveal that US conservatives and liberals widely disagree about the existence of 'global warming', a divide that is dramatically reduced merely by rewording survey questions in terms of 'climate change'¹⁷. Beyond political divides, 'colour blind' communications that focus on member similarities and avoid issues of race and ethnicity can paradoxically signal that these identities are not valued and can fuel distrust in organizations, particularly when coupled with low diversity^{10, 18}.

Ironically, the scope of the climate crisis and the corresponding need for cooperation at the global level may lead advocacy groups to avoid issues of race in favour of ostensibly more unifying messages. Although well-intentioned, these messages can alienate the very groups that they seek to include. In contrast, 'multicultural' approaches to diversity in which group differences are openly discussed and even highlighted have been shown to be far more effective for engaging members of underrepresented groups^{18, 19}. Messages that emphasize the diversity of climate stakeholders, and present diversity as a source of growth and strength for the climate movement, can help to convey that all groups are welcome and valued in the climate community.

The examples above offer a glimpse of the complex and often hidden social forces that impact STEM participation. However, addressing the unique challenge of minority underrepresentation in climate STEM fields and the climate movement at large will require a more comprehensive and coordinated response between behavioural scientists and climate researchers. Psychologists need to engage climate scientists and advocacy groups to identify organizational norms and practices that may impede broader engagement with the movement. The climate community, in turn, needs to engage psychologists and other diversity researchers to develop research-informed solutions for addressing the problem. These collaborations should also consider how other forms of diversity beyond race, such as socioeconomic, geographic and religious diversity, impact public interest in climate initiatives and receptiveness to advocacy efforts.

We outline five steps that the climate community can take to foster these collaborations and develop new evidence-based remedies (Fig. 2). These include enhancing funding and support for basic research on climate STEM diversity; establishing the scientific study of climate diversity as a sub-specialization within the climate sciences; expanding opportunities for disseminating diversity research at scientific conferences, as well as between academics and non-academics; and using diversity research to guide climate advocacy and reform efforts. Current funding mechanisms, such as the US National Science Foundation's Sustainability Research Networks competition, and existing organizational partnerships¹ can help lay the groundwork for these collaborations, but addressing the diversity crisis will require new infrastructure and new commitments on the part of scientists and non-scientists alike.

• Full size image (183 KB)

1. Taylor, D. E. The State of Diversity in Environmental Organizations: Mainstream NGOs, Foundations and Government Agencies (Green 2.0, 2014); www.diversegreen.org/report
2. United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report 2009. Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Development (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).
3. Mohai, P. Res. Soc. Prob. Public Policy 15, 21–49 (2008).
4. Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J. & Jenkins, C. Climatic Change 114, 169–188 (2012).
   • ISI
   • Article
5. Anderegg, W. R. L. & Goldsmith, G. R. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 1–8 (2014).
   • Article
6. Taylor, D. E. Res. Soc. Prob. Public Policy 18, 385–407 (2010).
7. Landivar, L. C. Disparities in STEM Employment by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin (US Census Bureau, 2013).
8. Leiserowitz, A. & Akerlof, K. Race, Ethnicity and Public Responses to Climate Change (Yale Project on Climate Change, 2010).
9. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M. & Gross, J. J. Psychol. Sci. 18, 879–885 (2007).
   • PubMed
   • Article
10. Purdie-Vaughns, V. et al. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 615–630 (2008).
    • ISI
    • PubMed
    • Article
11. Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M. & McManus, M. A. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100, 255–270 (2011).
    • ISI
    • PubMed
    • Article
12. Unzueta, M. M. & Binning, K. R. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B 38, 26–38 (2012).
    • Article
13. Steinke, J. et al. Sci. Commun. 29, 35–64 (2007).
    • Article
14. Pearson, A. R. & West, J. in Proc. Soc. Pers. Soc. Psychol. (eds Finkel, E. & Kaiser, C.) 107–108 (Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 2014).
15. Kraft, M. & Kamieniecki, S. Handbook of US Environmental Policy (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).
16. Cheryan, S., Plaut. V. C., Handron, C. & Hudson, L. Sex Roles 69, 58–71 (2013).
    • ISI
    • Article